Saturday, December 14, 2013

China's Lunar Landing is No Big Deal

I yawned when I heard about it.

But see Telegraph UK, "Why America lacks lunar ambition":
Barack Obama split the US space community when he abandoned plans for American astronauts to return to the Moon and set new sights for Nasa.

While China celebrated its lunar landing, America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration has no plans to return to the Moon.

Many Americans believed they had won the space race when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969 and Neil Armstrong set the first feet in the lunar surface, famously declaring: “This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Another 11 US astronauts walked on the Moon over the next three years. And nobody has been back since. A year after taking office, President Barack Obama controversially ditched the Constellation human space flight programme pursued by his predecessor George W Bush and with it plans for new lunar landings by 2020.

Instead, he set Nasa’s sights on further-flung targets, most ambitiously to tow an asteroid back to Earth and to launch a manned mission to Mars within the next 20 years. That left US space operations in what is known as near-Earth orbit to the private sector.

“Nasa is not going to the moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime,” Charles Bolden, the agency’s administrator, told a panel this year.

Mr Obama’s decision to axe the Constellation programme and bypass the Moon has split the US space community. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to step on the lunar crust, agrees that returning there is a waste of limited American financial resources.

"Do not put Nasa astronauts on the moon,” he wrote in his book Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration. They have other places to go.”

And in the meantime, Nasa’s Mars Curiosity rover vehicle continues to send back intriguing evidence that the Red Planet may have once supported life.

But other space veterans and experts believe that the US is making a disastrous mistake. Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, another Moon-walker, was scathing critical of the Obama space policy. "It's bad for the country," he said. "This administration really does not believe in American exceptionalism."
I'm with Aldrin on this one, and amazingly, with the president as well.

Arapahoe Shooter Karl Pierson Was 'Very Opinionated' Leftist, a 'Committed Socialist'

The kid obviously had issues. What a waste.

But let's just be clear on who this guy was. He wasn't the stereotypical "right-wing crazy" that the diabolical left always uses to demonize conservatives. In fact it's never a typical right-winger. Usually the gunman's a freakin' nutcase, but in the Arapahoe shooting, the suspect's friends described him as a committed, "very opinionated" leftist.

Weasel Zippers has it, "Colorado School Shooter a “Very Opinionated Socialist”…"

Also at Fire Andrea Mitchell, "Arapahoe High School shooter Karl Halverson Pierson – leftist strongly for gun control."

And at Astute Bloggers, "STATE-RUN MEDIA COVERING UP FOR THEIR FELLOW-TRAVELER, ARAPAHOE SHOOTER KARL PIERSON" (via Memeorandum).

#ObamaCare: One Punt After Another

At Politico:
Why do Republicans even bother trying to delay Obamacare? President Barack Obama’s doing it all by himself.

On Thursday, the Obama administration gave customers permission to pay their premiums as late as Dec. 31 for coverage that starts Jan. 1, and officially gave customers an extra week — until Dec. 23 — to sign up for January coverage.

The move was just the latest in a long list of extensions, delays and punts that have plagued the health care law.

Sure, Obama’s not doing the things Republicans have suggested — push off centerpieces like the individual mandate, or even put the entire law on hold for a year. But piece by piece, the Obama administration keeps giving itself extensions on smaller parts of the law, because there’s always some piece that isn’t quite ready.

It’s an attempt to put out fires — but it’s also a painful admission that, yes, there are fires.

The administration is also extending a critical program — the temporary high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions — through the end of January, to make sure none of them suddenly lose their health coverage because they can’t sign up for new Obamacare insurance by Jan. 1.

That’s after it postponed the employer coverage requirements for a year, delayed the online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses, and told health insurers they can extend people’s coverage for an extra year — a last-minute attempt to un-cancel millions of canceled policies. It also delayed the Spanish-language website, even though Hispanics are a large proportion of the uninsured population. It even postponed next year’s enrollment period, pushing it conveniently past the November elections.

“This is the least shocking thing since the sun came up in the east. This is what they do,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum. “They’ve essentially established that there’s going to be a rolling start to this thing.”
Continue reading.

And don't miss this devastating editorial at the Wall Street Journal, "Backdating ObamaCare":
The White House says that ObamaCare is all fixed, but its conduct suggests otherwise. As it has realized that the government-created chaos is exposing patients to nasty and even deadly surprises, the government is now forcing the insurance industry to cover everyone retroactively and also to waive the contractual terms of that coverage—or else.

Late Thursday, the Health and Human Services Department suddenly released a new regulation that explains "there have been unforeseen barriers to enrollment on the exchanges." The passive voice is necessary because the barriers are all the result of politically driven delays, the botched website and the exchanges that transmit false information about enrollment to insurers.

So with a mere 11 business days to go before coverage is supposed to start on New Year's Day, HHS is trying to pre-empt patient uproar by unilaterally ordering plans to backdate all exchange applications. People can sign up for a plan on the exchange as late as Dec. 23. If an application winds up in some technology void, or it is passed to the insurer inaccurately or too late to process, that coverage nonetheless begins on Jan. 1.
Continue reading.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Google Hegemony

At the New York Times, "Google's Road Map to Global Domination":
Fifty-five miles and three days down the Colorado River from the put-in at Lee’s Ferry, near the Utah-Arizona border, the two rafts in our little flotilla suddenly encountered a storm. It sneaked up from behind, preceded by only a cool breeze. With the canyon walls squeezing the sky to a ribbon of blue, we didn’t see the thunderhead until it was nearly on top of us.

I was seated in the front of the lead raft. Pole position meant taking a dunk through the rapids, but it also put me next to Luc Vincent, the expedition’s leader. Vincent is the man responsible for all the imagery in Google’s online maps. He’s in charge of everything from choosing satellite pictures to deploying Google’s planes around the world to sending its camera-equipped cars down every road to even this, a float through the Grand Canyon. The raft trip was a mapping expedition that was also serving as a celebration: Google Maps had just introduced a major redesign, and the outing was a way of rewarding some of the team’s members.

Vincent wore a black T-shirt with the eagle-globe-and-anchor insignia of the United States Marine Corps on his chest and the slogan “Pain is weakness leaving the body” across his back. Though short in stature, he has the upper-body strength of an avid rock climber. He chose to get his Ph.D. in computer vision, he told me, because the lab happened to be close to Fontainebleau — the famous climbing spot in France. While completing his postdoc at the Harvard Robotics Lab, he led a successful expedition up Denali, the highest peak in North America.

A Frenchman who has lived half his 49 years in the United States, Vincent was never in the Marines. But he is a leader in a new great game: the Internet land grab, which can be reduced to three key battles over three key conceptual territories. What came first, conquered by Google’s superior search algorithms. Who was next, and Facebook was the victor. But where, arguably the biggest prize of all, has yet to be completely won.

Where-type questions — the kind that result in a little map popping up on the search-results page — account for some 20 percent of all Google queries done from the desktop. But ultimately more important by far is location-awareness, the sort of geographical information that our phones and other mobile devices already require in order to function. In the future, such location-awareness will be built into more than just phones. All of our stuff will know where it is — and that awareness will imbue the real world with some of the power of the virtual. Your house keys will tell you that they’re still on your desk at work. Your tools will remind you that they were lent to a friend. And your car will be able to drive itself on an errand to retrieve both your keys and your tools.

While no one can say exactly how we will get from the current moment to that Jetsonian future, one thing for sure can be said about location-awareness: maps are required. Tomorrow’s map, integrally connected to everything that moves (the keys, the tools, the car), will be so fundamental to their operation that the map will, in effect, be their operating system. A map is to location-awareness as Windows is to a P.C. And as the history of Microsoft makes clear, a company that controls the operating system controls just about everything. So the competition to make the best maps, the thinking goes, is more than a struggle over who dominates the trillion-dollar smartphone market; it’s a contest over the future itself.
Fascinating.

RTWT, at the link.

And ICYMI, the interview with Google's Sebastien Thrun, "'I think anybody who believes that we are in a period of decline or stagnation probably hasn’t been paying attention...'"

The #ObamaCare Panic Button

From Yuval Levin, at National Review, "Pressing the Panic Button?":
As usual, it’s hard to tell just what’s going on inside the administration regarding Obamacare, but I don’t think we can really take the steps announced by HHS yesterday as anything but a bright, red, flashing warning light about the internal expectations regarding January.

Some of what they announced is frankly bizarre and slightly crazy. Beside extending the high-risk pool program (which isn’t nuts, just a strong indication that they’re not ready for January at this very late stage), they are asking insurers to pay claims for consumers who haven’t paid their premiums, to treat out-of-network doctors and hospitals as though they were in-network, and to pay for prescription drugs not actually covered by the plans they offer.

The administration is trying to present this as a set of perfectly ordinary kind of transition measures that insurers normally make available to new customers, and some of the more reliable members of their amen chorus on Obamacare have echoed that. But that’s not what this looks like to me, and a few conversations today suggest it’s not what it looks like to the insurers...
Continue reading.

Black Critics Laud '12 Years a Slave' as Best Film of 2013

I'm heading out to go see this movie in a few minutes.

I'll report back on my experience later. Meanwhile, at the Los Angeles Times, "African American film critics name '12 Years a Slave' best film."



Also, "SAG Award nominations: '12 Years a Slave,' 'Butler' lead the way."


Some #Rule5 Kelly Brook to Mix it Up

Lovely.

And ICYMI, "Kelly Brook 2014 Calendar (PHOTOS)."

Hot Kelly Brook! photo BYLo1tgIIAAVgBV_zpsecd27f1c.jpg

Hilarious Miley Cyrus Twerking Santa at Saberpoint

A classic Photoshop, "CHRISTMAS SING ALONG: 'I Saw Miley Twerking Santa Claus -- Underneath the Mistletoe Last Night'."

Miley Cyrus Saberpoint photo Miley-Cyrus-twerking-Stogie2_zps5fb1daca.png

Baboon Seen Cruising Streets of Bryanston, Johannesburg — Not to Be Confused with Sign Interpreter at Mandela Memorial Service

The Memeorandum thread actually takes us to the story of Thamsanqa Jantjie, the bogus South African sign language interpreter at the Mandela funeral service, although here's the hilarious summary aggregated at the entry: "A baboon has been spotted on the streets of Bryanston in Johannesburg, appearing hungry and confident... watch the eyewitness video." 



Now here's the intended story at the thread, "EXCLUSIVE: Mandela deaf interpreter accused of murder": "Thamsanqa Jantjie, who is being treated for schizophrenia, has also faced rape (1994), theft (1995), house-breaking (1997), malicious damage to property (1998), murder, attempted murder and kidnapping (2003) charges."

A baboon and a criminal schizoid sign-language interpreter? I'm sure it's just an odd coincidence. And that's all I have to say about that, because RAAAAACISM!!

More at Memeorandum.

ADDED: From Robert Stacy McCain, "Schizophrenic Criminal Faker Making Meaningless Gestures? Hmmm …"

African Cape Buffalo Sends Stalking Lion Flying Through the Air

This is something else.

At London's Daily Mail, "Buffalo soldiers! Bull is saved by its friends while being EATEN by lions... which are sent flying through the air."



Rumsfeld's War and Its Consequences

And its consequences now!

From Mark Danner, at the New York Review, "More than a dozen years later we still live in the world that George W. Bush’s “war on terror” made":

Photobucket


A bare two weeks after the attacks of September 11, at the end of a long and emotional day at the White House, a sixty-nine-year-old politician and businessman—a midwesterner, born of modest means but grown wealthy and prominent and powerful—returned to his enormous suite of offices on the seventh floor of the flood-lit and wounded Pentagon and, as was his habit, scrawled out a memorandum on his calendar:

Interesting day—
NSC mtg. with President—
As [it] ended he asked to see me alone…
After the meeting ended I went to Oval Office—He was alone
He was at his desk—
He talked about the meet
Then he said I want you to develop a plan to invade Ir[aq]. Do it outside the normal channels. Do it creatively so we don’t have to take so much cover [?]

Then he said Dick [Cheney] told me about your son—I broke down and cried. I couldn’t speak—
said I love him so much
He said I can’t imagine the burden you are carrying for the country and your son—
He said much more.
Stood and hugged me
An amazing day—
He is a fine human being—
I am so grateful he is President.
I am proud to be working for him.
It is a touching and fateful scene, this trading of confidences between the recovering alcoholic president and the defense secretary whose son is struggling with drug addiction, and shows the intimacy that can be forged amid danger and turmoil and stress. Trust brings trust, confidence builds on confidence: the young inexperienced president, days before American bombs begin falling on Afghanistan, wants a “creative” plan to invade Iraq, developed “outside the normal channels”; the old veteran defense secretary, in a rare moment of weakness, craves human comfort and understanding.
Continue reading.

Megyn Kelly Shines on Fox

I missed the first week or two of Megyn Kelly's prime-time debut on Fox (I was watching the World Series), but I rarely miss it now. She's fantastic ---- and she's in my wheelhouse with her politics.

At the Washington Post, "Megyn Kelly, Fox News’s brightest star":


NEW YORK — The anchor who might beat Bill O’Reilly gets her eyelash extensions applied one at a time, with tweezers and dabs of glue, about 90 minutes before showtime, right after a motorized gun sprays foundation over her face, neck, shoulders, collarbone and sternum, wiping out a galaxy of light freckles that spreads across her —

Let me stop you right there.

Would you write this way about a man?

About O’Reilly himself?

At least that’s what Megyn Kelly might ask at this point. Kelly, 43, is the host of “The Kelly File,” a live TV program that airs weeknights at 9 p.m. on the Fox News Channel, where she interrupts and challenges guests whenever they resort to talking points or petty distractions. It debuted just over two months ago, and so far its ratings among 25-to-54-year-olds have exceeded those of “The O’Reilly Factor” six times. In November, her first full month in prime time after years in daytime, Kelly was second only to O’Reilly in the overall ratings, which means she’s the No. 2 person on cable news’s No. 1 channel.

“It’s like working on a supermodel every day — a brilliant supermodel,” says makeup artist Maureen Walsh, as she air-brushes Kelly’s skin from milky white to Technicolor...
Continue reading.

Well, Michael Savage made the crude remark sometime back that watching Megyn Kelly's show was like watching porn.

Wedding Party: More Than One Dozen Killed in U.S. Drone Strike in Yemen

I'll tell you, with this administration, it's hard to keep backing the war on terror!

At Fire Andrea Mitchell, "Obama kills 15 on way to wedding in Yemen with drone strike."

Also at Reuters, "Air strike kills 15 civilians in Yemen by mistake: officials."

And London's Daily Mail, "BREAKING NEWS: U.S. drone strike hits wedding party killing 15 people, Yemeni officials say."



Kim Jong Un Uncle Executed in North Korea

You have to think about this for awhile.

This is hardcore leftist ideology in action.

At the Los Angeles Times, "North Korea reportedly executes No. 2 official."

And at the Washington Post, "In North Korea, Kim Jong Un rises and advisers are shoved aside":


SEOUL — When Kim Jong Un became leader of North Korea two years ago, he was surrounded by advisers two, and in some cases, nearly three times his age. Most had decades of experience in the Workers’ Party or military. Two were members of Kim’s own family.

But rather than lean on that support team, Kim has instead sought to dismantle it, using a series of demotions and purges to grab power almost solely for himself. Friday North Korea announced the execution of the most prominent of Kim’s advisers, Jang Song Thaek, accusing him of opposing Kim’s rise and plotting an overthrow.Continue reading.

Mexican Leftists Irate Over Senate Vote on Opening Oil Industry to Foreign Investors

Anything that pisses off leftists is alright by me.

At LAT, "Mexican Senate OKs bill to open oil industry to foreign investors":
On Wednesday, members of the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, and other leftists closed off the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, in Mexico City, chaining doors and blocking entrances with chairs in an effort to prevent lawmakers from considering the bill.

"They are selling the entire subsoil of the country to interests that are against Mexico," former PRD presidential candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas said in a TV interview. Leftist leaders hope they can stop the legislation by calling a national plebiscite, though it is unclear whether they will be able to pursue that avenue legally.
The poor dears!

Mexico Leftist Angry photo photo-41_zpscd84ffff.jpg

Can Kay Hagan Survive?

At Politico, "North Carolina's choice":


LENOIR, N.C. — It would be tough to find another state where the political terrain has shifted as dramatically as it has here — from kindling hopes of a Democratic revival in the South just a few years ago, to becoming a conservative hotbed that banned gay marriage, tightened restrictions on abortion clinics and enacted a sweeping voter ID law.

In 2014, voters will have a chance to decide which of those two governing visions they prefer — Barack Obama’s Washington or one-party GOP rule in Raleigh ­ — in one of the most competitive, consequential Senate races in the country.

It will be a choice between Kay Hagan, a rookie Democratic senator who voted for Obamacare and says, however haltingly, that she would do so again, and a conservative challenger — perhaps the figure who shepherded that wish list through the Legislature, Thom Tillis, or other rivals like Mark Harris or Greg Brannon who would go even further.

The race underscores the larger challenges facing both parties nationally as they head into the midterms. Democrats are struggling to survive in conservative states as they try to combat Obama’s growing unpopularity and antipathy to the health care law they helped enact. But Republicans are at risk of overreaching with a sharply conservative agenda at a time when their elected leaders are shifting further to the right and independent voters are angry at both parties.

Hagan, who triumphed against longtime Republican Elizabeth Dole to win the seat in 2008, is clearly banking on the hope that voters will punish her opponents for the actions of the GOP-led Legislature and their own hard-right views, whether it’s Tillis’s unapologetic agenda, Harris’s views that being gay is a lifestyle choice or Brannon’s calls to repeal everything from the minimum wage to virtually every gun law.

“This race is not about the president,” Hagan said in an interview, twice refusing to say whether she approves of Obama’s job performance.

But Tillis, a 53-year-old former IBM executive who has the strong backing of the GOP establishment but is by no means the prohibitive front-runner, is betting that Southern Democrats who once thrived here are dying breeds because of the liberal policies coming out of Washington. He is defiant about North Carolina’s hard-right turn, calling it a “reform agenda unlike any other state in the United States.”

“I think for the most part, what I see from the folks who are opposing our agenda is whining coming from losers,” he said in an interview in his Raleigh office. “They lost, they don’t like it, and they are going to try to do everything they can to, I think, cast doubt on things that I think are wise and that the average citizen when they know what we’re doing, I think, like it.”
RTWT.

To Block or Not to Block, That is the Question

To block Twitter trolls, that is the question.

See, "Reverting the changes to block functionality."

More at Ars Technica, "Twitter immediately reverses course on changes to “block” behavior."

And at Tech Crunch, "Twitter Reverts Changes To Blocking Functionality After Strong Negative User Feedback."

#ObamaCare Disinformation Runs Deep

From Jonah Goldberg, at National Review, "The “keep your plan” lie just scratches the surface of the deception":
‘Obamacare was sold on a trinity of lies.”
That ornate phrase, more suitable for the Book of Revelations or perhaps the next installment of Game of Thrones, comes from my National Review colleague Rich Lowry. But I like it. Most people know the first deception in the triumvirate of deceit: “If you like your health insurance you can keep it, period.” The second leg in the tripod of deception was “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

But the third plank in the triad of disinformation hasn’t gotten much attention: Obamacare will save you, me, and the country a lot of money. This lie took several forms.

First, Obama promised on numerous occasions that the average family of four will save $2,500 a year in premiums. Where did that number come from? Three Harvard economists wrote a memo in 2007 in which they claimed that then-Senator Obama’s health-care plan would reduce national health-care spending by $200 billion. Then, according to the New York Times, the authors “divided [$200 billion] by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500.”

In September, the Obama administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used far more rigorous methods to predict that Obamacare would increase national health-care spending by $621 billion. Using Obama’s own math, that would mean — according to Chris Conover, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and Duke University — each family of four in America will spend an additional $7,450 thanks to Obamacare.

Of course, that methodology is still bogus. But it’s probably closer to the truth.

The president and his allies also insisted that all of Obamacare’s “free” preventative care would save the country vast amounts of money. As Obama put it in 2012: “As part of the health-care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations, and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money — for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody.”

That’s not true either...
Continue reading.

Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rain Dance Maggie, Coachella 2013

I can dig it.



More, "'Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie'."

Nancy Pelosi's Broken #ObamaCare Promise

Fox News reports on AFP's attack on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

And an interesting analysis from Frank Luntz. Watch it.



More from Matt Vespa, "AFP PUTS PELOSI IN THE CROSSHAIRS."

Thursday, December 12, 2013

John Boehner Takes on Tea Party Conservatives

At LAT, "House Speaker Boehner lashes out at conservative groups":


WASHINGTON — In an uncharacteristically forceful tone, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Wednesday lambasted the conservative advocacy groups that helped bring his party to power, saying their opposition to a bipartisan budget proposal amounted to an effort to manipulate Republicans and the American people "for their own goals."

The rare outburst from the often poker-faced speaker, a reversal of his past approach toward influential conservative groups, underscored long-simmering tensions between them and mainstream Republicans, who appear to be moving to reestablish their control over the party's agenda.

The hard-line groups have bedeviled Boehner and his leadership team all year by opposing efforts to compromise with Democrats and influencing primary campaigns aimed at unseating establishment Republicans, whom they accuse of abandoning conservative ideals on controlling government spending.

Boehner's words also reflected his apparent confidence that the recently announced $85-billion budget deal will be approved by the House this week despite attacks by conservative groups like Club for Growth and Heritage Action. Even if as many as 100 Republicans vote against it, as some predicted, Boehner is counting on Democrats to make up the shortfall, something he has been loath to do in the past.

Only weeks ago, Boehner sidestepped questions about the influence of the outside groups, who promote limited government and are mostly funded by rich conservative donors and business leaders. When asked in late October how they were affecting his members, Boehner answered simply: "Pass."

Though tensions have been rising for the last two years, Republican leaders resisted airing the frustrations publicly. But on Wednesday, tensions boiled over. At a news conference on the budget plan, Boehner interrupted a question about the developing opposition from conservative groups to charge that they "opposed it before they ever saw it."

"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," Boehner said. "This is ridiculous. If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

The outburst was long in gestation, Republicans close to Boehner said, and stemmed in part from many of the groups' support for a strategy led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that triggered the government shutdown in October. Boehner and other GOP leaders believe, as polls show, that it damaged the party.

"Boehner had warned them, having gone through this before, that this was a route that would not reap the rewards that people thought," said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has advised the House GOP. "And he was correct."
Also, "Boehner criticizes GOP groups again, but also wants to move on."

And the GOP leadership is purging so-called traitors in the ranks.

See the Washington Post, "House GOP leader Steve Scalise fires top aide, Paul Teller, citing breach of trust." Apparently Teller was an inside source for outside conservative groups, who see his firing as a declaration of war. See the Heritage Foundation, "Conservative Leaders Voice Outrage at Firing of RSC Executive Director."

There's lots more at Memeorandum.

And at National Journal, "Why Boehner Can Thumb His Nose at the Right."

Obama's Orwellian Image Control

From Santiago Lyon, at the New York Times:
THE Internet has been abuzz over the spectacle of President Obama and the prime ministers of Britain and Denmark snapping a photo of themselves — a “selfie,” to use the mot du jour — with a smartphone at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in South Africa on Tuesday.

Leaving aside whether it was appropriate, the moment captured the democratization of image making that is a hallmark of our gadget-filled, technologically rich era.

Manifestly undemocratic, in contrast, is the way Mr. Obama’s administration — in hypocritical defiance of the principles of openness and transparency he campaigned on — has systematically tried to bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visual record of his activities through official photographs and videos, at the expense of independent journalistic access.

The White House-based press corps was prohibited from photographing Mr. Obama on his first day at work in January 2009. Instead, a set of carefully vetted images was released. Since then the press has been allowed to photograph him alone in the Oval Office only twice: in 2009 and in 2010, both times when he was speaking on the phone. Pictures of him at work with his staff in the Oval Office — activities to which previous administrations routinely granted access — have never been allowed.

Instead, here’s how it’s done these days: An event involving the president discharging his official duties is arbitrarily labeled “private,” with media access prohibited. A little while later an official photo is released on the White House Flickr page, or via Twitter to millions of followers. Private? Hardly.

These so-called private events include meetings with world leaders and other visitors of major public interest — just the sorts of activities photojournalists should, and used to, have access to.

In response to these restrictions, 38 of the nation’s largest and most respected media organizations (including The New York Times) delivered a letter to the White House last month protesting photojournalists’ diminished access.

A deputy press secretary, Josh Earnest, responded by claiming that the White House had released more images of the president at work than any previous administration. It is serving the public perfectly well, he said, through a vibrant stream of behind-the-scenes photographs available on social media.

He missed the point entirely.

The official photographs the White House hands out are but visual news releases. Taken by government employees (mostly former photojournalists), they are well composed, compelling and even intimate glimpses of presidential life. They also show the president in the best possible light, as you’d expect from an administration highly conscious of the power of the image at a time of instant sharing of photos and videos.

By no stretch of the imagination are these images journalism. Rather, they propagate an idealized portrayal of events on Pennsylvania Avenue.

If you take this practice to its logical conclusion, why have news conferences? Why give reporters any access to the White House? It would be easier to just have a daily statement from the president (like his recorded weekly video address) and call it a day. Repressive governments do this all the time.

American presidents have often tried to control how they are depicted (think of the restrictions on portraying Franklin D. Roosevelt in his wheelchair). But presidents in recent decades recognized that allowing the press independent access to their activities was a necessary part of the social contract of trust and transparency that should exist between citizens and their leaders.
Social contract? Screw your social contract. It's all about the cult of Obama these days.



White House Delays #ObamaCare Premium Payments Until December 31st — Wants Insurers to 'Retroactively Cover' Consumers Who Miss Payments

And to think, leftists were all jazzed about that so-called enrollment surge.

I dare say this news might kill the buzz.

At the Hill, "HHS extends another ObamaCare deadline":
The Obama administration on Thursday pushed back the deadline for consumers to make their first payment for coverage under the healthcare law.

Rather than a deadline of Dec. 23, insurers will be required to accept premium payments through Dec. 31 for people who are seeking coverage that starts on Jan. 1.

In a conference call with reporters, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said insurers have the latitude to accept premiums even beyond Dec. 31, and that the administration was “strongly encouraging” them to retroactively cover consumers that submit late payments.

In addition to the one-week extension for premium payments, the administration on Thursday formalized its announcement that consumers have until Dec. 23, instead of Dec. 15, to sign-up for healthcare coverage that goes into affect Jan. 1.

Thursday’s announcement is the latest in a string of unilateral delays the administration has implemented to buy time after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov.
More epic fail at that top link.

The Left's Latest Lie: An #ObamaCare Enrollment 'Surge'

Greg Sargent, the Washington Post's far-left Obama shill, is the worst.


But see Mandy Nagy, at Legal Insurrection, "Health insurance enrollment numbers increase but still fall short of goals." Also from Jim Treacher, "Look out, wingnuts: Baghdad Kathy’s pushin’ back!"

And see WSJ especially, "Juking the ObamaCare Stats":


Most of Washington seems to have bought the White House claim that the 36 federal exchanges are finally working, and glory, glory, hallelujah. But if that's really true, then what explains the ongoing secrecy and evasion?

On Wednesday the Health and Human Services Department continued its Victorian-era strip tease and allowed a glimpse into the Affordable Care Act's "enrollment" for November. Out of respect for a free press, reporters ought to boycott these releases because they're so selective that they reveal little about real enrollment. But we'll try to parse the data as best we can without the White House high gloss.

A charitable reading suggests that ObamaCare's net enrollment stands at about negative four million. That's the estimated four million to five and a half million people who had their individual health plans liquidated as ObamaCare-noncompliant—offset by the 364,682 who have signed up for a plan on a state or federal exchange and the 803,077 who have been found eligible to receive Medicaid. HHS is boasting of enrollment for November that was four times as high as October, yet 62% of the total was in the state exchanges, some of which are marginally less prone to crashing than the federal version. Then again, 41 states posted sign-ups only in the three or four figures, including eight states that run their own exchanges. Oregon managed to scrape up 44 people. Among the 137,204 federal sign-ups, no state is reaching the critical mass necessary for stable insurance prices.

The larger problem is that none of these represent true enrollments. HHS is reporting how many people "selected" a plan on the exchange, not how many people have actually enrolled in a plan with an insurance company by paying the first month's premium, which is how the private insurance industry defines enrollment. HHS has made up its own standard....

In other nondisclosure news, the House Oversight Committee turned up letters Wednesday showing that HHS ordered the private contractors partly responsible for the Healthcare.gov fiasco not to cooperate with congressional investigations or hand over documents. For no pertinent reason, HHS reminds them that they signed contracts obligating them not to share information with "third parties."

HHS goes on to note that "If you receive a request for this information from Congress, CMS will respond directly to the requestor and will work with the requestor to address its interests in this information." Explaining how the government managed to waste hundreds of millions of dollars building a website in 2013 might be in the public interest, so what are they afraid the contractors will produce?

The reason for all this obstruction and statistical juking is so the White House can get the press corps and Democrats to believe that the worst is over and that ObamaCare is now rolling toward success. On that score they've succeeded. But it's impossible for an outsider to know what the truth really is because HHS and the White House continue to manipulate and bury the real statistics.


YouTube's Top Videos for 2013

At WaPo, "YouTube releases list of 2013’s top videos":


It turns out we’re all really interested in knowing what the fox says. According to YouTube’s annual list of top-trending videos, Norwegian comedy duo Ylvis had the hottest video of the year with “What Does the Fox Say?” The posting drew 276 million views since it was posted in September.

Actually, it was a good year for Norwegians: The Norwegian Army version of the Harlem Shake dance craze came in right behind Ylvis’s video as the most popular of the 1.7 million versions of the dance that got uploaded to the site, YouTube said Wednesday in announcing the statistics.

Overall, the Google-owned video site said that 1 billion users watch 6 billion hours of content on its site every month — the vast majority of those view come from outside of the United States.
Continue reading.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Pope Francis is Time's Person of the Year

I guess über-traitor Glenn Greenwald wasn't pleased, via Politico, "Greenwald mocks Time magazine":
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story of Edward Snowden's National Security Agency leaks earlier this year, mocked Time magazine for picking Pope Francis over Snowden for their "Person of the Year."

In an e-mail to Talking Points Memo and on Twitter, Greenwald called Time magazine "meaningless" and "cowards of the decade" for not choosing Snowden, whose revelations have been and continue to be a major news story that has shaken the government surveillance industry.

"It's a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine, designed to achieve the impossible: to make TIME relevant and interesting for a few fleeting moments," Greenwald told TPM.
He's such a loser.




Dana Loesch Moves to Texas!

To join Glenn Beck on the radio.

Congratulations Dana!


Behati Prinsloo at Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2013

Via Twitter.

And at Theo Spark's, "Video Highlights from the 2013 Victoria's Secret Fashion Show."

Behati Prinsloo photo BbKGEzqCAAAvdRZ_zps53cd464c.jpg

Inequality: The Defining Lie of the Radical Left

From Roger Simon, at PJ Media, "‘Income Inequality’ — The Biggest Lie of All":
In the last few days Barack Obama has attempted to change the subject of public discourse from healthcare to income inequality,  which he has dubbed “the defining challenge of our time.”

Now he tells us!

Since POTUS hasn’t paid much attention to this problem for the first five plus years of his administration, even with African-American unemployment through the roof and the middle class disappearing from American economic life,  and with Rand Paul (of all people) the only one to come up with a concrete suggestion of how to elevate people out of poverty, as he has recently with Detroit, this should come as some surprise.

But it doesn’t.  The fight for “income inequality” is and has been for a long time the defining lie of modern liberalism.

This is not to say that income inequality does not exist.  Of course, it does.  But what liberalism does is pretend to do something about it, to whine and complain about it, in order to ensure the support of the poor, the semi-poor and minority groups, while doing nothing that changes the substance of their inequality in any permanent way.  Indeed, it often exacerbates it.

Consciously or unconsciously, these liberals may actually want the lower classes to remain the lower classes.  After all, if they bettered themselves, they might leave the Democratic fold.  That wouldn’t do.  So the system goes on.

Meanwhile, for all their pious progressive talk, George Soros gets to keep his palazzo in Katonah (among many others),  Jeff Katzenberg his beach shack in Malibu, and Obama the beach shack that some say awaits him on Oahu.  And we all know about Al Gore’s many eco-friendly homes.  (Oops, I think that one’s now Tipper’s house.)

So, on the surface, all this income inequality chatter is nothing more than hypocrisy, that “homage that vice pays to virtue,” as La Rochefoucauld put it.  But it’s really worse.  It’s cynical and mean because all these so-called liberal solutions to poverty, solutions that have been tried hundreds of times since the Great Society, and probably before, to no avail,  suck the energy from the room, befuddle the media and the body politic and make it impossible for other methods to be tried, as with the Rand Paul idea referenced above.
A great piece (keep reading).

Leftists don't care about the poor. They care about power, and they exploit to poor to gain power and to keep it.

And now that the president's pandered on the issue, in a pathetic attempt to distract from the ObamaCare debacle, idiot regressive leftists are all over it. See Alec MacGillis, at the New Republic, "Democrats Shouldn't Be Scared to Talk About Inequality." Also, from Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times, "Does Rising Inequality Make Us Hardhearted?" (No, it's a just a distraction from the left's epic policy failures.)

A Two-Term President and the Shoals of a Midterm Election

From John Harwood, at the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — History says President Obama should brace for another round of midterm election losses next year — and be grateful for the opportunity.

Unlike presidents who never got the same chance, Mr. Obama is in line to become only the fifth president since World War II to serve long enough for a second mid-term election, and the possibility that his party might hold or gain ground in Congress in his sixth year in office.

But the unhappy record of his two-term predecessors — none of whom gained control of either legislative chamber — offers scant comfort about his prospects.

Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958 set the standard for sixth-year losses. With the nation reeling from economic recession and the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite, his fellow Republicans lost 13 seats in the Senate and 48 in the House, turning narrow Democratic majorities into overwhelming ones...
Continue reading.

The Dems are gonna get hammered. It's as simple as that.

Obama Disapproval Surges to All-Time High of 54 Percent in Latest WSJ/NBC News Poll

Great news.

At the Journal, "Poll: Health Law Hurts President Politically":
The federal health-care law is becoming a heavier political burden for President Barack Obama and his party, despite increased confidence in the economy and the public's own generally upbeat sense of well-being, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests.

Disapproval of Mr. Obama's job performance hit an all-time high in the poll, at 54%, amid the flawed rollout of the health law. Half of those polled now consider the law a bad idea, also a record high.

The survey of 1,000 adults conducted between Dec. 4 and Dec. 8 found a sharp erosion since January in many of the attributes—honesty, leadership, ability to handle a crisis—that had kept Mr. Obama aloft through the economic and political turmoil of his first term.

In a clear parallel to sentiment toward President George W. Bush at the same point in his second term, just over half in the poll said events in recent months had dealt Mr. Obama a setback from which he wouldn't likely recover.

Asked what shaped their view of the president this year, almost 60% cited the 2010 health-care law, the Affordable Care Act, as a chief factor. The poll found faith in Mr. Obama had dropped noticeably in recent months among young voters and Hispanics, two groups that had been among his steadiest supporters.

"The president is being weighed down by one issue, his health-care law," said Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who helped direct the poll. "It's probably fair to say that as goes health care, so goes the Obama presidency for the next year."

Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who worked on the poll alongside Mr. Yang, said the damage to the president's standing could linger. "When you dent a president on honesty and straightforwardness," he said, "you have done major damage that can be difficult and time-consuming to repair."

The poll illustrated a deepening distaste for all Washington institutions. More than half of those polled rated the current Congress as one of the worst ever, by far the most negative verdict going back to 1990.

Despite the angst over Washington dysfunction, the poll found participants surprisingly upbeat about their own lives. Nearly two-thirds expressed satisfaction with their financial situation. Eight in 10 said they were satisfied with their health care and insurance coverage, a higher number than had that view in 1994—and even in September, before the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

Those polled also were more optimistic about the economy, with 75% saying it would improve or stay the same next year, compared with 65% who had that view in late October. But disapproval of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy jumped to 58% from 52% in September.

In all, the health-care law came in for rough treatment more than two months after it became apparent that technical problems were bedeviling the online marketplaces for buying insurance policies. Millions of Americans received notices that their policies were being canceled because they didn't meet standards in the law, yet had trouble using government websites to buy new policies.
More at the link.

Interesting how folks are feeling better, more optimistic, but see President Clusterf-k damaging their opportunities and well-being.

Worst. President. Ever.

Gisele Bundchen Posts Breastfeeding Photo on Instagram

Well, more power to her, I say.

And see Fashionista, "Gisele Bundchen Is the Most Gorgeous (and Lucky) Breastfeeding Mom Ever."

And at USA Today, "Gisele Bundchen breastfeeding photo prompts buzz."



Castro-Coddling Obama Snaps Funeral Selfie at Mandela Service

At the New York Post, "Michelle not amused by Obama’s memorial selfie."

And at Twitchy, "‘HAHA!’ How did ‘headline crush’ NY Post blast President Funeral Selfie, FLOTUS? [pic]," and "Funeral selfies? Obama’s selfie face, FLOTUS’ furious face at #MandelaMemorial [pics]."

Plus, "Surprise! Guess what ‘subtext’ Oliver Willis sees in hilarious NY Post Obama-jabbing cover."

Dane-Ger Obama photo 1470421_10153593659405206_960073690_n_zpsf4b21c52.jpg

PREVIOUSLY: "President Obama Shakes Hands with Cuba's Communist Leader Raúl Castro."

Tenured Radicals Cannot Be Trusted with Our Academic Freedom

An outstanding entry, from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection:
Academic supporters of the Israel boycott should understand that what goes around comes around....

The anti-Israel Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement is a frequent focus here because it embodies so much of the pathology of the Leftist-Islamist anti-Israel coalition.

While disavowing anti-Semitism, BDS singles out and holds only Israel to standards not applied much less met by any other country in the Middle East or Muslim world. Israel, and Israel alone, is put under a microscope and each defect found turned into grossly exaggerated and often outright false claims of racism, Apartheid, colonialism and so on. Only Israeli academics and institutions are subjected to boycott even though by any objective standard non-Jews are far more free academically and otherwise in Israel than non-Muslims are in the Muslim world.

We also witness the bizarre self-parody of LGBT and Women’s rights groups siding with Islamists who hate LGBT and women’s rights, all in the cause of BDS. There is a sickness beyond reason behind BDS, as witnessed by the BDS claim that Israeli soldiers failing to rape Arab women is racist and open support for Hezbollah as part of the BDS campaign.

BDS and anti-Semitism go hand-in-hand, particularly in Europe. There is a thin line between organizing abusive disruptions of speeches, concerts and lectures by Israelis and throwing the punch or thrusting the knife. That thin line has been breached in Europe, as harsh demonization of everything Israeli stokes and promotes anti-Semitic violence by Muslims to the silence or tacit endorsement of the European Left.

The rhetoric emanating from BDS supporters in the U.S. also is so extreme that even some harsh left-wing critics of Israeli policies have dared call it was it is. It is no surprise that strong BDS supporters like Roger Waters of Pink Floyd conflate criticism of Israel and Jews, and BDS campus activists in South Africa sang “shoot the Jew.”

BDS, because of the facade of supporting Palestinian “civil society,” is in vogue in many corners of American academia. Those academics stand apart from the U.S. population, where support for Israel is at historic highs.
Continue reading.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Dashcam Video Shows Car Speeding Past Troopers, Followed by Fatal Crash

Via Twitter.



Also at WNWO, "OSHP releases video of fiery Thanksgiving double fatal [GRAPHIC VIDEO]."

President Obama Shakes Hands with Cuba's Communist Leader Raúl Castro

At the Nelson Mandela service in South Africa.

Don't let idiot leftists deceive you. It's a significant move, a gesture that bestows legitimacy on Cuba's Communist regime. Obama should have snubbed Castro.

At the New York Times, "Will Handshake With Castro Lead to Headache for Obama?," and "The Distraction of a Handshake in South Africa":

...the gesture was of special interest for Cuban exiles in the United States, and news organizations in Florida naturally took note. The Miami New Times curated a collection of reactions, while referring to a post on babalu, a Cuban exiles blog, that said Mr. Obama gave “credence and recognition to a vile and bloody dictatorial regime responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people.”
Yes, and compare Obama's shame to the dignity of Senator Ted Cruz, at Twitchy, "Sen. Ted Cruz walks out on Raúl Castro’s speech at Mandela memorial."

Vulgarity: The New Normal

From Lee Siegel, at WSJ, "From Elvis to Miley Cyrus to Lady Gaga: America the Vulgar":
"What's celebrity sex, Dad?" It was my 7-year-old son, who had been looking over my shoulder at my computer screen. He mispronounced "celebrity" but spoke the word "sex" as if he had been using it all his life. "Celebrity six," I said, abruptly closing my AOL screen. "It's a game famous people play in teams of three," I said, as I ushered him out of my office and downstairs into what I assumed was the safety of the living room.

No such luck. His 3-year-old sister had gotten her precocious little hands on my wife's iPhone as it was charging on a table next to the sofa. By randomly tapping icons on the screen, she had conjured up an image of Beyoncé barely clad in black leather, caught in a suggestive pose that I hoped would suggest nothing at all to her or her brother.

And so it went on this typical weekend. The eff-word popped out of TV programs we thought were friendly enough to have on while the children played in the next room. Ads depicting all but naked couples beckoned to them from the mainstream magazines scattered around the house. The kids peered over my shoulder as I perused my email inbox, their curiosity piqued by the endless stream of solicitations having to do with one aspect or another of sex, sex, sex!

When did the culture become so coarse? It's a question that quickly gets you branded as either an unsophisticated rube or some angry culture warrior. But I swear on my hard drive that I'm neither. My favorite movie is "Last Tango in Paris." I agree (on a theoretical level) with the notorious rake James Goldsmith, who said that when a man marries his mistress, he creates a job vacancy. I once thought of writing a book-length homage to the eff-word in American culture, the apotheosis of which was probably Sir Ben Kingsley pronouncing it with several syllables in an episode of "The Sopranos."

I'm cool, and I'm down with everything, you bet, but I miss a time when there were powerful imprecations instead of mere obscenity—or at least when sexual innuendo, because it was innuendo, served as a delicious release of tension between our private and public lives. Long before there was twerking, there were Elvis's gyrations, which shocked people because gyrating hips are more associated with women (thrusting his hips forward would have had a masculine connotation)...
Continue reading.

I've mentioned this trend numerous times. There's entertainment value in it, especially among young people. And so much nudity in popular culture. Sometimes folks push back. See Rashida Jones, at Glamour, "Why Is Everyone Getting Naked? Rashida Jones on the Pornification of Everything."

High Deductibles Fuel #ObamaCare Sticker Shock

Yeah, and mind you, this is exactly how it's supposed to work.

At the Wall Street Journal, "High Deductibles Fuel New Worries of Health-Law Sticker Shock: Some Lower-Cost Plans Carry Steep Deductibles, Posing Financial Challenge" (via Google):
As enrollment picks up on the HealthCare.gov website, many people with modest incomes are encountering a troubling element of the federal health law: deductibles so steep they may not be able to afford the portion of medical expenses that insurance doesn't cover.

The average individual deductible for what is called a bronze plan on the exchange—the lowest-priced coverage—is $5,081 a year, according to a new report on insurance offerings in 34 of the 36 states that rely on the federally run online marketplace.

That is 42% higher than the average deductible of $3,589 for an individually purchased plan in 2013 before much of the federal law took effect, according to HealthPocket Inc., a company that compares health-insurance plans for consumers. A deductible is the annual amount people must spend on health care before their insurer starts making payments.

The health law makes tax credits available to help cover insurance premiums for people with annual income up to four times the poverty level, or $45,960 for an individual. In addition, "cost-sharing" subsidies to help pay deductibles are available to people who earn up to 2.5 times the poverty level, or about $28,725 for an individual, in the exchange's silver policies.

As enrollment picks up on HealthCare.gov, many people with modest incomes are encountering a troubling element: deductibles so steep they may not be able to afford the portion of medical expenses that insurance doesn't cover. Christopher Weaver discusses. Photo: Getty Images.

But those limits will leave hundreds of thousands or more people with a difficult trade-off: They can pay significantly higher premiums for the exchange's silver, gold and platinum policies, which have lower deductibles, or gamble they won't need much health care and choose a cheaper bronze plan. Moreover, the cost-sharing subsidies for deductibles don't apply to the bronze policies.

That means some sick or injured people may avoid treatment so they don't rack up high bills their insurance won't cover, according to consumer activists, insurance brokers and public-policy analysts—subverting one of the health law's goals, which is to ensure more people receive needed health care. Hospitals, meantime, are bracing for a rise in unpaid bills from bronze-plan policyholders, said industry officials and public-policy analysts.

Because all health plans now are required to provide certain minimum benefits, "consumers may be tempted to shop on premium alone, not realizing that the out-of-pocket costs can have a dramatic effect upon the annual costs of health care," said Kevin Coleman, head of research and data at HealthPocket.

Mr. Coleman said he expects the high deductibles will "produce some reduction in medical-service use" for enrollees who don't qualify for subsidies.

Of course, millions of Americans who went without insurance before the health law are in better shape today, despite the high deductibles. They are covered for much of the cost of expensive health care such as cancer treatment or major operations that could be a financial catastrophe for people lacking insurance.

And deductibles had been growing for years. It is unclear how much deductibles would have risen for individually purchased policies if the health law didn't exist. But deductibles for employer-sponsored plans, which generally are much lower than for individually purchased policies, nearly doubled over the past seven years to $1,135 in 2013, according to a Deloitte study published this year.

Meantime, hospitals likely will be treating more people who have insurance than before the law, which means they will be paid by insurers for some services that formerly ended up as bad patient debt.

Federal health officials emphasize that the exchange's pricing tiers accommodate people's different situations, and give consumers better coverage of essential services including doctor visits for preventive care that are exempt from deductibles.

"In the current individual marketplace, consumers can face unlimited out-of-pocket expenses for plans with limited benefits and high deductibles, if they can even get coverage without being denied for a pre-existing condition," said Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Joanne Peters. "In the new marketplace, out-of-pocket expenses are capped, there are no denials based on your health and you can compare plans to find one that meets your needs."

Total out-of-pocket expenses under bronze plans are capped at an annual $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families of four; some older policies left consumers liable for significantly more. These totals include all deductibles, copayments and coinsurance charges for covered medical services from in-network health-care providers.

The issue of deductibles is coming into sharper focus as more people enroll thanks to improvements to the HealthCare.gov website since its botched Oct. 1 rollout. An uptick in traffic at the site and new data from states that are operating their own exchanges indicate that enrollment is picking up, although federal officials haven't released specific enrollment numbers. President Barack Obama has endured an uproar over the cancellation of millions of individual-insurance policies after he promised repeatedly that people who liked their coverage could keep it. Many policyholders whose old plans were canceled because they don't meet the coverage standards of the health law are facing higher prices in the exchanges.

"They're seeing sticker shock" in transitioning to the more-comprehensive coverage, and "once they start to use the policy, they will see a second sticker shock" of high deductibles, said Jamie Court, president of public-interest group Consumer Watchdog in California.
And they call it the "Affordable Care Act." George Orwell warned about this kind of stuff. It's leftist depravity.

More at the New York Times, "On Health Exchanges, Premiums May Be Low, but Other Costs Can Be High" (via Hot Air and Memeorandum).

And don't miss the huge "sticker shock" roundup at the Senate Republicans' homepage, "Obamacare Deductibles 'Way Higher'."

State #ObamaCare Exchanges Vulnerable to Wi-Fi Attacks

At Fire Andrea Mitchell, "ObamaCARE exchanges in multiple states vulnerable to Wi-Fi attacks."


Victoria's Secret Fashion Show Tonight!

It's the evening you've all been waiting for.

The program airs at 10:00pm (9:00pm Central) on CBS.


Monday, December 9, 2013

Greedy Union Workers Force Boeing's Exit from Seattle

From today's Los Angeles Times, "Boeing families in Seattle area feel spurned over 777X project: The aerospace giant threatens to build its newest airliner out of state unless a union approves concessions. Some workers have generations of history there":
MILL CREEK, Wash. — Shannon Ryker is a third-generation employee of aerospace giant Boeing Co. She followed her grandfather into the huge plant in nearby Everett. And her father. And her Uncle Bob.

Her youngest sister worked at Boeing until she became pregnant. Both of Ryker's brothers-in-law and one of their dads work there. Her other sister's stepson has applied for a Boeing job.

So it wasn't easy for the 37-year-old mechanic to sit down in her crowded apartment here on a recent Sunday and write to Boeing management about her growing disappointment.

"Like my 86-year-old grandmother, I would like to tell my children and grandchildren that 'Boeing has been good to this family,'" Ryker wrote in an open letter that has since landed on company break-room tables and in co-workers' email in-boxes. But now, she said, "I no longer can hold my head high and say I am proud to work at Boeing."

At issue is the company's hunt for a site to build its newest airliner, the 777X. Ryker and other members of the International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751 overwhelmingly voted last month to reject a contract that would have cut some pension plans and healthcare benefits but guaranteed the program would stay in the Pacific Northwest.

Since the vote, Washington's largest private employer has been looking elsewhere for a site to build the plane, a potential move that threatens the state economy and the middle class Boeing helped create.

The company's decision reflects the hard realities of the industry and the latest skirmish in the fight for union survival. Boeing says the contract concessions are essential to compete financially with its longtime European rival Airbus, which plans to deliver its own new twin-aisle jetliner next year....

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Raymond L. Conner laid out the stakes in a letter to workers before the Nov. 13 union vote on the 777X, an essential part of the company's long-term product strategy. "What we want to avoid is that we become one of the companies that made decisions too late to remain competitive in the marketplace," he wrote.

Boeing gave other states until Tuesday to submit proposals to build the wide-body's latest generation. Within days of the union vote, California, Missouri and Texas made appeals to Boeing in an attempt to snag the program.

The company joins a long line of manufacturers and municipalities that have sought to wring concessions from unions that once negotiated comfortable pensions and wages.

After a bitter strike in 2008, the company shipped much of the work on its 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Seven years earlier, it moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Its Washington workforce is more than 83,000 strong, but there are fears that the company's future is elsewhere.

"If Boeing doesn't build the 777X here, this could be the start of a long, steady decline of the company's presence here," said Scott Hamilton, an aviation industry consultant who figures Boeing could be gone by 2030, based on backlogs and production rates.

"Sure it can happen," Hamilton said. "Thirty to 40 years ago, Southern California was the hub of commercial aerospace. Now, no [aerospace] company is based there."

Boeing was responsible for $70 billion of Washington's $76-billion aerospace industry in 2012. But unlike bankrupt Detroit, whose fortunes lived and died with autos, Puget Sound has diversified since the 1970s, when an enormous layoff called the "Boeing Bust" prompted a rueful billboard: "Will the last person leaving Seattle turn out the lights."

Washington has taken desperate measures to ensure that its flagship employer remains key to the economy. On Nov. 5, Gov. Jay Inslee announced that he was calling a special session of the Legislature to approve a massive package of tax breaks designed to keep the 777X in Washington. "These jobs are ours," the liberal Democrat said, "if we act now."

Less than a week later, state legislators passed the biggest corporate tax subsidy in U.S. history — $8.7 billion.

But the lawmakers' actions didn't cement the deal. The machinists needed to approve a new eight-year contract with the company, but they rejected it by a 2-1 ratio.

Ryker, in her letter to Boeing's Conner, spoke for many union members when she explained her planned "no" vote: "I have told my father … I would rather keep my integrity and be unemployed than bullied into agreeing to a contract that hurts my children in the future."
Continue reading.

Virtually the entire state wanted Boeing to stay in Seattle, all except the greedy union hacks, who refused even a state bailout with their vote against the contract.

Oh well, perhaps the 777X production will be moving to Long Beach. Governor Brown's sure pushing for it.

We'll see.

PREVIOUSLY: "Boeing Moving Commercial Plane Modification Work to Long Beach From Seattle."

Democrat Party Has No More Centrists

Well, it goes without saying, but still.

Here's Michael Goodwin, at NY Post:
Make no mistake, polarization is real and results from power blocs in both parties moving away from the center. But that doesn’t make them equally guilty.

Conservatives revolted over the destructive expansion of government and growing curbs on individual liberty. They take seriously, and sometimes too literally, the Constitution’s limits on federal power.

Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty. Many want the Constitution scrapped or stretched beyond recognition.

If you’re not sure where you stand, think of Barack Obama as the litmus test. If you’re with him, you’re no hawk or centrist. You’re a progressive. But don’t confuse that with progress.

Snowden, and Greenwald, at Rolling Stone

Andrew Bolt posted on this earlier, "Did Snowden know precisely the damage he’d cause the West - and not its rivals?"

But see the whole thing, at Rolling Stone, "Snowden and Greenwald: The Men Who Leaked the Secrets."

And ICYMI, see Jamie Kirchick, at Commentary, "Treason Chic," which pretty much sums up my thoughts about the whole thing.

Apple, Google, Microsoft and Others Launch Campaign for NSA Reform

A lot of good that'll do, but see the Verge.

Charles Johnson Bad Craziness

It's takes something extraordinary for conservatives to even acknowledge Charles Johnson these days. I'd frankly forgotten about him for most of this year. He's a bonafide leftist now. No different from the trolls at Daily Kos, as far as I'm concerned.

But C.J.'s been interacting with Louise Mensch on Twitter for quite sometime. I just ignored it, thinking Louise would figure out the Lizard Loser sooner or later. Well, it's gonna be sooner, it turns out. Robert Stacy McCain broke the silence about the deranged LGF sleaze-master on Twitter, and he posted a blog entry. See, "Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan."

Charles Johnson Bad Craziness photo CharlesJohnsonBadCraziness_zps0d1c2657.jpg

Be sure to read the whole thing at the Other McCain. It's all good.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

William Warren photo Government_Solution_zpsc688a16d.jpg

Also at Woodsterman's, "Sunday Bits," and Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's SUNDAY FUNNIES."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Young and the Restless."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

Gingrich Takes Heat for Praising Mandela

At Newsmax:


Appearing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Gingrich said he was surprised by the criticism. Some people returned up to five times repeating how angry they were, he said.

Gingrich didn't let the matter lie. He took to his online newsletter on Friday, responding with a post titled "What would you have done?"

If You Like Your Doctor You Can Pay More

Boy, 2014's going to bring some of the most interesting campaign advertisements ever --- and Ezekiel Emanuel's going to be a big star, across the county.

Here's the lying scumbag on Fox this morning, and Chris Wallace admirable holds his feet to the fire:



More at Twitchy, "‘Brutal!’ The doctor is in? This newspaper’s Obamacare headline says it all [photo]." The Cincinnati Enquirer slams ObamaCare, "THE DOCTOR IS IN BUT NOT FOR YOU."

Oops!



Saturday, December 7, 2013

Communist Fidel Castro with Nelson Mandela in South Africa

The more I read around on this, I'm increasingly astonished at the intense complexity of Nelson Mandela's legacy, and especially how his leadership in South Africa overlapped with some of the most important conflicts of the Cold War. When leftists uncritically supported South Africa's black liberation movement against apartheid, it's simply a fact that such solidarity placed them in alliance with Cuba and the Soviets against U.S. strategic interests in Africa.

Here's Pamela Falk, at Foreign Affairs, "Cuba in Africa":


The strategic importance of Africa, politically and economically, should not be underestimated. The 51 nations of Africa comprise the second-largest continent in the world, with over twice the population of the United States. The value of mineral and oil resources is estimated at several trillion dollars. The Horn of Africa provides easy access via the Red Sea to the Middle East; the Ethiopian ports of Assab and Massawa allow Cuba and the Soviet Union access to the Gulf of Aden and the ports of South Yemen. In addition, the Red Sea passage to the Suez Canal is of vital importance for transporting Soviet goods. North Africa gives Cuba proximity to U.S. bases around the Mediterranean as well as to critical sea lanes. The southeast African states such as Mozambique and Tanzania afford the Cubans access to the Indian Ocean. Off the coast of southern Africa are the "choke points" of the Cape of Good Hope and the Channel of Mozambique. Thus, Cuba’s early support of the MPLA’s quick victory in Angola was fortuitous, giving Havana an ideal staging ground for the entire Cape region of Africa.

In geopolitical terms, Angola is a bull’s-eye. Angola’s strategic importance in southern Africa is the key attraction to the Cubans. Angola has over 1,000 miles of coastline south of the Congo River, which serves as part of its northern border. This extensive access to the South Atlantic makes Angola a significant outlet for iron ore, diamonds and coffee, in addition to minerals from the central African nations. Angola’s border abuts Zaïre on the northeast, Zambia on the east, and Namibia (South West Africa) to the south. Cabinda, an enclave of Angola to the north which is not contiguous to Angolan territory, borders Congo and Zaïre.

Angola’s area is almost one-half million square miles, roughly equal to the size of South Africa. Luanda is the principal port city in the north; Lobito and Benguela are the two major central Angolan port cities, and Namibe is the southern port. Major railroad lines run eastward from these Atlantic ports to the interior. Though these lines have only functioned sporadically during the civil war they are important links even to nonborder nations such as Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique. Angola’s rail connections are thus a vital, even though largely potential, part of an Atlantic-to-Indian Ocean route bypassing the South African transit system.

Angola’s southern border with the former South African "mandate" territory of Namibia gives Angola additional strategic weight in East-West relations. The Namibian group opposing continued South African control, the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), established its headquarters in Angola, and Angolan involvement in Namibia’s fight for independence has inextricably linked the political fates of South Africa and Angola. If SWAPO were to win power, the South African government believes that the government on its northern border would be unfriendly, and South Africa would be susceptible to invasion by the Cubans from Angola through Namibia. Consequently, South Africa unswervingly demands the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola as a condition for Namibia’s independence. To force such a withdrawal, South Africa has repeatedly invaded Angolan territory, thereby increasing the perceived importance of Angola, and thus Cuba, in the geopolitics of the turbulent Cape of Good Hope....

Cuba has small amounts of troops, military advisers and technical advisers in several other sub-Saharan African nations, including: Zambia (200 troops), Uganda (250 troops), Tanzania (100 military advisers), Congo (3,000 troops and advisers), Equatorial Guinea (240 troops), São Tomé e Príncipe (500 military security personnel) and Lesotho, where seven Cuban military training officers represent a goodwill gesture rather than a military outpost. In northern Africa, Cuba has 3,500 troops stationed mainly in Libya and Algeria, giving Havana Mediterranean access. It also provides support to the Polisario rebels fighting for Western Sahara’s independence from Morocco. In the former colonies of French, British and Portuguese West Africa, Cuba has stationed civilian advisers in Benin (50), Sierra Leone (150), and Guinea-Bissau (125).

Far more important to Cuba are the ties it has successfully forged with the opposition movements of two nations in the turbulent Cape region: Namibia’s SWAPO and South Africa’s African National Congress. SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma makes frequent trips to Cuba and has met with Cuban Politburo member Jorge Risquet in Angola. The ANC’s Oliver Tambo, while more cautious, continues to maintain strong ties of solidarity with Cuba. Though they know it may take years, Cuban leaders are banking on an eventual change of government that will bring these groups to power in their respective nations.
Here's the summary of the chapter by Hedelberto López Blanch, "Cuba: The little giant against apartheid," in The Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 3, International Solidarity:
From the very start, after the triumph of the Revolution in January 1959, Cuba supported the anti-apartheid struggle, including at different international events, where its representatives condemned the racist policies and racial segregation of that system institutionalized by Pretoria; at the same time, they urged support for the South African people's fight for national liberation. That support increased continually, and is the subject of Chapter 15, written by Hedelberto Lopez Blanch. Cuban troops, sometimes numbering up to 50,000, fought together with Angolan forces against South Africa's troops, until then described as "invincible." Intense military combat took place in Angola from 1975 to 1988, culminating in the disaster for the racist South Africans at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale. Given the constant threats against Cuba by various administrations of the United States - a staunch enemy that in 1960 imposed an unending, ferocious blockade against the small Caribbean island - and the modesty that has characterized leaders of the Cuban Revolution, many of the events and information narrated in this chapter appear for the first time, given that author Hedelberto López Blanch was given access to recently declassified documents.

The tripartite talks between Cuba, the ANC and the Soviet Union; the holding of the Seventh Congress of the South African Communist Party in Cuba; the training of ANC guerrilla fighters in Cuba and other African countries; the combats against racist forces in Angola, and the discussions that opened the way to Namibia's independence and subsequently, the first free elections in South Africa, as well as comments by high-ranking leaders of the ANC and outstanding South Africans, are included in this chapter, which is also a reflection of the Cuban people's lofty spirit of humanism and internationalism.
And here's a couple of pieces from the Trotskyite Militant on Mandela's alliance with Communist Cuba, "'Internationalism Contributed to Victory': South Africa President Nelson Mandela Addresses Cuba Solidarity Conference," and "Fidel Castro Gets Hero's Welcome in South Africa."

Nelson Mandela Looks Great Compared to 'Racist Looters Like Jacob Zuma, Robert Mugabe, and Barack Obama...'

Ouch!

See the hammering entry at Moonbattery, "Revering Nelson Mandela":
Although Mandela led a brutal gang of socialist revolutionaries best known for the practice of necklacing; allied himself with a rogue’s gallery of terrorists and maniacs, including Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, and Muammar Gaddafi; and also threw in with the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, he was far from the worst leader Sub-Saharan Africa has produced. When he took power, he behaved for the most part responsibly, refraining from aggressively repressing whites, in stark contrast to the goons who run South Africa now. No one in his right mind would want to live under him, but he looks great in comparison to racist looters like Jacob Zuma, Robert Mugabe, and Barack Obama.
Actually, no one lowers the bar like Obama, but it's good. RTWT.

Stacey Poole and Holly Eriksson

Two of my favorite models, via Holly on Twitter.

(Stacey is here.)

Stacy and Holly photo Ba14P62IgAAgE8y_zps68ac2b81.jpg

National Reconnaissance Office Launches New 'Release the Kraken' Spy Satellite

"Nothing is beyond our reach."

From Kash Hill, at Forbes, "U.S. Spy Rocket Has Octopus-Themed 'Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach' Logo. Seriously" (via Instapundit).



Seen at Your Local Doctor's Office

Coming to a neighborhood near you, via Red Nation Rising.

 photo Ba2bi0DCIAAcj6R_zps52ea2328.jpg