This certainly isn't the first time the question has been asked, but it is coming up frequently in relation to the civil rights movement of my generation: when is it okay for the members of the executive branch to refuse to defend challenges to properly-enacted laws?
more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:54 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

From $7 trillion to $9 trillion is a change, you have to admit.

He's moving his numbers out of unicorn-and-pixie fantasy-land closer to accordance with the CBO's.

The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to roughly $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said the official, who is familiar with the plans.

"Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

The CBO said in June that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1 trillion. The official said the 2010-2019 cumulative deficit projection replaces the administration's previous estimate of $7.108 trillion.

The record-breaking deficits have raised concerns about U.S. ability to finance that debt and whether the United States can maintain its top-tier AAA credit rating.

Quick, let's expand federal spending beyond all imagination. The time is right.

I recall Joe Biden's statement, "We have to spend in order to avoid bankruptcy." Well! We must really be in the black now, baby!

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 01:41 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

By sci-fi author John Scalzi.

Here's one he missed: Star Wars architecture consists chiefly of incredibly high central wells with galleries ringing them, the uppermost galleries 150 feet 50 meters above the ground.

And catwalks and retractable (why?) bridges spanning well-nigh bottomess pits.

And often stairs reaching high up above the ground.

You know what doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe?

Banisters and hand-rails and guard-rails.

Not once, when you see these soaring catwalks high above the metal floor, or these vertiginous balconies 300 feet 100 meters above the reactor core, will you ever see a guard-rail to keep people from pitching over the edge to their Wilhelm screaming doom.

Not once. They simply do not exist in the Star Wars universe.*

And many of these catwalks and access-bridges are quite narrow-- no wider than a womp-rat.

I am not sure how you would possibly explain this in-universe, except maybe the Jedi, having the power to telekinetically pull people to their deaths over the edges of tall balconies so long as that pathway isn't blocked by a banister, used their Jedi Mind Trick powers to convince the galaxies' architects that banisters, hand-rails, and guard-rails were aesthetically repellent.

Thanks to Jazz.

* Well, maybe once. I have a dim memory that maybe Jabba the Hutt's pleasure barge and skiffs had banisters around the topdecks.

So... moving conveyances are maybe allowed to have them.

A one-meter-wide access bridge above a bottomless pit, though? No. Not. Cost. Effective.

Just watch your step, dude. We can't be putting up banisters and hand-rails just because you're a Clumsy Clara.

Another One: Okay, Lemiwinks points out, as I feared, there was a guard-rail on that bizarre bridge upon which Vader lopped off Luke's arm.

But I guess the reason for that is that whole chamber was some kind of super hurricane-chamber or something so they decided to spring the $300 for a hand-rail.

Okay, maybe there are a couple of hand-rails in the Star Wars universe, but not many, and not where your average non-psychopathic engineer or architect would tend to put them.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Shut up, that's why.

This perplexes me because this isn't even a close call. Futhermore, this is no OJ situation; as far as I know, there was never any outcry by the black community over the mistreatment of these thugs.

As far as I know. I know it never rose to the level of big national news (because the MSM, of course, didn't want it to); I suppose there might be some subterranean rumblings in the black press I don't know about.

So I am perplexed as to why Holder would drop a slam-dunk case against guilty-as-sin radical racists.

The prosecution 1, is in the interests of justice,

2, demonstrates the US government's commitment to elections free from coercion and intimidation, something especially important to blacks, even if in this particular case blacks are those threatening that freedom,

3, demonstrates that Holder and Obama are not the no-enemies-to-the-left radical ideologues they're sometimes caricatured (supposedly) as,

4, reassures bitter clinger white Pennsylvania racists that Obama and Holder aren't all about the race,

and 5, is cost-free even as regards blacks, who one might think would be more sympathetic to the Panthers but who, again, didn't seem particularly enamored of these particular nightstick impresarios. (To the extent any black racists were bothered by it -- hey, they just put a black guy in the White House. I'm sure even a black racist would shrug off the prosecution thinking, "Ah, we can afford to give the crackers this one.")

If black people really were up in arms about this, I could almost kinda-sorta see the political logic here -- give up a little justice to buy a little peace. Not a wonderful trade, but Lord knows it's a trade that's been made often enough in human history.

But they... kinda weren't. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong; I don't know much) there wasn't a whole lot of peacocking by the usual race-agitators over this.

So why the hell would Holder dump the case? Over the objections of career prosecutors? Over the objections of good-liberal civil-rights advocates, one of whom who calls this "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"?

And why does it continue to give dog-food nonsensical and often flat-out dishonest answers as to its reasons?

Who knows. My suspicion is that Holder and/or Obama are, in fact, either wild-eyed no-enemies-to-the-left radicals and/or all about the race.

One or the other -- it makes no sense otherwise. One does not make a bizarre and borderline illegal move, certain to cause trouble when the conventional move was cost-free, unless one has a very strong emotional stake in it.

Thanks to DanF, who adds the Instapundit snark, "They said if I voted for McCain and Palin, we'd see the true racist colors of the Department of Justice, and they were right!"

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

I have to keep changing this post.

I gathered from this discussion, in which commenter claims...

Word is that there will be hints in the script that the US is to blame for the war. I really enjoyed the original when I was 16 but if they do this I will NOT see the remake. You hear that producers? You WILL lose audience with this tactic so you'd be better served to leave it out. I mean, come on, putting the "America is to blame" BS in a war movie? You're rich, buy a clue...

However, DrewM. points out this review of the script (or at least the script at a particular time; it might have been, and almost certainly has been, changed by now) which says nothing at all about the US being to "blame" for the invasion. The reason given seems to be that China wants to invade Taiwan (so they invade us first.. .huh?).

There's also a mention that the US is provoking/causing financial crises and distuptions, and I guess the Chinese are pissed off about that.

I can't be too upset about that, because that's, what's the word, true.

Anyway, I've made a total hash of this post. About the only thing I can still stand by is that they are remaking Red Dawn.

Still More: Oil is the cause of the invasion, somehow. This may be the the source of the "we deserved it" rumor:

The cause of the invasion? Oil, of course. There are hints that America is kinda to blame, too. In todayÂ’s PC environment, thatÂ’s not too much of a surprise.

Having jumped way too prematurely I'll keep further speculations to myself.

Thanks to Vic.

By the way: This is old.

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Last week I noted that Gibbs had scolded the media for spreading the supposed "misinformation" that ObamaCare opponents are spreading.

"What more can we do?," asked a member of the press solicitiously, actually seeking guidance from the White House on how they could help the team more, and Gibbs suggested they should be more aggressive about debunking the supposedly-false "misinformation."

Gibbs played the Liberal Unity card several more times since then, claiming at one point the government option controversy was entirely "contrived" by the media.

And AP stepped right up to the plate, didn't they? It worked. Obama knows his actual constituents -- the liberal media -- and how to rouse them into action.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

As I've said several times, it's not Republicans v. Democrats on health care, it's Senate Democrats v. House Democrats.

Now it's actually House Democratic leader v. House Democratic leader.

A day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that health reform wonÂ’t get through the House without a public option, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that the public option may have to go in order to get a bill passed.

“I’m for a public option but I’m also for passing a bill,” Hoyer told reporters on a conference call. “We believe the public option is a necessary useful and very important aspect of this, but we’ll have to see because there are many other important aspects of the bill as well.”

In San Francisco Thursday, Pelosi said: "There's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option.”

No doubt Obama will issue a statement blaming the Republicans for this.

BTW-Is that popcorn I smell?
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:38 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 2 kb.

What would Obama's academic footnotes look like, if he provided them for a speech or statement? Probably like this:

1. As I have always said.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Let me be clear: I'm tellin' ya, man.

5. Op cit.

6. Some professor I knew at Columbia said this to me during a fondue-and-blow party hosted by one of Bernie's old friends from the German Red Army Brigade. At least I think he said it. I was pretty wired and also tripping a little on laced pot so most of the time I was concentrating on his second, evil head, which was trying to hypnotize me with its spider-eyes. But I'm pretty sure.

7. Dreams of My Father, pg. 72, by Bill Ayers.

8. As I have always said.

9. Ibid.

10. See The New York Times, Obama Vows Public Option Not Single-Payer Scheme. That's the New York Times saying so. Check. Mate.

11. As I have always said.

12. See my monograph, Apes Eat Figs.

13. Let me be clear: This is on no lesser authority than the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I am told by a third party he said so, but I honestly cannot vouch for it myself, as I never heard a single word he said as I sat in his pews for 20 years. Usually I was having flashbacks to Evil Spider Face.

14. As I have aways said.

15. As I have long maintained.

15. Op cit.

16. To even discuss the evidence for this statement would be a distraction from the important issues facing us.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. The CBO is full of crap. As I have always said.

20. Shut up, that's why.

Posted by: Ace at 08:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Online poll, results not scientifically vetted, etc, etc. yada, yada, yada. But I'd bet a donut the results so far would track pretty close to what a scientifically conducted poll would produce.

[update-PA]
You can vote in this poll by CLICKING HERE.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:11 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Print the legend.

Here's one refutation:

Woodward continues:

THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

Let us stipulate that this column does not care for the scapegoating of immigrants, including illegal ones. That, however, is separate from the question of whether the bill would in fact cover illegal immigrants. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus think it will, Roll Call reported last month:

A CHC member, who requested not to be identified, said the group is urging Pelosi to ensure that everyone--including illegal immigrants--will be able to receive services as part of comprehensive reform.

"We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," said one CHC member.

Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, the Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill--as drafted--doesn't prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care.

"Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens," said the Hispanic lawmaker.

Exactly, and this is the same dishonesty exhibited on the abortion question; Obama's minions say "the bill doesn't even mention abortion," which is the problem. If it's not specifically prohibited, it's covered.

And no, I don't believe the Hyde Amendment as anything to say about this, because the public option is going to be interpreted not as federal dollars but rather as citizen dollars, which just happen to often be provided by the government. The government can't forbid you from spending your tax refund, for example, on an abortion. Once it's yours, it's yours. And government option plans will be interpreted as belonging to the "policy holder," even though that's not really true, thus rendering Hyde inapplicable.

Case in point: Obama's frequent assertion that federal dollars are "subsidizing" the insurance companies. Well. most private insurers cover abortion, so obviously federal dollars can pay for abortions, so long as they're laundered a bit through a third party first.

Same with illegal aliens. If there's nothing in the bill saying they're not covered, or not eligible for the government option, or if the government does not specify strong citizenship-verification procedures, they're covered.

The courts tend to rule that "rights" such as education and emergency health care cannot be refused to illegal aliens. Once cradle-to-grave health insurance becomes a "right," as the left contends, the courts will rule the same way yet again, especially absent any Congressional indication whatsoever that the government option specifically excludes such persons.

Taranto goes on to deal with the AP's other alleged "FACTS," like, um, the government won't be involved in rationing care for the elderly, and the government option is not, as its creator says, a Trojan Horse for single payer.

In each case, the "analyst" dismisses all other evidence and simply takes Obama's self-serving claims as absolutely dispositive on every issue. The public thinks the government option will lead to single payer? Wrong, the AP scolds; Obama says it won't.

And that's the end of the discussion.

Here's what the AP's "fact check" would have looked like in the summer of 1974, if they were this in-the-bag for Richard Nixon:

POLLL: 70% of the public believes the President participated in, or was aware of, or even ordered the cover up of the Watergate burglary.

FACT: President Nixon says "I am not a crook." Next.

Uh, okay. Really jerked that one out of the park there, buddy.

It's crazy, but there is an unexpressed assumption (redundant, I know) lurking under the surface of the AP's "fact check."

That assumption: Obama, being our Savior, is of course incapable of lying. Like Superman.*

They really seem to believe this. Or seem to believe, at least, that you should believe it. I don't know how else to explain their apparent belief that Obama's unsupported, and often utterly contradicted, claims are to be taken as wholly authoritative on all issues of contention.

* Can't lie? Okay, he can lie, he just doesn't. Or at least not very often.

He sure the hell can deceive, however. Just ask Mr. Mxyzpltk. He just called to say he got an offer to get 10,000,000 dollars (US) from a Nigerian prince named "Prince Ktlpzyxm," and then poof, the line went dead.

Posted by: Ace at 06:59 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.