For a long, healthy life: Eat your bacon

For those of you counting calories, here is something to smile about.  This 105-year-old woman from Texas claims that eating bacon each day has helped her live a long life.  From

Cantrell does not need a cane or a walker and was still driving her own car at 104 years old until a bout of sickness in September of 2012.

“She had gone dancing just last October,’’ her daughter said. “This year she danced on her birthday. It’s unbelievable. And she still wants bacon for breakfast every day, so we take turns where I cook it for her at my house or she cooks it at her house.”

Cantrell gave birth to eight children, one of whom died at 9 months old, and five of the seven children she raised are still alive. When she wasn’t snacking on bacon at home, she would often get it at her favorite restaurant, the Little Yellow Duck in Richland Springs. She still eats two slices every morning for breakfast and sometimes also has two slices for lunch.

If you don’t like bacon, here are some more tips for a long life from other centenarians.  Among them:

Eat the same thing each day

Do what you love

Participate in extreme sports

Do what you want and eat what you want (and don’t exercise)

Drink Scotch

Some pretty good ideas.  I think I’ll start with the bacon.

Lisa @

Media Lessons learned on the Right at Politico…

Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Robert Stacy McCain The Weekly Newsbeast Nov 11th 2010

Trueman-Lodge: We started this place strictly as a cover, but Professor Joe turns a tidy profit.

License to Kill 1989

Reading Glenn’s Links to Althouse on Politico on the possible pay wall pay wall suggests that the lessons of Tina Brown are finally being learned on the left.

For those who have forgotten Tina Brown took over the venerable but unprofitable Newsweek in November of 2010 in its 77th year of publication.

On November 11th 2010 Stacy McCain commented on what this would mean to Ms. Brown’s financial backers:

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Six months later on May 17th 2011 the question of profit was brought up to Ms. Brown and she replied profit would be coming within 2 to three years. Forbes was skeptical and in an excellent impersonation of Rush Limbaugh’s 10 year Al Gore’s doomsday clock (At 2 years 261 days and counting) Stacy McCain said this:

Mark your calendars, then: Newsbeast will be in the black by May 2014 at the latest. According to Tina Brown, that is.

Well one year after that in 2012 ABC reported Newsweek/The Daily Beast lost 30 million and by the end of the year after IAC media losses increased nearly 400% Newsweek ceased publication becoming basically a blog.

Which brings us to Politico.

The Story that Politico is going to charge for content got some attention :

POLITICO today announced that it will start testing a metered subscription system in six states and internationally. For at least six months, those readers will be required to pay for content after consuming a set number of pages on the website. POLITICO will test different price points and page limits “to find the sweet spot for our readership.”

The experiment will go into effect next week in the states of Iowa, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, New Mexico and Wyoming.

Interestingly enough there was another story a week before Politico started floating the Pay Wall business concerning its owner Allbritton Communications and the following announcement that it was selling some assets;

Allbritton is exploring the sale of all its television properties, including its Harrisburg-based station.

Allbritton owns eight ABC affiliates across the country, along with the popular website, Politico, which covers government and politics. Allbritton’s flagship TV station is WJLA in Washington, D.C.

Robert Allbritton, chairman and CEO of Allbritton Communications, sent a letter to its TV stations and Politico staff Wednesday.

In the letter, Allbritton, 44, wrote that he is weighing the sale of the stations as part of a strategic move to invest more resources in Politico.

Not that Politico is having a cash problem or NEEDS more assets of course as Mr. Robert Allbritton said in his letter:

POLITICO continues to carry no debt, funds all investment with operating income and will still turn a profit, again, in 2013. That is the textbook definition of a thriving, sustainable new media company.

That’s sounds pretty good, then again the only solid figures we have for Politico and profitably come from 2009 and as Harry Jaffe noted last week:

Questions abound in today’s announcement that Allbritton Communications is planning to sell its TV stations and devote its resources to growing the Politico brand.

Is Politico turning a profit?
What are the television stations worth?
How would Allbritton spend its cash in building Politico, its all-politics all-the-time digital publication?

Allbritton Communications is privately held, so it does not have to report more than it desires to make public.

Ah so according to Harry at the Washingtonian the question of “Is politico making a profit?” is an actual open question internal assertions not withstanding.

Are they actually making money? I have no idea but it’s interesting that they are selling sources of steady revenue and experimenting with a paywall at the same time. Even so they seem to be approaching this with the proper eye:

Outside of Washington, what we will look for with this experiment is whether or not we can bring in more revenue through paying subscribers than we lose as a result of any decline in traffic. This is a fairly straightforward calculation – and one that will instruct our future thinking in this area.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward cost benefit analysys but why outside Washington DC? What about inside?’s highly unlikely we would ever institute a metered system in the D.C. area. The economics wouldn’t work because every company that has put a subscription system in place has seen some decrease in traffic, as you might expect. We want and need that traffic in D.C. because the desire of advertisers to reach our elite audience here is exceptionally strong.

So no Paywall for the Capital elites just for all you rubes who don’t know how to set a up a Proxy server.

Even so this is a far cry from the old model for leftist propaganda sites:

I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

By considering revenue streams and how money is made Politico has apparently decided the whole: “Hope some rich leftist will pay the bills” isn’t enough to cut it.

As a person whose pay is dependent on his readers 60 x 20 x 12 you know I certainly have no problem with Politico trying to max out revenue in fact it’s refreshing to see an organization of the left openly practicing capitalism.

Maybe it will rub off on their reporting.

If you start from the idea they are all Marxists: IRS vs Tea Party edition

Hornblower bowed, but as the Colonel remained unbending he stiffened to attention. He could recognize that type of man at once—the servant of a tyrant, and in close personal association with him, modeling his conduct not on the tyrant’s but on what he fancied should be the correct behaviour of a tyrant, far out-Heroding Herod.

C.S. Forester Flying Colors 1938

IRS during the 2012 election season election season

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.

“There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee.

IRS today with the election safely won:

The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

I’m sorry people this is positively Nixonian and if this was a GOP president rather than Barack Obama there the entire press corps would be up in arms and wouldn’t stop shouting till he had resigned.

Class action anyone?

Update: A thought to for the MSM, after today I don’t want to hear a single word about how paranoid people on the right are over Manchin/Toomey and guns ever again.

Update 2: Legal Insurrection further notes

Remember, the IRS is the Obamacare mandate enforcer. What level of confidence do you have as to fair enforcement, and that “low level” IRS employees will not misuse information gained in connection with assuring compliance with the health insurance requirements? (I’ve been warning about that since August 14, 2009, IRS The New Health Care Enforcer.)

With the exposure of the Benghazi deceit and the IRS political attacks, I have zero confidence that the Gang of 8 border enforcement or other supposed protections actually will be enforced.

Anyone who trusts these people are fools.

Update 3: Michelle Malkin,

Kudos to the Tea Party activists who first blew the whistle and to Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation, who pushed back against the Bully Brigade

and Allapundit

News of the harassment made it all the way up to Congress last spring — and yet only now, months after the election, are we finally seeing the IRS come clean. Go figure.

To this day, the left-wing Democratic water-carrying hacks known as Media Matters remain fully tax-exempt. Congressional hearings are now a fait accompli; what I want to know is who’s getting fired in the meantime. Obviously house will be cleaned at the Cincinnati branch. What about Lerner herself? Stand by for updates.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Update 4:  Added the Hornblower quote for those who insist it’s just a low level thing.  Nobody is a bigger tyrant than someone who serves one.

Update 5:  Mitch McConnell is demanding the White House investigate, Bryan Preston comments:

There should be an investigation. The White House should under no circumstances conduct that investigation.

I agree.


The Benghazi opening for Democrats in 2016

Lyndon Johnson’s loss had been due to a political fluke. He had been beaten not by his opponent’s friends but by his opponent’s foes. O’Daniel had won the Senate seat not because these men wanted hi to be Senator, but because they didn’t want him to be Governor.

The Years of Lyndon Johnson, the Path of Power Robert A. Caro 1982 pp 740

It’s not personal, it’s strictly Business

The Godfather 1972

There is one dynamic in the advance/non-advance Benghazi story that hasn’t gotten much play.

Yesterday Chuck Todd spent most of the daily rundown trying to undo the damage Morning Joe did by covering Benghazi as it actually is rather by painting it as one twenty years of attacks on Hillary Clinton.

On Twitter I was talking with Mike Hummell (who I really have to have on my show again sometime soon) and he tweeted the following


Forgetting the whole “not being prepared for an attack on the 9/11 anniversary or trying to save the Americans in danger” business That is an interesting point, but what Mike misses in his argument is who it actually applies to.

No doubt there are people who will take advantage of the situation politically but who is that political advantage of most value to?

What if you were, say a Democrat governor of a deep blue state who has presidential ambitions. You’ve backed the president time & time again making TV appearances, going to and hosting fundraisers and defended him and his administration even to the point of pushing his gun control agenda in your state despite a bit of a backlash.

And you realize that your reward is going for this loyalty is to be expected to stand aside for maybe 8 more years of Hillary Clinton or perhaps even Michelle Obama or both.

Now suddenly comes this Benghazi scandal. You looked the other way and supported the leftist chorus in attacking Mitt Romney before the election but now that it’s over there is no downside to you if this breaks wide open. You have no connection to the administration, as the Governor of a state you had no responsibility for any of these decisions. If the full truth comes out it won’t lay a glove on you.

So perhaps with the dramatic hearings fresh in memory you encourage friends in the media to cover the story rather than ignoring it and when it comes to a head maybe you go on one of those Sunday shows, deride the politics but insist that we owe it to the American People to let the truth come out.

It will sound so bipartisian.

I can see a certain Maryland Governor doing this, I can see a California Governor doing it too, or perhaps even one from New York whose family still feels robbed that some lascivious upstart from Arkansas was president instead of their patriarch.

It will be quiet it will be subtle but the moment will come and if those ambitions democrats see that moment coming and can quietly nudge it forward they will, particularly if they can do it without leaving fingerprints.

Count on it.