December 14th, 2018

#6445: Well, that's simply brilliant.

Sure, put the casino in a "disadvantaged" area. On the lovely theory that people will gladly travel through five miles of "shit city", where all the crime and squalor is, to get to a shiny casino.

Sure.

The problem with that is, of course, that it's bloody idiotic. Putting the nice shiny new casino in the middle of the ghetto will only ensure that the only people using it are people from that area--people who are not well-known for having scads of disposable income, but are known for having poor impulse control and a very short time preference.

Second City Cop says it best:
Why bother having it near the downtown or convention areas where tourists looking for dinner and a show might head over and spend a little money - Chicago can build it near an EPA Superfund site AND the second most homicide prone area of the city and reap the benefits!
The benefits will be dubious.

* * *

"Gentlemen, we must find something new to tax." California's leading the way, wanting to tax text messages.

It looks as if California wants to tax text messaging plans, so users would pay some tax atop their regular talk-and-text plan charges and existing taxes. It's not clear how much it would amount to. There's no estimate as to how much revenue the tax would be expected to generate. But there are about 30 million cell phone users in California, and a single dollar in taxes would mean $30 million.
The proposal argues that the state's Public Purpose Program budget has increased from $670 million in 2011 to $998 million in 2016, while revenues funding the program from the telecommunications industry saw a "steady decline" from $16.5 billion in 2011 to $11.3 billion in 2017.
...so because revenues for a program fell by $5.2 billion while the budget rose to nearly $1 billion, California wants to raise taxes on everyone.

Perfect.

Fortunately, however, the FCC nixed that dumbassery. Text messages aren't voice communication.

* * *

The NPCs are really up in arms over "Baby, It's Cold Outside". Because they quite simply can't stand anyone having fun in ways they don't approve.

I don't like that song--I don't think of it as a Christmas song, certainly--but it's harmless.

I love that William Shatner is at the point where he doesn't give a rat's ass about public approval, and fights this kind of nonsense.

* * *

"But this...this is grooming, straight-out." That's certainly what it sounds like to me.

"Grooming" is what a pedophile does to get a child interested in sex. Children aren't particularly interested in it on their own, but their curiosity can be piqued, and once the peophile has that hook, the rest is abhorrent. And when you have people going around and telling children all about sex, some of them will be curious about it, and then--well, there you go.

They will tell you it's not about recruitment, but as the article makes plain, this woman is all about recruitment.

* * *

Hit by a meteorite. It is not very common.

* * *

That scene is the climactic moment of the entire show, and without it, the story is utterly meaningless.

In the late 1980s they made another Charlie Brown Christmas special, and that one is terrible. It's an animated hodgepodge of comic strips, with no underlying story connecting them. That's what A Charlie Brown Christmas would have been like without Linus' monologue.

* * *

Weekly Standard is out of business.
Measured criticism of Candidate Trump was certainly permissible.

Indeed and truly, his presidency at the outset, looked like it was an impossibility. Pushing hard against a man who didn't look like he could take the party to victory was one thing.

Continuing to hysterically oppose him year after he won the election was something else entirely.
Can't say I'm sad, either. They deserved it.

Look: once we select a candidate, stop opposing him. You don't have to like him or support him; just stop getting in the way. That's a pretty simple formula to follow regardless of which side you're on; Democrats do this without thinking. When there's something shady or wrong with a Democrat, you notice that they get reeeeally quiet about that.

Of course they have absolutely zero problem with being hypocritical, since hypocrisy is a primary feature of being a Democrat, so they can scream and point at Republicans for X even though their own guys do X-plus, but what they never do is to denigrate, attack, or attempt to destroy people on their side. Even when they're found guilty.

Weekly Standard vehemently opposed Trump throughout the election cycle and even after he was President...and the right wing in this country was already sick to death of RINOs and country club Republicans and failure theater and-and-and. Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is why Trump won in the first place.

So it's really not surprising that a magazine which was vehemently anti-Trump would no longer be supported by a right wing which is enthusiastically pro-Trump. But, hey! At least Weekly Standards was true to their principles, right?

* * *

Global warming, brought to you by adjusting the data until it appears!

* * *

Gah! 250-odd password resets this week. I'm tired!