Dynamite Big Picture essay on clash of two different cultures, two different tribes, on the frontier where Elites never deign to step foot. They're deep in the Capital areas of the empire, protected from danger and insulated from the knowledge that such exists at all.

But Zimmerman had to step there, because he lived there, and while he was middle class, he was lower middle class, and had to live on the frontier. He didn't have the money to live in the gated communities and Private Security Patrol areas of the Capital.

It could be that Zimmerman reminds the actual Elites of their own good fortune, and therefore they hate him for that. In their Narrative, Zimmerman becomes the Elite who must be punished, because they damnsure aren't going to punish themselves.

Very good essay, definitely give it a read. I've gone off on my own tangent (similar but not identical to the points made in the essay), so don't think you've already read it based on my own ruminations.

Via @comradearthur.

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (100)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

If corporations and employers are spared ObamaCare's mandate, at least until after the 2014 elections, why shouldn't ordinary citizens also be spared this burden?

But I continue to be perplexed at how Obama has unilaterally -- unconstitutionally -- arrogated to himself the power to suspend the law at his whim, and how the rest of the political system seems to be going along with it.

Is this still America?

Meanwhile, the Administration has known for a while that ObamaCare could not be implemented.

As far back as March, a top IT official at the Department of Health and Human Services said the department’s current ambition for the law’s new online insurance marketplaces was that they not be “a Third-World experience.” Several provisions had already been abandoned in an effort to simplify the administration’s task and maximize the chances that the new systems would be ready to go live in October, when customers are supposed to start signing up for insurance.

In April, several consultants focusing on the new online marketplaces, known as exchanges, told National Journal that the idealized, seamless user experience initially envisioned under the Affordable Care Act was no longer possible, as the administration axed non-essential provisions that were too complex to implement in time... That focus has intensified lately, as officials announced that they would not be requiring employers to cover their workers next year or states to verify residentsÂ’ incomes before signing them up for insurance.

Finally, as you know, Obama has also unilaterally suspended the law's requirement that applicants for subsidies be checked to make sure that their income levels are what they say they are. This turned out to be too hard for President Incompetent to manage, so now 310 million people will just be on the "honor system," with tens of thousands of dollars per person to be had for the asking.

Paul Ryan sort of suspects that this Third World scheme may be more expensive than the original plans, and wants to know how much more expensive the avalanche of fraud will end up costing us.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (319)
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

How does he know? The separation between clothing and skin at the time of the shooting. If Trayvon were standing, or on his back, his t-shirt would be right next to his skin or actually resting on top of it.

But that's not the case in the Martin shooting, where the evidence indicates the shirt was hanging 2-4 inches away from his skin -- the distance a shirt would hang from the body were the wearer leaning over someone.

The prosecution is having another rough day. Attempting to rebut the notion that Zimmerman needed to shoot Martin were he in fear for his life, the prosecution has advanced the notion that Zimmerman had a non-lethal alternative to the gun -- a flashlight.

I imagine (but don't know) that the following is about BDLR speculating about the martial arts uses of a flashlight. Update: Actually I think the line of speculation is that Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by something else, like him hitting a tree or something. I've joined in progress so I don't know.

Live video of the trial here. The prosecution is cross-examining the forensics expert, I think.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (709)
Post contains 343 words, total size 4 kb.

Television moments. Who the hell cares?

On Twitter -- at that link, at Twitchy -- there's a lot of debate over whether his tears are real or not. Conservatives think he's faking; liberals, of course, are quite sure that we "can't know his heart" and can't tell if his tears are real (with the stealth suggestion that if we can't know his heart we have to assume the question in his favor).

But who cares either way? I happen to think he really got misty. So what? Even hardened criminals will cry on occasion as they wallow in self-pity. Crying (or nearly crying) in response to major embarrassment in front of many people is a inborn response. Even psychopaths and sociopaths have the ability to feel their own pain.

I'm not saying Spitzer is either of those. (Only his victims can tell us that.) I'm just saying to credit this as saying anything at all about his sincerity or his character or his changes is asinine.

Elliot Spitzer is sad that his once-glittering career was derailed by a serious prostitution scandal and that he was publicly humiliated in front of the world. Who would not be?

Crying over someone else's misfortune does tell us something about the crier -- that he has a level of empathy for others. Crying about one's own misfortune tells us nothing except that one still has a heartbeat and a functioning limbic system.

We should sooner argue about whether or not Spitzer was breathing and whether or not his cells were successfully employing the Krebs cycle.

This is part of the thesis of that book I read about Television Culture -- television invites, or perhaps demands, a focus on the trivial. And then we argue over the trivial, because that's what television has put on our intellectual menu for the day.

And self-pity and embarrassment is not the same as contrition and certainly not the same as redemption. But television does things simply, and has taught us that the simple thing (crying on TV) is equal to the difficult things (contrition and redemption).

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (320)
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

Poetry is always risky.

From the Assault Vagina Poetry Slam, "If my vagina was a gun."

If my vagina was a gun, you would stand for its rights,

You would ride on buses and fight all the fights.

If my vagina was a gun, you would treat it with care,

You wouldnÂ’t spill all its secrets because, well, why go there.

If my vagina was a gun, youÂ’d say what it holds is private

From cold dead hands we could pry, you surely would riot.

If my vagina was a gun, its rights would all be protected,

no matter the body count or the children affected.

If my vagina was a gun, I could bypass security,

concealed carry laws would ensure IÂ’d have impunity.

If my vagina was a gun, I wouldnÂ’t have to beg you,

I could hunt this great land and do all the things men do.

But my vagina is not a gun, it is a mightier thing,

With a voice that rings true making lawmakersÂ’ ears ring.

Vaginas are not delicate, they are muscular and magic,

So stop messing with mine, with legislation thatÂ’s tragic.

My vaginaÂ’s here to demand from the source,

Listen to the voices of thousands or feel their full force.

The cultural left disdains all patriotism except vaginal patriotism. And sexual patriotism more broadly, I guess.

Incidentally, you're not allowed to keep a gun in your vagina.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (394)
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Questions.

Your decision to delay one part of the law affecting employers and leave in place provisions regulating individual and family health care creates many new questions and concerns. In order to fully understand the implications of your decision, please provide to Congress any analysis conducted by the agencies regarding the impact of the delay in the employer mandate with respect to:

the change in the number of individuals receiving subsidies through the exchange for calendar year 2014,

the change in the number of individuals expected to pay the individual mandate penalty for calendar year 2014,

the change in the number of employers who currently provide health care coverage, changes in federal outlays and revenues,

changes in enrollment in Medicaid for calendar year 2014,

the impact of the employer mandate on increasing the number of individuals working part-time involuntarily and business reducing the number of hours employees work to below 30 hours,

the impact on the ability of the IRS and Health care Exchanges to accurately verify and prevent fraud regarding individual eligibility for premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies,

the legality of the decision to unilaterally delay the mandate, and the economic impact.

Please also provide to Congress your justification for only delaying the employer mandate at this time and not the new mandate on individuals and families.

We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief.

Good start.

Of course Obama isn't going to answer this in any meaningful way. So, what's next GOP?

Related: Mark Steyn points out Obama's selective enforcement of laws and unilateral assumption of the power to waive enforcement of certain laws flies in the face of hundreds of years of Anglo-American tradition.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:53 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

There's something I hate about liberals and also admire...they NEVER give up. It doesn't matter how many times they lose or are told no, they keep coming back. However when they win, everything must be frozen in stone, unchangeable and never to be questioned.

Take this current JurnoList reaction to continued GOP opposition to ObamaCare.

First, NBC (via Jay Cost who you should be following on Twitter).

*** Welcome to the perpetual campaign: HereÂ’s a thought exercise on this summer morning: Imagine that after the controversial and Medicare prescription-drug legislation was passed into law in 2003, Democrats did everything they could to thwart one of George W. BushÂ’s top domestic achievements. They launched Senate filibusters to block essential HHS appointees from administering the law; they warned the sports and entertainment industries from participating in any public service announcements to help seniors understand how the law works; and, after taking control of the House of Representatives in 2007, they used the power of the purse to prohibit any more federal funds from being used to implement the law. As it turns out, none of that happened. And despite Democratic warnings that the law would be a bust -- we remember the 2004 Dem presidential candidates campaigning against it -- the Medicare prescription-drug law has been, for the most part, a pretty big success. But that thought exercise has become a reality 10 years later as Republicans have worked to thwart/stymie/sabotage -- pick your word -- the implementation of President ObamaÂ’s health-care and financial-reform laws.

And one of Greg Sargent's co-bloggers at the Washington Post.

What are the responsibilities of the opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Is it reasonable to undermine it at every step?
Several commentators (including me last week, and Brian Beutler today) have argued that there is in fact something unusual about GOP resistance to Obamacare. The pushback from conservatives is to flip the story: ACA supporters are simply seeking to shift blame if reform fails from the law to its opponents. Philip Klein rolled out that argument earlier this week; Patrick Ruffini refined it today:

Shorter @brianbeutler: Republicans wonÂ’t help Obama fix the mess he created.

I think that may work as political rhetoric. Well, actually, I donÂ’t think it matters much; if the ACA fails, no one is going to blame Republicans whether they bear any of the responsibility or not. At any rate, I donÂ’t think thatÂ’s what those of us who have made the observation about undermining the ACA mean, however, or at least itÂ’s not what I had in mind. My question would be whether Republicans, in undermining the law in order to destroy it, are acting responsibly.

First of all, the idea of NBC accusing the GOP of conducting a "perpetual campaign" in the age of Obama is hysterical in and of itself.

Second, maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly but I seem to recall the Democrats desperately trying to undermine the Iraq war. That they didn't go all out to repeal Medicare Part D is because their opposition to it was that it didn't go far enough (remember "the doughnut hole"?). They were more than happy to take the expansion of government and try and expand it latter (which they did by closing the hole in ObamaCare).

The most ridiculous part of this is the idea that liberals, who are constantly trying to create new laws are upset that people won't accept the supposed status quo.

Imagine for a moment NBC or the liberals at the Washington Post saying, "You know, people who are trying to pass Schumer-Toomey gun control are undermining existing laws. Why can't they just accept that the laws on the books are there and let it be?".

So much of political arguments is about the unstated assumptions underlying the debate. Liberals are much better at managing those than conservatives are. Much of that is because of liberal control of the media. By controlling the ground rules of a discussion, you set the terms under which the debate is conducted and you're halfway to victory before it beings. That's one of the real damages of media bias.

Kudos to conservatives and many Republicans for not playing along. It's clearly starting to bother the liberals.

Oh, I'll start considering ObamaCare settled law when Obama starts acting like it and enforcing/implementing it as written. Until then, it's still very much a live issue.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:47 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.

I expect Drew will have more to say on this, but National Review and The Weekly Standard have a joint editorial out today entitled Kill the Bill that's worth a read.

First, they make a point that I've been repeating for a while about the Comprehensive Piece Of Shit: we've been down this road before and we know where it leads.

The bill’s first fatal deficiency is that it doesn’t solve the illegal-immigration problem. The enforcement provisions are riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and waivers. Every indication is that they are for show and will be disregarded, just as prior notional requirements to build a fence or an entry/exit visa system have been – and just as President Obama has recently announced he’s ignoring aspects of Obamacare that are inconvenient to enforce on schedule. Why won’t he waive a requirement for the use of E-Verify just as he’s unilaterally delayed the employer mandate? The fact that the legalization of illegal immigrants comes first makes it all the more likely that enforcement provisions will be ignored the same way they were after passage of the 1986 amnesty.

Exactly. A Wimpy bill (I'll gladly enforce immigration policy on Tuesday for amnesty today) should've been a non-starter for the Senate GOP but Rubio. The House GOP largely seems to get this, but it really comes down to Boehner standing firm on the Hastert Rule because there are probably enough of them that don't to pass something by joining forces with the Dems.

Another point Kristol & Lowry make that needs to be pounded home to the House is that there's simply no reason to rush this bill to passage. Supporters of Schumer-Rubio make the nonsensical argument that we need to pass their de jure amnesty bill because we already have de facto amnesty.

Well if we already have amnesty, what's the rush?

The status quo may be bad, but, as we're quickly learning with Obamacare, "change" can always be for the worse, and passing monstrous bills in haste virtually guarantees a bad outcome.

Posted by: andy at 04:25 AM | Comments (312)
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

Twinkies will make their way back onto store shelves next week, with longer shelf lives, too.

And that's all I have time for this morning. Maybe Vic will have more.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:46 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Ouch.

...Other papers suggest Bin Laden ordered his militants to look out for opportunities to assassinate President Obama or David Petraeus during any of their visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr Petraeus, now CIA director, formerly commanded international forces in Afghanistan.

But Bin Laden warned them not to bother targeting Vice-President Joe Biden because "Biden is totally unprepared for that post [of president], which will lead the US into a crisis."...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:10 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.