RobertsCare

First there was the case against ObamaCare because it unconstitutionally assessed "penalities" against those who declined to buy health insurance. But Chief Justice Roberts stepped in and said, "No, they're not penalties, they're taxes" (a position even Obama hadn't claimed). ObamaCare survived. Then there was the case against ObamaCare because it stated explicitly that only the people within states that had state-run insurance pools could receive federal subsidies. But again, Justice Roberts stepped in and said, "Well, we all know that's not what Congress meant" (he should have said that's not what the Democrats in Congress meant). ObamaCare survived. Finally there was the case against ObamaCare because the Constitution says that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives (the branch closest to the people), but ObamaCare began in the Senate where Harry Reid attached a number to it of an unpassed, unrelated House bill. Of course, Harry never imagined this could be an issue because he thought the taxes were penalties. He had no idea John Roberts would magically transform them into taxes, which meant the bill had to originate in the House. So last week the Supreme Court declined to hear the case challenging the fact that ObamaCare unconstitutionally originated in the Senate, effectively tossing the suit in the trash. So I say that John Roberts now owns the ACA and from now on we should call it RobertsCare. It's now more his legislation than Obama's.    

de Blasio on record snowfall

Mayor Bill de Blasio on CNN (January 25, 2016): "We are clearly living in an era of extreme weather. We're seeing storms like we've never seen before. If this one had been just a tenth of an inch deeper, it would have been the worst in New York City's history."

This is a classic example of how a political agenda can corrupt reason. Think about the contradiction within the mayor's statement: "storms like we've NEVER SEEN BEFORE" vs "would have been the worst." It took only one sentence for de Blasio to contradict himself. Turns out we have seen plenty of storms like this before. As a matter of fact, I've seen snow storms of varying depths every winter for my entire life. Snow is what the northeast gets in winter.

Here are the top ten record snowfalls in NYC:

1. 26.9” on February 11-12, 2006
2. 26.8" on January 22-23, 2016
3. 25.8” on December 26-27, 1947
4. 21.0" on March 12-14th, 1888
5. 20.9” on February 25-26, 2010
6. 20.2” on January 7-8, 1996
7. 20.0” on December 26-27, 2010
8. 19.8” on February 16-17, 2003
9. 19.0” on January 26-27, 2011
10. 18.1” on March 7-8, 1941 & January 22-24, 1935

Yet in the midst of all this "extreme weather," in 2013 NYC got only 26.1 inches for the entire winter season, In 2012 it was only 7.4 inches; in 2008 only 11.9; in 2007 only 12.4; and in 2002 only 3.5 inches. Clearly the case could be made that we are actually in an era of mild weather.

The "White Oscar" problem

The solution to the current "crisis" in Hollywood is quite simple: Quotas.

First, expand the number of nominees to 10 in each category. That keeps the math simple and ensures that the number of nominees from each privileged demographic is represented precisely according to their representation in the general population.

Here’s what the Academy must do:

Each year, ensure that there is one - and only one - black actor/actress/producer/composer/cinematographer/art director/sound editor and so on nominated in each category, regardless of whether 10 black persons gave the 10 most extraordinary performances of the year. Ditto with Hispanic actors/actresses/etc. Once every three years - and only every three years - an Asian gets nominated in every category and once every 10 years a Native American gets a nod. And again, once every 4 years - and only once every 4 years - a member of the LGBT community gets a nomination.

All of these numbers represent reasonable approximations of the privileged group's representation in the general population. If the Academy follows this formula, it will demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusion. It will demonstrate, indeed, that it is more committed to these high principles than it is to the survival of the movie industry.

Are you happy now, Jada?

Watch Jimmy Kimmel's take on this.