Hot Dog Vender:  Got no opinions Sir, they’re bad for business

Inherit the Wind 1960

 

Via Instapundit and Don Surber comes this at Wired:

Firefox’s share of the browser market is declining rapidly, according to multiple measures. W3Counter says Firefox’s share has decreased from 21.3 percent of browser usage in November 2012 to 11.5 percent this month.

and this:

The Mozilla Corp. historically has made most of its money through a a contract making Google the default search engine on Firefox. But last year, instead of renewing that contract, Mozilla signed agreements with less popular search engines. Yahoo is now the default in the US, Yandex in Russia, and Baidu in China. Mozilla hasn’t revealed the terms of those deals and the report gives no indication of how much revenue the new contracts will generate, but there’s reason for concern.

While Mozilla spins the change as a way of being less dependent on a single company, it’s not clear whether Mozilla or Google pulled the plug.

Oddly enough while Wired mentioned the whole Brandon Eich thing it doesn’t connect the decision to tell half the population that they are bigots whose business they would rather not have to said customers decision to take them at their word and leave, particularly if they have plenty of alternatives to choose from.

I’ve not used Firefox since that day on any computer I own and I intend never to do so again.  I suspect millions think the same and I’ll wager Google has noticed this.

As Mr. Surber said, a Darwin award indeed

By John Ruberry

Last year there were 211 homicides in Baltimore. As of the 361st day of 2015 there have been 338 murders in Maryland’s largest city. Meanwhile in New York City, which has twelve times the population of Baltimore, there have been 339 killings as this year winds down.

Murders in B’more began their surge after the riots this spring in response to the death in police custody of Freddie Gray in which the city’s hapless mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake all but offered “space to destroy” to the thugs.

Six police officers were indicted for the Gray death, their trial ended with a hung jury. [See correction below.] By all accounts Baltimore’s cops are pushing a little less forcefully as they go about their dangerous job. That and the looting of drugs from Baltimore pharmacies during the riots have unleashed an unprecedented killing spree. Yes, Baltimore had 353 murders in 1993 but 100,000 more people lived there then.

Most of the murder victims have been black, but the Black Lives Matters movement is more interested in protesting the police than bringing attention to the slaughter of African Americans by, yes, other African Americans.Black Lives Matter

There is no reason to believe that 2016 will be dramatically less violent than this year. Interestingly, there is a mayoral race next autumn in Baltimore. Rawlings-Blake will not be running for reelection, the early favorite to replace her is her predecessor, Sheila Dixon. As part of her plea deal involving her theft of gift cards meant for poor people, Dixon resigned her office. Sure, early polls nearly always favor those with high name recognition, but her popularity is still troubling. Can a convicted criminal be the savior of Baltimore?

It is said in a democracy that voters get the government they deserve.

Correction: The mistrial was for only one of those accused Baltimore cops. Thanks to commenter Holding My Nose for pointing this out.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

9th Doctor: This station is designed to explode the minute it reaches capacity.
Rose: Didn’t anyone notice? Isn’t there someone in London checking this sort of stuff?
Margaret: We’re in Cardiff. London doesn’t care. The South Wales coast could fall into the sea and they wouldn’t notice.

Doctor Who Boomtown 2005

One of the most important things that is constantly ignored by people trying to spin event for their gain is context such as what is currently going one by people who are trying to paint Ted Cruz as supporting Illegal Immigration & gay marriage.

The best way to expose this canard is to put things in their proper context and the best way I can think of doing that is taking a page out of Bill James book and talk about baseball.

Namely Carl Yastrzemski in 1968.

For those not familiar with either Baseball in general or Carl Yastrzemski in particular he was a left fielder for the Boston Red Sox who played from 1961 till 1983. Carl played Left field replacing the immortal Ted Williams while playing the occasional game in center field right field and even third base. With the coming of Jim Rice and the DH era he became a regular 1B and occasional DH in addition to Left Field duties

He was a far superior fielder to Williams winning seven Gold gloves over 23 seasons and also leading the league in outfield assists seven times, but it was his bat that helped him to 18 all star games 3 batting titles 5 on base titles two slugging titles 3 doubles titles and in 1967 became the last player to win the triple crown Hitting .326 with 44 Home Runs and 121 Runs batted in leading in all three categories and getting the Boston Redsox to the world series for the first time in 21 years.

Yaz would retire in 1983 and be promptly voted into the baseball hall of fame along with Johnny Bench both in their first year of eligibility. Yaz snagged 94.6% the 17th highest number of ballots all time but behind Bench that year who got 96.4%.

So pretty much in the 115 years of modern baseball it’s safe to say he was one of the greatest players of all time considered by many in the top 5 left fielders behind Stan Musial, Williams, Ricky Henderson and Barry Bonds and without question in the top 10.

But for the purpose of this piece let’s focus on his 1968 season, which followed his career year.

At first glance it would seem to be a disappointment. Yaz batted .301 a full .025 point drop from his previous year. He hit 23 home runs just over half his total of the prior year, and drove in 74 runs, a far cry from the 121 of the year before.

However let’s take a closer look at these number via a few Topps baseball card backs First in RBI’s

yaz rbi 1969

As you can see Yaz’s RBI’s total was good enough to put him 8th in the league tied with rookie Reggie Jackson and just behind Brooks Robinson but not near his teammate Ken Harrelson who led the league

Well how about those 23 meager Home Runs?

yaz hr

Yet it turns out Yaz 23 Home Runs while 2nd on the Red Sox behind Ken Harrleson’s 35 was good enough for 7th in the league just behind two members of the World Series winning Detroit Tigers (Norm Cash and Bill Freeman) and behind league leader Frank Howard’s 44.

Finally let’s look at his batting avg. How did a .301 average look in 1968? Turns out pretty damn good

yaz avg1969 1

Yup he lead the league in fact not only was he was the only man in the American league to hit over over .300 that year but only one other player even managed to get to .290

yaz avg1969 2.

But the best way to judge how good those stats were are to look at the MVP voting for the year

yaz mvp 1969

Yaz’s numbers were good enough to get him 9th place in the MVP voting in the year of the pitcher. Denny McLain of the World Series Champion Detroit Tigers would win the MVP and two other pitchers would finish tied for 5th in the voting (Luis Tiant & Dave McNally) ahead of him. Yaz would be 6th among position players behind HR leader Frank Howard, RBI leader Ken Harrelson & three Detroit Tigers batters, all who had the advantage of not facing Tiger pitching that year. In fact Yaz would be 1st in a stat not yet invented wins over replacement a full 2 runs against #2 player Brooks Robinson.

So all in all, while at first glance Carl Yastrzemski’s 1968 numbers were not that impressive, particularly compared to the year before based on relative numbers that year IN CONTEXT, he was easily one of the 10 best players in the league.

Now let’s consider Ted Cruz in context on Immigration the favorite attack of the Marco Rubio team, the one that really matters, amnesty.

First remember the reason for this attack from Rubio fans is to cancel out his own problems on the issue, as was evident even as he made appearance in early 2014.

While he touched on one of the elephants in the room (that one being the statue of one next to his podium) he didn’t have a word to say about the other, his support for the Senate Amnesty bill that has been the chief cause of his freefall in NH presidential polls.

Nevertheless his speech was well received and it remains to be seen if with such a large field of excellent GOP candidates to choose from, he will be able to recover his former standing. That pretty much depends on what happens with amnesty in the house.

If the House fails to pass the Amnesty bill then I suspect he will be given a mulligan and be able to make his case.

If however the house passes a bill, and such a bill gets to the president’s desk then Republicans in NH and elsewhere are unlikely to forget, or forgive

This was the cause for the Rubio Regeneration and his decision to stand with Ted Cruz on other issues in 2013

Alas for Rubio McCain was right, he DID get the credit, or rather the blame and now in every pol he falls into the 2nd tier of GOP contenders for 2016.
The field we used for this poll is not exactly the same as April- Ayotte and Cruz replaced Susana Martinez and Rick Perry, who had received little support. But at any rate it’s clear Marco Rubio has fallen precipitously, from 25% then to his current 7% standing.

And that’s why he is sticking with Ted Cruz this time.

While some (OK me) figure Rubio is young and was played, he’s not taking any chances. As long as Ted Cruz continues to fight Marco Rubio stands at his side.

It’s an odd situation, the MSM avoids mentioning or attacking Rubio on the subject saying bluntly he needs to get himself right with the tea party, almost as if they were working under the assumption that he is faking it but more likely because they will need to convince him to vote with them again if amnesty passes the house.

And on the other end while Rubio stands with Cruz in the Senate he isn’t making appearances before conservative groups like the Tea Party. His absence from the DC rally two weeks ago was no accident. He knew if he took that stage the chorus of boos would have been the story.

 

But more importantly than the whys about Marco Rubio’s tactics, what were people saying at the time

 

But as Congress arrives at a key moment in its work to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, the two stand at opposite ends of the debate on whether to allow the nation’s 11million unauthorized immigrants to become citizens. That divide mirrors the argument within the Republican Party over how to handle the immigration bill — and could end up propelling, or sinking, the two senators as they mull possible presidential runs in 2016.

 

That’s USA today in May of 2013 on Ted Cruz vs Marco rubio. They seem to think they weren’t on the same side, they’re not alone:

NBC Latino June 2013:

Cruz also spoke at Republican Congressman Steve King’s six hour anti-immigration reform press conference on Wednesday where he was greeted with cheers and claps as he maintained his hard stance against the bill. Congressman King was the legislator who introduced an amendment to repeal DACA and deport DREAMers.
In the Tea party rally, however, Senator Marco Rubio’s name wasn’t received so warmly at King’s rally. The once Tea-Party favorite faced a backlash from the crowd gathered in front of the Capitol. Audience members booed at any mention of Rubio’s name. Some attendees carried signs targeting the Florida Republican.

“Marco Rubio has not read his own bill” exclaimed Robert Rector, a researcher for the Heritage Foundation.

National Review notes Chuck Schumer didn’t think Cruz was for it:

Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who suggested that Cruz’s opposition to the bill had less to do with his desire for increased border security than with his opposition to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. (Cruz filed an amendment that would bar illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.) “I would like to point out the border security in the state of Texas is not some abstract concept,” Cruz said, before inviting Schumer and his other colleagues to come visit and see for themselves. “I believe Americans of goodwill, both Republicans and Democrats across this country want the U.S. government to get serious about securing the border.”

Let’s take a look at the vote concerning one Cruz amendment on immigration:

A Senate committee rejected an immigration-legislation amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz today that would have added significant security resources along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The amendment proposed tripling the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border and quadrupling equipment, “including cameras, sensors, drones and helicopters,” within three years. And the 700 miles of border fence required by a 2006 law would need to be finished.

If the Department of Homeland Security failed to comply, 20 percent of its budget for the next year would be shifted as block grants to border states, giving state officials in Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico more funds for their own border security efforts. And another penalty: a 20 percent salary cut for the Secretary of Homeland Security and all other political appointees at the department.

The amendment was voted down 13-5, with Sen. John Cornyn supporting his fellow Republican after a brief pause during the roll call.

US News and World Report:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a newly elected Republican with a penchant for making headlines, filed an amendment that would bar undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States from ever earning citizenship…Cruz isn’t the only one throwing potential poison pills into the mix.

Poison Pill?

The New Yorker:

The long-awaited immigration-reform bill written by the haplessly named Gang of Eight in the United States Senate got buried this week, not unexpectedly, by a great mudslide of amendments—more than three hundred, at last count…Many were malicious. Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, proposed that anyone who had ever lived illegally in the U.S. be barred for life from U.S. citizenship. The primary purpose of this overhaul, of course, is to offer the eleven million people believed to be living here illegally the chance to become legal—to give those who qualify a “pathway to citizenship.”

Malicious? Doesn’t sound like support for the bill to me

Huffpo:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain “no” vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point…

Other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have also proposed measures that would fundamentally change the bill. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) filed a whopping 77 amendments, while Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) filed 49.

Cruz told conservative commentator Sean Hannity in April that he has “deep concerns” about allowing undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens.

Jeff sessions filed 49 Amendments to the gang of 8 bill? does that means he supported it too?

Fox Latino:

Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.In a press release, America’s Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz’s anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.

“This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill—the popular heart of an immigration reform solution—but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy,” said the release.

Apparently America’s voice didn’t think Cruz was a supporter of the bill.

Did you remember that Ted Cruz launched a petition against the gang of eight bill? KFYO said at the time:

We will see who has more pull in the Senate right now. Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. The immigration bill could still be strengthened though. Or Rubio could bail on the Gang of Eight and join with Ted Cruz. Interesting to watch.

Hmmm Cruz vs Rubio here, he also sent an open letter concerning it to congress with his objections which were not just over the amendment:

 

Let’s assume that Joe’s Burger Shack has 100 employees and that at Joe’s Burger Shack, with 100 employees, business is doing relatively well, people are eating more hamburgers, and Joe decides he wants to hire 5 more people. If Joe and Joe’s Burger Shack decide they want to hire five more people, if Joe chooses to hire five U.S. citizens or if he chooses to hire five legal permanent residents–five legal immigrants–Joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so–$5,000 apiece right off his bottom line to the IRS. In contrast, if Joe decides instead to hire five RPIs, who came here illegally among those 11 million who are here illegally but granted RPI legalization under the Gang of 8 bill, Joe pays a penalty of zero dollars.
Let me ask a simple, commonsense question. In this instance, who is Joe, the small business owner, going to hire? This bill creates an enormous incentive to hire those here illegally, and at the same time it does it by creating a statutory penalty for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. That makes no sense.

 

And talked to Byron York about it who wrote this:

So Cruz’s amendments were designed to 1) eliminate the legalization-first, security-later structure of the Gang of Eight bill while still creating a way to legalize those now here illegally; 2) increase certain types of legal immigration; and 3) remove what might be called the moral hazard of rewarding those who came here illegally with citizenship and federal benefits. “In introducing amendments, what I endeavored to do was improve that bill so that it actually fixes the problem,” Cruz told me. “I think an overwhelming majority of Americans in both parties wants to see our broken immigration system fixed, wants to see the problem solved, the border secured, and our remaining a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants. Given that bipartisan agreement outside of Washington, my objective was not to kill immigration reform but to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem rather than making the problem worse.”

Each of Cruz’s amendments was entirely defensible, but also entirely impossible in today’s climate. The Gang of Eight bill is a painstakingly-crafted proposal which Democrats would abandon immediately if any of Cruz’s ideas were incorporated in it. Schumer and his allies have a long list of deal-killers, and it includes every single one of Ted Cruz’s ideas.

As Politico reported Cruz said:

“If the objective is to fix the problem, the Democrats have to be willing to compromise.”

They were not and Cruz talked to Rush Limbaugh about it at the time on his show:

RUSH: Yeah, but you don’t expect that hold up, do you? I mean, within a day or two, Senator Schumer’s gonna find a camera and talk about how discriminatory it is. “Here we’ve just granted these people status! We’ve just allowed them to come out of the shadows, and it’s just unconscionable now that we don’t let them vote,” and so a whole new amendment might be made to eliminate the 13 years. Is stuff like that possible, because I don’t blame people who have a cynical view like that.CRUZ: You’re absolutely right. That is certainly coming. It’s why I’ve introduced a number of amendments to try to fix this mess. One amendment that I’ve talked about today on the floor of the Senate is an amendment to put real teeth in border security — this bill has no teeth in border security — to triple the border patrol, to increase fourfold the helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology on the border, to put in place a strong biometric exit-entry system.

RUSH: Those were all voted down?

CRUZ: They have been, and critically, the most important piece is to say, “Secure the border first, before any legalization.”

And there was also this welfare tidbit

CRUZ: Well, you know, if there’s one thing Washington knows how to do, it’s come up with bogus cost estimates. I mean, we all remember when Obamacare was passed and we were told it would save money, and we’ve now discovered that it’s gonna cost trillions, and it’s only getting worse. You know, the CBO figures just focus on the immediate, short-term impact and not the long-term impact, and they just focus on the federal level. So, for example, the proponents of the Gang of Eight say that no one who is here illegally will be eligible for welfare. In the Judiciary Committee, I submitted an amendment — a very simple sentiment, just a couple of sentences — that said, “No one who is here illegally shall be eligible for any means-tested welfare federal, state, or local.” Every Democrat on the committee and the Republican members of the Gang of Eight all voted against it.

RUSH: Yes! Exactly!

CRUZ: It was very clarifying. When they go and say, “There’s no welfare,” why do they vote against a provision that would make it clear?

and let’s remember what was at state here:

RUSH: We’re talking to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas about the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. Senator Graham was on TV Sunday, basically said that we need to do this, just as you said, to get back in the good graces of the Hispanic community. And I think you’re right, the consultants are telling Republicans — you know, you can tell somebody anything. The fact they believe this is what’s frightening to me. Because where does this stop, Senator? If, for example, we gotta get back in the good graces of Hispanics, therefore we have to support amnesty and throw out what we believe, then what’s next for abortion? What’s next for gay marriage? What’s next for anything that we disagree with the Democrats on? Well, the gays don’t like you Republicans, and you’d better sign on to gay marriage or you’re never gonna get their support. I mean, it’s the same line of thinking and it has no end to it unless you play it all the way out and the Republican Party ceases to exist.

CRUZ: Rush, you’re exactly right. These same consultants advise on every one of those issues that Republicans give up our principles and become Democrats. You know, I’m always amused when the New York Times writes editorials trying to be helpful to Republicans and say, “This is the way Republicans can save themselves.” Look, the New York Times disagrees with us. They’re entitled to disagree with us, but it’s not like we should take their advice.

RUSH: Well, they don’t want to save us.

CRUZ: That’s exactly right. They want to destroy us.

Ted Cruz understood this in 2013 and still understands it today. Marco Rubio didn’t understand it then which is why he and his supporters are trying to rewrite history on Ted Cruz today. It’s just as nonsensical as claiming Carl Yastrzemski had a bad year in 1968 based on the stats.

Both claims are nonsense and the proof is just a google search away.

I’ll give the last words to Cruz himself

****************************************************************************
With one week to go I’m over $16,000 short of my goal for 2015.

While I’m no fan of re-writing Ted Cruz’s record I’d really like help rewriting the ending to this year for me so I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.