Althouse: At the Floating Clouds Café...

May 5, 2019

At the Floating Clouds Café...

... drift on.

60 comments:

wwww said...: This is a controversial subject: Lighting choices on Game of Thrones. I loved the dark lighting for the Battle of Winterfell.; 5/5/19, 9:59 PM
William said...: I still watch with avid interest but GoT has diminished mojo this season. The evil is not as spontaneous and wtf as in former seasons. Also, despite several bedroom scenes there was no nudity. The pale gray breath of #metoo has conquered Westeros and the North.....Also, I think one if the knights should be in the tradition of Parsifal or Galahad and refrain from sex, but I guess chastity is now as verboten as nudity.; 5/5/19, 10:02 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: "I married Isis on the fifth day of May
But I could not hold on to her very long
So I cut off my hair and I rode straight away
For the wild unknown country where I could not go wrong..." Bob Dylan

Cubs are in first. I got third in my age group in the 10K this morning. I'll take it. I've already taken a Benadryl, a Unisom, and a Melatonin concoction I got from Hammer nutrition. I'm going to go to sleep momentarily, sleeping relatively until I am done, getting a massage at 10:00 a.m., heading to Ardmore, OK for a hearing about noon, then proceeding on to Amarillo post-hearing. It will be a long day but mostly just from driving. I'll be running in Palo Duro Canyon State Park a little after 7:00 a.m Tuesday morning, God willing and the creek don't rise. I won't get to play as long as I would like because I will have to be suited up and in court in Amarillo at 10:30. It could be worse.; 5/5/19, 10:12 PM
Narayanan said...: https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/05/ponytail-girl-blocking-press-access-biden/

Laslosplaining please.; 5/5/19, 10:26 PM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: Ok-- it's all "Trump is the Root of all Evil" all the time.
So-- to ease Lefty discomfiture between now and 2024,
perhaps a game for ProgLibDems to play: "6 Degrees of Donald"
Pick a topic for your opponent, and in six links or less, they have to show how the scourge of Trump has made it bad, like, say, the booming economy. It would go something like this: "The economy is booming, so now more people are driving to work, which causes more greenhouse gases, which cause global warming, and it's all because of TRUMP!"
The topics dont have to be solely political. As a matter of fact, your opponent should and will try to pick a topic for you that is as far out of Trump's sphere of influence as possible, but you both know somehow, someway, he's wrecking it.
For example: Fluffy Kittens.
Tough one, you say? Ha! No problem for the average Deranged Dem--
Fluffy kittens -->are called pussycats-->let you pet/fondle them-->Grab 'Em By The Pussy!!.
Did it in 3 !! Good job, Prog!!; 5/5/19, 10:31 PM
Birkel said...: We need a better class of trolls.
Althouse is a cheapskate.
Quit buying second rate Leftists.
Or put Meade on the task.

Damn!!; 5/5/19, 11:02 PM
narciso said...: Just like apelbaum did much of the heavy lifting so is it with this fellow

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/a-conversation-with-chris-blackburn-on-the-contradictions-surrounding-mifsud/; 5/5/19, 11:17 PM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: @narciso
looks like Ms TacoBell was getting paid by the DNC

.".. they confirm that a paid contractor of the DNC solicited their government’s help to find dirt on Trump that could sway the 2016 election"
"a speeding political boomerang."; 5/5/19, 11:36 PM
narciso said...: Heh, when they aren't being paid by the office of net assessments, and it was for naught.; 5/5/19, 11:38 PM
walter said...: From above link:
"This is some bizarre behavior. After the event in Des Moines, Biden looked more like somebody on the run from the cops than a candidate on the campaign trail. And his staffers clearly had their marching orders in advance because they were busy hustling him away and trying to shove the press around. In a rather creepy moment, one reporter (who chose to remain anonymous) told DiPaola that the woman referenced above got so close to them that they could “smell her ponytail.”

Our favorite commenter's day in the spotlight reminded me of some Laslo classics:
http://iamlaslo.blogspot.com/search/label/Ruthless%20Umlaut

http://iamlaslo.blogspot.com/search/label/Unhappy%20Blog%20Commenter%20at%20the%20Psychiatrist; 5/5/19, 11:59 PM
narciso said...: Stranger than fiction, apparently; 5/6/19, 12:09 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Blogger Birkel said...
We need a better class of trolls.

There are no good Lefty thinkers or writers anymore.
They went insane over the Clinton impeachment. The decline has been swift. They think identity politics makes argumemtum ad hominem rational. They have an apocalyptic view of history, and that is never good. They do not believe in science, they believe in scientists. Look at the op-ed page of your newspaper, they argue with adverbs and adjectives. They reason with the deep knowledge and insight of a bunch of shirtless hillbillies sitting around a trash can fire knocking back 40's.; 5/6/19, 12:22 AM
Yancey Ward said...: wwww wrote:

"This is a controversial subject: Lighting choices on Game of Thrones. I loved the dark lighting for the Battle of Winterfell."

You aren't kidding it is controversial! I also thought it was a brilliant choice. I just loved the opening battle sequence when the Dothraki rode out into the blackness with their flaming weapons and watching those lights and sounds extinguished within a minute- that gave the chills! I also like the darkness giving the sense of claustrophobia during the entire battle.

But then it also saved on CGI expense- what you can't see doesn't have to be created. I had several criticisms about the way the battle was fought, and the plotting to reach the final act, but overall I was quite impressed with the episode.; 5/6/19, 12:32 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The problem for the Dems is that the most plausible route to victory in 2020 is through the Midwest. And instead of addressing a need to reach out to the Obama/Trump voters there, most of the Dem candidates are from the deepest blue states, esp from MA and CA. The two with the best chance there are Slo Joe Biden and Mayor Buttplug. The mayor has little experience, is gay (which is a detriment in the Midwest, not an advantage in the deep blue states that they don’t need to win), and seems to have joined in drinking the far left Koolaid.

That essentially leaves Biden. If he isn’t nominated, they pretty much lose everything between NY and CO except for IL and MN, but including, critically, PA and MI. The economy is booming, and probably nowhere more than the Midwest. Union membership is crashing (except for govt workers). Unemployment is at a 50 year low. Etc. Can they pick up FL and AZ? Unlikely, and that doesn’t account for AZ being ground zero for immigration.

No one else, besides Biden, running so far, even has a chance to retake the states that swung from Obama to Trump in 2016. He does have a common touch. He can slug it out with Trump, and isn’t as likely to get run over by him. Maybe it is just that he is relatively oblivious.

I think that he is too old. Not by age, so much, as in ability. My guess is that he is affected by some gradual form of dementia. Plus, he has essentially been in DC for 45 years. And has let his son, Hunter (who just broke up with his brother’s widow), use his father’s connections, esp with the Chinese, as well as AF-2 for eight years, to make millions. I think that ten years ago, he could have beaten Trump in those swing states. I don’t think that he was ever as quick on his feet as Trump, and whatever speed he used to have may have been diminished by that dementia. And, yes, he is vulnerable to being called “Creepy Joe” for how he has acted around women, and, in particular, girls.; 5/6/19, 12:41 AM
chickelit said...: Photo looks liked yellowed-out pot leaves.
I am curious; 5/6/19, 1:14 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Why David French is a terrible defender of the 1st amendment: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-facebooks-bans-warrant-concern/
"I firmly believe men like Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan are truly loathsome. They’re toxic to our nation and to our culture."
That is the first sentence. This is the same opener you would use if you wanted to ban Farrakhan and Jones from the public square. How can you defend speech you believe that is bad for our nation and culture? Who put French in charge of determining what is toxic to our nation and culture? This is pure virtue signaling, it is French saying, right off the bat, that he agrees with the people who want to ban the speech of Farrakhan and Jones.
It is possible & desirable to defend the 1st amendment political speech of anyone without boilerplate about how you think that his or her speech is poison.; 5/6/19, 1:17 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Imagine yourself watching a PP presentation given by a D tactician for high end donors and operatives. The presentation shows you that Trump won PA by sixty thousand votes, but that there were over a hundred thousand votes not counted because they were deemed invalid, and most of those votes were in heavily Democrat precincts.
The 2020 election is going to make the 2000 election look like a cake walk for Bush.; 5/6/19, 1:58 AM
wwww said...: "I also like the darkness giving the sense of claustrophobia during the entire battle."

Yes, and the fog of war. I loved it; thought it was brilliant. The dialogue and writing is not quite as fine as, say, the first season when they more loyally followed Martin's book. The first season, scenes & dialogue like Jaimie's "The things we do for love" were straight from the book. That said, I adore the show and do not want it to end.; 5/6/19, 2:22 AM
Darrell said...: The "darkness" in GOT was added post-production, showing that it was a cost-saving measure after they were finished with their budget CGI. In other words they just said "Fuck it!" and decided to play viewers emotions rather than presenting a convincing narrative and plotline. Telling viewers to upgrade their TVs shows how little they care. There were many people out there with $10k systems saying they couldn't see shit. The showrunners cashed their paychecks long ago and they are already spending their Disney Star Wars money for the trilogy they signed onto. Does HBO care about the Blue-Ray and merch sales they just lost? Apparently not. They said "Fuck You!" to fabs but they know there are "normies" out there who hardly watched before that will now play catch up because everybody is talking about the show and they want to pretend that they were onboard from the getgo.; 5/6/19, 2:59 AM
Darrell said...: to fans; 5/6/19, 2:59 AM
wildswan said...: "there were over a hundred thousand votes not counted because they were deemed invalid"

Maybe they were invalid. Those votes were set aside till the voter returned with evidence of citizenship. Maybe they didn't have it because they weren't citizens.; 5/6/19, 3:03 AM
Jaq said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/6/19, 5:09 AM
Jaq said...: One thing is more boring than a generic battle scene, it’s winning a battle because a dragon likes you.; 5/6/19, 5:16 AM
Jaq said...: The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims. - New York Times

Republicans pounce! It’s evergreen.

“the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. “ Is this the same “level of alarm” that Hillary showed when she reportedly said “if that fucker wins, we’ll all hang from nooses!” after Mat Laur asked her a hard question.; 5/6/19, 5:29 AM
Jaq said...: Remember that the whole “level of alarm” was based on ‘evidence’ supplied by the Clinton campaign, obtained from foreign spies, completely unsupported, and they knew it.; 5/6/19, 5:30 AM
Jaq said...: Why didn’t they send “cloaked investigator” into the Hillary campaign and the DNC to see if the emails were leaked by a Russian mole?; 5/6/19, 5:36 AM
David Begley said...: In LA, Hillary said the election was stolen from her. I hear she now owns 20 cats.; 5/6/19, 5:54 AM
Mr. Groovington said...: If you’re at all curious about what the left’s shopping list of Trump’s crimes are, here’s a lengthy list from the Guardian. This is the best I’ve read yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/trump-regime-america-insurrection; 5/6/19, 6:01 AM
Maillard Reactionary said...: Best Althouse photo so far IMO.; 5/6/19, 6:15 AM
Jaq said...: I read it Mr G, and if making a “Russia, are you listening” joke is a crime, but using a private server for communications with POTUS isn’t....

That list is just the same nonsense we hear from our trolls, and with of course, no consideration of other possible interpretations rather than always the most damaging one to Trump.

At least with our Hillary hatred, which I own up to, we present evidence.; 5/6/19, 6:17 AM
Jaq said...: I still think that it is funny that the “Reset Button” really said “Overcharge” and she and her campaign manager ended up with millions and millions of dollars from Putin cronies.; 5/6/19, 6:20 AM
Chuck said...: David Begley said...
In LA, Hillary said the election was stolen from her. I hear she now owns 20 cats.

Do you mean "stollen"?; 5/6/19, 6:36 AM
Robert Cook said...: "There are no good Lefty thinkers or writers anymore."

You're not looking for them.; 5/6/19, 6:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Why David French is a terrible defender of the 1st amendment: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-facebooks-bans-warrant-concern/
'I firmly believe men like Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan are truly loathsome. They’re toxic to our nation and to our culture."'
That is the first sentence. This is the same opener you would use if you wanted to ban Farrakhan and Jones from the public square. How can you defend speech you believe that is bad for our nation and culture? Who put French in charge of determining what is toxic to our nation and culture? This is pure virtue signaling, it is French saying, right off the bat, that he agrees with the people who want to ban the speech of Farrakhan and Jones.
It is possible & desirable to defend the 1st amendment political speech of anyone without boilerplate about how you think that his or her speech is poison.

It may be boilerplate, but it is used so often because it reminds readers of an important point: Free speech protections are most important when speech is controversial, inflammatory, offensive, polarizing, etc. Speech that is anodyne, inoffensive, agreeable to most, is the least in need of protection, as few will take issue with it or try to censor it...that is, unless more provocative speech becomes objectionable, and objectionable speech is forbidden. Then, what seems inoffensive now might start appearing suspect. Once the idea of censoring thought and speech takes hold, there's no real control over where it will end.

But, this is Facebook: the first Amendment doesn't apply. Private service providers can set their own rules for acceptable behavior and speech, and those who do not wish to abide by the rules can be barred from participation.; 5/6/19, 6:49 AM
iowan2 said...: "There are no good Lefty thinkers or writers anymore."

You're not looking for them.

It would be too easy to name some, or, just one? Snark has to replace a civil response for a reason. The reason is because they're are no good lefty thinkers, that you can think of.; 5/6/19, 7:26 AM
Kevin said...: Will of the people: “Saturday on MSNBC, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said he is concerned is the Democrats do not begin impeachment proceedings in the House President Donald Trump will win the election in 2020.”; 5/6/19, 7:30 AM
iowan2 said...: Off topic.

Just watched a clip of Pompeo make a fool of Chris Wallace for his disingenuous, misleading questioning. Then the talking heads at msdnc took off for I don't know how long because I changed channels after 30 seconds, of telling me how bad Pompeo was. Telling me what I saw was not what happened. Fake news personified.; 5/6/19, 7:31 AM
iowan2 said...: If you’re at all curious about what the left’s shopping list of Trump’s crimes are, here’s a lengthy list from the Guardian. This is the best I’ve read yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/trump-regime-america-insurrection

I encourge everyone to go to the link. I did not see a single thing that was accurate, and host of outright lies.
An example of just one lie. The piece claims that Barr has refused to release the full unredacted report to congress persons that have the required security clearance. Muller has released that report. Only 2 congressmen have read it as of late Friday. Both were Republicans.; 5/6/19, 7:45 AM
Fernandinande said...: I did not see a single thing that was accurate, and host of outright lies.

It took me three sentences to correctly identify the authorette as a black academic.; 5/6/19, 8:06 AM
Chuck said...: iowan2 said...
If you’re at all curious about what the left’s shopping list of Trump’s crimes are, here’s a lengthy list from the Guardian. This is the best I’ve read yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/trump-regime-america-insurrection

I encourge everyone to go to the link. I did not see a single thing that was accurate, and host of outright lies.
An example of just one lie. The piece claims that Barr has refused to release the full unredacted report to congress persons that have the required security clearance. Muller has released that report. Only 2 congressmen have read it as of late Friday. Both were Republicans.

No, you stupid lying dumbfuck. You're wrong. The Guardian is right. Barr has not allowed anyone to see "the full unredacted report."

What he allowed a select number of Members of Congress to see was a "less redacted" report.

See HERE.

And my recollection is that someone pointed this out to you the last time you lied about this fact. And you still didn't get it. You are either very stupid, or very resistant to the truth, or such a Trump cultist that you don't even comprehend.; 5/6/19, 8:16 AM
rhhardin said...: The Kentucky Derby winner was disqualified after it turned out to be two guys in a horse suit. - armstrong and getty; 5/6/19, 8:45 AM
narciso said...: Like the fake guerilla in the python sketch?; 5/6/19, 8:47 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: @Chuck - you are building your edifice on a technicality. From your Politico article:

“When Barr released the public version of Mueller’s report earlier this month, he withheld four categories of material: classified information, material related to ongoing investigations, information that could damage the reputation of “peripheral third parties” and evidence collected by Mueller’s grand jury. Barr’s less-redacted report for the 12 lawmakers allowed them access to each category except grand jury material.”

The dispute then is whether the Dems, led by Chairman Nadler, should be able to see grand jury testimony (they can see everything else). They can’t, because it would be illegal. Nadler can subpoena away to his heart’s content, but he isn’t going to see the grand jury testimony. No court in the country is going to give it to him (and if one tries to, it will be immediately overruled and squashed by an appellate court). He knows this, having presumably passed a bar exam at some point. He is grandstanding. Nothing more.; 5/6/19, 8:52 AM
Chuck said...: Well, Bruce at least you are smart enough to never say, as iowan2 did, that Barr released "the full unredacted report."

The Lawfare Blog did a good examination of FRCP 6(e) protections/exceptions for the release of grand jury information, HERE. And while you are nowhere close to deserving the sorts of epithets I reserve for assclowns like "iowan2," your summary of the law in this particular case is (uncharacteristically for you) wanting.; 5/6/19, 9:02 AM
Kevin said...: Michael Cohen speaking into a bank of microphones:

“I look forward to the day the truth can be told.”; 5/6/19, 9:05 AM
Rick.T. said...: Golden bleeding heart foliage, hellebores, and daffodils?; 5/6/19, 9:06 AM
Michael K said...: Poor Chuck. Trump is living in his head and he does not realize it.

You and Nadler, Chuck.

Did you read Mona Charon's whinge at Ricochet this weekend , Chuck. Ricochet sued to have a lot TDS. This time Charon got 86 comments and not one agreed with her.

You and Patterico are part of a shrinking minority,.; 5/6/19, 9:08 AM
Rick.T. said...: Looks like the Cubbies have righted the ship.

"Hey Chicago, wadda say. Cubs are gonna win today!" (RIP Steve Goodman); 5/6/19, 9:10 AM
Chuck said...: It's "Mona Charen," not "Charon."; 5/6/19, 9:12 AM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR2JtsVumFA; 5/6/19, 9:41 AM
Robert Cook said...: "It would be too easy to name some, or, just one? Snark has to replace a civil response for a reason. The reason is because they're are no good lefty thinkers, that you can think of."

Chris Hedges, Chris Floyd, Richard Wolff, Danny Sjursen, Barrett Brown, John W. Whitehead, Michael Parenti, Tom Englehardt, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Bacevich, Matt Taibbi, (not sure if these last two see themselves as leftists), and many more....

The reason for the snark is because the statement suggests the person making the comment rejects the idea there could ever be a "good lefty thinker."; 5/6/19, 10:18 AM
Michael K said...: Blogger Chuck said...
It's "Mona Charen," not "Charon."

Thank you, Chuck, I've met her and spelling is very important in first grade,.; 5/6/19, 10:56 AM
MadBohemian said...: “Hey Chicago, wadda say. Cubs are gonna win today!" (RIP Steve Goodman)

Just LOVE “Lincoln Park Pirates”!; 5/6/19, 11:15 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Michael Parenti is not a good writer. He is a hack.
In his Democracy for the Few, every chapter is followed by pages of end notes. These end notes refer to economic stats that are decades old, or from dudious sources, or refer to unsourced claims he has made in his other books. He is droning and repetitive, he does not make good faith arguments.
Parenti attacked Noam Chomsky from the left (Parenti critisized Chomsky's criticism of Stalin).
You need to get out more, Robert Cook.; 5/6/19, 11:33 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Robert Cook wrote: "But, this is Facebook: the first Amendment doesn't apply. Private service providers can set their own rules for acceptable behavior and speech, and those who do not wish to abide by the rules can be barred from participation."

If Facebook acts like the phone company, they are not responsible for the speech of its users. If they act like a newspaper, they are responsible for what they publish. Forget politcs, let's talk about libel.
Suppose I go on Facebook and identify an individual I say is faking his status as a veteran. the person I identified suffers some harm and goes after Facebook.
Facebook will claim that they aren'tresponsible, that they merely provided a platform, and that I am the responsible party.
If Facebook acts as an editor at a newspaper, it can make no such claim.
Facebook cannot have it both ways, yet its business model demands it.
Going back to politics, the people banned by Facebook are being banned, at least in part, to deny them revenue.
Facebook, etc., are one lawsuit away from oblivion.; 5/6/19, 11:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "If Facebook acts like the phone company, they are not responsible for the speech of its users. If they act like a newspaper, they are responsible for what they publish."

This is beside the point. Facebook is not a government entity, therefore, First Amendment protections of free speech do not pertain. Facebook has no obligation to allow anyone to post any comments,images, or other material they deem objectionable.

(They act like neither a phone company or a newspaper, but like a community bulletin board.); 5/6/19, 12:59 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: That is exactly the point, Robert Cook.
You pick up the phone, you threaten someone or slander someone. Is the phone company responsible? No. It is because the phone company is a common carrier and they do not exrcise an editorial function. Either Facebook exercises editorial control over users' posts, or it does not. Which is it?
If they do exercise editorial control, why can't a person sue Facebook if it provides a platform for, say, a libelous review of a restaurant meal?; 5/6/19, 1:36 PM
Robert Cook said...: Who is debating about suing Facebook? I'm responding to your comment about David French being a poor defender of the First Amendment, where you link to his article on the National Review. Facebook's prohibition of certain types of speech or expression is not a First Amendment issue. Even if Facebook (or other social media) "voluntarily adopt a first amendment framework" (whatever that is), it is voluntary on their part. They have no obligation to abide by it. They are free to revise their guidelines about acceptable expression whenever and as often as they wish.

I'm sure there are a variety of scenarios where people might sue Facebook. Whether they have would a valid case depends, of course, on the particulars.; 5/6/19, 3:59 PM
Chuck said...: Michael K said...
Blogger Chuck said...
It's "Mona Charen," not "Charon."

Thank you, Chuck, I've met her and spelling is very important in first grade,.

You have such a funny way of writing, "Yeah, Chuck; you're right."; 5/6/19, 4:01 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “The Lawfare Blog did a good examination of FRCP 6(e) protections/exceptions for the release of grand jury information, HERE. And while you are nowhere close to deserving the sorts of epithets I reserve for assclowns like "iowan2," your summary of the law in this particular case is (uncharacteristically for you) wanting.”

Sorry. It is Lawfare. They are a highly political progressive advocacy group. Little cred outside their small niche.

But to summarize the article, it is very unlikely that a judge will allow Congress to see the grand jury redactions until and unless it is part of a formal impeachment investigation. Otherwise, they would need the backing of the DoJ, which they would have easily procured under AGs Holder and Lynch (whom they worked closely with), but are very unlikely to get under AG Barr. They would be asking him to reverse his previous position, that there still isn’t any Obstruction even if all the redacted text in the report were unredacted. And even if he did request unredacting the grand jury information, there is no reason to believe that it would be granted, just that pragmatically only he can request it absent the formal opening of an impeachment investigation by the House. Which would, of course, likely be political suicide for any freshmen Dem Congressmen from Trump districts. Apparently, Pelosi is whining right now that the Republicans are trying to force the Dems into doing just that. And, if they did pull the pin, and vote to open a formal impeachment investigation, I expect that the AG would request that the judge adjudicating the unredaction review the redacted material in camera first. Imagine, the Dems opening an impeachment investigation, and having the judge turn down their unredaction request as not materially advancing their investigation- very possibly the worst of two worlds.; 5/6/19, 5:33 PM