And in our “We Grieve For The Future Of Humanity” Department:

Alexa Longueira Suffers Deep Cuts, Bruises After Landing In Raw Sewage, Blames DEP For Leaving Hole Unattended

Alexa Longueira, a high school sophomore, was walking along Victory Boulevard near Travis Avenue on Staten Island Wednesday evening when she felt the earth move and was plunged into smelly darkness.

She said the manhole she fell in to was left open and unattended with no warning signs or orange cones. She said two workers with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection failed to secure the area as they prepared to flush the sewer.

“It was just really gross and it was shocking and scary,” she said. “Because of their careless mistake I got hurt.”

Longueira has deep cuts and bruises and said she now has nightmares about falling, But she also did admit she was texting at the time.

“Regardless of whether I’m texting or not if there was a cone there I’m going to see a big orange cone,” she said. “I walk that sidewalk every day, I don’t expect a big hole there.”

This story hasn’t spawned any coherent thoughts, just a series of fragments.

• Surely they meant to use the non-sexist term “Service Entry Portal”.
• This is the newest sign that Darwinism is still going strong.
• Funny, she looks like such a bright girl!
• We’ve found the text she was composing at the time: “OMG! Here cumz a big black thingy in the gr”

Speaking of “Bubble-Headed Teens”, this one’s for Dave:

“Daddy’s a ‘Litigator’ – those are the scariest kind of lawyer. “

Senatorial primacy might not be enough to push Supreme Court appointee Sotomayor through to confirmation after all. From the website NOW Hampshire:

Sonia Sotomayor will begin her confirmation hearings next week with some of the highest levels of public opposition of any Supreme Court nominee in the last two decades, according to a new poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation.

In fact, only one nominee had a higher level of opposition: Harriet Miers, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Miers later withdrew her nomination under questions about her qualifications from both the political left and right.

Sotomayor even underpolls torpedoed left-wing lightning rod Robert Bork:

No other recent nominee, not even Robert Bork, whose own nomination under President Ronald Reagan was scuttled, faced public opposition this severe. In the last poll taken during the Bork confirmation fight, thirty-eight percent wanted to see him confirmed versus thirty-five percent who did not.

Thanks to her terse one-paragraph ruling in the Ricci case and her “Wise Latina” pronuncements, the public perceives Sotomayor as a racial spoils system/affirmative action fan. This bad for her because affirmative action has never been very popular with Americans in general. Her Ricci ruling has been generally viewed as unjust and, while the public might not know or care about the finer points of Judicial philosophy, they expect their judges to be fair.

Bush took a huge hit when he nominated Harriet Meyers, which he only partially recouped by replacing her with Roberts. As Obama’s approval numbers continue (albeit slowly) to drift downward , one has to wonder what a failed Supreme Court pick will do to him. He needs a genuine victory, and soon.

One way he won’t get it is by sliming Frank Ricci, the firefighter at the center of the original case. Sotomayor supporters (led by the liberal activist group People For The American Way – who declined to comment) have begun piling up opposition research on the man, sending emails to reporters urging them to probe his “Troubling History”. The Politics of Personal Destruction (a phrase coined by a Democrat) have served liberals well in the past, but in this case wreaking havoc on a person as sympathetic as Ricci isn’t going to make Sotomayor look any better.

The fact that this blog actually received three visits today from the search term “schoolgirl knee socks” actually kind of disturbed me. I wonder how many we’ll get now. Who actually googles that term? Maybe I’d rather not know…

So it turns out that the preeningly pristine Washington Post got caught selling “intimate” rubber chicken dinners with Administration officials and liberal Think Tankers to anybody willing to pony up $25 grand who needs a favor or two!

Here’s the marketing flyer – click to expand:

Apparently it never occurred to to the WaPo execs that selling access to politicos was an ethically iffy proposition, but after the above flyer was leaked to Politico the hammer came down big time. Many lame excuses and outright denials ensued.

Now, WaPo Ombudsman Andrew Alexander has set the record straight. And he’s not mincing words:

The Washington Post’s ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record “salons” was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

The crash occurred July 2, when Politico.com disclosed details of a Post flier seeking underwriters for the first dinner to be held July 21 at Weymouth’s District residence. The damage was predictable and extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers and Washington’s pay-to-play culture. The Post’s reputation now carries a lasting stain.

Wow. Fortunately this is an isolated incident. I mean, it’s not like the white house hosted a secret, off the record barbecue for reporters on the 4th of July or anything…

“Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts. What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he adjusts his behavior deliberately.”

- Ludwig von Mises

Always knew that Nick had it in him. Hell he is French – But Barry?

Feel free to add your own caption!

The Beast found this piece in todays Boston Globe, of all places! Maybe it’s the specter of economic death that’s inspiring them down in Beantown, but we’re getting some good stuff alongside the usual boilerplate mass-lib claptrap. On the other hand, the Globe might have discovered that the other half of the electorate has change in their pockets too and might actually buy a paper that’s not totally hostile to their worldview.

We all know by now that Obama loves to say one thing and then do the very opposite. His fluency with the language allows him to get away with this, but the days when he could dig himself out of a political hole by smoothly reciting a speech off his teleprompter are rapidly coming to a close. Even the press is noticing. Alex Beam of the Globe maps this out beautifully:

It is inevitable in modern American politics that each new president inaugurates his own brand of bushwa – rubbish, lies, eyewash, whatever you choose to call it – that reminds one of nothing so much as the previous guy’s bushwa. Mr. Obama is no exception. Consider:

Soon after taking office, Obama & Co. rebranded George Bush’s “war on terror,’’ choosing to call it instead “overseas contingency operations.’’ There is a history here. In 2005, Bush’s people tried to rename the WOT, suggesting instead the delightfully Rumsfeldian “global struggle against violent extremism’’ (GSAVE!) or “the long war’’ (nice movie title) when discussing, well, the war on terror.

Those never caught on, and there is no reason to believe the jaw-cracking “overseas contingency operations’’ will either.

Remember, this is the guy who told us he could no more repudiate Reverend Wright that a member of his own family. Then he repudiated Reverend Wright. If the Beast was a family member he might be nervous.

Obama’s public pronouncements are magic shows – call attention to the right hand so nobody notices what the left hand is doing. Another feat of oratorical legerdemain:

The Bush administration oversaw “bailouts’’ of its fat cat friends on Wall Street. The people-friendly Obama administration continues to throw money at its bankrupt pals, but prefers to talk about “rescuing’’ failed companies and the American economy. Neither phrase softens the blow to the taxpayers footing the bill, the Los Angeles Times noted sardonically: “We suggest they call the package an ‘iPod,’ because everyone will pay for an iPod.’’

Et tu, LAT? This is the kind of magical thinking that tells us dropping $1 Tril on government managed healthcare will save us money.

Everyone knows that healthcare reform will be a hard sell, so the administration has its neologisms at hand. The New York Times recently revealed that instead of “managed care,’’ the Obama-ites will be pushing the coinage “evidence-based care.’’ Likewise they plan to avoid the term “rationing,’’ but alas no usable circumlocution has yet emerged for a system that aims to, well, ration healthcare.

I have a not-terribly-original idea. Why don’t we call healthcare reform “iPhone’’? Nobody objects to paying for an iPhone, and people are more than happy to wait in line to buy them. Like Canada’s healthcare system, iPhones have a single service provider, AT&T. I’m phoning my congressman: Vote for the iPhone!

Returning to the original statment that Obama says (A) and then does (-A), witness this beauty:

Remember signing statements? Those were the dastardly little postscripts George Bush attached to legislation that he didn’t completely approve of. Signing statements ignore the “fundamental principle’’ of the separation of powers, the American Bar Association huffed. On the campaign trail, candidate Obama was asked, “Do you promise not to use presidential [signing statements] to get your way?’’ “Yes,’’ he answered. “I taught the Constitution for 10 years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.’’

That was easy!

Less easy is explaining away his six signing statements so far, an impressive one-a-month clip. “Signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system,’’ Obama now says, “at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections.’’

Marvelous! What’s next – sawing someone in half?

Lenny Dykstra filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy today.

A little more than a year ago Dykstra was being profiled in the New Yorker, sharing his stock-picking wizardry with Jim Cramer’s acolytes and generally being regarded as a financial whiz whose business acumen was hidden behind a tobacco-chewing exterior. But just as our economic system wasn’t as healthy as it appeared in the best of times, Dykstra’s finances weren’t quite as good as they appeared on the outside.

For Con Club readers, it has actually been 2 years since I first discussed Mr. Dykstra’s burgeoning “empire”.    Of course, what sounds to good to be true, probably is.

The 46-year-old Dykstra, a former World Series champ with the Mets and spark plug with the Phillies, faces upward of 20 suits from creditors coast to coast, most related to The Players Club, a problem-plagued magazine he launched last year.

Among those claiming they were stiffed by the player known as “Nails” are a pair of private jet rental companies, his brother, aLas Vegasprinting business, a former lawyer and several former employees.

Dykstra’s wife is also suing him for divorce, and his $18 million California mansion is in foreclosure.

Lenny is known for his risk taking both on and off the field.  Although all the financial details have not been released, some have speculated that his penchant for “deep in the money” calls may have helped lead him to this point.

Lenny made it look easy when things were going up.  I don’t necessarily disagree with his strategy, it has a time and place for some people, but he touted it as nearly fool proof.  He twisted the risk into “only the amount you paid for the call” which is 100% accurate.  However, the amount you pay for a DITM option is quite a lot. True, it is less than the stock itself, but it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to lose 100% of your money in a stock.  It is far more likely that you’d lose 100% of your capital in a DITM option.

Who knows?  Maybe he is just following in Donald Trump’s footsteps.

In Lenny’s own words, to those who question where the world according to Lenny is going next, “Fuck them.  We will see who is laughing, yeah, when you want a loan.”

Lenny, you may want to rethink that statement.

From Smitty at The Other McCain:

Tatiana Kozhevnikova

A name to remember, if you’re ever in Novosibirsk:

A Russian woman has set a new world record, lifting a 14-kg. glass ball with her vagina muscles. Tatiata Kozhevnikova of Novosibirsk, aged 42, has been exercising her intimate muscles for fifteen years, and has already made her entrance into the Guinness Book of Records as the possessor of the world’s strongest vagina . . .

Hat-tip to Fear and Loathing in Georgetown.

UPDATE: The Web site where she advocates “intimate fitness.”Intimidating fitness might be a better description. Are you worthy of the Olympic-caliber vajayjay?

This snapper should come with a warning label, methinks.