New Year’s Eve Open Thread
Welcome to your Friday open thread. It’s New Years’ Eve! What are your plans? Are you going to a party? Are you going to go to a public gathering? Stay at home?
The new House Republican majority is trying to sneak through an unusual budget rule. They want to make Ayn Rand acolyte Paul Ryan the House budget dictator.
That’s not all, however. As National Journal reported today, “a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.” Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the proposed change “stunning and unprecedented“:
This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. (There is no requirement for Representative Ryan to make his proposed spending and revenue limits available to Members or the public before the vote on the new rules.)…Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of
order.
So much for transparency, huh? Paul Ryan, BTW, is the Rep. who actually released a budget plan. It cut taxes for the rich, gutted Social Security and Medicare and didn’t do a damn thing for the budget deficit until 50 years from now.
What’s new in the 2010 review?
This year, we have seen the biggest rise in dubious theories about how the body works, such as singer and actress Olivia Newton-John, saying that she takes digestive enzymes and plant tonics to boost her immune system. Other unusual ideas about boosting our bodily functions have prompted strange diets, from Naomi Campbell’s maple syrup, lemon and pepper regime to Girls Aloud’s Sarah Harding sprinkling charcoal over her meals.
In sport and fitness, cage fighter Alex Reid shared his tips for preparing for a fight (he ‘reabsorbs’ his sperm). David Beckham and Kate Middleton have been spotted wearing a hologram-embedded silicone bracelet which claims to improve energy and fitness. And Cheryl Cole reputedly extolled a weight loss regime based on her blood group.
In health and disease, celebrity views about the causes of cancer retained the improvement seen in 2009, but actress Joanna Lumley and former Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed both get a mention this year.And although we have noted far fewer claims about the benefits of ‘chemical free’ food this year, model Gisele Bundchen raised some old misconceptions as she joined the ‘breast is best’ baby feeding debate.
As always, the review notes people in the public eye who do make scientific sense. Reports of Jennifer Aniston’s ‘baby food diet’ caused some raised eyebrows, so dietitians were glad to see her deny rumours that she follows the puréed food regime. Jennifer said: “Sorry, but the last time I had baby food, I believe I was one. I’ve been on solids for about forty years now.”
Groups like Sense About Science are really valuable in the war on pseudoscience but they never get a big microphone like some dubious celebrity claims do. I’d really like to see someone like Oprah Winfrey give a big microphone to these science groups. I guess that doesn’t sell ads like Suzanne Sommers, though.
Tags: Open Thread
Public Policy Polling has a post on their 5 most surprising poll results.. #2 was the Delaware GOP primary poll that showed Christine O’Donnell leading Mike Castle.
The “birther” movement begun by prominent Montgomery County, Pa. Democrat Philip J. Berg is back thanks to another Democrat, Hawaiian Gov.-Elect Neil Abercrombie.
Berg, who had served eight years as Pennsylvania’s deputy attorney general, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, Aug. 21, 2008 claiming that Barack Obama was ineligible to be president because he was born on foreign soil to a foreign parent hence violating the Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement.
Berg was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Berg’s suit was dismissed in October 2008 by Judge R. Barclay Surrick and rejected by the Supreme Court two months later.
Berg, however, did not go away and the unwillingness by Obama to release documents that would quickly and conclusively put the matter to rest soon started other Americans going hmmmm.
Birthers are idiots. People that insist on something that is not true are either idiots or insane.
GOPAC chairman Frank Donatelli just sent out a press release crowing that 25 Democratic legislators have now switched parties and become Republican. “We are pleased with the decision of these men and women to leave the Democratic Party and join with us. They are adding to the ranks of Americans who want to put result-oriented ideas into action to get us moving in the right direction. Each of these legislators’ insight, experience, and commitment to common-sense, conservative policies will make our Party stronger,” Donatelli said.
Gee, a comment on the words used in the post isn’t on topic? That is not merely an Orwellian assertion — it is positively Clintonian!
But then again, maybe a bigoted liar like you doesn’t like being called out on your own bigotry and lies.
Again, if you don’t like the rules go elsewhere. Final warning. Next time you post off-topic, you will be gone from here. Hope that’s clear enough for you.
I don’t have a problem with the rules — I have a problem with the bigotry and dishonesty in your application.
By your argument, no one would be permitted to criticize your use of the “N-word” in the comments regarding the post where you did so because that would be “off topic” — despite the fact that it would be direct commentary on the post. After all, it would be equally off-topic — despite the fact it would be completely relevant to the post you had made.
In this case, you decided to toss out a bigoted religious attack on a major national figure. What’s more, you then followed up with a lie about that individual. How can you deem commentary on those two things to be off-topic in the comments on that post? There is absolutely no logic to it, unless your intent is to obscure and disguise the richly deserved criticism of your bigotry and dishonesty? After all, commentary on what is in the original post is, by any logical definition, on topic.
Off topic in an open thread? Haw, haw… it never gets old: “There is no fighting in the War Room!”
Hint: Just boycott threads from annoying contributors. Let them go begging for pity comments from each other in the echo chamber.
But if you can’t resist the urge to comment on one of their posts, just do it in an open thread where it is more congenial and has not yet been ruined by the War On Commenters.
If you are a frequent target of having your posts moved around, you can at least put in a recursive link to your comment so everyone can watch the games being played at the admin console. And put in a recursive link in the URL box as well.
anon, i think the conversation is about a different thread.
No, this has to do with a pissy bigot who doesn’t want to have his bigotry discussed in the comment section of the post where he made his bigoted comment about a political opponent. You can find it here: http://delawareliberal.net//2010/12/30/new-gop-house-leaders-dipping-the-constitution-in-tea/
I’m completely lost.
UI, I was lost and now I am watching The Simpsons’ Movie on FX. Everything is much better.
Nobody cares, sport. A Jewish commentator tossing a Hebrew phrase at a Jewish congressman is pretty much over our heads. I suggest you get over it. If you can’t — if you get the vapors and need your fainting couch — sic the anti-defamation league on him.
Spider Pig!
Spider Pig!
Does whatever a spider pig does!
can he swing from a web?
No he can’t
He’s a pig!
“In sport and fitness:” Aubrey Huff Wearing a Red Thong as a Slump Buster (larrybrownsports.com/baseball/aubrey-huff-wearing-a-red-thong-as-a-slump-buster/28910). Is this science?
I’ll let you guys fight it out on your own.
Everyone here needs to visit one of the private airborne community websites. The rules are simple: all is fair among paratroopers. And we do not agree on anything and fight about everything.
CT – please explain how I was a bigot? I wrote nothing derogatory and did point out that the politician in question was a hypocrite. How can you, some schmuck from Texas, have any facts? You can’t. Your only comeback was an ad hominem attack on me by calling me an anti-Semite and a bigot.
So go pound sand.
How is the man a hypocrite? On what do you base that accusation?
What you have is a decent man who dares to differ from you politically. You decided to fling a religiously-based term as a condescending insult — sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me, regardless of your own heritage.
By the way, you made an observation regarding Cantor’s religious practice — care to back it up, or are you a liar in addition to being a hater?
How do you know he’s a “decent man”? Other than the fact that you agree with him, that is.
Again, nobody cares. You picked the wrong place to get your outrage on. Are you Jewish? If not, it’s the equivalent of telling one African-American that he’s racist for calling another African-American the n-word — that is, it’s not for you to say. Either add something to the conversation or get bent.
Happy New Year!!!
Felice Anno Nuovo.
CT reminds me a lot of RWR – talks a lot but says nothing.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year, all. 🙂