Happy Friday.

In 2013, white evangelicals accounted for 27% of VirginiaÂ’s electorate, down from 34% in 2009. They voted for Cuccinelli at the same rate as they did for McDonnell (a touch more than 8 in 10), there's just relatively fewer of them than there used to be.

National Review's Robert Costa (who is about to be WaPo's Robert Costa) talked to Cuccinelli's chief strategist, who thinks the shutdown crippled the campaign. "It sucked the oxygen out of the room. Instead of talking about Obamacare, we were talking about the shutdown." Folks discussed what the shutdown might do to the election next year, but didn't much think about what it'd do to the election right around the corner.

The GOP has plans for Obamacare replacement, or maybe plans to have plans for Obamacare replacement, but there doesn't seem to be a rush to line up behind any particular choice while Obamacare is in the middle of imploding.

Avik Roy dissects President Obama's mealy-mouthed apology and finds that in the course of sort-of apologizing for his campaign lie, "if you like it, you can keep it, period," he made a series of other misleading or outright false claims.

more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:49 AM | Comments (512)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Study: If You Own a Gun, You're a Racist

There's so much stupid in this 'scientific' study published in PLOS ONE that I don't even know where to start. Here's just one nugget in the tard sandwich:

Racism and guns go together.

That's the finding of an international study released Thursday that says the two are linked. More specifically, odds are greater that a racist white American also keeps a gun at home and opposes gun control regulations.

The conclusion wasn't too surprising for researchers at Australia's Monash University and Britain's Manchester University, which sought to better understand American gun culture.

"There had already been research showing that blacks are more likely to be shot, so we thought there must be something happening between the concept of being black and some whites wanting guns," Monash researcher Kerry O'Brien said in an email to the Daily News.

He also found that political leanings and geography play a part into firearm ownership.

On Journalistic Black Holes

As far as investigating the dark side of the Major Issues, there's a critically important concept that students of journalism are rarely taught.  It's easy to find any number of targets to write about in capitalist societies with an open press.  But totalitarian governments are journalistic black holes.  Journalists can tickle their self-righteous neurocircuitry every day (and many do), by exposing easy-to-find faults in democratic societies.  But beyond their event horizon is the bigger story that often remains untold as it occurs-the horrific deaths of millions in totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and, yes, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  That's why, when Robert Conquest was asked whether he wanted to retitle his updated The Great Terror, about the Soviet purges, his answer was: Yes, how about I Told You So, You Fucking Fools?

The FDA Moves to Ban Trans-Fats

Luckily they're exempting the small amounts of naturally occurring trans-fats or else we'd all become vegans by government fiat.

"Citing growing health concerns about trans fat, the FDA today proposed measures to eliminate it from the U.S. food supply. While trans fat can still be used, the new measures now place the burden on food processors to justify the inclusion of it in a food product as experts have maintained that there is no safe level of consumption and no health benefits. Since 2006, the amount of trans far eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g as restaurants and the food industry have reduced their use of it. There will be a 60 day public comment period for the new proposal."

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:26 PM | Comments (725)
Post contains 1358 words, total size 15 kb.

Corrected: Apologies, I thought he said he had full confidence in Sebelius, instead of dodging the question.

Via @johnekdahl...

Chuck Todd: “Do you still have full confidence in Kathleen Sebelius?”

Obama: *Evasive rambling non-answer* followed by “Kathleen doesn’t write code”

Todd: “Is she still the right person for the job?”

Obama: *ignores the question*, more rambling.

By the way: As they fix the bugs they identified, they're finding more that they didn't.

. "As we have fixed certain pieces of functionality, like the account creation process, we're seeing volume go further down the application. We're identifying new issues that we need to be in a position to trouble shoot."

That means that, as the HealthCare.gov team ticks items off its "punch list," its also adding new ones that need to be addressed.

Still, Bataille says that Medicare is still targeting to have HealthCare.gov "functioning smoothly for the vast majority of users" by the end of this month.

Maybe, we'll see.

I hate putting too much pressure on the website thing because at some point these boneheads will fix it.

I mean, I assume that. Then again, I assumed they'd have it running on day one, too.

More: Obama, The Victim. "I got burned by a website that didn't work."

President Passive Voice.

More:

How about honoring your promise to them?

No?

No, you just want to make sure they don't "feel" like they've been betrayed, while you're betraying them.

Not Sorry: From Hot Air-- it's less of an apology than NBC sold it as.

It's an I'm Sorry You're Sorry.

Note that Chuck Todd resorts to the passive voice himself-- on Obama's behalf.

CHUCK TODD:
Thanks to you. I’ll start with health care. It’s probably the most quoted thing or requoted thing you have said in your presidency, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” You said it a lot during the run up. At this point, though, it’s obviously something– a promise that has not been able to be kept. Just today, the Denver Post — 250,000 people in Colorado are seeing health insurance policies cancelled. Some of those people liked those policies. And they can’t keep them. What happened?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Well– first of all, I meant what I said. And we worked hard to try to make sure that we implemented it properly. But obviously, we didn’t do enough– a good enough job– and I regret that. We’re talking about 5% of the population– who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own.

A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar– when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford. So even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get– this letter cancelled.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:25 PM | Comments (401)
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.

Exclusive to NBCNews-- of course.

Where else would Obama go to for a friendly hearing? Note Obama can't to but to a handful of journalists or outlets, because many would ask him very pointed questions.

But he can rely on good old NBC to let him get out his Poll Tested Message of the Day without too many other questions.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this. "

The rest of the NBC article is pro-Administration spin (this only affects 5% of the market; policies are being canceled due to normal churn in the markets, etc.) so don't bother clicking.

By the way, Glenn Kessler gave Obama three Pinnochios about his claim that insurance companies, rather than Obama, are causing these cancellations.

And his reason for this is New News, which I didn't know. I thought the main reason for the cancellations was HHS' bitchy clawback via regulations, making virtually all policies "changed" per the meaning of the law and hence not grandfathered.

And that is true.

But the biggest reason for the cancellation is super-simple.

Individual policies are sold short term -- six months, a year, two years. A long policy may be four years of coverage, but less than 5% of policies are sold like that.

So what did Obama do? He promised you could keep any plan that was in effect...

March 23, 2010.

2010.

But Obamacare didn't go into effect until 2013.

So any plan that was in effect March 23, 2010 and still in effect three and half years later, on October 1, 2013, might be grandfathered (unless other provisions un-grandfathered the policies).

But because of the six month, one year, two years, four years short-term nature of these policies, almost all of them would have already have expired and thus would be ineligible for any grandfathering at all.

Remember, only a policy in effect on March 23, 2010, and still in effect October 1, 2013 could even be considered for grandfathering.

75% to 95% of all policies would have expired by now.

For any longer-term policies that survived this clause... well, that's when the rest of HHS' regs kick in to disqualify all remaining policies.

So when he made this promise, he knew he was lying, and he knew the way he was defining the rules of the game -- as far as dates -- meant that people would assume they could keep a policy they bought in 2013 or so, but in fact the fine print said it had to be bought as of March 2010.

I'm Sorry You Were Not Expecting What Transpired In Your Mouth. Charles C.W. Cooke calls this a fake, sort-of apology.

He's right, of course. If Obama were actually sorry, he would just call HHS and tell them to change the date of grandfathering from March 23, 2010 -- when Obamacare passed -- to October 1, 2013 -- when it actually took effect.

And he could do that with a phone call.

But he won't.

Because he wants to terminate these policies.

Posted by: Ace at 02:02 PM | Comments (353)
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.

Just an absolutely horrifying story. Be sure to watch the video.

n the search warrant affidavit that sought permission for an anal cavity probe, one police officer said he asked Eckert for permission to physically search him after the minor traffic stop. When Eckert refused...

As suspected: He exercised his rights to decline the search.

And then what did the cops do? They raped him for 12 hours.

...the document says, a police K-9 dog alerted them to the side of his car. Kennedy alleges the dog is not certified to search for drugs and may actually be a pet.

That's the lawyer making this allegation, but given these cops' behavior, I'm not dismissing that out of hand.

A judge granted the search warrant for the anal cavity probe, but not necessarily a colonoscopy.

Which they did anyway. What the hell, why not? The warrant was bogus anyway.

Officers then transported Eckert to the Gila Regional Medical Center after an emergency room doctor at a Deming, N.M., hospital told them "this is unethical," Kennedy said. The doctor who refused to comply with police is willing to testify if the lawsuit goes to trial, according to Kennedy.

After arriving at the Gila facility, doctors examined Eckert's anal cavity twice with their fingers, put him through an x-ray scan and then inserted three rounds of enemas into his anus. After each enema, doctors examined the stool sample produced. Eckert was then given a second x-ray scan and forced to undergo a colonoscopy with anesthesia.

It's unclear why the colonoscopy was necessary after enemas and x-rays did not reveal hidden drugs. Eckert was sent a $6,000 bill for the medical procedures he involuntarily underwent, his lawyer says.

And then they gave him a bill.

The business with the warrant is pretty bad. Not only is absurd on the face of it to get a warrant for an anal probe based on "clenched buttocks," but the warrant was only good in the jurisdiction in which it was written. Because the cops could not get the doctor in that county to agree to their plan to rape the man, they had all this done in the next county over. Where the warrant had no force.

Well I'd say there's an American Citizen who now Understands Better than to Exercise His Rights when the Police Come Calling.

Posted by: Ace at 01:32 PM | Comments (274)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

The headlines says it all, but you can read a short news piece if you want/can handle more.

I realize this is a cliché, and totally unscientific, because now we know, but, as @laurww said...

...yes, he looks like a deranged pedophile.

Posted by: Ace at 01:11 PM | Comments (169)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that CMS violated federal guidelines regarding security certification.

Federal rules require that website be certified as secure before being permitted to go live. For reasons that I trust are obvious.

But Healthcare.gov was never tested, and the White House and CMS were being warned by IT people that it was insecure.

So what Tavener did is sign an "interim" security certification, with a directive to... test for security after the site already certified as secure was live.

Does this make sense? No, of course not:

Yet SebeliusÂ’s matter-of-fact description of the temporary authorization is a lot different from the 2012 memo from Zients on federal cyber-security.

Page 11 of the Zients memo includes the following section:

Does OMB recognize interim authority to operate for security authorizations?

No. The security authorization process has been required for many years, and it is important to measure the implementation of this process to improve consistency and quality government-wide. Introducing additional inconsistency to the government's security program would be counter to FISMA's goals.

Note that Zients is the new Czar in charge of straightening out Healthcare.gov-- so Obama considers him a top expert. And he expressly says that an "interim" security certification -- that is, a certification without any actually security -- of course is "counter" to the goals of site security.

But that's what the team he's now in charge of did.

On Tuesday, CNN reported that until it was fixed last week -- weeks after the site was live -- a security hole allowed any user to “easily reset your healthcare.gov password without your knowledge and potentially hijack your account.”

CMS did not respond to an email seeking comment on the Authority to Operate issue.

Thanks to Andy, or as I know him, @theh2.

Posted by: Ace at 11:46 AM | Comments (345)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

This seems big.

I thought the Chief IT officer was being scapegoated because the system was a catastrophic failure.

Silly me-- Obama doesn't fire people for failure. He promotes them.

He fires people for not lying in his interests hard enough.

Remember Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, when he fired his AG (I think) because the AG refused to fire the special prosecutor probing Watergate?

This is Sharyl Atkisson reporting, of course. (It would be her or Jan Crawford.)

Tony Trenkle, the Obamacare official in charge of HealthCare.gov security efforts announced his resignation Wednesday, effective next week.

CBS News has learned that Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was originally supposed to sign off on security for the glitch-ridden website before its Oct. 1 launch, but didn't. Instead, the authorization on September 27 was given by Trenkle's boss, CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner.

As CBS News reported Monday, security assessments fell behind and the website never had the required top-to-bottom tests.

So to put the site on-line, federal rules required that it be certified as secure. The Chief IT officer apparently refused. Why? Because the thing had never had the tests required for certification at all. (If it had been tested, it would have failed.)

So what happens? His boss signs her name to the certification -- falsely, as the "required" tests had never been performed.

And now he's departing, either by resigning or being fired or being pressured to leave. We don't know.

Hallelujah! more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

This angers me, actually.

Yes, I can't imagine she'll be doing anything other than announcing a Unilateral Executive Delay.

What good is a delay? It is only helpful for Democratic Politicians. The policy remains on the books, and the uncertainty continues to weigh down the economy.

I don't know what the hell to say.

I want to block them from suspending (unilaterally) their goddamned abortion of a law, but how can we?

Allah thinks it's less likely that she'll announce a delay, and more likely she'll claim something great about enrollments. (Is there any good news on enrollments?)

I think the "direct" and "spicy" meeting with Senate Democrats might have included the threat, "Give us a delay or we'll start voting with the Republicans on the If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It bill," which would of course destroy Obamacare (and the American insurance industry, too, at least until Obama permitted the repeal of his horrible law).

Dumb Ace: My mind went right to a Delay but that's silly. There are lots of "Major Announcements" she could make, like holding open the enrollment period by another couple of months, or announcing they're not going to make their November 30th completion date.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (552)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm sure you've seen it, but if you haven't, a great "Obama By Morning" spoof that Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood did at the CMAs.

Also, Kate Upton's Naked Body Painting Photo Shoot. Just because.

She blabbles on about how many layers of paint were applied to her body and somehow I found it riveting.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:43 PM | Comments (444)
Post contains 90 words, total size 2 kb.