Via Instapundit, a study about White People being pretty silly about race.

The study goes like this: Two people are partnered up. One can see the picture of a subject person; the other person must find the matching picture from a bunch of pictures only he can see. The person trying to make the match can only ask Yes/No questions of the person who can see the picture which they're trying to match. So the one question asks about gender, hair color, eye color, and etc., trying to figure out which picture his partner is looking at.

In the study, White People refused to ask a very basic question -- "Is this person black?" -- 43% of the time. When they were partnered with a black person, they refused to ask it 79% of the time.

There's a bad side and a good side to this. The bad side is obvious: Many white people are so scared of being seen as racist that they're not willing to talk about simple facts -- and, ironically, they end up being seen as racist as a result. Many whites' sensitivity to racism may have gone so far past the point of diminishing returns that it actively harms their relations with blacks. They place so much importance on demonstrating that black people don't make them nervous that black people make them nervous.

The good side is, of course, that overt racism has been well and truly stigmatized.

And yet it's been stigmatized to the point of absurdity and, actually, stigmatized to the point of racial condescension. When the stigma against racism turns into a stigma against merely acknowledging someone's race -- as if blackness itself were some kind of taboo condition which mustn't be mentioned in polite company -- an attempt to "appear sensitive" becomes its own sort of race consciousness.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

How stupid do they think you are? This stupid: John Cornyn, infamously firebreathing First Principles Tea Partier, voted "no" on the budget deal. Because he's super-against it and stuff. He's totes a fighter.

McConnell and Rand Paul both voted against it, as did most Republicans who might face primary challenges next year — including John Cornyn. John McCain was among the Republicans voting for cloture, though, and he was joined by several others (including the recently-elected Orrin Hatch) to push the vote well past the 60-vote mark to 67-33. We’ll post the link to the final roll-call vote report when it becomes available.

During the podcast, I meant to say something to Gabe but never got the chance.

Gabe argues that we need to fold, or at least give, on these contentious issues because otherwise we won't win elections and will never be in a position to vote the way we (allegedly) prefer.

Here's my problem with that: If we're going to fold on these issues when we're trying to reclaim a majority, we will also fold when we have a majority. The argument will shift from "We can't do this and ruin our chances of capturing the Senate" to "We can't do this and risk losing the Senate."

This is exactly the argument made to justify all the un-conservative things the Republican-controlled Senate (and House) voted for under Bush. It's a classic; we will be seeing it again.

If you don't run on an position -- if you are so unable to make your position sound appealing enough that you'll merely lose narrowly on it, if you're so afraid of that position you consider it politically toxic -- it is not plausible that you will ever actually vote that position.

This is the problem I have with the GOP. They tell me spending cuts and holding a hard line on government growth is unpopular, and that the American public, despite their protestations, actually wants some Socialist Daddy State, and to oppose this is electorally dangerous.

I believe them -- I agree.

But I also know this: If they never get around to changing the public's mind on this, arguing in favor of actually cutting spending, they will never actually cut spending. They will just continue saying "It's too unpopular; we can't win elections making that case, or voting that way."

At some point they actually have to try. It was not so long ago that the principle of cutting and limiting government was actually a winning issue. It can be done. I don't know if this lot can manage it, but I do know their constituents demand they at least make the effort. And that they stop arranging votes to merely appear as if they're making the effort.

The electoral benefits of surrender and simply being 10% less bad that the Democrats are, I concede, real. And they will continue to be real-- unless something is done to change this resting state of American politics.

And calling objections to new, higher levels of domestic discretionary spending "ridiculous" will not change that resting state, obviously. The GOP is not only not opposing the steady, inexorable, remorseless growth of government, they are positively making the case in its favor.

Posted by: Ace at 08:06 AM | Comments (342)
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

BIP - Broadband Initiatives Program
RUS - Rural Utility Service
BCAS - Broadband Collection and Analysis System

This is from the Aug 2013 IG Report. So here we are, years after the initial "stimulus" and nobody knows if this rural broadband money was effectively spent or not.

Billions were tossed around without measuring how many people actually benefited (from p.13 of PDF)

Finding 1: Performance Measures Do Not Effectively Show BIP Outcomes

While BIP primarily financed last mile projects that provide service to end-users, such as households and businesses, we found that RUS does not have adequate controls to measure and transparently report how effectively BIP is meeting its subscribership goals. Specifically, RUS does not have controls in place to measure how many BIP subscribers are in rural areas and were previously unserved or underserved or to measure performance (subscribership) of BIP projects on an individual basis. Second, RUS does not have adequate controls in place to ensure that awardees submit reliable performance data or to compare actual performance to projected results. This occurred because RUS did not anticipate the need to report on actual rural subscribership. RUS is also hesitant to invest its limited resources in further revising its information management systems, policies, and procedures for BIP—a one-time program. OIG recognizes the consideration of investing additional limited resources for a one-time program. However, without these controls in place, there is less assurance that BIP awards helped accomplish the goals of the Recovery Act by providing broadband to rural residents who would not otherwise have sufficient access to this service

While there undoubtedly were many underserved rural customers, there would also be a number of them who already went with alternatives like Hughes sat internet service and DirectTV internet/VoIP. In fact, for the remotest of the rural areas, where there's not even land line phone service, simply giving people the Hughes/DirectTV sat packages would be far more cost effective and dramatically faster to install than running hundreds/thousands of miles of cable/fiber based solutions.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:28 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

Yesterday, a district court judge struck down the Obamacare contraception mandate as applied to the Catholic Archdiocese of New York and its constituent organizations as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. You can read the decision here (PDF), but I wanted to highlight some important parts.

1. This is the first litigation to result in a final injunction against the contraception mandate for religious non-profit organizations that come within the Obama Administration's purported exemption to the mandate. The 7th, 10th, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have all found the mandate to be an unacceptable burden on the free exercise of religion for for-profit businesses that don't come under the exemption. This case is important, though, because it recognizes that even the act of having to claim the exemption is an unacceptable burden on religion.

I explained in February how the Obama administration proposed to conjure contraception from thin air in order to make it available to the employees of religious organizations. What I didn't mention then was that, for this act of sorcery to work, the religious organizations would have to "self-certify" in order to direct that a third party provide contraception. The Archdiocese of New York, and many other religious organizations, pointed out that the act of self-certifying is itself a violation of its religious beliefs and sued.

2. Not even the Obama administration knows what its proposed regulations do. Very late in this case, the government realized that, although the Archdiocese and its constituent organizations are covered by the mandate, the regulations might not actually force a third party they designate to provide the objectionable contraception coverage. The judge was not amused:

The Government’s belated “realization” that the challenged regulations may not actually result in the provision of contraceptive coverage to plaintiffs’ employees is difficult to fathom. . . . It is unclear how citizens like plaintiffs . . . are supposed to know what the law requires of them if the Government itself is unsure. After almost 18 months of litigation, defendants now effectively concede that the regulatory tale told by the Government was a non-sequitur.

The judge found that, despite the administration's contortions to suggest the Archdiocese might not even be covered, the contraception mandate scheme was sufficiently burdensome to proceed to a decision.

3. The Obama administration doesn't take religious beliefs seriously. In an astonishing display of anti-religious sentiment, the administration argued that forcing religious organizations to designate a third party to provide contraception coverage to their employees isn't a big deal (legally: de minimis) because it's "just a form" to fill out, "a purely administrative task." The district court rightly found that whether a violation of religious freedom is small or large isn't for the courts to decide. It would be too easy to simply sweep away deeply-held religious beliefs under the claim that government action is merely "de minimis" infringement of rights.

There is no way that a court can, or should, determine that a coerced violation of conscience is of insufficient quantum to merit constitutional protection.

4. The Obama administration has handed out so many exceptions to the law, it can no longer claim the law serves a compelling purpose. In the past, courts have allowed the government to infringe religious rights if the government demonstrates a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, for example, income tax laws or criminal laws related to marijuana and peyote. But in this case, the administration was not able to claim that the contraception mandate serves a compelling purpose because it has been falling all over itself (largely for political reasons) to offer exceptions to the law.

The Government has not made a similar showing of a compelling interest in uniform enforcement of the Mandate, for the simple reason that enforcement of the Mandate is currently anything but uniform. Tens of millions of people are exempt from the Mandate, under exemptions for grandfathered health plans, small businesses, and “religious employers” like the Diocesan plaintiffs here. Millions of women thus will not receive contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing through the Mandate. Having granted so many exemptions already, the Government cannot show a compelling interest in denying one to these plaintiffs.

5. The Obama administration's belated argument that the religious organizations may not actually end up providing any contraception coverage fatally undermined the administration's case. This comes under the category of bad litigation strategies. As I mentioned up in the second item on this list, the administration realized near the end of the litigation that the third parties designated by the Archdiocese to provide coverage may not actually be required to provide contraception. The district court rightly noticed that if that argument is true, the mandate obviously serves no purpose.

Here, the Government implicitly acknowledges that applying the Mandate to plaintiffs may in fact do nothing at all to expand contraceptive coverage, because plaintiffsÂ’ [designated third party providers] arenÂ’t actually required to do anything after receiving the self-certification. In other words, the Mandate forces plaintiffs to fill out a form which, though it violates their religious beliefs, may ultimately serve no purpose whatsoever.

I have italicized the last portion of that quote for emphasis simply because, when you put it like that, the administration's argument is so obviously bad and hostile to religion.

6. The Obama administration thinks it has a general exception from complying with the Constitution. The administration, as it has frequently done with respect to disobeying laws it does not like, argued that it had to enforce the contraception mandate in such an infringing manner because it could not do it any other way. The district court pointed out the obvious flaw in this line of thinking:

The Government first argues that the alternatives above are infeasible because the defendants lack statutory authority to enact some of them. This argument makes no sense; in any challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law, the question is whether the federal government could adopt a less restrictive means, not any particular branch within it. It would set a dangerous precedent to hold that if the Executive Branch cannot act unilaterally, then there is no alternative solution. If defendants lack the required statutory authority, Congress may pass appropriate legislation.

Of course, we all know that President Obama cannot go back to Congress to fix this since Congress would most likely provide a wider exemption to the contraception mandate than Obama's HHS has provided via regulation, assuming Congress doesn't just start trimming out major portions of the law, altogether. This is a problem of the administration's own making, and there it will stay -- until the courts finish knocking it down, that is.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:00 AM | Comments (294)
Post contains 1129 words, total size 8 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

You might recall the dustup last year when Komen for a Cure announced that it would stop funding Planned Parenthood. Komen eventually reversed course and sacked its founder and CEO, but not before Planned Parenthood had raised $3 million with the promise to expand breast cancer screenings. Surprise! Planned Parenthood offered 90,000 fewer exams than the previous year.

Poll: Obama ends the year with approval ratings lower than all other modern two-term presidents. In fact, you gotta go back to Richard Nixon to find worse numbers. Click that link, there's a ton of other info in that poll.

[ RSS]

[On iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 111 words, total size 2 kb.

Woo Hoo - We're Number 8!!

In John Hawkin's annual ranking of the top 40 conservative web sites of 2013. No one knows exactly how they're calculated but I can definitely state that after viewing the ever paltry AoSHQ coffers that no graft or payola was involved on our part. :-(

Now #7 Instapundit is not going to an easy target to take down for next year - he is a freakin' juggernaut of blogging. But as fearsome as he can seem we do know that he has a few weaknesses - primarily an inordinate fondness for gadgets, chocolate, and Ann Althouse. Come on people - let's use this knowledge and our animal cunning to claw our way up to #7 in 2014.

Remember - in the end there can only be one!

              40) The Black Sphere
              39) The Campaign Spot
              3 Clash Daily
              37) Rare
              36) Moonbattery
              35) Liberal Logic 101
              34) Joe For America
              33) Pat Dollard
              32) Althouse
              31) Naked DC
              30) The Tea Party News Network
              29) Jammie Wearing Fools
              2 Lucianne
              27) Life News
              26) Legal Insurrection
              25) Cybercast News Service
              24) Redstate
              23) The Washington Examiner
              22) Newsmax
              21) Front Page Magazine
              20) Michelle Malkin
              19) The American Spectator
              1 PJ Media
              17) Newsbusters
              16) National Review
              15) Twitchy
              14) Mr. Conservative
              13) The Corner
              12) BizPac Review
              11) Weasel Zippers
              10) The Daily Caller
              9) Breitbart
              Ace of Spades HQ
              7) Instapundit (soon my friend, soon)
              6) Fox News
              5) Real Clear Politics
              4) The Blaze
              3) Hot Air
              2) The Gateway Pundit
              1) The Drudge Report

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:12 PM | Comments (746)
Post contains 1615 words, total size 21 kb.

• Obama's Approval After Five Years Lowest Of Any President Since Truman
  
• Obama Set To Meet With His Council Of Corporations
  
• Obama Has Yet To Enroll For Obamacare
  
• Many Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce New Gun Control Laws
  
• North America To Drown In Oil As Mexico Ends Monopoly
  
• Constitutional Carry In Ohio
  
• Paglia: It's A Man's World And It Will Always Be
  
• Twelve Reasons Why Amnesty Will Hurt Low Income Workers
  
• Detroit Awaits Final Details On City Owned Art
  
• Obamacare's Troubles Are Just Starting
  
• The Republican Establishment And Insurgent Groups Brace For All Out War
  
• Will China Restart The Space Race?
  
• Senate GOP Should Kill Deal And Stick To 2011 BCA
  
• David Brock Group Stalks Kelly Ayotte At A New Hampshire Memorial Service
  
• What Went Wrong On Asiana Flight 214
  
• Productivity Up, Future Uncertain
  
• Sherlock Season 3 Trailer
  
• Boston Bombing Victim Proposes To Nurse He Met In Rehab
  
• Trailer For 22 Jump Street (autoplay NSFW)
  
• What? Dwayne Johnson Was The Top Grossing Actor Of 2013
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:17 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 175 words, total size 4 kb.

Baltimore and Detroit. Two 7-6 teams. Like Dallas was before the Green Bay game yesterday. Now Dallas is 7-7.

SO anyway don't forget about the college bowl pick thingy that @MikeTalley73 set up for us. Yahoo, Group ID#: 1176 Group ID#: 1181

Password for both is: scandi

Appropo of nothing at all, somebody sent me a link to a video of some jerk woman kicking snow on a cat, and the cat backs up and considers its options. After weighing alternatives the cat chooses Option A: Go all Bruce Lee on her ass.

Gabe said it was funny unless the cat has rabies. He's considerate like that. She's obviously hurt which isn't funny but she was askin for it and she got it.

down there below the thingy...
more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:30 PM | Comments (271)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Change.

A USA Today/Pew poll of 2,001 adults, including 229 adults between the ages of 18-29, or "millennials" showed people in that age group are almost evenly divided when it comes to their opinion of the president, USA Today reports.

The poll showed 45 percent of the millennials approve of how Obama is handling his job, but 46 percent disapprove. But less than a year ago, the president was enjoying a 67 percent approval rating among young adults. Now that approval rating mirrors the general population's.

...

Several other polls in recent days mirror the USA Today survey. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll last week showed 49 percent of adults between the ages of 18-34 disapprove of the job Obama is doing, while 45 percent approve.

...

Even those millennials approving of Obama don't feel strongly about his job performance. Twenty-two percent said they approve strongly, compared with 41 percent feeling strongly in January.

Meanwhile, at the Boston Globe:

Happy days are here again, and we can thank Obama

It's about how great the economy is. Or rather, how great it's poised to be.

You know -- like it's been poised for growth for four years.

IN HIS speech at the 2012 Democratic convention, former President Bill Clinton argued Barack Obama’s case, saying “No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”

How about five?

...

As 2013 ends and we turn the page to a new year, the US economy appears poised for a significant rebound, and with it, ObamaÂ’s fortunes.

The economic news from November has been strikingly good.

...

And all of this good news came during a time when the US government was getting over another one of its frequent crises — this time, the partial shutdown in October as federal workers were furloughed and uncertainty reigned. What that suggests is that there’s a strong resiliency to the US economy. Policies put in motion by Obama shortly after he took office (particularly the economic stimulus law and the restructuring of the automobile industry) are now bearing fruit, and short-term kerfuffles — even a shutdown — won’t stop it.

Meanwhile, the “broken city” is suddenly starting to look a little less broken. We’ve spent the last several months bemoaning the logjam in Washington, the intransigence of extremists (especially the Tea Partiers; the left flank poses nowhere near the same problem to Obama as the right does to Speaker John Boehner), and the lack of goodwill that prevents simple compromise. And now, suddenly, a budget deal is in the works, one that would end the automatic sequester, stop another shutdown, and, at least for the next two years, assure some measure of government stability.

Happy days are here again? I think so.

I like his suggestion that one of the few government moves that can harm the economy is the minor, brief shutdown of October.

Posted by: Ace at 03:56 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, yay!

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told a local Wisconsin radio station that the U.S. immigration system is "broken" and indefensible" and he'll support reform as long as it "maintains Republican, conservative principles."

Sure, like the budget deal. Very cool.

Speaking to 620WTMJ radio's Charles Sykes, Ryan described his principles for reform as: "Guaranteed border security, guaranteed interior enforcement, no amnesty -- then I think that's productive. I think that's in our interest. I think that's good for our country," he said. "A legal immigration system that's wired for your economy, versus the chain migration system we have today where he don't have the rule of law, we don't know who's coming and going -- is bad."

...

"First we must have the border security, and independently verified. First we must have the interior enforcement like E-Verify in place and independently verified before the other parts of the law that they want to go into place go into place," he said. "So it's not a 'trust, hope and promise.' It's a 'get what we want, verify it's there, then the rest of the law can be triggered.'"

Triggered. Ah yes.

The GOP has a cool euphemism for "Amnesty." That euphemism is "No Amnesty," by which they mean "amnesty." They always tick down the hard-sounding things they say they're going to demand -- E-Verify, "border security" (usually of the "virtual" sort) and then go right to the Same Old Deal they've been offering forever. First we get these supposed concessions to security, then some kind of "independent" panel staffed by people chosen by Obama gets to verify that the border is secure, and then that triggers amnesty.

See, it's not amnesty. It's "no amnesty," which is like amnesty, except we get border walls which are not walls ("virtual walls!!!") and we get a gaggle of pro-amnesty people to "independently verify" that everything's cool and then we get amnesty.

Except it's not amnesty, they tell us. Why, in many ways, this will be a a far more severely conservative regime than the current one.

Just like Paul Ryan's budget deal will produce even more conservative reduction in government in 2022-2023.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Comments (443)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.