She Coulda Been A Pretender

Folks, Birther Queen and maniac Orly Taitz didn't run for Senate in California's primary last week because she thought she would win.  She ran because she knew she would lose.

Defeated U.S. Senate candidate Orly Taitz said Wednesday that her loss was likely caused by rigged voting machines.

Writing on her blog Wednesday morning, the Orange County resident said: "At the moment nobody has a clue how these machines are programmed. There is a high probability that different values were given to votes cast for different candidates."

Before the election, Taitz told Patch she suspected widespread voter fraud was responsible for the nation's high incumbency rate.

"How can it be that the members of Congress, which have an approval rating of 9 to 11 percent, can be reelected on average 90 percent of the time?" she said. "Something is very wrong with this system."

This was not the first time Taitz has claimed fraud in her bid for office. Two years ago, she lost to Damon Dunn during the Republican primary and then sued Dunn, claiming fraud. The case was thrown out of court in May.

At that time, the court said Taitz "provided no legal basis" to explain why her opponent's past voter registration constituted fraud.

Oh there's a shocker.  Taitz having no legal basis for her insanity.

Now, having said that, there are issues with voting machines in this country, and Brad Friedman at Brad Blog has done an outstanding job of continuing to expose the very real efforts to shape and control our country through voting machine fraud and has done so for years now.  

But to see Oily Taint here co-opt Brad's stuff here because she claims she clearly won and was only defrauded out of her Senate seat is just mind-numbingly pathetic.

Even for her. 

StupidiNews!

• The US State Department is accusing Russia of selling attack helicopters to the al-Assad regime in Syria as the country descends further into civil war.
• Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a bill prohibiting the domestic use of surveillance drones by law enforcement without a warrant.
• The new Yellowstone supercomputer in Wyoming may be the most powerful tool yet in NOAA's understanding of weather and forecasting science.
• The 1973 Preakness Stakes run of legendary racehorse Secretariat will be analyzed nearly 40 years later to determine if the champion set a new record at the time.
• Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and others are tailoring specific political ads to you this year, and campaigns are more than happy to pay big money for their services.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

And the award for Dick Move of the Week goes to our old friend Gov. Lex Luthor Rick Scott as he says the state will now sue the Obama Administration over Florida's apparent Constitutional right to throw 180,000 eligible voters off the rolls for the crime of being likely Democratic voters.

Rick Scott made the announcement moments ago on Fox News: “the Florida’s Secretary of State office will be filing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to give us that database. We want to have fair, honest elections in our state and so we have been put in a position that we have to sue the federal government to get this information.”

Neil Cavuto, who conducted the interview, pressed Scott on why many of those who objected to the purge were Republican election supervisors. Cavuto also noted that other prominent Florida Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, were notably silent on the purge.

Now, this is a too clever by half move on Scott's part.  He's basically saying that the Federal government can't tell Florida what to do with its own voter database if it has a "better and more accurate" database through Homeland Security.  If that's the case, the Feds need to pony up access for Florida to assure that "justice is being served" and the onus to prove that is on DHS.  If it's not, then the Obama administration has no business telling Florida how to maintain its database.

This is pretty much akin to saying "There are crimes in other states, therefore the federal government has no business telling us how to handle crimes and we reserve the right to use Florida law enforcement for FBI matters.  If Washington really cared about solving crimes, they would move FBI headquarters to Miami and give us access to the best law enforcement resources in the country so we're going to sue them for not doing that.  The fact they won't do this means they're not serious about helping us fight crime and they have no business saying word one to us about the issue."

A little thing called Article VI in the Constitution puts an end to that noise.  It's called the Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, states have to defer to the federal on laws that the federal passes concerning the states.  We kind of settled this in 1865 the hard way.  Luthor here wants to refight that battle for, well, pretty much the same damn reasons they fought 150 years ago.

He's a funny guy, but the law is very much settled.  (That is unless Romney gets to throw in a couple more nutjobs on the Supreme Court, then Article VI means whatever they say it means.)  And once again let's remember that the point of the exercise is that Florida wants to toss thousands of eligible voters off the rolls and make it as hard as possible for them to vote again.

Damn right the Feds should step in.

Not So Fast And Absolutely Furious

The impeachment of President Obama by proxy through the GOP assault on Attorney General Eric Holder just got deadly serious.

CBS News has learned the House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It's the fourth time in 30 years that Congress has launched a contempt action against an executive branch member.

This time, the dispute stems from Holder failing to turn over documents subpoenaed on October 12, 2011 in the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" investigation.

The Justice Department has maintained it has cooperated fully with the congressional investigation, turning over tens of thousands of documents and having Holder testify to Congress on the topic at least eight times.

However, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the Justice Department has refused to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Those include materials created after Feb. 4, 2011, when the Justice Department wrote a letter to Congress saying no gunwalking had occurred. The Justice Department later retracted the denial.

"The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics," Issa wrote in an announcement of the vote to be released shortly. It will reveal the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20. 

Issa goes on to say that by releasing these documents, he'll stand down.  But on a party line, the vote would pass and then go to the full House, and after that would pass and go to the US Attorney's office in DC where presumably, Holder would be served with the Contempt of Congress charge officially.  The GOP is clearly thinking that if things get that far and this being an election year, Holder would have to step aside.

Not that I think he should.  "Nakedly and brazenly political" doesn't begin to describe things here.  If we're seriously getting to the point where Issa will hold the AG in contempt for the answers he's getting not being the ones he wants to hear, Congress is broken far beyond the 9% approval rating failure.  Should the House pass a contempt resolution, they would have to sue Holder.  It would be a disaster across the board.

We'll see how this shakes out, but this seems like extortion to me.  Issa's playing hardball here and he's risking serious "partisan witch hunt" blowback.  Then again, they despise Obama so much it doesn't matter to them.

A Little Levity

A kitten was rescued after he was found in the sewer, with his head stuck in a soda can.  Enjoy this testament to what happens when good people come together.

It's Funny, Aside From That "Shooting" Thing

It's so rare that a story about a shooting is a tad bit funny that I had to share.  Please let me say that I am so sorry this man was shot before I begin to boggle yet again at the heaps o' irony.

A West Virginia man who told authorities he was hitchhiking across the country and writing a memoir about kindness was injured in a seemingly random drive-by shooting near Montana's booming Bakken oil patch.

Ray Dolin, 39, was shot in the arm as he approached a pickup Saturday evening, thinking the driver was offering him a ride, said Valley County Sheriff Glen Meier.

The freelance photographer, who runs a business called OneShot Impressions, was injured about three miles west of the town of Glasgow, along rural U.S. Highway 2, a major route into and out of the oil patch.

A 52-year-old man from Washington state, Lloyd Christopher Danielson III, was arrested about four hours later near Culbertson. Authorities said Danielson was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They released no motive in the shooting.

OneShot Impressions?  Bwahahahahaha.

Now seriously, I would love to have seen such a journey completed, and of course sad to see a nice man get shot in a misunderstanding.  I don't know why it struck my funny bone, but I was amused.  

If they say bath salts was behind this, expect to hear more outrage.  Celebrate with us, on this magnificent day our Ironic tag was born.

Quiet Inevitability

Republicans may be about to piss themselves in sheer happiness over the thought of SCOTUS striking down the entire Affordable Care Act this summer, but health insurance providers and hospitals are moving ahead with implementation of the law's provisions because hey, it makes good business sense.   Take the example of Maimonides Medical Center in New York City:

“Quite frankly, if everything goes perfectly and everything is upheld, there’s a lot of confusion and a lot of uncertainty here,” said Dominick Stanzione, the hospital’s chief operating officer. “We also have an election coming up.” 

The cuts, on the other hand, seem inexorable, and not only because Medicaid and Medicare budgets are strapped. The policy thrust in health care financing, private as well as public, is to abandon reimbursements to hospitals according to the number of days patients spend in a bed, in favor of models that use a fixed sum per patient or set of patients over time, regardless of where care is delivered or how little it costs. 

Maimonides’s own successes have helped sell policy makers on the idea. Its collaboration with a state psychiatric hospital a few years ago, for example, put medical-mental health teams in storefront offices to manage the care of low-income patients with serious mental illness. Such patients, who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, are among the health system’s most expensive and tend to have the worst outcomes. The program cut hospitalizations in half and reduced emergency-room use by 30 percent. 

“When the State Health Department people saw our data, the little dollar signs danced in their heads,” Ms. Brier said. 

Hospitals are operating under the assumption that not only that the provisions in the law will be implemented, but that the health care industry will simply move to adopt the provisions regardless of what SCOTUS says because it's good for their bottom line.

Imagine that.

Greek Fire, Part 61

Things are rapidly deteriorating in Europe now as result of the Spanish bailout doing nothing to restore confidence in the euro and failing miserably, as this Reuters story on "worst-case" EU preparations points out.

The discussions have taken place in conference calls over the past six weeks, as concerns have grown that a radical-left coalition, SYRIZA, may win the second election, increasing the risk that Greece could renege on its EU/IMF bailout and therefore move closer to abandoning the currency.

No decisions have been taken on the calls, but members of the Eurogroup Working Group, which consists of euro zone deputy finance ministers and heads of treasury departments, have discussed the options in some detail, the sources said.

As well as limiting cash withdrawals and imposing capital controls, they have discussed the possibility of suspending the Schengen agreement, which allows for visa-free travel among 26 countries, including most of the European Union.

"Contingency planning is underway for a scenario under which Greece leaves," one of the sources, who has been involved in the conference calls, said. "Limited cash withdrawals from ATMs and limited movement of capital have been considered and analyzed."

Another source confirmed the discussions, including that the suspension of Schengen was among the options raised.

"These are not political discussions, these are discussions among finance experts who need to be prepared for any eventuality," the second source said. "It is sensible planning, that is all, planning for the worst-case scenario."

And it really is sensible planning for the magnitude of what could happen very soon.   It's also all but guaranteeing a massive series of bank runs that will rapidly bring about chaos as a result.  The fact that the EU is seriously considering locking off member nation borders and bank withdrawals should clue everyone in that the time to get your money out in Greece and Spain and Italy is now, before these kick in.  Voila!  Instant self-fulfilling financial apocalypse, just add water.

This is a real problem, folks.  Strap in.  The Spanish bank bailout has failed, and Italy is next.

StupidiNews!

• The Los Angeles Kings became the first #8 seed to win a Stanley Cup as they won their first franchise title over the heavily favored New Jersey Devils, 6-1 in Game 6.
• A new British study finds one in four women will face a recurrence of breast cancer within 10 years after originally being treated for the disease.
• A new Federal Reserve study of the middle-class found that the average household income fell 11% from 2007 to 2010.
• Fourteen-year-old Andy Zhang has become the youngest player since WWII to qualify for golf's US Open this year after golfer Paul Casey withdrew due to a shoulder injury.
• The FCC and FBI continue to battle "phone cramming" scams where illicit companies charge up to thousands of dollars on phone bills for services never delivered or even authorized.

Last Call

The number one golden rule of statistical analysis:  Correlation does not always equal causation.  Having said that, there's pretty strong correlation in this NY Times analysis of areas with high incidences of racially charged Google searches and areas where President Obama underperformed in 2008 by Seth Stevens-Davidowitz:

Consider two media markets, Denver and Wheeling (which is a market evenly split between Ohio and West Virginia). Mr. Kerry received roughly 50 percent of the votes in both markets. Based on the large gains for Democrats in 2008, Mr. Obama should have received about 57 percent of votes in both Denver and Wheeling. Denver and Wheeling, though, exhibit different racial attitudes. Denver had the fourth lowest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won 57 percent of the vote there, just as predicted. Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won less than 48 percent of the Wheeling vote.

Add up the totals throughout the country, and racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote. In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.

Yes, Mr. Obama also gained some votes because of his race. But in the general election this effect was comparatively minor. The vast majority of voters for whom Mr. Obama’s race was a positive were liberal, habitual voters who would have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate. Increased support and turnout from African-Americans added only about one percentage point to Mr. Obama’s totals.

If my findings are correct, race could very well prove decisive against Mr. Obama in 2012. Most modern presidential elections are close. Losing even two percentage points lowers the probability of a candidate’s winning the popular vote by a third. And prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania.

The argument here in my eyes is whether or not this has already been factored into the votes.  My theory is that in these areas where President Obama underperformed, race was a factor, but people were honest about not wanting to vote for President Obama, they just lied about the reason why.  If that's correct, the polls actually are already taking this into effect, and why crosstabs don't always appear to make sense.

You can say you're planning to vote for Romney because of the economy.  You can really just not like Barack Obama because he's black.  The point is people aren't going to lie and say they're going to vote for Obama when they lie about race as a factor, so the numbers are still where they would be if the reasons were honestly reported.

Second, in the areas where this is the most prevalent, President Obama lost by more than that margin in those markets.  West Virginia without the seven point thumb on the scale would have been at best a tie as Obama lost there by 15 points, and that's again assuming the votes were factored in.  If the average was 3-5 points, Kentucky's 16 point McCain win would have been always out of reach.  The electoral college blunted the effect here and will do so again in 2012.

I'm not surprised by this and in fact it's pretty damn impressive (and depressive) to see just how many American voters are lying to pollsters and kudos to the approach used here, but after 5 years of this in primaries and the 2008 and 2010 elections, by now the folks who aren't going to vote for Obama based solely on race are either living in areas where the state will stay red anyway, or they've found other reasons to oppose him to tell pollsters instead.  I have my doubts that these preferences aren't already being factored in to current polls...in fact I can almost guarantee you they are.

Which is good news, in one sense.  Yes, we should be very concerned with several million Americans out there with their bigotry in full bloom.  But they're already counted in the polls is my guess.  No need to double-count them and borrow even more trouble.  If anything, at least Team Obama knows what markets now they need to be paying special attention to...and which are lost causes.  That's valuable knowledge in and of itself.

Depressingly awful and maddeningly terrible knowledge, but useful nonetheless.

The Spanx Made Me Do It

CNN wrote a trendy little piece denouncing Spanx as the worst thing for the feminist movement since Michele Bachmann.  The author goes on for quite a while about how women put down restrictive undergarments at a time when they picked up jobs and took a new role in the workforce and society in general.

(CNN) -- Adele, who won big at the 2012 Grammys, once told Karl Lagerfeld off when he said that she was talented and pretty but a little too fat. Maybe his words got to her.

The British pop star made news this week when she admitted to wearing four pairs of Spanx under a dress that wowed the audiences at the Grammys. Apparently, this was an improvement over her original dress that featured a built-in corset and in which she passed out when she tried it on.

Spanx is a line of undergarments that offers solutions for women of all sizes and shapes. You can target bulging stomachs, jiggling upper arms, aging breasts and any other body part that may need some enhancement. No longer an item of fantasy play or a secret amongst plus-sized women, Spanx products have become prized accessories flaunted by the Kardashians, Oprah and suburban moms.

So why blame Spanx for women's failings, and not lay it at the feet of women like Adele, who take a good idea and blows it the hell out of proportion?

Not everyone who wears Spanx is craving attention, or giving in to The Man.  There are plenty of Adeles out there, for sure.  There are also women who on certain days or with a certain outfit, need a little extra support.  When you aren't risking your ability to breathe, it's not this big dramatic failure.  It's an ego boost, and when kept in check that's not always a bad thing.

I've lost over ninety pounds.  I exercise, eat well and take far better care of myself than I ever have before.  However, until my arms respond fully to the toning exercises, a little extra helps my power suit fit better and reduce my self-awareness whenever I have to point or raise my arm.  You know, like when I'm giving a presentation in my power suit.  I'm sorry, I don't feel that I'm selling out women's ideals or sending us back to the kitchen by doing so.  In fact, the last time I wore that suit was to get a job.

There are real dangers to women in our society.  Unhealthy or ridiculous use of tools like Spanx is a symptom of a larger problem.  Women are still (wrongly) judged largely on their appearance, and I'm not going to pretend I don't see the author's point. However, women like to feel attractive, and that is the other side of this coin.  This isn't like foot binding in China.  When not pressured or forced, some women will just want that extra bit of confidence and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Maybe they should just change their slogan.  I suppose powerful women don't need powerful panties.  But if we want them, I don't feel like I should have to answer for my choice or defend that I'm not being suckered or forced into wanting gut control.

Well, Duh

Did anyone question Cissy Houston's motives when she announced she was writing a book about Whitney?  I didn't, I knew right then it was all about the money.  But especially when the press release never mentioned the reason the book was being written.  Normally, you hear catch phrases such as "tell her whole story" or "how the legend came to be."

Cricket.  Cricket.

TMZ outright compares her to Joe Jackson, the worst celebrity parent ever.  Houston wasn't dead twelve hours before relatives and friends came out of the woodwork, trying to whittle a piece.  Cissy kept it classy right up until she heard that everything went to Bobbi Kristina.  Now she's selling a book, and cashing in on her daughter's memory.

Whitney Houston battled some mighty demons. We watched her go from a fresh-faced brilliant voice to a hollowed out drug addict who couldn't kick the habit.  We cheered for her no matter how silly or rude she was, and every single time she tried to turn around, we hoped that this time was the one.  She's gone now, and even for a celebrity of her status, an unusually large outpouring of sadness came from the public.

I won't buy the book.  I cannot imagine finding more spin or self-serving information compressed into one source.

Eye See Stroke Risk

In the future, predicting a person's stroke risk could be as simple as examining his or her eyes during a visit to the ophthalmologist.

Researchers from the University of Zurich have found a way to detect carotid artery stenosis -- a stroke risk factor -- in the eyes by using a test called ocular pulse amplitude, or OPA. Carotid artery stenosis occurs when arteries that go to the front region of the brain are blocked.

The study, published in the journal Ophthalmology, included 67 people who all had carotid artery stenosis. They found that the test to measure study participants' OPA scores -- calculated by measuring systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels -- accurately predicted artery blockage, with low OPA scores indicating artery blockage.

This makes stroke prediction more reliable and more accessible.  Early warning may give people the incentive to change their lifestyle, or give doctors advanced warning so they can use medicine to intervene.  Strokes are still a silent killer.  Risk factors give some warning, but this is an actual chance to give hard information.

Signs Of The Times

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- A server that runs Jefferson County's financial software system has crashed and halted financial activity in a number of county departments, officials said Thursday.

Since Tuesday, the hardware problem has slowed or stopped transactions in the finance, treasurer and purchasing departments, preventing vendor payments and deposits and delaying preparation of the fiscal 2011 audit, according to county officials.

The server runs SAP, the accounting software system the county uses to track financial activity.

"The SAP functionality is so diminished that it does not allow us to do the day-to-day financial operations of our county," Commissioner Jimmie Stephens said. "It's the financial backbone of the county. It's the language that we use to communicate with all of our vendors and all of our financial contacts throughout the county. And to have it go mute to where we can't communicate is a tremendous problem."

County Manager Tony Petelos said all of the servers that run the SAP program have outlived their useful life, and of the 16 servers in the Information Technology Department, only one has any life left.

 This is inevitable when budgets and resources are stretched without relief.  The servers won't run forever, and budget cuts have made replacements impossible.  Right now, they are shut down and the best scenario is sketchy at best.  A patch buys time but still leaves them open to a repeat at any time.  I expect we will hear stories like this more frequently.  What we will do about it is another matter entirely.  There is no good answer, and so much need for help that there's no obvious place to begin.

A Real Headscratcher? Not So Much

Jon Cohn is wondering out loud why Republicans are disavowing their own programs from a few years ago, namely anything having anything to do with Mitt Romney's MassCare program and specifically the loud and painful opposition to the inclusion of former Bush-era EPA man Michael Leavitt on the Romney team.  Faithful readers already know the answer to why that is, but Cohn explores it in more depth.

Leavitt has been an outspoken proponent of creating insurance exchanges: Marketplaces where small businesses could shop for insurance plans. If you follow health policy, then you can guess why conservatives upset: The Affordable Care Act also calls for the creation of exchanges, as part of its scheme to make insurance available to all. Leavitt happens to have a financial stake in the creation of exchanges and he was an advocate for cap-and-trade while serving as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, also during the Bush Administration. The combination has drawn the ire of such prominent conservatives and libertarians as Ben Domenech, Philip Klein, and Michael Tanner. The editorial page of the conservative Washington Examiner called Leavitt's place in the Romney heirarchy a "red flag."

But why should exchanges arouse concern from conservatives? The point of creating an exchange is simply to create a buyer's club, so that individuals and small businesses can get the same kinds of group pricing that large businesses get. Utah happens to be one of two states that have functioning exchanges and, as Politico's Jason Millman notes, Leavitt has frequently referred to Utah's exchange as a good model. But it's far more minimalist than the one Romney's law created in Massachusetts or that the Affordable Care Act calls for other states to develop. The Utah exchange doesn't have all the regulations on insurers and it doesn't have the huge subsidies for people and businesses that can't pay for insurance on their own. It doesn't deliver universal coverage or anything close to it. It just lets small businesses pool their resources.

It doesn't matter precisely because the Republicans are now locked into and dedicated solely to the destruction of laws that have been passed, particularly (but not limited to by any means) President Obama's legacy.  Replacing those laws are somebody else's problem, because that would be "governing".  Republicans don't do that, they focus on "winning".  It's worked rather well for them as of late, too.  Not so well for the country, but hey.

The consensus was already eroding by the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich famously called for letting Medicare "wither on the vine." But the consensus still had power as recently as the last decade, when the Bush Administration created Medicare Part D. That program gave seniors prescription drug coverage, as liberals had long advocated, but it offered less generous benefits than liberals wanted and channeled coverage through private insurers rather than government. (It also didn't pay for itself, but that has frustrated liberals as much as, if not more than, it has conservatives.)

It's hard to imagine today's Republicans endorsing anything like Part D. And that's a significant shift. Conservatives never liked left-wing, government-run solutions to problems like unaffordable health care and climate change. These days they don't seem to like right-wing, market solutions, either.

It's an intellectually honest point of view, to which they are certainly entitled. But it does make you wonder. Do they like any solutions at all? Do they even think the problems are worth solving?

No, Jon, they do not.  A government-based solution would prove that government works.  Today's Republicans don't see a problem unless it's affecting corporate profits or power, then it's about "freedom".  Then we get a solution where government helps them and it's called a "free-market" solution.  That's it.  The GOP cares about taking what they can from the treasury and leaving the rest of us to rot.

End of story.