On FoxNews, I just saw the headline, "White House passes on chance to disavow attack on Ann Romney."

Which is strange, given that Obama's campaign guys have thrown Hilary Rosen under the bus, and even Michele Obama took to twitter to claim she respects all moms, and we all ought to.

But maybe it's not so strange.

Watch this video from Breitbart, where he talks about the woman who "advised me at the law firm where we met" (a knock on Romney's statement that Ann is one of his advisers) and goes on to say "We didn't have the luxury for [Michele] not to work." And how it was hard for Michele Obama to "balance" the needs of work and child-rearing.

This is from last Friday, says John Nolte, who made this connection.

The Obama campaign would have us believe that last night on CNN Obama advisor and frequent White House guest, Hilary Rosen, spoke out of turn with her indefensible attack on Ann Romney and every woman who chooses to stay home and raise her family. But in a speech last Friday at “The White House Forum on Women and the Economy,” President Obama seemed to be laying the groundwork for exactly this attack.

It sure seems, then, like the White House cooked up this line of attack, and Hilary Rosen, who's been there 35 times and advises Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (in order to help her "tone it down," ironically enough), was simply delivering the Daily Two Minute Hate, as ordered by her bosses.

And in that case the White House's and the Obamas' and Messina's and Axelrod's claims of finding fault with the comment are, naturally, completely disingenuous.

By the way-- Sandra Fluke? Hilary Rosen's PR firm represents her.

Jay Carney... claims he can't confirm that Hilary Rosen has visited the White House 35 times, because he "personally" knows three women named Hilary Rosen, so, you know, who can say with any certainty which Hilary Rosen it was.

PROTIP: It was the one who works for former top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Not the one who serves coffee at Starbucks, and not the one who just got bat mitzvah'd.

Video: I know three Hilary Rosens. So maybe it was one of them.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (296)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

I just tweeted that she ought to talk about the economy, but actually, she does a fine job talking about what she wants to talk about.

And then she does in fact bring it back to the economy, at 3:56.

Fun With Spin: Hilary Rosen practically lives at the White House, visiting 35+ times. David Petraeus has been there nine (I think Allah said).

Jay Carney was asked how many times she'd visited, and he claimed he didn't know. He then said he couldn't be sure, because "I know, personally, three women named Hilary Rosen."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

I sort of don't like these distractions, even when they're relatively good distractions.

Obama has presided over an economy which is not growing enough to keep pace with population expansion. This is not a recovery; it's feeble growth along the bottom. An actual recovery rockets back up the previous level of economic activity in a short period of time.

That's why they call it a "recovery." Because you recover your losses.

Everything Obama has said about the economy has either been dishonest, or stated in honesty but completely wrong because he's inept, ignorant, and subscribes to a socialist worldview which has been discredited and ultimately discarded everywhere it's been tried.

Four for years we have had unemployment well over 8% -- and it is currently 10.1%, when you factor in all the people chased out of the workforce by the high unemployment rate itself.

The real unemployment rate is something like 17%.

The stimulus was money buried in a pit, then burned with gasoline, then covered in quicklime.

Any time we're talking about anything else, I think we're losing. If we're talking about whether this is a "War on Women" or not, we're losing.

Even if we're now talking about whether Hilary Rosen's comments mean there's a "War on Women" from the left.

That issue, to the extent it cuts either way, is either a net-plus for Obama or a jump-ball which neither favors him nor disfavors him.

Meanwhile, we are in debt currently $16.5 trillion and the current plan, under the most optimistic of scenarios, is to go another $6.5 trillion into debt over 10 years, and then a hundred trillion in the out-years thereafter.

And Obama, who made a career of Voting Present, does nothing about this. He offers no proposals, he attempts no deals. He offers us distraction after distraction like the War on Women or "Buffet Rule" (now the "Reagan Rule," apparently, which would not reduce the deficit by one tenth of one percent).

He continues trying to make a Big Election about Small Things. Trying to pit this group against that, trying to redirect anger at his failures at convenient bugaboos he conjures up -- The 1%, men, even Typical White Persons to some degree.

We ought not let him.

This election is about his failure. His failure after four horrible years of suffering under his malfeasance and incompetence. His failure to unite the country, except in a state of collective misery and despair.

For four years, Obama's waged a bitter War on Prosperity, a War on Industriousness, a War on Personal Initiative, a War on the Common Bonds of Citizenship that once united us, a War on the American Dream itself.

That is the issue.

Everything else is just misdirection by corrupt and cynical magicians of spin and diversion.

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

I know he drew a paycheck.

How much did he work?

To put this in terms that Barack Obama might understand (as Sarah Palin once said), Ann Romney was a community organizer with actual job responsibilities.

And then after that, the Guy He Doesn't Know At All hired him for a high-paying, cushy, no-real-responsibilities gig.

Posted by: Ace at 07:59 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

After her statement that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life...

The Romney campaign blasted Rosen as an “Obama adviser” (she’s tied to the DNC, not the Obama campaign) and called this “their new ‘kill Ann’ strategy and in the process insul[t] hard-working moms.” And that had Team Obama worried enough for a couple of heavy hitters to take to Twitter late last night to do damage control. David Axelrod, Obama’s closest adviser, tweeted: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.” Jim Messina, who runs the Obama 2012 campaign, demanded an apology from Rosen: “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.”

ItÂ’s too late for that; the mask has already slipped. Rosen has delivered the LeftÂ’s honest opinion about women who choose to stay home to raise their children[.]

Hillary Rosen has written in defense of herself.

Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women's rights and advancement as a way to score political points.

Um... Aren't we in Month Three of the Democrats' Faux Anger over Slutgate/War on Contraception etc. etc.? Is that not "a way to score political points"?

Let's say we spare her the "faux anger" from the right.

What about the faux anger from the left? Are David Axelrod and Jim Messina on the right too?

If they want to attack me and distract the public's attention away from their nominee's woeful record, it just demonstrates how much they just don't get it.

The irony is thick. This is from a political hack who just tried to distract from Obama's "woeful record" by attacking Mitt Romney's record wife's employment history.

The Other Dumb Thing Hillary Rosen Said: She claims that Democrats don't use the term "War on Women" -- the GOP made the term up and use it against Democrats.

Jonah Goldberg notes the dozens of email solicitations he's gotten from prominent Democrats (Donna Brazille, James Carville, Nancy Pelosi) using that very term.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC, uses the term.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4

Posted by: Ace at 07:33 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Newt Gingrich unloaded on Fox News yesterday, saying the most-watched cable news channel was biased in favor of Romney. Says Gingrich, “there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches FOX.” He also had not-very-nice things to say about George Will.

Charles Manson was denied parole for the 12th time, to the surprise of nobody. In the past three years, he was caught in possession of a weapon and contraband cell phones. Also, there's that whole continued threats of bodily harm thing.

Democrats just thoroughly shot themselves in the foot by criticizing Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mother. Also, welcome to Twitter, Mrs. Romney.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:57 AM | Comments (804)
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Maet's on a trip. This is my lame attempt at the magic he brings.

I'm trying to think of fun things.

You know what's fun? Purple Pandas. Or they're fun, in theory.

You know who doesn't find them fun? These kids. more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:42 PM | Comments (738)
Post contains 489 words, total size 4 kb.

Not a hate crime, just "opportunistic criminal behavior."

What was the opportunity? One white guy lost in a black neighborhood?

What was the selection process for their victim? Was it just random they chose the one white guy?

If that wasn't random -- if he was chosen, at it appears, because he was the one white interloper in sight -- it's a hate-crime.

But it would be "race baiting" to call it such.

In a radio interview, Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III urged Baltimore residents to "distinguish between criminality and racially motivated crime." Bealefeld, who is white, warned against "race-baiting" and "fear-mongering" in light of the Trayvon Martin shooting and other recent racially charged incidents.

"There's no doubt it's a crime," Bealefeld said of the March 17 assault. "We need to vigorously hold criminals accountable, and we have to be careful not to be pulled into this race-baiting."

The Supreme Court should strike these laws off the books. They violate the Equal Protections Clause, as actually practiced.

Last week I attempted to pressure Anderson Cooper into covering this. He's made a big deal about Hate and Bullying.

And yet his interest to call this behavior out seems to be limited to all the predictable cases.

If liberals believe that Public Shaming of bigotry, hatred, and bullying behavior can actually work to reduce such behavior -- and I actually do think this works, as I think shame generally guides behavior -- why do they stubbornly refuse to apply it to all bigotry, hatred, bullying, and gross criminal conduct?

If dehumanization and "Otherization" (as liberals term it) makes predatory and vicious conduct more likely, what precisely is the message being sent when the liberal media treats stuff like this as "acceptable losses"?

Posted by: Ace at 04:08 PM | Comments (269)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

I think the answer is mostly Yes.

Before I get the the article, let me offer a couple of observations.

I noticed a while back that I liked going to conservative clubs, though I didn't really want to talk about politics. I thought that maybe there was just an inherent liking of similar things -- a factor A that results in artistic preference X and political leaning Y -- so that, on average, maybe I just shared more things with conservatives.

I tried to test this theory: I asked if people preferred the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. I theorized that for ages the intelligentsia have told us the Chrysler Building was more beautiful, so liberals would agree with that (they believe whatever is told to them by their tastemakers) and conservatives would incline the other way (as we're sick of the liberal tastemakers).

I also thought the Chrysler Building skews liberal (inviting, whimsical, curvy, adorned) while the Empire State Building skews conservative (imposing, stately, rectilinear, unadorned).

Two iconic buildings: a towering monument to human aspiration;
and a foul hussy specializing in Self-Degradation Scenarios

Based on my brief, trivial-survey-size test, I found that most conservatives, 7 in ten, preferred the Empire State Building.

I think there's something to that.

One legal case I think illustrates this concerned a guy who was late for a train. The train departed the station, on time. The man chased after it, hoping to catch it and jump on board on the fly.

The conductor saw him doing so, and did not order the train to slow or stop.

The man attempted to jump on the train-- and failed. He was injured. He then sued the train company -- the conductor should have slowed the train.

This struck me as bizarre. There are Rules, the guy knew what they were, and he caused a serious Problem, and now he's trying to Profit from his own Idiocy.

And yet my professor -- who was indeed liberal, but not a bad or dumb guy at all -- felt that the conductor did in fact have some kind of duty of safety to the guy, and should have ordered it slowed or halted.

This basic tension -- between the adherence to rules, order, and responsibility on one hand, and between allowances for deviations from the laws, a bit of chaos, and collective, rather than personal, responsibility -- pretty much underlies 99% of all political thought.

And it's really just a simple question: do you give the late would-be passenger a break (and slow the train for everyone else) or do you stick to the schedule?

(Something my prof didn't have an answer for: Now that you're set the rule that the train must slow, what happens when people begin showing up later and later and running for the train, knowing it must now halt? Will we craft some new rule about what time you can't expect the train to stop for you? And if so -- why should that time not simply be the train's stated time of departure? But he didn't care. He was all about the compassion, you know.)

Anyway, an article about this interesting subject.

The article isn't interesting though. I skimmed it looking for a quote, then stopped. It's kind of... nebulous, and of course it falls into the typical Liberals Are Better derangement (an odd stance to take in article that notes that The thing most in need of revising may be our reflex for self-flattery" about our political beliefs, given that they're probably hard-coded in our brains).

But the subject is interesting, so I wrote about it.

Posted by: Ace at 03:29 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

A little update on a less distressing matter.

Oh, and this is just Joyous News.

Posted by: Ace at 02:33 PM | Comments (161)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.