Bumped [ace]: I accidentally stomped the Meatball last night, and furthermore had no idea that there was a special election to replace John Kerry going on. (Though this now seems very obvious to me.)

Two polls out give Gomez -- first-generation (legal) immigrant from Columbia, former Navy SEAL, now a businessman -- a fighting chance in Massachusetts, behind by single digits. I'm bumping this adding a video swiped from Hot Air.

On the video: Of course he's pro-Rubio's gang of eight amnesty.

...

We started our first general election Massachusetts Senate poll last night and will have results tomorrow- looking like a single digit race

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) May 2, 2013

I'd go lulz, but then again, there was this poll too, and as the article suggests, this is far closer than what we were seeing from the Brown-Coakley fight around the same timeframe.

So lets go with a 10% chance Gomez pulls it out. For now. more...

Posted by: CAC at 11:51 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 170 words, total size 2 kb.

Now, I may be wrong, but the Arabian Peninsula is rather far from Libya. Not so far as LA is from NY, but as far as, say, LA is from Chicago.

Now, if they were sent to Benghazi to start a battle or incite a battle... was this over that YouTube video?

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But itÂ’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.

...

If the AQAP members were dispatched to Benghazi, it would be further evidence of a new level of co-operation among jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, counterterrorism analysts say.

That's what it would prove? Gee, I think it might also offer some proofs about the Administration's election-year claims about the attack.

In related news, new study shows that free health care increases health care utilization.

Meanwhile, the State Department is launching a blue-ribbon, politically-independent, just-the-facts investigation to determine if the previous blue-ribbon politically-independent, just-the-facts investigation lied about everything.

The IG’s office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB — led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.

...

This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi.

In related news, all relevant questions about Whitewater have been asked and answered.

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

There's no doubt, none at all, that Howie Kurtz is a bit of an idiot and says lots of foolish things.

But what makes this time any different? Ah, well it's because this time he offended the left's current top-banana on the Victimization/PC Protection pyramid.

What did he say? Oh, something stupid and dumb and about Jason Collins. Specifically-- he claimed that Jason Collins left something big out of his Sports Illustrated confessional about being gay.

Specifically, Kurtz alleged that Collins' Sports Illustrated confessional failed to disclose that...

"He was engaged. To be married. To a woman."

Now, I would never normally link the Huffington Post, but this is a real zinger so I will. Below, an excerpt from the SI piece -- early in it, I believe -- in which Collins completely omits mentioning his previous engagement to a woman, except for all the times he mentions it.

Clearly Kurtz erred, and rather dumbly. But he does this a lot, and no one's had a problem with it in the past.

Why now?

I think it's pretty obvious -- Jason Collins is now the Gay Black Sandra Fluke, and therefore now An Hero, and the Left protects its heroes.

And so Howie Kurtz, who did not face even a whit of criticism for proclaiming, without facts or even any reading, that Anthony Weiner was completely innocent and obviously framed, gets fired for a mistake.

But when you make a mistake against the left, it's not a mistake. It's a crime.

I don't have any problem with Jason Collins coming out of the closet. In fact, I think it's a good thing. I'm glad he has. I think it will have some good effects. I think, generally, Truth is better than Lies.

But I do understand the problem the right has, at least up to a point.

The problem is the same one regarding Michelle Obama's much-vaunted beauty. I've said this and I'll say it again: I would never say Michelle Obama is unattractive. I think she's reasonably attractive. Dividing up women of her age, I'd say she's on the "more attractive" side of things. Maybe, I don't know, top 33%.

She's not an unattractive woman at all.

The problem comes when someone who is modestly attractive, and yet beloved by the left as An Hero For Us All, gets the Full Tonguebath treatment and we have to hear again, and again, and again, and again, and again until our ears begin to bleed, that this is not merely a modestly attractive woman, but in fact one of the most sublimely and incandescently beautiful women to ever bless the soil of the earth with the sweat of her lovely foot.

This is where Truth becomes Lie -- and furthermore, it's truth that becomes a highly politicized lie, not an inoffensive or anodyne white lie, but a Lie With An Agenda. And that agenda is forcing you to assent to the Group's Lie in order to demonstrate yourself as Loyal to the Group or as an Outsider who is to be Ostracized for Failing to Demonstrate His Loyalty Upon Request.

It's a Weaponized Falsehood, a Shibboleth, a Loyalty Oath, that requires you to Assent to Falsehood or become a Martyr for Honesty.

This is the right's problem with Jason Collins (or let me say: this is the understandable and defensible and quite-proper problem with Jason Collins' disclosure; I do not defend other objections).

It's not that he hasn't done something that took a bit of guts here. He has. At the end of a career, or the likely end of a career, he did gamble a little on whether or not he'd be ostracized for his admission.

But by acknowledging this took some guts I do not agree that he demonstrated the courage of Audie Murphy, to be celebrated throughout the annals of history as The One Who Dared All.

I think he dared some. Some. An amount for which I do think he should be afforded some applause.

But let's lighten up on claiming he's the One Who Dared, just like we should probably lighten up on overstatements about Michelle Obama's real, and yet not truly extraordinary, attractiveness.

One cannot also fail to notice that other attractive women -- Ann Romney? Are you kidding me? 60 years old?! How hot is she? -- are not praised for their beauty as the left's and the media's (but I repeat myself) darling is, and Lila Rose will not be praised for her own show of guts in defying the People Who Actually Control the Media and Will Blacken Your Name if You Thwart Them.

Jason Collins did show guts -- and he does have to fear some negative consequences from teammates.

But this is a tiny group, and in two years, if not two months, he won't even have teammates to worry about any more.

But Lila Rose defied those with genuine power, and who will have power, it seems, forever.

If I can admit there may be heroes worthy of praise that the left wishes to celebrate, can the left and the media (but I repeat myself) ever confess that there just may be some individuals of courage, deserving of some approbation, on the right as well?

But of course not. But of course not.

Posted by: Ace at 12:18 PM | Comments (907)
Post contains 920 words, total size 6 kb.

Remember, this is all a hypothetical scare-campaign about something that never, ever happens, except when it does.

Seems to me we spent a rather large amount of time on another rare occurrence (pregnancy by rape) in the context of abortion, and therefore it seems that somewhat-rare abortion circumstances are in fact something that the media wants to discuss.

Except when they don't. Strangely enough, they seem to want to discuss the hard cases, the rare cases that really illustrate the difficult questions posed by abortion, when such questions hurt the pro-life side, but never when they hurt the pro-choice side.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (450)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm halfway through this great true-crime book, which I finally began reading after having had it recommended to me a half-dozen times.

It's really great. The murders themselves -- which took place between 1974 (or maybe 1968, sort of) and 1985 -- are actually the least interesting part of the book. Despite those murders being particularly depraved-- the Monster of Florence is Italy's own Jack the Ripper. His MO is to ambush couples having sex in lovers lane, shoot both of them in the head with a .22, then drag the female body out into a clearing and sexually dismember her.

That's the least interesting part. I don't find psychopaths interesting. They're all the same impotent, inadequate, failed dullard, doing the same goddamn things to compensate for their sexual problems.

But more interesting is... well, everything. For one thing, the book's a solid travelogue about Florence and its environs. The history of the city is briefly digested, from its role in basically giving birth to the Renaissance to also giving birth to a violent backlash against the Renaissance.

And then there's the weird subcultures. Here's an example: When I first started reading I wondered, "How the heck can he find so many people (he killed 14, seven different couples) having sex in cars?" Well, there's an answer to that. In Florence, children -- adult children, I mean -- continue living with their parents until they're married. And they marry late. So there is a long period, say from age 17 to 27, when adults have no place of their own, and no sexual privacy, but are still, as you'd imagine, having sex. So it's a widespread tradition that dates -- even among engaged persons -- will end parking on country roads and having sex.

Now, because of this custom of illicit activity in the country, another custom has become widespread: The "Indiana," "Indians" they're called in Italian, who creep quietly around in the night to... watch all the young people having sex in cars. These "Indiana" actually know each other and have dinner before their nightly outings, to talk about any sightings of "good cars" (cars where the more attractive women are having the more athletic sex) and share information about the best places to peep.

And finally, this illicit activity leads to a third one: There are also a group of people who follow the Indiana, in order to rob them of money and cameras, and also to take pictures of them, in order to blackmail them for cash. (Give me money, or I send this picture of you peeping to your wife or mother or the local police chief.)

And this is all going on in the quiet hills surrounding Florence, a city with the reputation of being a sleepy, boring backwater with a glorious past but noting going on in the present -- more or less a Museum City where nothing happens anymore.

So it's in this strange sexual ecosystem that the Monster pads around, murdering people.

And it just gets more and more interesting. Italy's a lovely place, but take this advice: Never be accused of committing a serious crime there. I'm not saying don't commit a serious crime; chances are, you'd get away with it. I'm saying don't be accused of committing a serious crime, especially if you're innocent, because that's when the Italian justice system seems to go into Berserker Mode to convict you. The clownshow of Italian justice is jaw-slackening stuff.

Add into that the medieval -- if that -- banditry of the Sardinian mountain clans and a local populace absolutely terrified of an audacious murderer that simply cannot be found, and the panics and paranoias that grip the area and DAs and head detectives who rely on the theories of shrieky, conspiratorial bloggers, pushing bizarre theories about aristocrats and doctors in Satanic Cults trading in female sexual organs (because the most psychic energy is contained in sexual organs from people killed at the point of orgasm, you know.... didn't you know that? I thought everyone knew that).

I'm only halfway through and I haven't even gotten to the good stuff yet. (The authors may or may not be threatened to be jailed unless they leave Italy and/or actually thrown in jail for daring to report on this insanity... by the DA pushing the Satanic Sex Cult Genital Trafficking theory of the case.)

Really a great book. I know that Preston and Spezi propose a suspect at the end, and I'm prepared to call bullshit on it (if he's guilty, why isn't he in jail?-- surely the Italians wouldn't mind convicting a guilty person every now and again), but I don't even care that the case is unsolved so I won't have any actual resolution about the mystery. The story itself is enough, even without an ending.

If You Don't Want To Buy The Book... Douglas Preston, the author here, wrote up an article about the crimes for The Atlantic.

I'd still recommend the book, wholeheartedly, but if you want to get a gist of it all then you can read this article for free. I sort of don't want to read the article because, spoilers.

That tip via @jmaniii56.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (281)
Post contains 879 words, total size 5 kb.

JammieWF, of course.

You have to read his piece. I'd swipe it but that'd be a dick-move. The media uses the words "peaceful" and "peacefully" an enormous number of times, given that the actual story here is a major urban riot.

And furthermore, the media refuses to connect these people to the left, despite the fact they are plainly part of the leftist coalition-- communists, anti-"globalists," and of course illegal immigrants who only want you to peacefully amnesty them or else they will peacefully shatter shop windows and throw large chunks at pavement at cops' heads.

Jared Loughner, your typical low-information apolitical maniac whose chief obsessions were 9/11 Trutherism and some lunatic theory about how the state controls us via the rules of grammar, is forever hinted at being an "anti-government" Tea Party sympathizer, but these people, plainly members of the Democratic coalition, are only identified as "anarchists."

Found at Twitchy, a chap naming himself KevinInABQ put together a flow-chart explaining the media's decision-making in how to report on a demonstration:

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

I am just sick to death of these peaceful socialist and communist gatherings being highjacked by politically unaffiliated anarchists who have no political affiliation and no relation at all to the organized American political left. They also have no political affiliation whatsoever.

Thankfully, our media is quite competent at being able to immediately identify exactly which members of this organized group are doing the rock-throwing and window-smashing. As of yet, there has not been one socialist or communist crossing over into the violent group, which is a great relief. No one would want their important message tainted by such displays of violence. It is a unique and useful skill to be able to make these on-the-fly determinations of the makeup of groups when they turn violent and it's a good thing these people all have jobs in the media.

See if you have this skill. Is the person in the photo below an anarchist or a socialist?

Now, you would think that the hippy clothes, the shaggy hair and the fact that he's protesting on May Day would give him away as a extreme left socialist/communist. But, you'd be wrong. You have to examine the photo more carefully than that. Although not visible, the positioning of his arms suggests that he's wearing handcuffs. Socialists don't wear handcuffs. He is obviously an anarchist.

Interestingly, the media was already anticipating this infiltration and violence before the protests and was able to determine that the organized left was a victim having their voice "drowned out". Call me a cynic, but I tend to doubt the right-wing would be afforded this same luxury of preemptive blame-deflection.

Like here.

May Day arrives: Will anarchists crash it again?

The hope is for a peaceful marches and rallies to bring focus to immigrant and workers rights. But, police in Seattle and other cities are preparing for the possibility of anarchists and other rioters during Wednesday's May Day activities following the destruction that came to downtown Seattle last year.

May Day: Will anarchists drown out immigration reform message?

A year after anarchists went on a rampage in downtown Seattle, organizers of Wednesday's May Day march hope the focus turns back to reforming the nation's immigration laws.

"There's always a worry that some groups may want to take advantage," Maru Mora, one of the organizers, said of the possibility of more disruptive activity this year. "But no, it's more about ensuring that people pay attention to Congress."

It's most likely a complicated Koch-funded plot to defame the peaceful left, but media ain't buying it.

Here's the live rundown from the Seattle Times from last night: 17 Arrested, 8 Cops Injured.

More:

Ahem: ccwc.me/18dEv2W MT @brucefancher: Local NBC reporter denies seeing Hammer and Sickle flags at May Day: youtu.be/pZcqJf5gcG8?

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) May 1, 2013

(Looks like Ace and I were writing similar posts at the same time. Don't be scared. Think of it as a variant of the ubiquitous double-post.)

Posted by: JohnE. at 08:50 AM | Comments (234)
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Gabe wrote about the New York Times' incredible non-headline headline on this, choosing to ignore the important, interesting finding and instead promote a non-finding:

Medicaid Access Increases Use of Care, Study Finds

...as if that's a good thing-- is it a good thing that people now go to the doctors more, with middle-class taxpayers picking up the tab, especially if such increased use of medical resources at someone else's expense does not actually increase their health at all?

Allah's done a larger post on this matter, noting the AP's headline:

Medicaid improved mental health for uninsured

...which itself is doubly misleading. First, it ignores the big takeaway -- it did nothing to increase their physical health -- and as far as mental health, giving them Medicaid money only decreased their stress and depression about paying bills:

"It did generate robust improvements in mental health and enormous reductions in financial strain and hardship."

AP went on to score this as a Big Fat Win for ObamaCare and the Welfare State:

WASHINGTON (AP) — If you're uninsured, getting on Medicaid clearly improves your mental health, but it doesn't seem to make much difference in physical conditions such as high blood pressure.

...

"The study did not generate any evidence that Medicaid coverage translated to measurable improvements in physical health outcomes over a two-year window," said lead researcher Katherine Baicker of the Harvard School of Public Health. "It did generate robust improvements in mental health and enormous reductions in financial strain and hardship."

That leaves policymakers with "a much more nuanced and complex picture" of the potential benefits of expanding Medicaid, said Baicker, an economist.

It also debunks a widespread perception that having Medicaid is no better, and maybe even worse, than being uninsured.

But as far as physical health -- something that's more objective -- that's precisely what the study proves. It doesn't "debunk" it-- it disproves it.

What an Orwellian use of "debunk."

Lots of links in Allah's piece, but on the Media Bias tip, looks like the media, which insists it is not monolithic in its liberal bias, is all singing from the same hymnal on this, all following the same pattern of spin.

The Washington Post is slightly less egregious:

Study: Medicaid reduces financial hardship, doesnÂ’t quickly improve physical health

Note how she puts that. In a two year period, this expansion did not improve health at all. Her headline? It didn't improve health quickly. That is, it helped health, but apparently outside the two year window.

Note that this headline can be re-used at every two year window in the future -- when Medicaid continues doing nothing at all but shift costs, she can continue saying it hasn't improved health yet, but further studies will surely prove it does.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 507 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: andy at 07:01 AM | Comments (415)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

This week, we jump back out into the extragalactic universe with two challenges, one for dark sky observers, and one for city-dwellers.

This also marks the last night in the annual Globe at Night survey. If the weather permits, take a few minutes to check out (or try to) Leo, and submit your observation. You may be surprised, after a few minutes of darkness adaptation, how many stars you can actually spot. Sky maps and images below. more...

Posted by: CAC at 05:28 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 706 words, total size 7 kb.