The Democratic National Committee has someone new at the helm, and she’s off to a great start.

In the four weeks since she succeeded Tim Kaine, Wasserman Schultz has been called out by four nonpartisan fact-checkers for mischaracterizing the GOP’s Medicare plan.

She’s accused Republicans of wanting to reinstate segregation and of waging a “war on women.” She has asserted, somewhat nonsensically, that the GOP wants to make illegal immigration — by definition against the law — “a crime.” She’s also been mocked for driving a foreign car after pounding Republicans for not supporting the American auto industry.

A rank-and-file member of Congress typically wouldn’t get noticed for inflammatory language and rhetorical slip-ups. But Wasserman Schultz has a higher profile now — and was hired precisely because of her skills as a communicator.

On the bright side, she has nowhere to go but up.

I didn’t really follow the career and recent campaign of Ms Bachmann closely, it was not local and didn’t run across my radar. What I did garner was that the left, lumps her with Ms Palin, as a female unequipped and/or completely unsuited for public office. For a mild example, see this post. The left will claim that their outrage is not based on the fact that both are female, in the public eye, and do not (!) support abortion on demand. 

Both of these women had somewhat similar trajectories into politics. Both were mothers who got involved in their school board to right things they found wrong. In Ms Palin’s case, she found corruption and chasing the same (often against her own party) led to a seat in the governors mansion. Ms Bachmann, saw one of her children doing “coloring circles” in high school algebra and was outraged. More on her trajectory here, please read this and this … we’ll wait here. OK. You’re back? For both of these women, if they happened to be not against abortion, and were firmly on the left, then their narrative that brought them to the political stage would be championed as prime examples of how the best of mixing motherhood and public service. But … instead they are targets of outrage and venom from that same source. So ….

Here’s my question to the left, what’s your beef in particular with Ms Bachmann? Why is she seen by you as “completely unsuited” for office? 

Good morning.

1. Talking death panels.
2. Europe and stability.
3. Freedom and the 50 states.
4. Or Freedom and the Democratic party.
5. Speaking of freedom. Here’s one more we’re losing soon.
6. Racism or not? Would it have been decried loudly as such if the speaker was aligned with the GOP?
7. On Mr Gates rant and NATO.
8. US Bond ratings.
9. No no no, the real crime is cycling without wearing cleats.
10. TARP II? 
11. Big media, when you’ve lost the Hollywood air-heads … 
12. Color me unsurprised.
13. On QE2, was it a mistake?
14. He’s right, there are no facts at all without theory, which always predates and defines which datum are interesting.
15. Contradictions or not?
16. True or not, why the heck would you want to go public with that?

Scott Ott has posted a terrific column today on how the Anthony Weiner scandal makes the case for smaller government. Here’s a sample:

Constitutional Conservatives should sit down this day and write a “thank you” letter to Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9th) for proving, once again, that size matters.

Rep. Weiner, through his scandalous, adulterous, perverted, deceptive, and slanderous behavior, dramatized the wisdom of the Constitutional doctrines of enumerated powers and checks and balances more effectively than any think-tank white paper, talk show rant, or polemical essay could do.

Like the prophet Isaiah, walking about naked to foreshadow the coming exile of the Egyptians and the folly of Israel’s trust in her opportunistic ally, Rep. Weiner’s self-disclosure has graphically illustrated the need for smaller, limited government.

However, while Rep. Weiner should become a poster-child for the battle against large, centralized, unaccountable, bureaucratic government, he must not become an isolated exception. He’s not a freak. He’s the norm.

You see, the great risk to the Right in the midst of this sumptuous feast of Schadenfreude is that we would see it merely as Weiner’s problem, or as simply indicative of the moral vacuity of the Democrats or of the Left. It’s much more important than that. Weiner has a handicap that is shared by every lawmaker, and every voter.

Weiner is not an aberration. He typifies Congress, because he is human. And for that reason, we must move rapidly to restrain his ilk from the dangers posed by their restless, reckless, covert humanity … and by ours.

He also correctly analyzes the President’s own attitude towards the Constitution:

Mr. Obama longed for a constitution that would specify what the government “must do on your behalf.” Predictably, he wants to centralize control of our housing, banking, health care, automobile, petroleum, education, charity, and other formerly free enterprises.

As smart as Mr. Obama may be, the dullest wit in the convention of 1787 and the subsequent state-by-state ratifying conventions would put him to shame. They knew that because power is so tempting, and the concentrated consequences of transgression so devastating, we should not put all of our eggs in one basket.

By restraining the federal government to a few, specific functions, and setting it up with checks and balances, and yes, negative liberties, we mitigate the harmful effects of human nature. Smaller government is also easier to monitor, and error and evil harder to hide.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Good, err, afternoon. I’ve been off work the last two days with my parents visiting. So my schedule has gone to the dogs. I’ve a few moments of quiet this afternoon, my father and I have successfully completed our (gas) plumbing project.

Humor to start off.

1. Identification.
2. Shampoo.
3. A wheel-less bike.
4. A legal, duh, what the heck was he thinking.
5. If you do, or don’t.

Elsewhere in the world

1. Iran.
2. and more from Iran.
3. Kuwait.
4. Egypt.
5. And commentary on US Politics from down under.

Politics and the US

1. Liberals being stupid or evil? You pick. 
2. Monetary policy.
3. Energy.
4. The Civil War … I ordered the book. You should too.
5. Biz data.

Tech

1. Battery.
2. Gears.
3. Spinning platters.

Other

1. Replying to Editors.

Medical

UK cancer survival rates are the worst in the Western world. And yet another example of Sarah Palin’s death panels, "And the elderly are routinely denied surgery or drugs to remove tumours because doctors think it is not worthwhile."

Politics

President Obama brings bi-partisanship to Washington. "Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

Obama wouldn’t defend federal law in court (DOMA), wouldn’t abide by the War Powers Act, and is now ignoring a law intended to protect Medicare.

Medical & Politics

You can keep your current insurance under ObamaCare…unless your employer is one of the 30% that say they’d drop it.

Under a Republican administration, this would be considered a church/state entanglement. For a Democrat, free pass.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asked black pastors and clergy members to help the administration fight what she called “mistruths” about the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed into law last year

Middle East

When 90% of folks in the Middle East hold an unfavorable opinion of Jews (Jordan 97%, Palestinians 97%, Egypt 95%, Lebanon 98%), you gotta’ wonder how possible peace is between them. You also gotta’ wonder how much is prejudice. Once you get to know those Jews, attitudes turn around. "By contrast, only 35% of Israeli Arabs expressed a negative opinion of Jews, while 56% voiced a favorable opinion."

Iran suggests that the day after their first nuclear test would be no big deal. They are floating the trial balloon. Will the world notice?

And finally, some sacrifice is shared rather unequally. (Click for a larger version.)

…but unexpectedly again.

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment aid unexpectedly edged higher last week, stoking fears of a stalled economic recovery even as a separate report showed record U.S. exports in April.

Initial claims for state jobless benefits increased 1,000 to 427,000, the Labor Department said. However, economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 415,000 from a previously reported count of 422,000.

The rise kept first-time claims perched above the 400,000 mark for the ninth week in a row. Analysts normally associate a level below that with steady job growth.

"It’s the same dismal trend continuing. It’s not getting worse, but it’s not getting better either," said Keith Hembre, chief economist at Nuveen Asset Management in Minneapolis.

Emphasis mine. The Obama administration chart of what would happen in unemployment without their plan vs what would happen with their plan vs reality continues to show how wrong they have been all along.

Good morning. Sorry about yesterday, one thing led to another and before you know/knew it, tempus had fugitted.

1. Some precision tech.
2. So … cute or freaky?
3. Religion, predating agriculture.
4. An ode for Mr Wiener.
5. Violence and virtue. There’s a wonderful Taoist piece on when X is praised, Y has already been lost. I need to scare that up.
6. Speaking of virtue.
7. Job loophole.
8. Computers … not helping efficiency.
9. Three (!) banks?
10. Trust lost! Lost!? Can’t lose what you don’t have.
11. Climate and trend. 
12. Obama’s primary means of killing the economy continues apace, that is to say uncertainty. There are those who continue to assure me Mr Obama is really really smart. If so, he knows this is happening and therefore its purposeful. Toward what end does he continue to try to damage or kill the US economy? 

Those on the left, in the dozen or so instances which I came across, almost universally qualify their discussions of Mr Wiener’s recent passing out (exchanges of) PG-13 (and worse) photo’s of himself with a number of women. The qualification includes some sort of admission that “well, there’s nothing wrong with *that*). This is sort of a generic meme on the left. Whatever might be your fetish, it’s OK so long as its between consenting adults. How you know that the person with which you correspond over the Internet is anyone’s guess. However the premise itself is suspect.

Mr Wiener has been engaging in a electronic version of the guy in rubber galoshes in a raincoat whose fetish consists of exposing himself to women. If the public exposer used a defense that “he got consent” and “they women to whom he exposed himself told him they were of age” that doesn’t change the fact that this is nebishy behavior. And that is going to be the electoral poison that kills his career. Not there is a sexually tainted skeleton in his closet, but that his particular skeleton paints his character as one worthy of contempt.

Mr Clinton was a serial sexual offender, but his offense didn’t (apparently) paint him in the same corner as the raincoat wearing creep but as a powerful man with an out of control libido, both qualities that have tacit approval in some quarters. Commenter Boonton suggests that sexual hijinks in the future coming to light will have less and less impact. That may be, but those foibles and fetishes which come to light which paint you as immature at best or as weak or weird will not become more and more accepted.

It is not American puritan influence public sexual ethics that most obviously end Mr Wiener’s public career. It is the particulars and what picture they they, rightfully or not, paint of his character.

The initial questions and observations of the judges don’t sound good for the prospect of ObamaCare, but that’s by no means an indicator of how they’ll vote. One analyst I heard said that this ruling, whatever it is, may wind up being the law of the land. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Kagan will, or should, recuse herself, as she was instrumental in crafting the legal defense of ObamaCare itself. If that happens, the court could very possibly wind up in a 4-4 tie, leaving the 11th Circuit Court ruling to stand. Stay tuned.

C. Michael Patton, writing at Parchment & Pen (highly recommended), takes on the idea of what is essential in Christianity and what is non-essential. Further, what is essential for salvation vs what is essential for historic Christianity or vs a particular denomination. It’s said to be "in a nutshell", and though it is still rather long, it’s probably condensing something even larger. But it is a fantastic starting point for understanding what’s worth dying for and what’s pure speculation. Different groups put different things in different levels, but Patton does a great job of being fair regarding where certain ideas generally fall. His point is not to argue for certain doctrines, only to give a good starting point for discussion. To this point, he says:

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

A good read, and a good bookmark to keep.

Good morning.

1. A strange place to call home.
2. Looking at global temperature trends.
3. Cain and Abel, err, Kemp.
4. Explaining what appears different.
5. Very very slick.
6. Obamacare fail. One wonders when all those putatively really smart people will notice that if some of their sure-fire predictions was so off base, how many of their more spectulative notions they based their support for Obamacare are also flawed?
7. When your first sentence is that silly, I guess there’s no where to go but up. 
8. What comes of not knowing the first thing about anyone in today’s military, you say insulting things about them. 
9. So regarding the Wiener affair, this is the consistent meme I see on the left, “I have no problem with people doing ‘that'” but … 
10. First off, should we “just ignore it” in the first place.
11. Look ma! No power cable.
12. Mr Kevorkian … 60% not ill? Well, that’s one way to cure depression, assist them in suicide. 
13. The choice? Aimless or reckless?
14. More bad climate science, how does this crap get the light of day?
15. Krugman vs Krugman.

67 years ago today one of the most daring military operations was launched at Normandy. President Ronald Reagan had just the right words to mark the occasion of the 40th anniversary:

We should never forget their sacrifice.

Related: A Great and Terrible Day.

Also related: A Pure Miracle, war correspondent Ernie Pyle’s account of the invasion.

And, General Eisenhower’s D-Day speech.

Megan McArdle  notes one of the badly blown predictions of ObamaCare.

There were supposed to be millions of people who were uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions.  We heard lengthy testimony about their terrible plight.  I don’t think it’s too strong to say that this fear–that you could get sick and no one would insure you, that’s right, you, Mr. & Mrs. Middle-Class Voter–was one of the main reasons offered for the health care overhaul.  It was estimated by Medicare’s Chief Actuary that around 400,000 would sign up (the CBO estimated 200,000, but only because they assumed that HHS would use its authority to limit enrollment in order to stay within the $5 billion budgeted for the program).

So how many have signed up for this badly needed program? 18,000, less than of the lower CBO estimate. So, in true government fashion, they’ve decided, not to save money, but spend it anyway, which is what governments do best.

The administration is now loosening the requirements (you just need a note from a doctor or nurse saying you’ve been sick in the last year) and lowering premiums.  But this doesn’t mean that they’re finally covering more "uninsurables"; it just means they’ve decided to use the money allocated for those people to cover someone else.  They’re changing the "high-risk pools" to something that looks a lot more like simply subsidizing insurance.  But the goal wasn’t to spend the $5 billion that HHS got in its budget; the goal was to provide insurance for people who want to buy insurance, but can’t find a company willing to write it. 

If anyone tries to argue that some government program, this one especially, will stay within its legislative boundaries, they really have no idea how governments are addicted to your money.

My list overfloweth, we’ll see how I do at selection.

1. Libya and Congress … and separation of powers. Another on that topic here.
2. Economic performance, employment, and limiting hours.
3. Prince, some time back.
4. Faux outrage from the left. I found the outrage at corporate tax dodging (queue GM/Chrysler images) amusing. Democrats ostensibly are for graduated taxes, while any corporate tax paid by the consumer irrespective of their earnings. I hadn’t realized the Democrats were so strongly for consumption taxes on non-luxury items.
5. In awe of the aria.
6. Mr Obama’s first years, In a nutshell.
7. Egypt’s V-police matter is not going away.
8. Racist? In my house they are called “papa noodles”, ’cause I have a lot of grad-school experience in cooking them in different ways.
9. Remember the San Francisco anti-circumscision legal movement being accused of anti-semitism, here’s their ad. So, anti-semitic or not?
10. Met. Hilarion on relgious intolerance.
11. Christian response to no-longer-Christians.
12. Pox on all their houses.
13. AGW and bad science hand in hand, I guess.
14. It’s cute when Democrats slip in little racism jabs at the GOP … all while ignoring the fact that for 2 years they held the Presidency had a bi-Cameral majority.