Archive for the 'Weading' Category

Pitchforke Cobaggery Watch 2012!!!!!! Incomplete Appetizer

As I consider whether it is possible to consider this year’s Pitchfork Top 100 Tracks list, I found this detritus in the draft pile. 2012!!!! Where did the time go? I can only remember two of these 30 songs.

100. Swearin’ “Just”
Pinko Punko says: Everything old is new, but in an OK way. Bettie Serveert+Velocity Girl maybe, with something else 90s that I can’t place when it goes to the guy verse. I feel the hopefulness of a new list in bloom. I feel young I feel free, let’s go down to the Newbury Comics and buy CDs!

Continue reading ‘Pitchforke Cobaggery Watch 2012!!!!!! Incomplete Appetizer’

Success at FAIL

We love dilettante, our fave K.

11:17 PM (2 hours ago)
dilettante: I cannot believe it.

11:17 PM (2 hours ago)
dilettante: Our DVR stopped recording after 5 minutes of overtime. How did we ever come back and win? oh my god. #USWNT

11:17 PM (2 hours ago)
dilettante: I revise that last tweet. apparently we somehow won that game. #USWNT

11:17 PM (2 hours ago)
dilettante: such an unjust loss for the USWNT

The LA Times is Aware of All Internet Tradish

Try this crystal Pepsi! Read this Jonah Goldberg column!


I shaz you notn’t. They are fluffing the lolcat bubble. I expect a glowing 3B profile shortly.


T.A.F.K.A.R.P. cuts through the bullshit. And his underpants are on righteous fire. I think you may comment with impunity on this one, Mandos. I’ll dip my toe in and see.

The Game of Book and Cover

It can be fun to play, if not dangerously irresponsible.

Regarding a recent seemingly failed identity theft at the University of Utah, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that:

The records were stolen in early June after a courier for the U.’s contract storage company, Perpetual Storage

Let’s take a look at the cover before we judge the book.



Only the ancients can namecheck the web technology powering this website of the future. I feel that if your website appears older than Shoji Tabuchi’s, it maybe doesn’t seem as professional as it should.

Let’s examine Perpetual Storage Company Literature:

Perpetual Storage is a world leader in long and short term off site storage of business records. When you need secure off site storage for your critical computer records , cd’s, optical discs, microfilm and fiche. Perpetual Storage’s granite vault is the place.

If your disaster recovery/business resumption plan demands that your sensitive records be properly protected under the correct temperature and humidity levels and be available 24 hours a day year round then Perpetual Storage is the correct choice.

With the Passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, ISO and HIPAA regulations organizations need to make sure their contingency plan includes off site storage of their sensitive data in a secure facility. The Perpetual Storage vault encased in a solid granite mountain is the logical choice for the off site storage of your crucial business records.

How could an imperious gang of Moriarty Level masterminds infiltrate a chilling tomb of solid rock? Let us examine their allegedly criminal physiognamies:


Yikes. Karnak says BOOK!:


Survey says:

The records were stolen in early June after a courier for the U.’s contract storage company, Perpetual Storage, left them in his personal vehicle overnight outside his home in Kearns. He violated company policy by not taking them to the company’s vault in Little Cottonwood Canyon…

Survey says ICING!

The group became aware of what they allegedly had – and a $1,000 reward – through media coverage of the theft, [Sheriff] Winder said. But he said they did not appear to have the ability to access the information on the tapes. “They’re not techies,” Winder said. “I don’t know if they could find their rear end with both hands.”

Our Financial Prayers


Have been answered by Nails.


I cannot obtain this newsletter soon enough.

Thank god I was talking about drug addled steroid mongering steakheads in my Gmail so Googs could hook us up!


If I weren’t already deeply convinced to trust Lenny Dykstra, Baseball Player, with my hard earned fortune:

OK, it’s time to start filling up your pockets with money; all you have to do is follow the rules and stay disciplined!

Always remember: Life is a journey, enjoy the ride!

THANK YOU LENNY DYKSTRA! Clean mean machine!

Ann Althouse Out-Swifts Swift

Listen, she an absolute genius. Listen, you can read all you want, but Jon Swift got owneded, because I don’t think Althouse is serious. How I prefer to read this is she’s decided to send up the argument ab totally cunning, calculating super machiavellian genius and or incompetent harpy- the inevitable dichotomy that everyone decides to use when they would like to claim some sort of “dog whistle” is being used to play any number of cards or tap into various rivers or sexism or racism. This statement does not deny that dog whistles exist or that sexism or racism exist. What the statement means is that the arguments of certainty that emanate from usually respectable writers about how hidden truths are oh-so-apparent due to the incredibly smart and/or calculating and careful nature of the speaker and/or deeply incompetent and obtuse nature of the speaker are just so full of it, I can’t take it anymore. Arguments about possible meanings are one thing, arguments about intent via the “calculating super geniusosity” of the said speaker don’t hold any water. Various places where I enjoy thoughtful writing but where I feel I’ve spied such arguments with my little eye include Lawyers, Guns and Money, Shakespeare’s Sister, Feministe and some pretty bad work from Talking Points Memo.

We’ve seen people argue about the dog-whistlery of the Clintons in terms of race, arguing that every word spoken out of Bill or Hillary’s mouth is so carefully and artfully chosen, they simply must mean deep and astonishingly racist things. Some of these very same people are also arguing about how incompetently the Clinton campaign has been run.

We’ve heard people argue about how sexist and condescending Barack Obama is because he is a rhetorical genius so it is clear that the hidden meaning of his words are obviously deeply sexist. Yet I’ve also seen people argue that Obama isn’t a great debater and under pressure sometimes isnt as put together as Hillary. I’m not really into arguing these points. All of the statements bandied about could have been intricately planned and tuned for maximal ist-ism, for which there is zero evidence, save that which one projects onto the debate. All of the statements could have been tinged with subconscious racism or sexism, in which our entire culture is completely marinated. At least in this case we would have the evidence of our actual racist and sexist culture. All of the statements could have been ill chosen but really just misinterpreted, again, it is impossible to know, but the certainty that our off-the-rails blog world finds so apparent simply isn’t there for many of these statements. It makes me so sad.

This is why I salute Ann Emu, because she has perfected the seemingly peerless shtick of Jon Swift. I know she can’t be serious with her pajama-based racist dog whistle. To quote (my emphasis):

Is the campaign responsible for sending out a subliminal message to stimulate racist thoughts in the unsuspecting viewer? It is either deliberate or terribly incompetent. There is no other writing on screen until the very end of the commercial, and if letters appear in any place in a commercial, they should be carefully selected letters. Certainly, each image is artfully composed and shot and intended to deliver an emotional impact. Could this be a mere lapse?


This is either a revolting outrage or shocking incompetence.

Clearly Ann is taking the piss, I mean I find the only possible explanations for her post to be that she has end stage lead poisoning or she’s a deeply artful rhetorical masterworker using hyperbolic satire to shame the horse race obsessed liberal chat-o-pundit cobloggosphere by doing the same thing they do everyday, but on a silent m massive scale.

Look at how many she’s taken in, on both sides of the aisle. First, there’s Kevin Drum, thinking Ann’s post to be entirely stupid. I mean, Kevin would never traffic in such deluded reading of the tea leaves. Nor would he casually fuel any such fires with an idle “I’ll talk about this because other people are” sort of substance-free speculation. Then there’s this deeply classy Obama fan, who first incorrectly identifies the non-partisan Ann Althouse as right wing, then seems to think that a liberal policy would be to toss off about any old rumor. Faithful Progressive I think is my fave. He/She knows Ann Emu personally, yet is still not old or wise enough to discern the real, undeniable genius underlying the surfacey genius that is Ann Althouse. To quote:

As a research assistant for a Dean and a second year, I helped Ann Althouse move her desk the day she arrived after being hired as a professor at UW Law School. Ann Althouse gave me good advice when I started this blog and has honored her word and my right to privacy and kept my identity confidential (if she even remembers it).

Ann Althouse is not bug shit crazy-she is a person of her word and smart as heck. I often disagree with her: but personal attacks on her are far more “bug shit crazy” than her floating the idea of a possible subliminal message. (The whole ad is creepy; and these guys hired Dick Morris, numerous times, for crying out loud!)

Ann is right– this gets to a jury; they are probably not gonna buy it-not sure I do…But Prof. Althouse is just submitting it to the jury of the Internets. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do as bloggers?

I’m sorry, Faithful Progressive, but if your jury were made up of plover bloggers, your blog would be not long for the electric chair. Don’t call MENSA, they’ll call you. Thank you for your principled support for your candidate.

I found some other Obama fans jumping on Ann’s wagon. On the right side of the aisle, most that linked to Ann’s post didn’t really buy it, but some said they wouldn’t put it past Hillary, or that they didn’t buy it but the MSM should still report on the possibility, because as we know, something possibly being true is all the fuel one needs to talk about the ridiculous. Some vile, and photoshoppy personal attacks on Dear Ann here and here. Vile video attacks on Ann the Emeautiful here. I look forward to seeing it at our top sites tomorrow, but only if Drudge runs with it first.

Finally, I will second Bob Somerby, who has been discussing all week the fact that liberal cob loggers have horse raced themselves into a corner by playing footsie with Matt Drudge. People with widely read web logs still think of themselves as shooting the shit by the water cooler, so it is OK to traffic in any old rumor until which time the rumor is declared false, so they just say “oh well, not true” even after they passed the rumor on to hundreds of readers. I’m sure the view is that anything on Drudge is already out there, so merely talking about it is like talking about the weather. Not so. If Drudge reports something, the mere caveat of “if true, then…” does not suffice to keep the slime off. At some level of readership, you aren’t just talking about what someone else is reporting. You are reporting it too. I am sad to state that we see bad examples of this here at LGM, abominable work from the increasingly lazy Kevin Drum– a quote:

Drudge’s piece is ambiguous — who distributed the picture? who did it go to? — but the Clinton campaign, given a chance to deny the charge, rather loudly declined to do so. So apparently they not only sent the picture around, but then issued a statement slamming Obama for complaining about it. Points for chutzpah, I guess, but not much else.

And here at Talking Points Memo. Let me quote:

The Clinton campaign is either terribly inept at dealing with the story or they know or suspect that it’s accurate. In any case, what we try to do is give you the background to the blaring headlines you see and the benefit of what we find out through our own reporting. That’s just what we did in this case.

My emphasis. I’ve heard the same thing from TPM in correspondence regarding smearish stuff they’ve repeated that had been posted on The Politico. TPM reports what is reported, then they follow up and eventually issue an update, usually noting a denial or evidence that the original story is bullshit. Note in my emphasis that we have a “when did you stop publishing vile, malicious, immature, unprofessional and hateful attacks on Ann Althouse” situation created for the Clinton campaign. Let’s pretend they don’t want to get caught with their pants down, and attempt to ascertain due diligence before they issue their blanket denial. Since weren’t on top of the story within the allotted time period they were already declared to be guilty or inept. Drudge’s report is stamped 6:51 am. The TPM original post is 10:08 am. The damning late update is not time stamped, but the post above, stamped 2:59 pm, links to this 2:36 pm Greg Sargent story reporting exactly the denial originally wished for via a conference call from Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign.

I don’t love it when Bob Somerby takes the stick to TPM, because a lot of what they do is great. I think they’ve lost the plot a little and their blindspot is growing. I think people think that because they are writing a blog they have outs that they would never allow a journalist or a published pundit. You know what, these outs might be fine if you don’t write for TAPPED, or the Washington Monthly, or aspire for your site to do important journalism. The worst part about a lot of these arguments is that people are already to the mattresses in the first round, so it’s not really a debate, it’s let’s burn the bridge.

Also, read Bob this week on the McCain story. While seemingly everyone else falls for the “being a pundit is fun and consequence free” approach, he’s been on fire.

Yes, It’s True

I read Gregg Easterbrook’s ridiculous and sadly verbose eruptions of cobaggery every week at his Tuesday Morning Quarterback gig. Of course he thinks to himself that his stories are the most commented on every week, so he must be doing something right. I would argue that you are not necessarily a player, even with a boatload of haters. I read him every week so I can read 100-1000 comments talking about how stupid he is. On top of that, his cheerleader jones makes him look sadder than Hinderloaf at Powerline. For the ultra awesome in non-player hatin’, I bring you the ESPN Ombudswoman, Le Ann Schreiber, who frankly would do an awesome job at the Washington Post, or editor-in-chief of the Times. She doesn’t post that often, but she is a real journalist and she doesn’t pull punches on the clearly market driven choadery at teh ESPN. I think she and everyone knows that ESPN isn’t becoming more like a real news outlet, everyone else is fakening more like fake-real ESPN. Allow me to excerpt her taking Easterbrook to school RE: his Patriots obsession (consider Eastie a talentless Tacitus, and Belichick his Tiberius, and you’ll get the hint):

Extremes of opinion varied from Sean Salisbury’s “the media is making way too big a deal of it,” voiced on both ESPN TV and ESPN Radio, to columnist Gregg Easterbrook’s inflammatory piece, prominently played on the front page of, claiming “the situation with the National Football League is a lot worse than people realize” and forecasting the demise not only of Belichick but the entire NFL. “Belichick’s head might be necessary to preserve the integrity of the game,” Easterbrook concluded.

The amount of opinion was so vast, its range so wide and contradictory, that it was beyond hard for readers and viewers to get their bearings within it. It was clear Belichick had violated a league rule, but what kind of “cheating” did that amount to, what kind of unfair competitive advantage could it bestow? Reporting might have answered that crucial question, but the question was tossed to the realm of opinion. If you search the archives of, if you remember the scores of opinions voiced on dozens of different programs, you are free to conclude: (A) It bestowed no competitive advantage whatsoever; (B) it might have provided the winning edge for those Super Bowls, which would then warrant a Bondsian asterisk in the record books; or (C) nobody knows, but you shouldn’t let that stop you from choosing option A or B because having an opinion about it is all that matters.

And feel free to custom design the opinion of your choice out of rumor, speculation and twisted logic, as Tuesday Morning Quarterback Easterbrook did, not once, but twice, in manufacturing extended false analogies between Richard Nixon’s Watergate and Bill Belichick’s tapegate, as if stonewalling to the press is the same as stonewalling to congressional investigators, as if violating a league rule is the same as violating federal law, as if he didn’t promptly hand over to the commissioner all the material that was asked of him and accept his punishment.

Easterbrook is entitled to his opinion, to his logic, to his analogies, however strained I think they are, but what is not OK is cloaking opinion in the camouflage of reporting. In his Sept. 18 piece, “Dark days for NFL,” Easterbrook indulges in several speculations about Belichick’s spying, couching his imaginings in “perhaps” and “might have beens” and “the rumor mill says,” which leads him to suggest “the Patriots’ cheating might have been more extensive than so far confirmed.” That “so far confirmed” is sneaky, implying there is only a small gap between his imagination and fact. Well, all right, sneaky implications are within bounds for a column. It is when he vaults from speculation to posing this question — “What else is there about New England cheating that the team or league isn’t telling us?” — that he goes out of bounds. Not what might there be, but what else is there. That’s where the line is — the line between the grammar of speculation and the grammar of implied fact — and he crossed it.

Ironically, in his next piece, written after commissioner Goodell had demanded not Belichick’s head but $500,000 from the coach and a draft pick from the Patriots, Easterbrook accuses NFL spokesman Greg Aiello of trying to pull off a sneaky Nixonian “non-denial denial” by using the verb “is.” “There is no such evidence,” Aiello had written in response to Easterbrook’s asking whether the Patriots’ material had shown evidence of Super Bowl cheating. “But wait,” Easterbrook writes, “three days earlier, the NFL destroyed the evidence.” Because the NFL had shredded the tapes and notes Belichick surrendered, of course they could say there is no such evidence, but maybe there was evidence. This loophole of tense allows Easterbrook to continue speculating about the Patriots’ cheating during the Super Bowl.

Asked to explain his attitude toward the use of speculation and rumor, Easterbrook said, “I’m uncomfortable with dropping the barrier about rumor mills about purely private behavior, but in this case, the rumors were relevant to something that was on the league’s plate, that was in the sports news. The way I approach it is to ask if there is some reasonable reason to believe the parties involved would be lying to avoid public disclosure, thus forcing people who want to talk to reporters onto the rumor mill.

“I had a reasonable reason to think that the parties involved were trying to keep something off the public record that should be on it. Since I can’t get them to answer the questions, I don’t know whether they are hiding something or just being weird and evasive. Believe me, I’m working on it, I know some things that are not in that column, but I don’t have them on the record yet. I hope to be publishing proof of all those things in great detail.”

My attitude is that you get the proof, or at least sources whose reliability you are willing to characterize and vouch for, before you publish. Until then, you keep your rumor-based speculations to yourself.

Emphasis mine, Easterbrookian hackery in the quoted material undoctored. I think ESPN should give Le Anne a yardstick for her to whack the crap out of these chumps.

That was no spoiler that was my…

Incredibly detailed, massively funny parody of Harry Potter 7.

Huge discussion of same (the book not the parody).

I assume that HP spoilers are still verboten on 3B — so try not to chump UC in the comments unless he says it’s ok.

Dear Idiot

You leaked the entire Harry Potter book online. You bragged about it a couple of months ago. I look forward to your grassy *ss and the mowerish frenzy descending upon it. Have fun getting sued, chunderwipe.