So, like, you know.
Anyway, here’s the scoop. My wife and I decided we needed more space, part of which is because my wife wants her mother to move here from Utah to live with us and her grand kids. We were able to find a wonderful house, which breaks ground sometime in the next couple weeks, that should be finished by August or September.
Fortunately, the house is only about 3 minutes from our current home, and is actually closer to Satchel’s school (though a bit farther away from wrestling practice, which right now is essentially at the entrance to our subdivision). The only downside is, we wanted a specific cul-de-sac lot which were told wasn’t going to be released for another couple of years, so as we were preparing to walk away and find something else, we were shocked (as was the sales rep for the neighborhood build) that the builders agreed to release the lot to us.
Which meant we had to move quickly and sign the contract about a month or two before we wanted to.
So it’s going to be belt-tightening time around here — already, the armored rat has reluctantly agreed that he can live without Grey Goose and that his margaritas can do without Grand Mariner — and any contributions you make will help us out going forward, especially now that PayPal and the Obama IRS considers your gifts as income and not largess.
Thanks to all who’ve contributed and continue to contribute. Between coaching and some side work I’m doing for extra cash, blogging is not as easy as it used to be. But I will soldier on so long as you all soldier on with me.
What else, after all, is there to do?
Foreign ministry officials in Rome and Vienna confirm that names of two nationals listed on the manifest of the missing Malaysian airlines flight match passports reported stolen in Thailand. [...]
A foreign ministry functionary, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed Italian reports that Luigi Maraldi had reported his passport stolen last August. [...]
Austrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Weiss confirmed that a name listed on the manifest matches an Austrian passport reported stolen two years ago in Thailand.
How did such long-reported stolen passports pass security?
Two anonymous people board a flight, where two-thirds of the passengers are Chinese, and which disappears off radar so fast that no distress signal can be broadcast.
Color me suspicious.
Proof of the death of basic reporter skills in modern J-school grads. From Ass.Press:
California counties are confounding the state’s court-ordered efforts to sharply reduce its inmate population by sending state prisons far more convicts than anticipated, including a record number of second-strikers.
The surge in offenders requiring state prison sentences is undermining Gov. Jerry Brown’s 3-year-old realignment law that restructured California’s criminal justice system to keep lower-level felons out of state prison cells as a solution to the state’s prison crowding problem.
The law initially lowered the state prison population, but the number of inmates is on the rise again — led by a record increase in the number of second felony convictions for those who already had a prior conviction for a serious crime.
Hello? You release close to ten thousand felons from state prison (and the claim they are non-violent or not sex-offenders is a crock) and you’re surprised at a sudden increase in reoffending?
Not one question to Gov. Moonbeam or his administration asking how many of these new inmates were previously let loose under AB109/prison realignment??
No no, let’s not build prisons or, at least, house prisoners out of state. Let’s waste billions on the graftastic choo-choo train to nowhere.
While speaking at a town hall meeting in Milford, Conn., on Wednesday, Gov. Dannel Malloy was interrupted by a heckler who advised him to read the Constitution sometime.
The comment came when Gov. Malloy, a Democrat, was answering a question from a small business owner who said he is at a disadvantage to businesses in adjacent states that have a lower wage structure.
“I think that’s not only a state issue, but we’ve got this thing called the Constitution, so it makes it a little difficult to do some of the things you suggest,” Malloy replied with a smile.
Suddenly a woman’s voice is heard shouting: “Why don’t you read it sometime!”
Gov. Malloy has faced intense criticism over his support of Connecticut’s new gun registration bill, which many believe is unconstitutional.
The bill has technically turned gun owners who legally purchased semiautomatic rifles into felons overnight after many have refused to register their guns and high-capacity magazines.
The state has yet to announce how or if they plan on enforcing the new law with criminal charges and arrests. According to some estimates, as many as 100,000 gun owners are in violation of the new gun control law.
Call it a “cross-in.”
No sooner had a Lake Elsinore family removed a roadside memorial cross under pressure from a rights organization than six more appeared in its place.
Riverside resident Emily Johnson and her father, Doug Johnson, said they were so disturbed upon hearing that AnnMarie Devaney was being forced to take down the symbol honoring her late son, they crafted their own plywood crosses and planted them along Lake Street next to the site where the Devaney tribute once stood.
The Johnsons’ crosses were painted with statements such as “What if this was your child?” and “Ever heard the phrase, ‘To each his own?’”
“They said they have to take that one down,” said Doug Johnson. “But they didn’t say anything about putting another one up.”
The post-racial President with the great pant crease and the faculty lounge argot in action:
The unemployment rate for black teens, ages 16 to 19, was 32.4% in February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), whose data also show that only 24.9% of black youth are participating in the nation’s labor force.
The participation rate for black youth has decreased from 26.4% in January to 24.9% in February, a decrease of 1.5 percentage points. The rate has not been this low since January 2012 when it was 24.8%.
When President Obama took office in January 2009, the work-force participation rate for this group was 29.6%, which means the rate of decline — from 29.6% to 24.9% — was 15.8%.
The black youth unemployment rate for ages 16-19 is 32.4%, which is 383.6% higher than the national unemployment rate, of 6.7%.
The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the labor force who do not have a job. To be in the labor force a person must either have a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.
Okay, sure. Employment rates are down. And participation rates are down. But just think how an Executive order that sets wages — a mandatory minimum wage increase — will help black teens and youth, who will be competing against workers with prior experience, or who come from schools outside the “charter school”-free zones Obama has erected around so many of the least effective public school zones in the country, many in predominantly minority areas!
– That is, if he couples it with an Executive order demanding businesses hire black teens and youth — something the Supreme Court we’re now stuck with might actually uphold as part of an add on to Bakke. Which, would any of that really surprise anyone — particularly if the President and the media decided to cast any such executive order as a measure for “fairness” that helps overcome “racial-makeup inequality” in the work force and creates the social justice that comes from “employment redistribution”?
And would John Roberts be able to resist looking at how his Court’s legacy would be gilded by such a bit of social engineering?
Ah, don’t you just love sneering, self-styled multiculturalists who, when it comes down to brass tacks, are about as fair-minded, non-judgmental, and accurate in their internalized caricatures as was, say, Hitler? Or for you Godwin’s Law adepts, at least John Kerry testifying about his fellow American soldiers?
Fortunately, the comments are hilarious — and go a long way toward showing that Americans still have a sense of humor, about themselves, sure, but also (thankfully) against these pompous, whinging, effete Europeans, with their condescension and entitled temperaments forged in the daunting crucible of socialism and what can best be described as an ironic work ethic.
Plus, croissants. I mean, game over, right?
I’m just speculating, but it probably would have been something along the lines of this: instead of just calling ourselves TEA Partiers, I think it’s time we gather together a million or two disgusted citizens angry at the politicization of the IRS, which is now one of the police arms of the progressive left’s soft coup, and dump a bunch of real tea into the Potomac.
But we’ll make it free range green tea — made from nothing but self-sufficient wild herbs and harvested by wind gusts that carry the foliage to the edge of some reclaimed wood retaining wall inside a San Francisco commune — just to watch some heads explode.
Short of that, I guess we can always just curse, turn over, and go back to sleep. Which is what I did today.
Because why the hell not?
Hey, isn’t that Facebook guy one of the investors behind the whole “conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform” movement?
Guess that means the “new conservatism,” in addition to promoting cheap labor at the expense of an already depleted job market; and creating new Democratic voting constituencies to turn, by design, red states into purple states into blue states into welfare states, is now for suppression of speech targeted at those who haven’t broken any laws.
And of course, removing social issues from campaigns, while pandering to ethnic pressure groups.
Racialist politics. It’s tedious. It’s predictable. It’s ugly.
And what makes it so ugly is that it diminishes the depravity of real racism by diluting it with phony indictments and trivializing it with ridiculous and insupportable claims aimed at non-racists. To wit:
A debate Tuesday over a bill to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected turned to race after Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, compared her bill to Brown vs. the Board of Education.But during the debate, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said that his Republican colleagues would support abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men.
“Ninety-nine percent of the all of the white people in here are going to raise their hand that they are against abortion,” he said. “On the other hand, 99 percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion.”
That this tactic — opportunistic and cynical as it is — is now used by so many blacks, who not so long ago had to fight white southern Democrats over real racialist policy before they joined their party, makes it all the more appalling. And all the more tragic.
A note to Rep Holmes: it wasn’t Republicans who were turning fire hoses on you, or promoting segregation, or fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act. So if you’re in the mood to cast around for those who might find race-mixing worthy of infanticide, you might want to dig up old Margaret Sanger, or Bull Connor, or even Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr, and Fulbright, et al., and hash it out with them.
They’d almost have to listen, out of courtesy. Your being a contemporary representative of their party, and a race-baiter, to boot.
Or, “the buck stops there.”
Convenient. But hardly enough. I’m telling you, the GOP establishment would be exposed as complicit — either by commission or omission — in any serious independent investigation. Which is why we will never get one.
We’ll get a few sacrificial lambs. And then be told justice was served. So it’s time to Move On and Shut Up, or else risk being “unhelpful” yet again.
This is who they all are. This is what they all do.
But honestly, can there really be that many people left who this is fooling?
I’d like to launch this post with a shortish monograph on how, per intentionalism, the very idea that by altering the law what Obama is doing is creating an entirely new text, not “reinterpreting” and existing text to allow it to incorporate all his changes — and by so doing, point out once again that the way we believe language operates is crucial to how we allow laws to function and control us — but that would just bore you, and we’d have to end up talking about egrets and thin-skinned elderly black men barking at unconsciously racist kids calling their dogs. So instead I’ll just go with the specifics:
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats. As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements. Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall. The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day. The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber…Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare. It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essentia
The Hill is clearly correct that his move is aimed at providing nervous Congressional Democrats with a fig leaf on Obamacare. Its analysis that this extended “fix” will “avoid another wave” of cancellations isn’t quite accurate, though. This maneuver will mitigate the next wave for some Americans, but many won’t be granted a reprieve from Democrats’ broken promise. A bipartisan group of state insurance commissioners and Attorneys General rejected this “keep your plan” band aid when it was first proposed by Obama, calling it unworkable and/or illegal. Health insurance companies prepared for years to offer plans that complied with Obamacare’s new rules — and those rules haven’t been altered or repealed. The administration has essentially said that they simply won’t enforce them for a little bit longer. Just long enough, in fact, for some Americans to dodge cancellation notices scheduled for this coming fall. The pain will still come; it’s just been pushed back a bit for some consumers.
Another important reminder is that Moody’s credit agency downgraded the health insurance industry in January, citing the endless cycle of policy uncertainty caused by destabilizing political delays and “fixes.” This turmoil may compel some companies to pull out of certain markets, and will almost certainly contribute to premium increases. Those who are covered by this “keep your plan” stay of execution will be allowed to maintain their “sub-standard” (in the White House’s eyes) coverage, which entails fewer mandates and costs less. Insurers who do scramble to keep these plans intact are (a) spending resources to do so and (b) are taking a revenue hit as a result. Under Obamacare’s model, these people are supposed to pay more to offset the new costs of insuring high-risk consumers with pre-existing conditions. Rather than absorb those new costs — profit margins are tight — they will be passed down and spread out across other consumers in the form of higher premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.
Ultimately, though, this gambit isn’t about health coverage, helping people or righting wrongs. It’s about handing Democrats across the country a thin reed of an excuse when the next batch of cancellations hit. “The president tried to make this right, but some states and greedy insurers refused to go along with this fix for the American people,” they’ll try to argue. This is bogus, and I strongly suspect it won’t work. This administration wrote these rules in such a way that they knew tens of millions of people would lose their existing coverage, contra Obama’s repeated promises. Republicans saw this problem coming years ago and offered a legislative correction to keep the pledge back in 2010. Democrats voted in lock-step to kill it. The catalyst behind the president’s quasi-apology and “fix” idea was a ripple of abject panic among Democrats, who were getting pummeled by terrible headlines last fall. Many began to float freelance ideas to change Obamacare, several of which would have deeply undermined the law’s viability. Obama’s cobbled-together plan was pure damage control. The forthcoming extension is round two of said damage control. It’s that simple. And why am I confident that it won’t move the needle much? One of the Democrats who’s been leaning on this Obama-crafted excuse is Sen. Kay Hagan, whose approval rating has tanked into the low-30′s, with Obamacare submerged in unpopularity among her state’s voters. In other words, she’s been clinging to this lifeline for months and it hasn’t helped her. The president, meanwhile, is mocking Republicans. Why, when he so generously tries to “improve” Obamacare, the GOP calls him a tyrant, those hypocritical ingrates:
He’s being smirkingly obtuse on purpose. Republicans are leveling two separate objections here: First, that Obamacare isn’t working and needs to be changed and repealed, and second, that Obama is overstepping his authority by simply decreeing unilateral changes to a duly-passed piece of legislation. His administration has made one alteration after another, several of which have been deemed legally dubious by legal scholars and media types alike. Indeed, when the House passed a bill to delay the law’s employer mandate (which Obama has now done twice, single-handedly), the White House threatened a veto.
This is always the way of the left: try to sneer off and ironize away the “hyperbolic” nature of the charges against them. Is Obama dressed in fatigues and sporting a Saddam ‘stache? Is he speaking from balconies?
No. So how can he be a tyrant?
Typically, they go for form over function, perception over reality, and expect us all to play along — marking those of us who don’t as throwbacks or constitutional fetishists. You know, students and adherents of the Enlightenment rather than Gramsci, et al.
But the truth is, from both a constitutional, separation of powers perspective — as well as from the linguistic perspective that I’ve pointed out repeatedly gives cover to this kind of lawlessness and creative rewriting of statutes that deconstruct original legislative intent — this is the very definition of dictatorship. That it has the support of a Senate that has worked to cede its power to the Executive, and a Court whose Chief Justice cares more about comity and his “legacy” as it will be written up by the New York Times, is immaterial.
That just means we have, as part of our governmental class, a cabal of ruling elites who have decided to use the law against us.
But we are a representative government. And just because the Courts have decided that the 9th and 10th Amendments don’t hold legal sway does not mean we need accept that. Rather, it means we need to reform the courts and to reaffirm the sovereignty of the states and individuals.
This “law” is clearly being used to benefit some and not others. On its face, that makes equality before the law — a foundational principle of our republic — into a kind of passe joke.
We shouldn’t accept it.
But I’ll shut up now, because I’m having the urge to move into egret talk again. And, you know, wouldn’t want to be caught with the clown nose on…