Cumulus, nimbus, stratus, cirrus…asperatus? First “discovered” in 2009, scientists have finally named this dramatic and rare cloud occurence as Undulatus Asperatus.
(Source: the-star-stuff)
Anyone who doesn’t have a great time in San Francisco is pretty much dead to me. You go there as a snarky New Yorker thinking it’s politically correct, it’s crunchy granola, it’s vegetarian, and it surprises you every time. It’s a two-fisted drinking town, a carnivorous meat-eating town, it’s dirty and nasty and wonderful.
What’s wrong with this? It doesn’t take much work to paint a dystopian picture. Let’s begin with a simple example. Without an Interior Department, there would be no agency to oversee national parks, federal lands and offshore drilling. Land would have to be auctioned off to the highest bidders, most likely oil-and-gas, coal and timber companies. The states would inherit Teddy Roosevelt’s national parks, but imagine how Yosemite would fare if it suddenly became the ward of strapped California.
Or let’s imagine another scene from Mr. Paul’s America. Each state would have to become the regulator of its financial, manufacturing and health-care industries. A patchwork of rules would result. States might soon engage in a dangerous game of regulatory competition: Some would ease rules to attract businesses, forcing those seeking to protect the health and pocketbooks of residents to lower their standards — or lose jobs. Illinois might choose, say, to let manufacturers dump waste in the Mississippi River. What recourse would downstream Missouri, Tennessee or Louisiana have if their drinking water became polluted?
Bloomberg Editors, The Hidden Utility of Ron Paul’s Balanced Budget Plan
One thing Ron Paul’s fans take for granted is that the lack of media attention he garners also means a lack of high-profile criticism of his ideas. As Bloomberg’s editorial board shows here, it’s not hard to use a few vivid examples to reveal the political train wreck underlying many of Paul’s cozy minimal-government proposals.

“Yeah, I’m oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they’re too busy insulting each other to notice.” - James Sinclair (via Andrew Sullivan)
I think this argument overlooks what is possibly the single driving point of conflict between these two groups: Unequal wealth distribution, rising steadily for the past 30 years (“We Are the 99%”) vs. opposition to taxation, income-specific and otherwise (the “Taxed Enough Already” Party). Still, it’s an interesting point.
Let’s say you’re 20 years old. You don’t care what tax you pay — you haven’t paid any yet. But if I’m 65, I’ve spent my whole life paying income taxes. I’m about to stop paying them. What’s the benefit to me if you bring on a sales tax? Thanks — you’ve just made every retired person’s pension 30 percent less valuable.
Now you know how it feels, Ms. Geller. When the terrorist is a Christian—in his own words, a “Crusader” for “Christendom”—and when the preacher to whom he has been linked is you, you suddenly discover the injustice of group blame and guilt by association. The citations you didn’t create, the intermediaries you didn’t recognize, the transactions you didn’t know about, the violent interpretations you didn’t condone—these exonerating facts suddenly matter.
Yes, at some level it’s a game of chicken. Something we can all understand pretty intuitively in human nature and game theory terms. But to really get what’s really going on you’ve got to understand one key point: one of the two cars doesn’t have a driver in it.
Josh Marshall, on media coverage of the debt ceiling debate, via Talking Points Memo
There’s a good general rule to follow when you think about slippery slope arguments: does the slippery slope work with or against human nature? The former are far more dangerous than the latter.
The libertarian answer to the Utopian commune movements of the 20th century, and bound to be just as successful. At least Friedman is right up front about wanting to be a despot.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
via The Washington Post (h/t Andrew Sullivan)