April 07, 2011
— Purple Avenger Apparently he's cheap too, cuz he only offered the police woman $100.
One of President Obama's closest friends is scheduled to appear at Honolulu District Court next month, after he allegedly solicited sex from an undercover officer...One would think if you're rubbing elbows with the preznit regularly, you might have the means to afford slightly more discretion than traditionally comes with picking up random hookers off the street.
I'm guessing Bob's name is no longer on the approved presidential visitors list and the Ministry of Truth is working feverishly to expunge all references associating him with Teh One.
more...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
11:22 AM
| Comments (94)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace And I do quote noted scholar Jeneane Garofalo: "This is racism, straight-up. This is all about hatin' on a black man as president."
Since I have it on her learned authority that only racism can account for a lack of enthusiasm for Obama, I must conclude our nation faces a new scourge: Black on black racism.
Once monolithic, blacks' support for the first African American president is still........immense. But for unclear reasons it's declined about 7% from well above 90% to 85% in March. That's a new low since Obama's inauguration 26 months ago.
Equally ominous for Obama in 2012, his approval among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing demographic, has also fallen to again tie his term low of 54%. That's a drop of 11 points from its early high of 65%.
Andrew Malcom, citing speculation by Gallup, figures this is either due to the budget squabble or the war in Libya.
I doubt that. Maybe I'm just a cynic and an elitist but I always figure that such issues, being abstract or concerning lands far-away, are generally very second order sorts of things.
It's the economy, stupid. Isn't it usually? I don't think people loved Bill Clinton or his policies. I think they liked him okay, but loved the economy.
I think people (and when I say "people" here I'm just talking about the up-for-grabs middle) had more actual affection for Reagan, but at the end of the day, what they loved was the economy.
His policies? Sure, they liked those, because they figured those created the economy they loved.
We have not had a recession like this in a long time. Not since the actual Depression. And I'm still reminded of Amity Shaes, quoted by Megan McCardle, noting that during the first couple of years of the Depression, people were still pretty optimistic. Sure, it was bad, but they expected the economy would rebound in 12 or 18 or even 24 months, same as it always did.
It wasn't until a little later than that that the unceasing, no-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel grind of it got to them and put them in a properly depressed mindset.
I'm still wondering when that shoe will drop.
I know we're supposedly in a recovery but... the last few recoveries featured very solid growth to kick them off (5% per quarter, annualized, even 6% or 7%) whereas this "recovery" is only around 2-2.5%, not even keeping pace with population growth, and it looks like it can slip down to contraction at any moment.
Another Way the Media Is Biased: Anyone actually working in the media has a job.
That means to them unemployment is a political issue. An abstraction. Just a scoreboard matter, something that is important chiefly as it effects Obama's reelection chances.
It's not an abstraction to someone who's been out of work for 18 months, and it's not just a number on a scoreboard for someone who is losing hope he'll be employable even after the recession ends.
This is something the media can't help, really, but, as with all of their many biases, they really should take a look at it once in a while.
The media is politically biased so they're eager to credit Obama with "AMERICA IS BACK" recoveries that aren't really recoveries (while they insisted that Bush's 6.8% quarterly growth didn't mean anything, because the U6 underemployment figure hadn't fallen yet).
But outside of the political arena and beyond the parochial interests of media partisans... unemployment and a near-depression are very, very real.
The media blows this recession off as a mere hurdle for Obama to argue his way around.
It's not. It's really not.
Posted by: Ace at
10:59 AM
| Comments (100)
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.
— Ace Own it, buddy.
If that's how you want it.
He's released a statement saying he'll veto a short-term CR even if it passes the Senate -- that is, even if both parties in both chambers of Congress agree to it.
Now, 1363 won't clear the Senate -- Scott Brown won't vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
And, in fairness, he's specifically objecting to H.R. 1363 and says a "clean" version wouldn't be objectionable. He doesn't define "clean," however. Does he mean without the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Maybe, but he doesn't say so.
Does he mean containing no cuts whatsoever? Possibly-- he leaves that open, and so he does seem to be looking for a reason to shut the government down.
It's my belief that we should do something to get the military funded throughout the rest of the year (with a cut -- I believe the House funding plan is actually less than Obama's requested amount; it's not a cut-cut, but a cut from projected growth, so that's a "cut," I guess).
Once the troops' pay is off the table, and they cannot be held as hostages in this struggle, we can call Obama's bluff and let him shut the government down all he likes. The crap people care most about will continue.
Barbara Mikulski can whine about cancer researchers just one day away from a cure, but I think most people understand they've been working on that for fifty years and will probably remember where they left off if they have to take a break for a week.
(BTW: What the hell kind of doctor is 24 hours a day from curing cancer and decides not to cure it if his paycheck for that day's work will be delayed for two weeks?)
With the military out of the way, I think we'll be in much better bargaining position, because at that point, we can pretty much say: So shut it down already. See if we care.
Rewritten: I rewrote to include the fact that 1363 really has no chance of passing the Senate.
This story actually isn't as big as thought. It's mostly a gesture, because the thing won't actually clear the Senate.
The only effect it really has is letting Ben Nelson and other "moderate" Senators vote against it, without political consequences, because they can always say "The President said he'd veto it anyway so it wasn't a serious proposal."
Posted by: Ace at
09:34 AM
| Comments (255)
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace A man asks Obama what he can do about oil prices.
In other words, he's pinched for money.
Obama tells him to buy a new car.
Video at the link, but here's how AP reported it initially:
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”
And it gets better: AP, apparently having realized that's a Marie Antoinette sort of answer, actually deleted it from later versions of the story for no reason, and of course with no "CORRECTED" statement.
There's nothing to correct -- he said what he said. How did it begin the day by being news but wind up not being news?
Instapundit has more, as does Captain Ed.
Posted by: Ace at
08:41 AM
| Comments (314)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace Update: I thought the quake had been downgraded to a 7.1. Not so, says Mogerel -- there was both a 7.4 and a 7.1.
Although I noted that commenters had seen forecasts of 50 cm waves,the article cited at Hot Air says they could be up to two meters/six feet.
...
At Hot Air. What a terrible blow that would be.
Looking for positive spin... Several of the quakes I've followed were initially rated as more powerful than later measurements showed them to be. I think I remember the initial read on the San Diego/Mexicali quake of April 2010 was initially measured at 8+, but turned out to be 7.2. So maybe this isn't as bad as it sounds.
Update: Commenters say the "tsunami" is predicted to be a 2 foot surge-- compare that to the 30 foot that destroyed Northern Japan.
So this is looking inconvenient and distressing, but not heartbreaking and fatal.
It does look like the quake is being downgraded in power, as I'd hoped.
Posted by: Ace at
07:10 AM
| Comments (207)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace Eugene Volokh is wrong:
An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities.
“This is an outrage, and so are you!” Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman, holding up her bile-filled juror questionnaire....Asked to name three people [the woman] least admired, she wrote on her questionnaire: “African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.”
When the judge asked why she answered the question that way, she replied, “You always hear about them in the news doing something.”
She also declared that cops are all lazy, claiming that they sound their sirens to bypass traffic jams....
She’s coming back [today], Thursday and Friday — and until the future, when I am ready to dismiss her,” Garaufis said....
Actually, if this story is accurate, whatÂ’s outrageous is the appalling abuse of power by the judge. The woman seems to have reprehensible moral beliefs. This is America, and sheÂ’s entitled to possess those beliefs. But government officials are not entitled to punish people for those beliefs, including by requiring them to serve more jury duty as a result of their beliefs.
Volokh's completely wrong. It's true she shouldn't be punished for her casually racist beliefs. But it's even more true that she shouldn't be rewarded for those beliefs, and sending her home, which is probably what she wanted, would count as a "reward" for most people.
Bear in mind that this isn't even the typical case of not wanting to serve on a jury -- the defendant is a mobster. So people might be extra-special inclined to get out of duty, right?
There's a series of jokes on the internet I love to this day from an old website I can't find anymore, about how to answer questions during voir dire to get excluded from the jury. Among my favorites:
"I can tell who's guilty just by looking at him."
"If a police officer told me I was a bug, I'd believe him."
And Homer Simpson himself endorsed this woman's answer: "The trick is to say your prejudiced to all races."
This is a real phenomena, of course. It's a real problem with our legal system, which is supposed to rely, at its heart, on the service of citizen-peers as jurors, randomly selected from as inclusive a list as possible, and, just as important, not self-selecting of only those who don't have anything better to do and maybe could use the $12 a day and free bus voucher. As the even older joke goes: "I wouldn't want to have my fate decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty."
So if this woman comes forward and offers her disqualifying answer, what do you do? You can't allow her to serve on the jury; she's made sure of that.
But do you then reward her by excluding her from even being there? Thereby telling everyone in the world there are foolproof methods by which you can serve exactly three hours of jury duty and then go home?
I don't think so. The incentives are all wrong.
If she gets to go back home or go to work, why shouldn't people follow Liz Lemon's example and dress up like Princess Leia when summoned?
Update: The judge relents.
In the end, Garaufis relented on his penalty yesterday, while giving her a stern wagging on his judicial finger: "I hope this experience will be an education for you and the next time you're called for jury duty you'll give honest answers."He explained his rationale for threatening the juror, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, with indefinite jury duty: "My ruling was not based in any way upon whether or not you held any racist views. It was apparent you did not tell the truth. You were the only juror who indicated that you had every form of bias imaginable. You were lying to the court in order to be excused." The woman tried to get out of jury duty by writing that she couldn't stand "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians", declaring that cops are all lazy and corrupt, and mentioning that she had a relative who was a member of the Chinese Ghost Shadows gang. She was seen reading a pamphlet entitled "A Guide to Continuing Your Education After Prison" while waiting in court yesterday.
She was freed to go, but Garaufis said he would dock her the $40-a-day juror pay, which she didn't argue with. Of course, it was inevitable his unusual punishment would not be upheld. For one, her obnoxious opinions were not inherently criminal: "She can't be punished for being a racist. You don't check the First Amendment at the courtroom door," said NYU Law Prof. Stephen Gillers. Two, as many commenters pointed out yesterday, Garaufis couldn't have kept her more than three days anyway. But most importantly, it wouldn't have lasted because Garaufis is a real softie, the kind of Judge who lends shirts to murder suspects.
Posted by: Ace at
06:46 AM
| Comments (271)
Post contains 877 words, total size 6 kb.
— Monty Would you take a Social Security haircut? Alex J. Pollock over at The American wonders how much most people would accept as a settlement for their SS "entitlement". Pollock floats an 83-cents-on-the-dollar estimate, but I'd be happy with fifty cents on the dollar. (In fact, I'd settle right now for what I could get, because I'm likely to get nothing if I wait until retirement. Better something now than nothing at all later.)
Paul Ryan answers his critics, then pats them on the back and says "There, there" when they start crying.
Matt Miller at the WaPo isn't nutty about Paul Ryan's "path to prosperity" plan. Like most liberals, he complains that it is "unfair", while at the same time conceding that it is at least better than anything Obama and the Democrats are offering. But he really puts his foot in it here:
[...]Paul Ryan’s “path to prosperity” would leave America with 50 million or 60 million uninsured (as he’d repeal Obama’s health-care plan while funding no alternative coverage extension), and with decrepit roads, bridges, sewers and airports, lagging R&D and a middling teacher corps. Apart from 30 million fewer uninsured, Obama’s plans don’t adequately address these nonelderly priorities either.Miller suffers from the usual liberal confusion about relationship of health insurance to health care -- he, like many other liberals and "centrists", tend to assume that good health insurance somehow translates to better health care. It doesn't. In fact, too much insurance is in many ways more harmful than too little, because it deforms the individual's risk-vs-reward calculations. And this is quite apart from the perverse social incentives that mandated insurance plans bring about. "Insurance" is a magical word in the liberal's ear; it is a medicine that cures all ills, apparently. ([UPDATE] Commenter goy has some good insights about this issue.)
[UPDATE] I also wanted to note that the "decrepit roads, bridges, sewers and airports, lagging R&D and a middling teacher corps" is the status quo -- this is the Obama age you're soaking in! So really his objection is that Ryan's plan simply maintains the same failures.
You can have the best health insurance in the world, but if you fall off of a tall building you're still going to die. You know what the best "insurance" would have been in that situation? Watching where you were going, that's what. And best of all, that kind of insurance is absolutely free!
The Europeans liked America's subprime meltdown so much that they've decided to have one of their own.
New Jersey state workers experience a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
I love it when public-safety unions put service to the public above petty political squabbles. It's all about community and public spirit with those folks. It brings a tear to this old sea-dog's eye, it does!
California, chairman and founding member of the Loyal Order of the Terminally Boned (LOTB), receives some advice from the Modesto Bee: Union leaders should listen to Brown before it gets worse. As a certain wise man named Clark W. Griswold once said: "Worse!?! How can it get any worse, Helen? We're in the ninth circle of Hell!"
While the government shutdown looms, Obama waves his arms wildly and goes, "Yibba yabba yock! Homina ho-bang bajang! Fluh! Buh! Larg blarg slurg blah!" Or words to that effect.
Portugal starts bailout talks while Spain threat "eases". Remember back last fall when the Portuguese default threat was "easing"? Good times, good times.
[UPDATE 1] Citizen: "Mr. President, gas prices are too high!" President Obama: "Suck on it, peasant!
[UPDATE 2] Bawl, baby, bawl, baby! Lookit the baby BAWL!
[UPDATE 3] POP! goes the corn. Just make sure you don't get any of the burny-bottoms or unpopped kernels.
[UPDATE 4] There's nothing like a greeting card to raise your spirits. It's those little magical moments that make life worth living.
[UPDATE 5] Reason's Steve Chapman on reforming Medicare.
more...
Posted by: Monty at
05:03 AM
| Comments (111)
Post contains 670 words, total size 6 kb.
— Gabriel Malor Despite the President's and the Senate Democrats' rejection of another short-term funding compromise, Speaker Boehner is putting his one-week CR, along with military funding for the rest of the year, to a vote in the House today.
The one-week CR is an escalation from previous stop-gap funding measures which cut spending by $2 billion per week. Boehner's new CR cuts $12 billion and it also funds the military through the end of the fiscal year. That's a crucial piece of legislation as it turns out those reports that military service members would not get paid during a shutdown are true.
If the House passes the CR today, it's up to the Senate Dems. They can either agree and avert the "dire" shutdown for at least another week or they can be left with responsibility for letting the military go unpaid while it's fighting President Obama's war of choice. Americans favor a budget solution rather than a shutdown 55% to 33%. Independents, who will be crucial in Election 2012, favor a budget solution 60% to 29%.
Obama again hosted party leaders at the White House last night, but they didn't come to a deal. It's better for the Republicans to keep offering solutions, even if the Democrats are just going to shoot them down. Boehner was on GMA this morning telling Democratic hack George Stephanopoulos that there's "no daylight between the Tea Party and me."
Related: PPP has Speaker Boehner's favorability down 10 percentage points since the beginning of the year. And that's not just from Democrats and Independents. Faithless Republicans have also abandoned him -- at a slightly greater rate (-11%) than the national average. When you're wondering why Republicans can't seem to get anything done despite their hold on the House, look in the mirror, kids.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:32 AM
| Comments (162)
Post contains 311 words, total size 3 kb.
— Gabriel Malor All they are is Hate. All they have is Hate. All they need is Hate. All they want is butternut fudge ice chocolate pickles.
No. Wait. That's what I want.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:08 AM
| Comments (93)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
April 06, 2011
— Maetenloch 2010 Census: Texas Has The Best Ideas
Michael Barone looked at the latest census data and finds that some states have thrived while others are just non-hackers. And policy differences provide a a big clue as to why:
The eight states with no state income tax grew 18% in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8%.Add all that together and you can begin to see why TX had the largest population growth in the entire country over the last ten years.The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew just 6%.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15% in the last decade. The other states grew 7%.
The states, said Justice Brandeis, are laboratories of reform. The 2010 census tells us whose experiment worked best. It's the state with the same name as the county that's the center of the nation's population: Texas.
Posted by: Maetenloch at
05:37 PM
| Comments (616)
Post contains 914 words, total size 8 kb.
41 queries taking 2.2505 seconds, 148 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
