That's all of two shows.

Here is Baldwin's apology for the sixth or seventh time he's called someone a dyke, queen, coon, c*cksucking f*g, etc.:

I did not intend to hurt or offend anyone with my choice of words, but clearly I have – and for that I am deeply sorry. Words are important. I understand that, and will choose mine with great care going forward. What I said and did this week, as I was trying to protect my family, was offensive and unacceptable. Behavior like this undermines hard-fought rights that I vigorously support...I want to apologize to my loyal fans and to my colleagues at msnbc – both for my actions and for distracting from their good work.

So it's not whether you use these words -- it's whether your support the politics favored by the majority of the group offended. That's the real sin-- opposing a politics favored by a politically-favored minority. The use of slurs is just the club they use against their enemies, real and perceived.

In Baldwin's case, he's suspended for two whole shows. But he's still the Capital One spokesman.

Paula Deen, of course, lost her show completely, and lots of endorsements. She wasn't even conservative, but she also wasn't loudly progressive, as Baldwin is.

The only difference is that Baldwin is an out-and-proud leftist. So he gets a pass.

Rewritten to make it clear that Paula Deen is not really a "conservative." But to the left, she looks like one, and that's enough.

Am I a Homophobe? Hey look my gay hairdresser, who I pay to serve me, thinks I'm a cool guy.

Posted by: Ace at 03:32 PM | Comments (249)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Here we are again. Time for another tech/spec-free car post. Thanks to all the morons and moronettes who offered tips in last week's thread.

Built Tough:

Just try and take this Toyota down. It dares ya.'. (HT Comrade Arthur)

Perfection, Lunacy, or Hoax:

A serious WTH moment in automotive history. (HT Mike Hammer)

Because Cars:

Paulina Porizkova.

Luxury and Class, American-style:

Grab your Harvey-Wallbanger and your cigarette case and slip back in time.

Volvo Trucks:

A smooth ride and tight controls. And... Enya?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:45 AM | Comments (345)
Post contains 306 words, total size 3 kb.

You know, when more people have signed a petition to build the Death Star than your precious healthcare boondongle, you might want to just stop what you're doing.

The petition, which received 34,435 signatures, demolished health care in signups, which was starkly lower at a mere 26,794. ThatÂ’s a difference of 7,641.

In response to the Death Star petition, the White House actually took the time to write out a lengthy response entitled “This Isn’t the Petition You’re Looking For.” The 500-word response included such ironic statements as, “Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw…?” Take out “Death Star” and insert “health care law,” and you have something the President should have been asking himself several years ago. Except that his health care law has more than just “a” fundamental flaw.

Image h/t more...

Posted by: CDR M at 06:24 PM | Comments (481)
Post contains 444 words, total size 5 kb.

I stomped the podcast earlier -- but it's now available for download.

...

The other day, someone remarked to me about Obama: "The clothes have no emperor."

Steyn has a similar view.

On Thursday, [King Obama] passed a new law at a press conference. George III never did that. But, having ordered AmericaÂ’s insurance companies to comply with Obamacare, the president announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with Obamacare. The legislative branch (as itÂ’s still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered. That seems likely to work....

The most telling line, the one that encapsulates the gulf between the boundless fantasies of the faculty-lounge utopian and the messiness of reality, was this: “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Gee, thanks for sharing, genius. Maybe you should have thought of that before you governmentalized one-sixth of the economy. By “we,” the president means “I.” Out here in the ruder provinces of his decrepit realm, we “folks” are well aware of how complicated insurance is. What isn’t complicated in the Sultanate of Sclerosis? But, as with so many other things, Obama always gives the vague impression that routine features of humdrum human existence are entirely alien to him....

Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he’s “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Well, apart from his signature health-care policy. That’s a mystery to him. “I was not informed directly that the website would not be working,” he told us. The buck stops with something called “the executive branch,” which is apparently nothing to do with him.

Oprah claims the contempt directed at Obama is due to racism. Nonsense-- the love directed towards him is due to race.

The contempt is due to his actual performance. To judge him by any other standard than his dismal performance is racial condescension.

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (140)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Or "Batkid." The Foundation arranged for "villains" like Riddler to make trouble for him to sort out, including saving a damsel tied to the train (cable car) tracks. Video (stolen from Hot Air's coverage) below.

from @matthops82

Twitchy's been covering the cutest story of the month.

His little brother was permitted to horn in on the fun by getting to be Robin Junior:

Of course, this wonderful story about dozens of people working hard to make a sick little boy deliriously happy is just an opportunity for smug, passive-aggressive More Empathetic Than Thou progressives to engage in some public preening. This was posted, seriously, on Twitter:

Happy for #SFBatKid, but canÂ’t help but wonder if this would happen for a kid who isnÂ’t white. LetÂ’s put energy into solving societal ills

I asked this particular miscreant what exactly she'd done today to make any children happy, or what energy she'd put into "solving societal ills," but she didn't answer.

So, apparently it was just that: Just the 100 character Tweet. That was her effort towards "solving societal ills" for the day, which now gives her the unearned moral authority (as Breitbart called it) to lecture others.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

There is a wrinkle you might not have thought of, though.

First, Jonathan Adler notes that Obama is not purporting to change the law. He can't. Or, he daren't. What he's doing is saying he won't enforce the law -- the law still says that the old policies are illegal. Obama's just saying he'll give insurers a pass, and won't enforce the law against them.

Presumably, he also won't enforce the law against citizens buying these Illegal Policies, either.

But here's the wrinkle-- why on earth would an insurance company conduct an illegal action just because a lawless President swears it's okay? Adler thinks it through:

Yet even if state commissioners approve the plans, they will still be illegal under federal law. Given this fact, why would any insurance company agree to renew such a plan? ItÂ’s nice that regulators may forbear enforcing the relevant regulatory requirements, but this is not the only source of potential legal jeopardy. So, for instance, what happens when thereÂ’s a legal dispute under one of these policies? Say, for instance, an insurance company denies payment for something that is not covered under the policy but that would have been covered under the PPACA and the insured sues? Would an insurance company really want to have to defend this decision in court? After all, this would place the insurance company in the position of seeking judicial enforcement of an illegal insurance policy.

As has been noted by many, Obama's best-case scenario here is he pretends insurance companies are free to offer the old policies, but, because they don't wish to break the law, they refuse to do so. Then Obama is in a win-win position: He can claim this isn't due to his own actions (I gave insurers the Secret Wink to break the law!) and yet keeps as many people as possible in the expensive, hidden-subsidy exchanges, to subsidize the sick and keep Obamacare afloat.

This is worthless, a pure political piece-of-shit deception. Obama is, get this, lying again.

The only way to even have a chance to get these policies offered is if they're officially legal, like legal legal, not illegal, but I'll ignore it for now "legal."

Posted by: Ace at 12:42 PM | Comments (344)
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Note the below post on Rubio's proposal that we repeal the "risk corridor" (bailout) provisions of Obamacare, and then compare to what Obama's minions may have in mind.

Just read the whole thing.

It certainly does seem as if CMS is viewing to illegally rewrite the law such that the provisions for a bailout -- unrestricted, by the way; there is no cap on what the feds may spend on these bailouts -- can be used to pay off insurers for the new costs they'll be incurring under Obama's proposed "fix."

Thanks to @theh2, linking @asymmetricinfo

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (192)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess when I said that Republicans have to make the insurance companies fear them more than they fear Obama, Republicans were already thinking along those lines.

Make the Democrats vote to affirm each and every egregious and unpopular part of this bill.

Make them own it, until they beg us to let them repeal it.

Nutshell version: An insurer who’s offering a plan on the ObamaCare exchange sends a cost projection for that plan to HHS. If it comes in a bit under cost, they cut a check to HHS for the difference; if it comes in a bit over cost, HHS cuts them a check to make up the shortfall. It’s a way for insurers to spread the risk of cost miscalculations among themselves. Adrianna McIntyre, the economist who inspired Freddoso’s post, calls it “insurance for the insurers.” So far, so good. Problem is, there’s no cap on losses that HHS might be forced to cover if lots and lots of individual plans end up costing way more than the insurers projected. If a plan’s actual cost exceeds 103 percent of the projection, Uncle Sam covers half of the overrun; if actual cost exceeds 108 percent of the projection, Uncle Sam covers 80 percent.

This was of course a bribe to insurance companies, to get them to sign on to Obamacare. It's not that it put money in their pockets, exactly; but it did indemnify them against Obamacare losses.

Hm. Just like the President guaranteed the public they'd also be indemnified against harms caused by Obamacare.

However, unlike the promise Obama made to citizens, which he never intended to keep, Obama does intend to keep this promise to insurers -- "If you like your profits, you can keep your profits."

But now Rubio wants to put insurers in the same place as citizens -- fully exposed to the wrecking-ball harms of Obamacare.

I'm in favor of it. We need a crystallization of opinion on this. I am tired of delays. We need the thing wiped off the books, and if that requires nearly bankrupting insurance companies until the exit the markets entirely, then we'll just have to do that.

By the way, a good point from health care executive Bob Laszewski.

Megyn Kelly teed up Laszewski with a series of video clips of various White House surrogates suggesting the cancellation letters are a merely a business decision being made by insurance companies. But as Laszewski pointed out, that claim is completely undercut by the President's offer of a "fix."

"If the insurance companies didn't have to cancel people then why did the President give a press conference and announce that insurance companies don't have to cancel people?" Laszewski asked. "The administration just changed the rules so the insurance companies don't have to cancel people" he continued, adding "Well, I guess they had to before then, didn't they Megyn?"

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Summation of today's vote:

PPACA took health plans away on a 219-212 vote. The Keep Your Health Plan Act to bring them back passes 261-157.

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 15, 2013

Original Post:

Before the House could vote on Upton's bill they had to pass a rule that covered the terms of the debate. In this case it's no amendments. The Democrats are offering a "motion to recommit" the rule to include their preferred version of the cancellation "fix". This is a political move to give them cover to vote against Upton, while getting on record as voting for something that would "fix" the cancellations.

This is where the House GOP leadership did something smart.

Upton objected to the motion saying it wasn't "germane" to the underlying bill. The Chair sustained the objection. Then the Democratic sponsor of the motion moved to appeal the decision of the chair. Upton then moved to table the appeal. The House will table the motion and vote on the rule for Upton and then on Upton.

Now this is all very inside baseball but it has a big political impact...the only bill that will be voted on now is Upton's. There will be no Democratic substitute/show vote. Any Democrat who wants to be able to say they voted to do something about the cancellations will have to buck the party and vote for Upton.

Or

They could try to say they showed their opposition to policy cancellations by....voting against the motion to table the motion to appeal the rule of the chair that the motion to recommit was not germane.

Yeah.

FWIW- The motion to recommit probably was out of order by the rules and not just sheer political force. The sponsor said his alternative deserved a vote regardless of "technicalities". That's what you say when you are trying to break the rules.

BTW- Pelosi is desperate to keep Democrat defections to Upton down.

Credit where it's due: Boehner, Cantor, et al have played this very well.

Unfortunately, the Democrats got a second bite of the apple and came up with a motion to reconsider that made the germaneness requirement so they got their show vote.

Final vote total in few minutes.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:31 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

A few years ago, I picked up a fun book on Amazon titled "The Lost States". It's filled with stories of states that almost existed, like "South Jersey" to states that kinda did for a while, like "Franklin" and potential annexations, like British Columbia and Alberta.

Some of these ideas seem crazy, but people forget that our map has been changing pretty routinely throughout the history of the United States. We are currently in the longest span of an unchanged map since the founding of the country, after Alaska and Hawaii were added in 1959. In recent years we've seen the idea of "South California" being floated and there was even a somewhat serious attempt to create "North Colorado" this year.

In any event, one chapter stood out to me as particularly bizarre: the 51st state of Albania. Really. Albania seems to have a major crush on the United States. From the book:

Thousands of Albanians would love for their country to become the fifty-first state. And it's not just some offbeat splinter group requesting the inclusion. The whole country seems rabidly pro-American.

When President George W. Bush visited in 2007, no one protested. No one. (I couldn't believe it either.) It seems that Bush enjoyed higher approval ratings in Albania than a roomful of oil executives. In fact, his visit invoked newspaper headlines that read: "Please Occupy Us!" No kidding.

This odd love affair with America dates even earlier. During Bill Clinton's presidency, thousands of Albanians named their babies Bill and Hillary. Again, all true.

Albania was also among the first nations to join the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it unflinchingly supports every American policy in the region. When the United States couldn't find any country in the world to accept deported Guantanamo detainees, Albania stepped up and took them off American's hands.

Secretary of State James Baker was mobbed like a rock star when he visited the country in 1991. There was even a move to hold a referendum declaring the country as America's 51st state around that time.

Albania rejected on Friday a U.S. request to host the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, dealing a blow to a U.S.-Russian accord to eliminate the nerve agents from the country's protracted civil war.

Negotiations went down to the wire, delaying the scheduled adoption on Friday of a step-by-step plan to get rid of 1,300 metric tons of Syria's sarin, mustard and other agents.

Albania's refusal marked an unprecedented break from its traditionally staunch allegiance to NATO ally Washington. It followed a storm of protest in the Adriatic republic, where protesters complained of exploitation.

Posted by: JohnE. at 11:45 AM | Comments (289)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.