At The Conversation, reported by the Washington Post.

The judge who failed to follow the law has two things to say:

1. He's "sorry."

2. He is conducting a top-down inquiry to discover which of his nameless low-level employees is responsible:

Lamberth blamed a series of administrative errors and said a review of the “performance of the personnel involved is underway.”

Well. That's just wonderful.

Isn't it awfully funny how facts that could have embarrassed Barack Obama kept being inadvertently delayed until after the November 2012 elections?

It's always an accident, and it's always low-level employees.

Royce Lamberth does not appear to be strongly liberal; he is a Reagan appointee. Though note that a "conservative-leaning judge" tends to be, in reality, a liberalish country-club Republican.

Nevertheless, this is so foul-smelling that no, it's not too early to Raise Suspicions. Every goddamn time this Administration oversteps its Constitutional bounds "low-level employees," always acting on their own initiative and without oversight from any higher ups, take pains to conceal the scandal from the public.

And we're always told that the direct beneficiaries of such concealment had nothing at all to do with it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (376)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

If you had questions about whether Ke$ha was a classy lady-- questions that really ought not to persist, given that she really spells her name that way, "Ke$ha" -- consider them now resolved.

Some are using this provocation as a justification for renewing the calls for a-la-carte cable subscriptions. "Some" are, in this case, correct.

Anyone who now has cable pays for MTV. Cable companies negotiate a flat payment to a station for carrying it. MTV also collects revenues from advertising, but a major source of its revenue is the automatic "tax" MTV imposes on your cable bill every month. You have no way to avoid paying for MTV-- except for cancelling the service altogether.

Monopolies are generally not permitted to "bundle" services together. And local cable companies are usually monopolies, or, at best, have but one competitor-- and as all of them have instituted this bundling practice and will not stop the practice no matter how much the public clamors for it, the monopolies (or duopolies) at least appear to be in collusion on this point.

MTV will be defended on First Amendment grounds. Here's the thing: I can buy into that defense. I don't want to censor MTV.

But MTV's right to broadcast its expression -- which apparently now includes a strong urine-drinking component -- does not trump any citizen's right to not view that expression, or his right to not pay for/subsidize that expression.

Ke$ha wrote back to the h8rs and claimed "Change the channel if you don't like it."

Sorry, Ke$ha. Almost everyone complaining has changed the channel (if they ever watched MTV at all). But that doesn't change the fact that they are being forced by a monopoly or duopoly to pay for MTV every single month.

It's time for consumer choice in cable subscriptions. No American should be forced by a monopoly to purchase a product he does not want (and in fact may object to for profound philosophical reasons).

MTV can be permitted to continue its descent into Porn for Children (TM) only if citizens are likewise permitted to not subsidize it.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

A "Dan Foster Type" explores wisdom of our affably racist Vice President, and notes that The Onion beat him to the sentiment.

Here is some of what Biden had to say on Jewish control of the media:

“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said at a Democratic National Committee reception for Jewish American Heritage Month. He cited social media and the sitcom “Will and Grace,” giving Jews a large part of the credit for both.

“I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry,” he said. “The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.

Biden thoughtlessly stamps upon a strange rule in our politically-correct world, and thereby exposes its stupidity for all to see: You're not allowed to say anything about group stereotypes -- stereotyping a group is always Racism You Guys -- unless you're saying that stereotype is a good thing.

So, an angry old codger can spit and say "Jews control the media" and that's bad and racist, but a stupid old codger like Joe Biden can say "Jews control the media, splendid!" and that's philosemetic.

Note the actual observation in both cases is precisely the same -- but one man is adjudged to be a crazy, bitter conspiracist for noting it, because he assigned that observation a negative value, and the other is taken to be a swell-hearted old fool, because he assigned it a positive one.

This is a ridiculous rule, of course. In both cases, the observation is precisely the same -- sort of true, sort of false. The observation cannot become more true because you say it's wonderful, and it cannot become more false because you're critical. The truth of the observation is, of course, perfectly independent of the positive or negative assessment of the situation a speaker may assign to it.

Equally absurd is closely associated rule: The same behavior which is praiseworthy in a minority group is usually depicted in seethingly hostile terms if white people do it. To cite the most obvious example: The practice of Christianity itself. Atheist white liberals will do blackflips to praise the joy and spirituality of the black practice of Christianity, but any white person who subscribes to such a vicious gutter-religion must be contemned or, at least, condescended to.

Speaking of absurd rules of PC: Breitbart's John Nolte notes that a Politico reporter stated that Guantanamo was Obama's "tar baby," and no one in the media noticed or objected.

Nolte's piece is written in an arch way, though I don't expect that the liberal media will comprehend that (should they deign to read it, which they won't). He takes the Politico reporter to task for her "racism."

Of course, he doesn't mean a word of it; he is attempting to illustrate for the media the ludicrousness of their own attacks on conservatives for similar language.

A liberal can say "tar baby" and no one blinks because of course we know no liberals are racist.

If a conservative says it, though, it's proof he's offering "dog whistles" to his fellow racist.

How do we know this? What is the difference between the liberals' use of the expression and a conservative's?

Well, obviously: We know that conservatives are racist, ergo their use of "tar baby" must be racist.

And how do we know they're racist in the first place? Because, of course: They say things like "tar baby." Duh.

This is of course circular reasoning, which is obvious to anyone who gives the situation a moment's inspection, but of course leftists do not give the situation a moment's inspection, because their entire ideology is premised on double standards and creating different Classes of persons, some Officially Privileged (and therefore who can say "tar baby" without fear of being declared a racist) and some Officially Disparaged (for whom many, many words and ideas are off-limits, up to and including the mere criticism of the President).

Of all the many things I despise about the President, the Left, and the Leftist Media, I think this must be the most despicable and unamerican-- this never-ending attempt to create and strengthen a sharp division of Classes of citizenship, Favored and Disfavored, with starkly different rules applying to each.

And what is all the more galling is the claim that simply noting this unamerican Marxist scheme is itself evidence of racism, nearly a crime against the state. To object to one's Official Status as a Disfavored Person is to confirm the Elite's judgment of placing one in the category of Disfavored Person!

After all, if we were more enlightened -- more deserving of the status of Favored Person -- we'd understand the benevolence of the scheme. By critiquing the regime, we only prove that we belong in the category of Disfavored Persons.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 871 words, total size 5 kb.

Kinda funny.

Also, The Onion actually wrote a funny piece. Moderate content warning, as you can gather from the excerpt.

Obama Fed Grapes While Urging Press Conference To Enjoy Orgy

WASHINGTON—Standing before members of the White House Press Corps Wednesday afternoon as aides lowered a bunch of grapes into his mouth, President Obama encouraged everyone gathered in the West Wing briefing room to abandon their inhibitions and revel in a wild, drunken orgy.

Sources confirmed Obama, who had initially called the press conference to discuss the progress on an infrastructure development bill, suddenly requested everyone in the room strip off their clothing and strongly urged NBCÂ’s Chuck Todd and CNNÂ’s Jessica Yellin to kick the festivities off by engaging in oral sex in front of the podium.

“This afternoon I will discuss how the new water resource development bill could affect S. 601, but first, I think we should all give in to the basest of our primal urges and drink thirstily from the cup of lust,” said Obama, as the juice of the grapes he was eating ran down his chin and White House staffers placed a wreath of leaves onto his head. “This is a day of excess! So now, release yourselves from your attire and surrender your body and mind to the pleasures of the vita carnalis, and to the sheer majesty of the human flesh.”

...

Throughout the course of the lascivious ceremony, sources also reported seeing a fully nude White House press secretary Jay Carney prancing between the writhing, sweat-soaked nude bodies sprawled across the room while playing a pan flute and vigorously tugging his erect penis.

“Are we not but beasts, each and every one of us?” Obama roared, as a line of young White House interns frantically playing drums filed into the room followed by servants carrying large trays loaded with slow-roasted boars, cooked turkeys, salted fish, and one large goat on a spit. “Death may visit us all by nightfall, thus do not concern yourself with the petty, ephemeral nature of existence and instead embrace pure pleasure!”

Posted by: Ace at 10:11 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Pritzker, 54, a member of Chicago's wealthiest family, is a business executive whose family founded Hyatt Hotels. She is a Democratic mega-donor and was nominated by longtime friend President Barack Obama, whom she helped get elected.

She's being questioned today by the Senate. They'll be asking about a failed bank of hers, Superior Bank.

Among the issues she likely will be asked about is the 2001 failure of Superior Bank, based in Hinsdale, where Pritzker was chair from 1991 to 1994. Pritzker also handled the matter after her uncle Jay died in 1999. The bank was co-owned by the Pritzker family and aggressively pursued subprime mortgages and car loans.

After having filed a lowball figure for her income, she's recently amended her financial disclosure statements to note "Oh yeah, I received an additional $80 million too, forgot to mention it, such a trifling figure, so sorry about that, shan't happen again."

Her net worth is estimated at $1.85 billion.

So, 99%.

Posted by: Ace at 09:15 AM | Comments (289)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Kristen Powers reminds everyone that leaks that make Obama look good aren't investigated, even if they reveal information about our most clandestine military units.

There's actually sort of an answer to this, although it's really no answer. Obama probably leaked this stuff himself, or his top minions leaked it with his permission. As President, he does have a lot of power to decide what a "leak" is -- he has some power to declassify things himself.

But that's not really an answer. For one thing, the Administration is surely not following the formal requirements of declassification in its pro-Obama leaks-- that is to say, it's almost certainly not filing an executive order saying such-and-such a fact about SEAL Team 6 is now declassified.

More importantly, Obama is plainly not classifying secrets according to whether they harm national security, but only as to whether they harm his political fortunes. Such a scheme of classification cannot be supported and would not be supported in court were there any way to bring the question before a judge.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

This is what happens when the government is in the car business I guess

...The Detroit automaker told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it is recalling 18,871 2013 SRX SUVs in the United States and nearly 1,000 in Canada over concerns that a wheel could eventually fall off...

What does it matter? Why are we here? The good news is, unlike Venezuela, at least we got bung wrap on the shelves, and some fresh thread smell.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:48 AM | Comments (327)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Story here.

Also, no link dump today. Ben's pay has been appropriately docked.

Posted by: andy at 04:46 AM | Comments (580)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Thursday.

The dude killed by the FBI in Florida implicated himself and Tamerlan Tsarnaev in that unsolved triple homicide in Boston. Suspicion: CONFIRMED.

Obama's going to try to change the subject today to the poll-tested topics of drones. Speaking of, did you hear that drone strikes accidentally killed three Americans, aside from the intentionally-targeted Anwar al-Awlaki?

Healthcare industry officials say they're feeling pressured to donate to a nonprofit with close ties to the White House. Just another day in Obama's America.

Maj. Nidal Hasan fired his attorneys and will represent himself in his upcoming court martial, which starts June 5.

The UK is taking what the Ministry of Defence terms a "common sense precaution" and ordering troops not to wear their uniforms if they're traveling alone to and from work or off bases. Eesh.

Switching gears, though not countries . . . this is a nice story about Helen Mirren.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (337)
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.

A Trick Question

You're Mitt Romney and it's October 31, 2012 and a witch comes to you and says, "I can help you win 72 percent of the Hispanic vote or give you an extra 4 points of the white vote." Which one do you pick?

Looking at the raw politics of the immigration debate, it's amazing to me that more GOP pros haven't asked themselves some version of this and then bothered to run the numbers to find out which is best for them.

The answer is here (select to see):

But what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)

According to the Times' calculator, Romney would have had to win 73 percent of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012. Which suggests that Romney, and Republicans, had bigger problems than Hispanic voters.

The Great 'Naturally Conservative' Hispanic Vote

Doesn't seem all that likely to vote for republicans and more importantly doesn't appear to change who it votes for according to major immigration debates or reform.

Here is the Republican share of the Hispanic vote in those elections:
    1980: 38 percent
    1984: 37 percent
    1988: 30 percent
    1992: 29 percent
    1996: 23 percent
    2000: 36 percent
    2004: 43 percent (probably more like 38 percent)
    2008: 32 percent
    2012: 28 percent

Meanwhile the Immigration bill just gets better and better: Detained Illegal Immigrants Now Get Free Attorneys

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:42 PM | Comments (1256)
Post contains 596 words, total size 8 kb.