Before getting to the New York Times article, we should note who this man is-- something the New York Times forgets to remind you of until the article's end.

In the beginning of the article, they tell you he's an old Christie friend and a former official at the Port Authority.

But it's only at the end of the article they remember to tell you: David Wildstein, the man making this claim, is one of the two people Christie fired in the matter. (Well, Kelley woman was fired; Wildstein was asked to resign.)

That doesn't make what he's saying untrue. It does seem to be worth a mention before reporting his allegations.

The article is here (but you'll have to google the headline to view it without a subscription).

Christie Knew About Lane Closings, Ex-Port Authority Official Says

by Kate Zernike

Does that name sound familiar? It should. She's a frequent offender as regards egregious partisan Democratic bias. For example, she made the claim that when Jason Matera spoke in his normal voice -- a voice I've heard a dozen times -- it was a racist parody of a black person or something.

In fact it's just a Queens accent, and his normal way of speaking. I've never heard him not speak with a Queens accent.* (Sorry, Jason.)

But yes, she is the New York Times' go-to gal when they want a silly attack made on conservatives or the Tea Party. So it doesn't surprise me she fails to mention Wildstein's possible emotional investment (and his possible legal investment) in this until her final sentence.

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it.

In a letter released by his lawyer, the official, David Wildstein, a high school friend of Mr. Christie’s who was appointed with the governor’s blessing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the bridge, described the order to close the lanes as “the Christie administration’s order” and said “evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference” three weeks ago.

“Mr. Wildstein contests the accuracy of various statements that the governor made about him and he can prove the inaccuracy of some,” the letter added.

Whatever the truth of the claim, we now know that Christie's version of events will be challenged by at least one of the other players. (And Bridget Kelley also seemed to signal her desire to fight back, as her friends told the New York Times (IIRC) that she was a "team player" and wouldn't exercise her own judgment because, you know, she's Catholic.)

Thanks to @DrewMTips.

* I'm not sure about this, because I'm not as race-obsessed as Kate Zernike or MSNBC, but I think Jason Matera is actually Puerto Rican by descent.**

Which makes White Whitey-White Kate Zernike's immediate thought -- he's not speaking with the upper-class Non-Regional Diction that all my white Manhattan friends use, and therefore, his Distastefully Ethnic accent must be a grotesque parody of minority -- sort of racist in and of itself, doesn't it?

** This is why I'm afraid of him like I'm afraid of Cheerios. But I guess that's obvious.

Ummmm... Kate Zernike strikes again.

My Own Correction: I misread the tweet and thought he said a correction had been confessed.

But this is the New York Times. They make a fetish out of "admitting" corrections on tiny things (misspelled names, transposed digits in a date) so that you think they must also correct the big things.

In fact, the bigger the mistake is, the less likely it is that the New York Times will acknowledge it.

But if they inadvertently report that David Wildstein lives in, say, Rumson, when he was actually born there but lives in Fairlawn, oh, they'll make a big deal about correcting that.

So Zernike's claim that Wildstein has, himself, "evidence" of Christie's alleged lie has been deleted, but the New York Times does not acknowelge the correction.

I also erred in originally stating the headline had been changed. It wasn't the headline that was changed, but the lede sentence.

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (626)
Post contains 815 words, total size 6 kb.

Sometimes I ask, "Is this something?"

I'm not asking that now. This is something.

One diver, named James Lee, was knocked out by a collision with another diver. His chute had to be deployed by hand (pull the ripcord, you know), so with Lee unconscious, that chute wasn't a life-saver. It was just deadweight on his back.

The other divers realize something's gone very wrong and free-glide over to him, to pull his ripcord themselves.

The video isn't really more than you might imagine-- the other divers glide over to him to pull his parachute. Yet, still compelling, as they hand-signal each other to coordinate the rescue. Apparently they had to get his body into safe orientation for deployment of the parachute (head up, feet down) and then pull the cord.

The most important thing that happened can't be captured by video: the other divers' internal realization that their unconscious friend was falling like a rag doll, not like a conscious man.

And the rescue maneuver was itself dangerous: as the knockout demonstrates, you don't want to collide with heavy bodies in freefall.

The unconscious diver did wake up from his knockout... as he approached the earth, parachute deployed.

Garrett:

In many ways, this is the story of Obama.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (632)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

I still can't believe the GOP is actually trying to come up with an immigration deal (which does not make any sense) when they should be focusing on jobs which would win votes, at least from current U.S. citizens.

Whatever. It's Friday. Get a drink and dive right in to the ONT. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:50 PM | Comments (721)
Post contains 296 words, total size 6 kb.

Now, let me clarify on that: The difference is statistically insignificant. 10% of liberals hail from mixed race families, and 11% of conservatives. You can't make anything of that difference (though MSNBC would, were the numbers to run in the opposite direction).

So let's take the percentages as equal. (Except, not really.) Does MSNBC care about the facts, or just spouting off ignorantly with some make-'em-up blogger provocation?

Spoiler Alert: It's the last one.

Not surprisingly, there is no statistically significant left-right political differences in the proportion of adopted or step-families that are in mixed race households. Indeed, among families with step-children or adopted children, 11 percent of conservatives were living in mixed race households compared to 10 percent of liberals living in mixed-race households.

Similarly, 9.4 percent of Republicans living in step- or adopted families were in mixed-race households, compared to only 8.8 percent of Democrats in such families. (Again, this small advantage for Republicans is not large enough to be statistically significant).
If one breaks things down further by both party and political orientation, only 7.7 percent of liberal Democrats and 3.6 percent of moderate Democrats lived in mixed-race adopted or step-households, compared to an insignificantly different 10.6 percent of conservative Republicans.

Volokh also links the rightwing gun nuts at Reason, specifically Matt Welch, who asks the question: Is it not bigoted to constantly claim a deep moral fault among a large swath of people based only upon their race?

Spoiler alert: Yes.

But making broad and essentially pejorative generalizations about giant swaths of non-Democrats is hardly the exclusive domain of the racist-chasers at MSNBC and Salon.com. Journalistic outlets at the highest levels have been making non-jokey versions of the same accusation throughout the Obama presidency, ever since the twin ascension in 2009 of the Tea Party and opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

For an example, check out this passage in New Yorker Editor David Remnick's extraordinarily long and often insightful recent profile of the president.

In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama's drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters.

Where's that confounded bridge? Italics mine [bolding mine-- ace], to underscore what one of the nation's most decorated journalists felt zero need to substantiate in a 16,000-word article. Do older white voters really feel more "threatened" and "disdained" by a "globalized economy" and "increasingly diverse country" than other age and ethnic/pigmentation cohorts? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting poll data out there, but Remnick (a 55-year-old white guy, FWIW) doesn't need to cite any: He knows it's true, his readers know it's true, and the only real question is how much you can respectably pin opposition to this twice-elected black president on racism.

Imagine the MSM describing any non-white population as chiefly animated by fear and other insalubrious traits.

Here's how bigotry works: You don't know many (or any) members of a group you have antipathy towards. Because you know nothing about them, you view them as The Other, and, untainted by fact or personal experience, you can imagine them as wholly alien, foreign, and, of course, evil and inhuman.

The left understands this -- they often discuss "Otherizing" a group -- and yet they do not apply this to their own thinking. In their minds, only The Other can be guilty of viewing others as The Other. The left, with all their ignorance, hatred, and stupid crude bigotries, cannot be so guilty.

The left generally exercises their imagination to find new ways of demonizing those who do not like socialism and communism. Every once in a while, their fevered minds come up with some interesting insight into human behavior and psychology (such as the tendency of people to view those unlike them as "The Other").

But because the entire point of this exertion of mind was simply to come up with exciting new ways to demonize one's political opponents, they fail utterly to take the insight seriously and examine their own thinking for defects.

And so the stumble on, crude-minded, without self awareness or self examination, bitter, hateful, and unredeemed.

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (315)
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

Fantastic.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and GOP leaders on Thursday released a set of "principles" that included a path to legal status -- but not citizenship -- for the more than 10 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Immigration reform advocates expressed optimism about the move, and Obama's words Friday seem to further improve chances for a deal.

"If the speaker proposes something that says, right away, folks aren't being deported, families aren't being separated, we're able to attract top young students to provide the skills or start businesses here and then there's a regular process of citizenship, I'm not sure how wide the divide ends up being," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.

Obama echoed immigrant advocacy groups that gave the GOP's so-called "principles" a vote of confidence. These groups in recent days have expressed more openness to something that stops shy of a path to citizenship.

"I am encouraged by what Speaker Boehner has said," Obama said. "Obviously, I was encouraged by the bipartisan bill that passed out of the Senate. I genuinely believe that Speaker Boehner and a number of House Republicans, folks like Paul Ryan, really do want to get a serious immigration reform bill done."

The only upside to the GOP giving conservatives the shaft on immigration, again, is when Team GOP says, "by holding Republicans accountable for their liberal votes you are only helping to elect Democrats" we can point out that they are the ones who are throwing Obama a legislative lifeline. We just spent 2 days talking about how the State of the Union proved Obama's agenda was dead and he was reduced to "a pen and a phone" gestures. And yet the Republicans have decided this is the perfect time to offer him a way forward on one to the Democrats top 3 legislative priorities.

A couple of reminders from the archives...

Yes, it's amnesty because there are penalties on the books now for being here illegally that will be ignored.

Amnesty is immoral.

Being anti-amnesty isn't the same as being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant.

In case you missed it last night, watch the video in this post of people learning what ObamaCare is going to do to them and their families. Then explain to me why the GOP wants to waste one second helping people who are breaking our laws that could be used to help these people who just want to raise their family and not get hurt by their government.

And to add insult to injury, not only will Republicans spend time not helping these people, they will be working to make sure people who came here illegally can now compete with them for their jobs.

There's your GOP. But sure, keep telling me why it's terrible I won't blindly vote for anyone with an "R" after their name.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:25 AM | Comments (318)
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

FRIDAY!

This Politico magazine piece, "Confessions From A Former TSA-Agent," is interesting reading.

More on the Halbig case -- the Obamacare subsidies challenge.

The RNC continues to expand its digital and data operation.

I was on Bruce Caroll's Match Game podcast last night, along with conservative blogosphere notables Ed Morrissey, John Brodigan, Amy Miller, Sarah Desprat, and Mary Chastain.

Our weekly podcast will be up today with guest Guy Benson. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (248)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Rep. Huelskamp is a racist. I know this for two reasons:

1, he's a Republican

2, MSNBC declared he must be really bothered at the thought of biracial families.

So, granted: Rep. Huelskamp is a terrible racist.

But being a Racist was just Count One of the Racist Indictment against him. He produced even more evidence of his racism when he posted a picture of family.

Well, My God. Most of us are just normal Racists, but this guy is an Eternal Jade Ninja of Racism. He's so racist, he adopted a bunch of black kids just so he could keep being racist and then when people called him a racist he could show this picture of his family and thereby advance the cause of his racism under the guise of not being racist.

Think about how horribly racist that is. That shows commitment.

And speaking of commitment...

Note he put this picture up to rebut @MSNBC's claim that "the right wing" would be upset to see pictures of a biracial family.

Well, says one Twitter user -- How dare you. The insult we lodged against you wasn't really about you.

Psst: I think he was trying to prove that "the right wing" was not freaked out by biracial families. I know his logic is kookoobananas, but I think that's what he was thinking.

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (479)
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm Ashamed My Son Likes Football

Peter Beinart is a bad, bad father. Because he allowed his son to watch and enjoy a football game. Which apparently is only slightly less shameful than taking his son to a back-alley cockfight and handing him a starter-flask of Thunderbird.

Last Saturday night, he [Beinart's 8-year-old son] proudly dug out a long-unused Patriots jersey and joined me on the couch late into the night as the Patriots dispatched the Indianapolis Colts.

It was wonderful. And it made me a little sick.

It made me sick because I could see the game through his eyes. And it wasn't pretty. My son, unfamiliar with the NFL's pieties, assumed that hurting the other team's players was the goal. To his untutored eye, the violence that guilt-ridden fans like myself decry was a feature, not a bug. He didn't cheer the injuries; he's too sweet for that. But despite my insistence to the contrary, I suspect the message he took from the experience was: The only thing you need to know about the large man writhing in agony on the screen is whether he's on our team.

Bad British NFL Commentary

On The Intelligence of Football Players 

At five-eight, a hundred and eighty-eight pounds, the Bills safety Jim Leonhard, a nine-year veteran, is among the smallest and also the slowest starting defensive backs in the game. And yet, watching him on film, he appears to teleport to the ball. Leonhard's name seems to enter any conversation about football intelligence; he knows every teammate's responsibilities in every call, and understands the game as twenty-two intersecting vectors. "He'd walk off the bus and you'd think he was the equipment manager," Ryan Fitzpatrick said. "He's still in the league because he's the quarterback of the defense."

Obama: I Would Never Let My Imaginary Trayvon-like Son Play Football

But note that Obama still enjoys watching football. Because he can handle it while you can't.

NY Pols Propose Law to Ban Youth Football

So football now seems to have quickly joined smoking and junk food as one of those uncool, distasteful activities that only the underclass publicly indulge in. The next stage will be regulation and legal harassment which are waypoints on the path to eventual effective banning. For the children.

So if all goes according to plan this is the football your kids will be watching:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:42 PM | Comments (439)
Post contains 1276 words, total size 14 kb.

What a stunt. What an idea.

Let it be copied a thousand times.

Will it be? Well, dramatizing the news is generally a TV news imperative. They like moving pictures, don't they? But I don't know if too many people in the news business want to dramatize (and thereby increase interest in) the effect of Obamacare on the typical American worker.

Here's hoping, though.

This is a really amazing report.

MSNBC just tweeted that racists would "bust nut" while watching this, then they apologized and said the responsible party had been fired and also promoted to host of their new weekend show. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:53 PM | Comments (385)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

• Just Wait, The GOP Will Conservative The Sh*t Out Of America After The 2014 Elections
  
• America, Land Of The Free, And Home Of The Brave?
  
• That Obamacare Richard Simmons Video Cost 1.37 Million
  
• Not Fair To Fire MSNBC Staffer Whose Tweet Merely Reflects Most Of Their Programming
  
• Adam Lanza Had Some Messed Up Stuff On His Computer
  
• Obama's Unserious Foreign Policy And America's Permanent War Footing
  
• NYC School Cuts Gifted Program Over Lack Of Diversity
  
• Gallup: Fewer Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws
  
• Virginia Prepares To Check In To Medicaid's Hotel California
  
• Cooke: What Would The Founders Think
  
• Williamson: Space Monkeys
  
• Man Survives Going Through Wood Chipper
  
• 9 Questions About Ukraine You Were Too Embarrassed To Ask
  
• Nearly Half Of Americans Live Paycheck To Paycheck
  
• The Power Of No
  
• Rutgers Offers University Class On Beyoncé
  
• Pittsburgh Police Dog Succumbs To Stab Wounds And Dies
  
• I Guess The Message Is Don't Skip School
  
• Democratic P.O.W. In The #War On Women Still In Jail
  

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:04 AM | Comments (529)
Post contains 169 words, total size 3 kb.