Actually this may just be a teaser, it says, for some other commercial to air during the Super Bowl. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:38 PM | Comments (97)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Who has the better argument?

Racist?

Or sexist and heteronormative?

Both sides of the debate have some pretty good points.

Really glad they've added these critical race theorists to the schedule. Their statements are utterly unexpected and incisive. I am glad we pay college professors $200,000 a year to come up with such out-of-the-box thinking that in no way is the standard idiot-answer of a 16 year old. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:13 PM | Comments (183)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Economic activity is a dirty, sweaty thing. If only all industry could be like Silicon Valley and the media, just nice white-collar, white college boys and girls typing on computers.

Northern Arizona currently has an unemployment rate of 17%. But, then again, Arizona in general, and northern Arizona in particular, is “red”. Let me suggest an ugly Presidential thought.

IÂ’m not going to win Arizona anyway, so, it makes more sense to appease the left and perhaps pick up some votes.

Thanks to LauraW.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (183)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Alarming:

A prominent friend told me some weeks ago that he noticed an odd thing. In his state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are also his supporters. And they are not just my friendsÂ’ supporters, they are also long time staunch Ron Paul supporters.

Why then would they, long time staunch Ron Paul supporters, align this year with Mitt Romney? He made calls and talked to friends in other states. All of them saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others.

If the field stays fractured at this level, with only a few people, but each getting delegates enough to prevent the front runner from an outright majority, there will be a second vote at the Republican National Convention.

Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote. After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul.

It is an ingenious strategy premised on a convention where no one gets majority support early. It plays well to a primary calendar where the delegates are first awarded proportionally. Who knows if it is a campaign strategy or just his volunteers, but the Paul campaign has been active now for four years trying to take over local parties.

It may pay off if the GOP doesnÂ’t unite around a candidate soon.

This aspect of the Paul agitation -- seeking power without going through the bothersome step of ever securing permission -- infuriates me. It's always these games with rigging polls, caucuses, straw polls, etc.

There's an arrogant contempt of democracy here.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (548)
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't get the meta joke Colbert's going for, except to say "Look how ridiculous this all is." Okay, fine. Not funny, but I suppose that's a editorial commentary he wants to make.

Why is Herman Cain joining in?

Tina Korbe notes the South Carolina Democratic Party doesn't want Democrats joining in to vote for non-candidate Cain, as those names will end up on Republican mailing lists.

And I suppose a small number of Democrats, who would otherwise vote for Paul, will wind up voting for Cain, because Liberals like being part of Happenings.

And I'd like to see Paul lose a few troublemaker votes.

But still and all, Herman Cain isn't exactly proving me wrong and showing himself to be a serious statesman.

It's all a lark.

Was it ever anything more?

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Odd moment.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't think this is as creepy as it initially sounds. The idea is that there are red lamps atop surveillance cameras. Rather than the cameras just passively recording scenes, cops monitoring the cameras will choose to aim the red lamp at suspected malefactors, letting them know they're being watched.

It strikes me that this is similar to the debate over concealed carry/open carry. In concealed camera, the idea is that it would reduce crime if anyone could be carrying a gun, so don't mess with citizens.

The crime-control argument for open carry is: Yes, but that's all hypothetical and probabalistic and therefore abstract and therefore largely ignored. If a criminal sees a guy wearing a gun, it's tangible, and he knows to go elsewhere.

If you have the cameras in the first place (which seems the real place to lodge a libertarian complaint), I'm not sure if there's any additional problem with letting the people who are being watched know they're being watched.

I know this tells the criminal not to commit the crime, and hence you can't arrest him, but then, there is a value in that crime not being committed, isn't there?

Now, one problem is similar to the knock on open-carry (as far as crime deterrence): if you don't see the red light, is that then a green light?

And how many of these can really be manned?

As O'Reilly says, now tell me where I'm going wrong. I suppose the main objection is that it extends the power of police harassment and surveillance. Which I do get.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

That is, of course, what pleading the 5th Amendment means.

Holder's pets cannot give honest testimony without confession crimes.

The Constitution says they can decline to testify in that case.

Captain Ed writes:

While Cunningham has the right to take the Fifth under questioning, Congress also has a duty to oversee operations within the Department of Justice, and the DoJ has a duty to answer to Congress. A refusal to do so should mean the end of CunninghamÂ’s employment at the DoJ; if he cannot testify before Congress about his official actions, then he should not be employed in that position any longer.

The tactic leaves Issa with another option, too. He could offer Cunningham immunity from prosecution, which would then force him to testify before Congress about what he knew of OF&F — and perhaps more importantly, what his superiors knew about it, too.

In theory, sure. A good idea and it should be pursued. But one problem is that granting immunity requires a two-thirds majority vote (see pages 18-20 or so).

Another problem -- this is what I was actually searching for -- is that Obama started his own fake "Inspector General" investigation, which is really just a white-wash and cover up. However, the argument would be made that that executive investigation is superior to the Congressional one, and that the target can't comply with Congress' subpoena due to the supposed threat of the IG investigation.

I can't find the bit I was looking for. I did research on this at one point. If any legal eagles can help, I'd appreciate it. (The situation I'm remembering involved a Metzenbaum investigation in, I think, the early nineties?)

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Bargaining.

I'm almost to Acceptance. Give me time.

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

This stuff always happens in South Carolina. I don't know what it is about the state, but its political culture has a mantra: "I gotta be me."

It's not real. Just a late-stage South Carolina dumb dirty trick.

The email alert was sent from fake account made to look like a CNN breaking news email address: "BreakingNews@mail.cnn.com."

"A source close to Marianne Gingrich tells CNN that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced her to abort a pregnancy conceived during the affair that preceeded her marriage to Gingrich," the fake email reads.

Marianne Gingrich, who went public this week with charges that Gingrich once asked her for an "open marriage" while he was having an extramarital affair, has not made that claim.

via @amyvrwc and @rchammnond

Posted by: Ace at 08:21 AM | Comments (74)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.