'Robert Bork's America'

Here's Senator Edward Kennedy's speech on the Senate floor, June 23, 1987, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court, "Robert Bork's America":

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.

The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

If you've never read it, see Jonah Goldberg's now-classic article, "Ted Kennedy’s America: The Borking of American Politics" (from October 2007):

If you think American politics have gotten nastier, crueler, and more symbolic over the last 20 years, blame Ted Kennedy

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the borking of Judge Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee. And it was Ted Kennedy’s bilious bugle blast that brought the man down ...

By today’s standards, the slimy insinuations that Bork was a racist seem almost quaint. The investigations of his private life — Senate staffers pored over his video rental records in hope of finding something prurient — pale to the deepwater dredging of private lives today.

But that’s how precedents work. Small violations of principle tear the social fabric and the breach is pulled ever wider as more people march through the opening ...

Bork's spoke out recently in an interview at Newsweek, "The View From 1987":

President Obama has spoken of empathy as his key standard for choosing judicial nominees. What do you think of that approach?

I don't know exactly what empathy means. I suppose at a minimum it means you want a judge who will depart from the meaning of the constitution when a sympathetic case arises. It does seem to raise a warning that we're talking about a judge who does not follow the law.

And I take it that you don't approve?

You are quite correct.

What are your thoughts about Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

I think it was a bad mistake. Her comments about the wise Latina suggest identity-group jurisprudence. She also has a reputation for bullying counsel. And her record is not particularly distinguished. Far from it. And it is unusual to nominate somebody who states flatly that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action. But I can't believe she will be any worse than some recent white male appointees ...

Related, on the Sonia Sotomayor hearings:

* Chris Cillizza, "Winners and Losers, Sotomayor Day 1."

* Collin Levy, "Sotomayor and International Law."

* Byron York, "Will Republicans Eexpose the Two Sotomayors?"

* Investor's Business Daily, "Sonia's Senators."

* Washington Post, "President Obama's High Court Pick Deserves the Deference that Sen. Obama Failed to Show."

* Washington Post, "Sotomayor Faces Questions on Day Two of Hearings."

More at Memeorandum.

Video: Fox News, "Former Supreme Court Nominee on Judge Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings."

'The Writer, a Republican, is Governor of Alaska'

That's got to be the most ridiculously understated author's information line ever!

It identifies (the world famous) Sarah Palin, for her essay at Tuesday's Washington Post, "The 'Cap and Tax' Dead End."

I'm actually kind of impressed at how fast Palin's coming out of the gate. Remember my earlier essay, "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?" My recommendations included developing her policy expertise:

On policy knowledge, Palin needs to write her tell-all book from the 2008 campaign. She'll need to begin a wonkish speaking tour on her specialties of energy, the environment, and free-market economics.

Some wonkish op-eds can't hurt either. And let there be no doubt: This essay is the foundational plank of Governor Palin's 2012 nomination bid. She hits all the right notes, on energy independence and then some. Just the mention of "the resources that God created right underfoot" here in America will enrage secular collectivists from coast to coast.

There's a few pieces up at Memeorandum right now (and Macsmind is the only conservative at the moment). But by tomorrow afternoon I'll bet the Palin piece willl be Memeorandum's lead story.

Buckle up for yet another round of PDS.

The Left's Socialist Empathy Scam

Here's the headline from - I kid you not! - the People's Weekly World, "Senators Praise Sotomayor’s Empathy for Poor, Voiceless." And from the introduction:

With Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sitting in the witness chair, Democratic senators praised her wide-ranging judicial experience and her empathy for working people and the oppressed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings on Judge Sotomayor opened July 13 with her enjoying so much goodwill that South Carolina’s Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told her she will be confirmed “unless you have a complete meltdown.”

Blah, blah, blah ... Meltdown, schmeltdown. Sotomayor's in like Flynn with the Democratic majority as a La Raza quota queen. But don't you love that part about "empathy for working people and the oppressed."

Note that while the People's Weekly World is the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, the ideological viewpoint is virtually identical to what we see routinely at Daily Kos and other hardline radical blogs.

For example, here's Markos Moulitsas' piece today, "The GOP's Continued War on Empathy":

... people want empathy in their government. And if Republicans aren't going to provide it, they will cede the electoral battlefield to the one party who will ....

Well, actually not. While leftists will argue otherwise, Americans reject this socialist empathy scam. Here's this from Investor's Business Daily last month, "Thumbs-Down On Obama's 'Empathy' Standard":

Most Americans reject the broader criteria that judicial activists think can be brought to bear on Supreme Court decisions, including the "empathy" standard that President Obama has said is important in particularly difficult cases, a new IBD/TIPP Poll shows.

Three in five (59%) believe a high court justice should consider only the Constitution, applicable laws and precedents rather than all of these plus his or her own life experiences and views. Only one in three (32%) say justices must consider their life experiences and personal views.

By party, 42% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 66% of independents favor exclusive reliance on law.

By ideology, 71% of conservatives, 57% of moderates and 39% of liberals favor this approach.

On the empathy factor, a majority (51%) disagree with a statement paraphrasing remarks Obama made in 2005: "When it comes to the Supreme Court justices, law and precedent should determine rulings in 95% of the cases, but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart."

Only 23% agree with the statement. Most independent voters (58%), conservatives (61%) and moderates (50%) disagree with it. Democrats (31%) and liberals (35%) are the leading supporters of the concept that justices should go with their heart.

And communists ... netroots leftist communists, like the folks at Daily Kos.

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

I'm Hip to the IR Theory ... the Rap, Not So Much...

Well, the jig is up.

Try as I might to hold my own in the pop-culture blogging wars, Marc Lynch comes along and stomps me to the curb. Check out his post on rap music and international relations theory, "Jay-Z vs. the Game: Lessons for the American Primacy Debate" (via Memeorandum):

Late last week, the Los Angeles rapper the Game launched a blistering attack against the legendary New York blogger rapper :>) Jay-Z. At a series of European shows, the Game led crowds in cheers of "F*** Jay-Z" and "Old Ass N*****", and at one point went into an obsenity laced (but rather wickedly funny) rampage against Jay-Z's fiance' (wife?) Beyonce. Over the weekend, he released "I'm So Wavy [Too Hardcore to be a Jay-Z]" an inconsistent but catchy attack on Jay-Z (note: all links are to songs which are almost certainly NSFW and which you might find offensive; you've been warned). When I started feeding this stuff to my friend Spencer Ackerman last week, his first take was that "the countdown to the end of the Game's career starts today." Mine, me being a professor of international relations, was to start thinking about how this could be turned into a story about the nature of hegemony and the debate over the exercise of American power. (That, and how I could waste time that I should be spending on real work.)

See, Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) is the closest thing to a hegemon which the rap world has known for a long time. He's #1 on the Forbes list of the top earning rappers. He has an unimpeachable reputation, both artistic and commercial, and has produced some of the all-time best (and best-selling) hip hop albums including standouts Reasonable Doubt, The Blueprint and the Black Album. He spent several successful years as the CEO of Def Jam Records before buying out his contract a few months ago to release his new album on his own label. And he's got Beyonce. Nobody, but nobody, in the hip hop world has his combination of hard power and soft power. If there be hegemony, then this is it. Heck, when he tried to retire after the Black Album, he found himself dragged back into the game (shades of America's inward turn during the Clinton years?).

But the limits on his ability to use this power recalls the debates about U.S. primacy. Should he use this power to its fullest extent, as neo-conservatives would advise, imposing his will to reshape the world, forcing others to adapt to his values and leadership? Or should he fear a backlash against the unilateral use of power, as realists such as my colleague Steve Walt or liberals such as John Ikenberry would warn, and instead exercise self-restraint?

There's lots more at the link.

The guy's good. A great application of theory to current rap music wars. It's too bad - no, a shame - that Lynch isn't a neocon ... seriously.

America's First Anti-American President

Dan Riehl makes a point - an excellent point - that's not unfamiliar to readers of this blog, "Obama: The First Anti-American President:

The need to continue to dance around it is growing silly. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids, without the homespun Southern meme. From traditional American economics, to our traditional role in world affairs, Obama is not a fan of a traditionally American worldview. He's the anti-Reagan, in that sense. And only fear of being politically incorrect prevents more people from saying it.

Liz Cheney calls him out on his latest episode of undermining America in the world's eyes, because Obama sees America as just another country, with no special place in world history. He is a revisionist in the broadest sense. Don't look for it to stop anytime soon. From undermining the nation economically - to militarily and morally, his new vision for America is increasingly clear with each passing day. He seeks to re-invent us as less than what we are because, to his Leftist mind, it's somehow more.

Dan's Liz Cheney link is here: "Obama Rewrites the Cold War: The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies."

It's worth a look.

California Activists Push to End Benefits for Resident Aliens and Anchor Babies

From the Los Angeles Times, "Activists Push Ballot Initiative to End State Benefits for Illegal Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children":

In a stretch of desert just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, men and women in khakis and the colors of the American flag recently gathered at a border watch post they call Camp Vigilance and discussed their next offensive in the nation's immigration wars.

The target: Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

The plan: a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates.

"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."

Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally.

The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens ...

Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, said courts would almost certainly strike down the measure.

"This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge," he said. "It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens."

Backers say, however, that they have carefully crafted the measure to avoid the legal pitfalls that doomed Proposition 187, which would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving any public social services, education and nonemergency medical care. Voters approved it, 59% to 41%, but a federal judge ruled that the measure unconstitutionally usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration.

This time, backers worked with attorneys who have helped craft successful efforts to curtail benefits in other states.

The new measure does not claim any state authority to regulate immigration, said Mike Hethmon, an attorney with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute who advised the initiative's authors. Instead, he said, it is based on federal authority delegated to the states to restrict access to benefits and verify applicants' eligibility.

Under the 1996 federal welfare reform law, illegal residents are barred from welfare, public housing, food assistance, unemployment aid and other federal benefits. California laws, however, allow illegal residents to receive some state and local benefits, including nonemergency medical care.

The initiative would require all applicants for public benefits to verify their legal status. And unlike Proposition 187, it would not attempt to curtail access to education.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.

Arizona passed a similar measure, Proposition 200, in 2004. See, "Immigration Measure Taps Frustrations in Arizona." Also, "Anti-Immigration Initiative Takes Effect in Arizona."

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a legal challenge to the measure in 2007. See, "Court Sides With Prop. 200 Backers."

Related: Victor Davis Hanson, "Accounting for California's Suicide," and Fox News, "Pelosi Tells Illegal Immigrants That Work Site Raids are Un-American."

'Jane Roe' to Senate Judiciary Committee: "You're Wrong Sotomayor ...'

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, " 'Jane Roe' Gets Kicked Out of Sotomayor Hearing":

Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade, was escorted out of a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor Monday when she began to scream at Sotomayor that she was "wrong " for her perceived abortion rights views.

"You're wrong Sotomayor," she said. "You're wrong."

McCorvey was the poster child for the abortion rights movement before having a change of heart in the 90s and becoming active in anti-abortion demonstrations ...

“I’m here to overturn Roe and defeat Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” McCorvey said earlier in the day. “She’s unworthy of the position. She’s Catholic. She’s even unworthy of taking communion because of her pro-abortion stance.”

Also, from The Ninth Justice, "GOP Witness: Abortion Protests 'Not Surprising' ":

Four anti-abortion protesters have already been escorted out of Hart 216 on Day One of the Sotomayor hearing. That doesn't surprise Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life and one of 14 witnesses called by ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Anti-abortion protesters have been demonstrating outside the Hart Building throughout the day as well.

The outbursts "underscore that the grassroots really are energized about this and are paying attention," Yoest said in an interview during the lunchtime break at today's hearing.

Also, check out Wendy Long, "Partial-Birth Abortion Questions for Sotomayor."

And, via Memeorandum, see Andrew Malcolm, "Sotomayor Hearings: All Senators' Opening Statement Texts: Leahy, Sessions, et al."

Plus, Fox News, "Sotomayor Pledges 'Fidelity to the Law' During First Day of Confirmation Hearing."

Video Credit: "First Day of Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings."

Added: Washington Post, " 'Jane Roe' Arrested at Supreme Court Hearing."

Obama Gets Thrill With Gaddafi Handshake!

Via Gateway Pundit, "Once Again ... Obama Batters US Allies & Uplifts Foes in Latest World Tour."

Check out that photograph of President Obama giddily greeting Libyan authortarian Muammar Gaddafi (via AP):

By now there's no doubt that President Obama gets a thrill up his leg when he's pressing the flesh of the world's most brutal dictators. As Joseph Loconte remarked earlier:

If the Obama White House intends to elevate human rights within U.S. foreign policy, then the State Department and its new boss, Hillary Clinton, should re-acquaint themselves with their file on Libya. Under Qaddafi, the country became a major state sponsor of terrorism and was responsible, among other atrocities, for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight that killed 269 passengers over Lockerbie, Scotland. Even the U.N. Security Council, often enfeebled by its moral cynicism, imposed an arms embargo and froze Libya's foreign assets. An officially Islamic state, Libya bans the existence of political parties and trade unions. Opposition figures are jailed or forced to flee the country. There is no freedom of the press--the state owns all print and broadcast media--or freedom of assembly. The judiciary remains under political control. Arbitrary arrests, imprisonments, and torture are commonplace. All mosques, overwhelmingly Sunni, fall under government scrutiny and must uphold the state's version of Islam. Minority faiths, including about 100,000 Christians, face restrictions on worship and freedom of speech.

It is true that, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Libya somewhat changed its tune: it accepted responsibility for the Pan Am bombing, renounced terrorism, and promised to dismantle its program to develop weapons of mass destruction. In June of 2006, the Bush administration ended Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Last year Libya's foreign minister met with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the first such visit since 1972.

These are positive steps for a longtime pariah state, but do they represent anything more than short-term political necessity? The fact is that Libya's machinery of repression hasn't changed. It is a crime to publish anything deemed critical of Qaddafi's "Green Book," his rambling manifesto of Pan-Arabism and socialism, coated in Islamic ideals, which rejects representative democracy as "an obsolete experiment." There is no genuinely independent civil society, the historical prerequisite for political and social reform. Political corruption is rampant. The most recent report from Freedom House designated Libya as among its "worst of the worst" nations with regards to political and civil liberties." Anyone daring to challenge the regime or the Libyan state openly," according to Freedom House, "is in danger of arrest, torture, and imprisonment."

Is this the proud, progressive face of the African continent? The silence of the Obama administration over Qaddafi does not bode well for its Africa policy: the diplomatic temptation, acute among political liberals, is to "engage" authoritarian regimes while ignoring their domestic despotisms.

The handshake came at the G-8 summit in Italy (no doubt as prelude to Obama's sub-Saharan apology tour).

Here's how the press spoke of Obama's meeting with Ghaddafi as the G-8 dinner in Italy:

Meet and greet; family photo and dinner hosted by the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano ...

Libya's Qaddafi entered in a colorful outfit. He had red and gold cap a red and gold draping over his shoulder and wore a matching shirt and pants that were an black and orange/peach color with a wave-like pattern ....

The handshake. Obama wore a polite look but not exactly a smile as he shook Qaddafi's hand. This happened as the leaders filed onto steps for a family photo. I checked the picture on one of the official photog's cameras to get a good look at Obama's face since this happened so quickly. Qaddafi shook several other leaders hands as he walked down the front row to take his place for the picture ...

A fuller description of Ghaddafi's outfit - "red and gold cap a red and gold draping over his shoulder" - at the link.

Man, these journalists really are people from another world - an Obamaworld!

Obviously, to say that's "not exactly a smile" would be to simply change the definition of smiling. No, it's not a huge upturned teeth-flasher, but Obama is eminently pleased to shake this dictator's hand. Just as he's been pleased to hug, high-five, and fist-bump other Third World despots and crooks from Caracas to the West Bank:

**********

Related: From July 2008, "Abbas' Damascus Odyssey":

Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas was in Damascus this week. It had nothing to do with the Turkish-mediated Israeli-Syrian “peace talks” that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has been trying to spin into a raison d’être for his miserably corrupt, incompetent governance.

Instead Abbas met with an anti-American dictator, Bashar Assad, and with leaders of three anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-Western terrorist organizations—Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine—to discuss achieving unity between two other terrorist organizations, Hamas and his own Fatah.

Are You Getting 60,000 Unique Visitors Every Month?

Well, are you?

The New York Times reports on Colleen Padilla in Philadelphia. She runs a blog portal for the stay-at-home demographic, Classy Mommy. Some sample posts? "Cozy Coupe Car," and "Boogie Wipes":

Boogie Wipes, created to solve the problem of wiping the crusty & runny noses of toddlers and preschoolers, are truly an innovative product invented by two Moms. Last week I had the privilege to interview Boogie Wipes Founders, Mindee and Julie to learn more about their biz. Truly, these one of a kind saline wipes are designed to encourage kids to deal with the nose wipe instead of running in the other direction. Moms love them and sales of these buggers have taken off as Moms struggle with boogies on a daily basis.

Hey, as a husband of a professional mom, and a fully-involved father who just this morning took his youngest son to the summer school bus-stop (looking on wistfully as the bus rolled off, not unlike Tom Hanks at the conclusion of Forrest Gump), I have to take exception: There's a market for sexist blogging?

Calling Judith Warner! Ms. Padilla's not getting with the program!

And not only that, as the Times points out, Ms. Padilla's blog "attracts 60,000 unique visitors every month."

That's pretty good, but not that good. Give me an Instalanche or two, plus some regular FMRA action, and I'm good 40,000 "unique visitors" a month, if not more. I've had some good traffic days in the last month or two, but while meeting similar numbers as Ms. Padilla, in not getting the bling! Apparenlty, Ms. Padilla's getting ...

... free items from companies eager to promote their products to her readers.

Marketing companies are keen to get their products into the hands of so-called influencers who have loyal online followings because the opinions of such consumers help products stand out amid the clutter, particularly in social media.

To be fair, I have gotten a few desk copies of books I might read and write about as a blogger, but I could use some kids stuff too! Man, what postmodern dad can do without complimentary Boogie Wipes these days!

It's hard out there for a neocon!

Of course, it helps to learn how to blog." After that, it can't hurt to get in good with the "'The Rule 5 Community."

Sonia Sotomayor on Capitol Hill: 'Give Her Some Bork!'

From the comments at Ann Althouse's Sonia Sotomayor live-blogging, "Give her some Bork!"

I'll say ...

At the video, Senator Jeff Sessions, Ranking GOP Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argues that Sotomayor's left-wing ideology will "flower" as a member of the Supreme Court. (And the reaction: "Sessions “Flabbergasted” by Sotomayor's Philosophy.")

Watch CBS Videos Online

Yeah, her confirmation is all but certain, but the push we've seen on the left to turn Judge Sotomayor as a "judicial moderate" has been stunning. It's gone so far that E.J. Dionne's now attack Republicans as the "real radicals":

This week's hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court represent the opening skirmish in a long-term struggle to challenge the escalating activism of an increasingly conservative judiciary.

The Senate's Republican minority does not expect to derail Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the court, and they realize that their attack lines against her have failed to ignite public attention, or even much interest.
Her restrained record as a lower-court judge has made it impossible to cast her credibly as a liberal judicial activist. "They haven't laid a glove on her," said Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), her leading Senate supporter ....

In this battle, it is she, not her critics, who represents moderation and judicial restraint.

I've edited the context (so RTWT), but it's the concluding point that's key: Democrats will paint opponents of Sotomayor's racist extemism as the "real radicals."

More at Memeorandum.

Also Blogging:

* Michelle Malkin, "Day One: Spotlight on Sotomayor."

* Ed Morrissey, "Sotomayor, Day 1: Hispanics Promise Lots of Scrutiny of GOP."

* Betsy Newmark, "What to Ask Sonia Sotomayor."

* Via Glenn Reynolds, John Cornyn has "Some Questions for Judge Sotomayor."

* Jill Stanek, "Sotomayor Opening Features Shout-Out From Pro-Lifer."

* Stop the ACLU, "Sotomayor’s Selective Empathy."

* Volokh Conspiracy, "Ask About Clauses Not Cases."

And, on the smearing of Frank Ricci:

* Pundette & Pundette, "So It's Un-American to Stand Up For Your Rights?"

Who's Making 'Six-Figures' Blogging? (And an Aside on 'Up-and-Coming' Conservatives)

I'm reading this post by Felix Salmon at Reuters, "Notes on Blogging for Journalists." A lot of it's familiar, but this part really caught my attention:

Who should blog?

The short and easy answer, of course, is “everybody”. But blogging isn’t easy, and not everyone is good at it. If you find writing hard, if you don’t feel any particular need to share your opinions with strangers, if you value your privacy — then maybe blogging isn’t for you.

And there are some good reasons not to blog. It takes up a lot of time, which means that there are significant opportunity costs associated with blogging. If you read a lot of blogs and news outlets anyway, then the marginal extra time commitment can come down, but it’s still substantial. It also puts you out there; it’s not for the thin-skinned. People will be very rude about you, in public. If you don’t want that, don’t blog. And it can, in extremis, even get you fired — bloggers tend not to be Organization People, and they tend to say what they think quite forcefully, and they don’t have much in the way of job security. (Of course, having a good blog can get you hired, too: there are two sides to that coin, and right now the market in good bloggers is pretty hot, and the number of bloggers making six-figure incomes has never been higher.)

I can't imagine anyone making $100,000 a year blogging; and by that, I mean blogging exclusively (sitting with laptap all day and regurgitating the original reporting and research that people in the field are doing).

I've been teaching 10 years at my college, and I don't mind saying I don't clear 100k annually (my joint returns are well over that, which means that Obama's taxes on the "rich" will be inching down my way in no time). And that's not even counting course overloads and summer assignments. I've taught a seven-course load once or twice, and it's an express-ticket to burnout. And I still wasn't taking in that kind of money Salmon's talking about for a blogger: You've got "journalists" hanging out all day blogging, making that kind of dough?

I want some names! Let's hear 'em: Who's making 100k? I wouldn't be suprised if The Atlantic paid Andrew Sullivan that much. As offensive as he is, you can't argue he's slacking over there. Ross Douthat? Well, "snail-blogging" wouldn't be an improper term, but he's moved on to the New York Times - kind of a sinecure for the non-threatening conservative, one might think.

And speaking of conservatives, I was actually about to respond to this essay by Drake Bennett, "The Next Conservative Thinkers" (via Memeorandum). I mean, c'mon! Luigi Zingales, Bradford Wilcox, Reihan Salam, and Megan McArdle? The former two are no-names to me, and the latter are essentially liberals. (Megan McArdle, who voted for Barack Obama last November, redeems herself on free-market economics, but her libertarianism on some social issues is deathly).

Robert Stacy McCain's got a post up on this at American Spectator, "The New Establishmentarians." He's kind of incredulous:

Am I the only one left who thinks of conservatism as a philosophy of opposition, a defiant creed that aims to challenge the hegemony of organized liberalism?"

That's pretty rhetorical, considering the tremendous backlash we saw earlier this year against Rush Limbaugh. But Robert's on to something in some respects. All of this searching for a "new" conservatism is doing nothing more than validating the left's disastrous big government (moral) bankruptcy that's working to destroy the social and structural institutions of society.

More later. But for the kind of mind-numbing postmodern conservatism that's completely unmoored from economic and traditionalist foundations, check out Ordinary Gentlemen, "Twenty-First Century Conservativsm."

As for "notes on blogging," see my earlier piece, "How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger."

The New Pop Music Theatricality

It's time for an update on my earlier entry, "Rule 5 Rescue: Lady GaGa Nude!"

It turns out that today's Los Angeles Times features a critical review of the shifting trends in pop music, with artists like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry blending fantasy and reality to create a permanent state of super-freaked pop theatricality. From Ann Powers, "When Rock Stars Fake It: It's Not About Just the Music. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Janelle Monae and Others Never Break Character. But Is It Real or Merely an Elaborate Act?":

Across nearly every genre in pop, artifice, theatricality and synthesized sound rule the day. The biggest group in the nation is the Black Eyed Peas, hip hop's answer to both the Monkees and Cirque du Soleil. Green Day, formerly your basic snotty punk band, has gained renewed respect and commercial success by writing rock operas; now the band's Billie Joe Armstrong and "Spring Awakening" director Michael Mayer are turning one into a musical. And Slipknot-style masks and pseudonyms have returned to the hard rock underground via the band Hollywood Undead.

Theater veteran Adam Lambert turned "American Idol" on its head by wearing glitter and metal wings and performing with KISS; he reportedly is working with Gaga's producer, Red One, on his upcoming album. Lambert's friend Katy Perry became the most talked-about female artist of last year by resurrecting classic styles of feminine masquerade, including burlesque and Lucille Ball-style screwball comedy, and releasing songs like "UR So Gay" and “I Kissed A Girl,” which make provocative hay from the hot topic of fluid sexual identity.

Even college rock, once a bastion of frumpy sincerity, has been taken over by the drama club kids - from the kitchen-sink epics staged by bands like the Decemberists and Of Montreal to the fairy tales spun by alter-egoed fantasists Bat for Lashes and St. Vincent (real names are not cool these days, unless your mama called you Panda Bear).

Country music too has gained a synthetic sheen: The hot new single by crossover band Gloriana kicks off with what sounds suspiciously like a drum machine, while industry standard-bearer Brad Paisley celebrates video chatting and smart phone Super Pac-Man on "Welcome to the Future."

This giddy embrace of the world as a stage seems to go beyond where glam rock and disco took pop in the past, partly because it's assisted by more sophisticated technology. Auto-Tune, the software program that alters vocal pitch, has become ubiquitous both as a corrective and a kind of carnival mask, used by artists like T-Pain to upend listeners' expectations about what a love song - or a party song - should sound like ...

I'm not completely sold that today's trends are a genuine revolution in pop music. The piece notes that Lady Gaga traces her influences to David Bowie, whose gender-bending musical innovations shattered pop conventions 35 years ago.

I must say, though, that it's an exciting time with artists like Lady Gaga. Be sure to check the picture at the Times article. This is a fabulously beautiful woman.

Photo Credit: BBC, "Lady GaGa Performing Live at Glastonbury 2009."

Democrats Renew Push for Show Trials Prosecutions

Glenn Greenwald is outraged at the Eric Holder "trial balloon" over the Bush administration's wartime interrogations (via Memeorandum):

All other things being equal, individual CIA agents who brutalized detainees, using unapproved methods, ought to be prosecuted. If nothing else, our treaty obligations compel that. Even for a country that has rejected the idea of accountability as resoundingly as we have, it seems inconceivable to decide to prosecute nobody in the face of scores of detainee deaths. How can we know that we tortured to death numerous detainees and do nothing? If you were Eric Holder, would you want that decision attached to your name by history?

But just as was true for the Abu Ghraib abuses, many of the worst instances of detainee abuse cannot be extricated from - but rather are directly attributable to - the torture policies authorized at the highest levels of the government. To target low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy makers would further bolster America's two-tiered system of justice, in which ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless punishment while the most powerful elites are vested with virtual immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

Scott Horton, another extreme-left constitutional lawer, is also on the case with, "Torture Prosecution Turnaround?"

The outcome of such prosecutions is hardly in doubt. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which released an action memo in April, "Impeach Torture Architect Bybee," has basically already convicted top-Bush administration officials. The group's report, "Commission Finds President George W. Bush and His Administration Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity," was written by terrorist-sympathizer Michael Rattner, and was co-sponsored by the revolutionary communist organization, Not In Our Name. (But see also, Mark Danner, "The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means.")

Emptywheel at Firedoglake see legs on this new push for investigations, going potentially to the top of the former Bush administration:

My take - one derived from some weeds - is that if Holder approves an investigation, it'll be unlikely to just take on low-level CIA interrogators.

... consider who we're talking about. We're not, actually, talking about low level CIA interrogators. We're talking about contractors. James Mitchell, to be exact. And if James Mitchell is not the psychologist/interrogator who acknowledged he had exceeded the limits set by John Yoo's Bybee Memo, but justified it by saying he had exceeded those limits (by using way more water, for longer time, and pressing on the detainee's gut) because those things make the simulated drowning technique "for real - and ... more poignant and convincing," then it's almost certainly someone who works for James Mitchell and probably used to work for the DOD entity that administers SERE.

Oh boy, that's some creepy subterraneanism. But as Wizbang points out:

The entire torture prosecution meme, and the Potemkin Panetta "lying to Congress" Theatre, is all part of a two scene drama: the rehabilitation of Nancy Pelosi and the diversion of attention from a failing Obama policy in multiple areas. The torture debate was settled months ago but the egos in the Democratic Congress and a sinking Obama presidency require a new distraction now that Sarah Palin is off the front page.

And Sweetness and Light, calling all of this the "Eric Holder show trials," adds that "no one has yet to enunciate a single law that was ever broken by these interrogations."

See also, Ace of Spades HQ, "Eric Holder: Hey, Let's Jail the People Who've Kept Us Safe for Eight Years."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Photo Credit: ABC News, "Europeans Rally on May Day Amid Economic Worries" (AP/Dmitry Lovetsky).

McCain on Meet the Press: Palin 'Absolutely Qualified' for Presidency

Here's John McCain on Sarah Palin from this morning's Meet the Press:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to politics. You must have been shocked to see Governor Sarah Palin resign as governor.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I wasn't shocked. Obviously, I was a bit surprised, but I wasn't shocked. I understand that Sarah made the decision where she can be most effective for Alaska and for the country. I love and respect her and her family. I'm grateful that she agreed to run with me. I am confident she will be a major factor in the national scene and, and in Alaska, as well.

MR. GREGORY: But you say you were surprised a little bit. Why?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, because she had not called me. We've discussed it since and I better understand the reasons for her decision.

MR. GREGORY: What were they?

SEN. McCAIN: Look, there's--well, how could she best serve? How could she most effectively serve Alaska and the country? And that was her decision.

*****

MR. GREGORY: She made a promise to the voters to serve out her term, didn't she?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't know if there was a "promise," but I do know that she will be an effective player on the national stage. And I will say, I have never seen the sustained personal family attacks that were made on Sarah Palin and her family in, in, in my life. Carl Cannon has a very interesting piece about the media establishment and the attacks that were made on her, and I'm sure that that had some impact. Ethics charge after ethics charge, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of, worth of legal fees. But the fact is she is very popular with our Republican base. She will be a strong voice. I chose her because she was a reformer, because she beat an incumbent governor, she was a popular Republican of her own party, she ignited our base, she did a great job as my running mate even under the most sustained personal attacks that...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. McCAIN: ...in certainly recent American political history.

MR. GREGORY: But, Senator McCain, you have faced personal torture, personal attacks, political attacks, investigations. You have never resigned from anything. Is it consistent with your qualities of leadership to resign an elected post like this?

*****

MR. GREGORY: You think she's qualified to seek the high, highest office in the land?

SEN. McCAIN: I know she's qualified. I know she's qualified.

MR. GREGORY: She is qualified?

SEN. McCAIN: Sure. Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: No doubt about it.

SEN. McCAIN: No doubt about it. She has all the right instincts, all the right principles. She was a, she was a, a mayor, she's a governor. She understands the challenges that families face. She has, she has a great background, and I am confident that she will continue to play, as I say, a major role.

See also, The Hill, "McCain: Palin Not a Quitter."

Plus, Tammy Bruce, "Palin Hints at Independent Conservative Movement" (via Memeorandum).

Crackdown on Amtrak Mooning in O.C.

It's something of a local tradition, but turnout for this year's "Amtrak mooning" was down. The Orange County Register has the story, "Fewer than 300 show up for annual train mooning":

Outgoing grandmas and beefed-up Harley-Davidson riders were among a few hundred people today who waved their bare derrieres to the trains roaring by the Mugs Away Saloon for the annual Mooning of Amtrak and Metrolink.

Somewhere between 8,000 to 10,000 people participated last year, when officers witnessed sex acts, urination, and defecation in public – prompting the shutdown of the event for the first time in its history.
More law enforcement this year meant fewer mooners.

Dozens of officers on foot, three-wheeled battery-powered vehicles, horseback, motorcycles, bikes, and patrol vehicles were watching nearby aiming to curb illegal behavior.

KABC-TV Los Angeles "covered" the story earlier, "Crackdown on Amtrak mooning in O.C. ":

Southern California may be known for its sunny skies, but the city of Laguna Niguel's reputation for the past three decades has revolved around the moon. Actually thousands of moons.

Each year a crush of people line up along the railroad tracks in the city and bare their backsides to every Amtrak train that passes by. But now the sun may be setting on this mooning tradition.

"Hopefully it will be a much smaller event this year," said Mayor Robert Ming, Laguna Niguel.

Call to Jihad: 'Why Are We Sitting Around in America, Doing Nothing for Our People?'

From the New York Times, "A Call to Jihad From Somalia, Answered in the U.S.":

The Carlson School of Management rises from the asphalt like a monument to capitalist ambition. Stock prices race across an electronic ticker near a sleek entrance and the atrium soars skyward, as if lifting the aspirations of its students. The school’s plucky motto is “Nowhere but here.”

For a group of students who often met at the school, on the University of Minnesota campus, those words seemed especially fitting. They had fled Somalia as small boys, escaping a catastrophic civil war. They came of age as refugees in Minneapolis, embracing basketball and the prom, hip-hop and the Mall of America. By the time they reached college, their dreams seemed within grasp: one planned to become a doctor; another, an entrepreneur.

But last year, in a study room on the first floor of Carlson, the men turned their energies to a different enterprise.

“Why are we sitting around in America, doing nothing for our people?” one of the men, Mohamoud Hassan, a skinny 23-year-old engineering major, pressed his friends.

In November, Mr. Hassan and two other students dropped out of college and left for Somalia, the homeland they barely knew. Word soon spread that they had joined the Shabaab, a militant Islamist group aligned with Al Qaeda that is fighting to overthrow the fragile Somali government.

The students are among more than 20 young Americans who are the focus of what may be the most significant domestic terrorism investigation since Sept. 11. One of the men, Shirwa Ahmed, blew himself up in Somalia in October, becoming the first known American suicide bomber. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert M. Mueller, has said Mr. Ahmed was “radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota.”

An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with close friends and relatives of the men, law enforcement officials and lawyers, as well as access to live phone calls and Facebook messages between the men and their friends in the United States, reveals how a far-flung jihadist movement found a foothold in America’s heartland.

The men appear to have been motivated by a complex mix of politics and faith, and their communications show how some are trying to recruit other young Americans to their cause.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Video Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs, "Holder Leaning Towards Appointing Torture Prosecutor."

See also, the Washington Post, "Probe of Alleged Torture Weighed" (via Memeorandum).

Victim? Teen Girl Falls In Open Manhole While Texting

There's no question mark on the screen-cap of that story on Alexa Longueira, who fell into a Staten Island manhole on Wednesday:

We all do it. We fail to pay attention to what we're doing sometimes. But victim?

Maybe so, says Jonathan Turley:

The high school sophomore has a case. While she was negligent in texting and walking, the courts have previously ruled that cities must anticipate inattentive people or people with disabilities who may not see an open manhole or ditch.

Via Memeorandum.

Republicans: Leading America's 2nd Emancipation

From RagingElephants.org, "Urgent: “MLK, Jr. Billboard Project”":

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard good conservatives and Republicans ask the question, “How can we begin sharing with the African-American community the true history of the GOP? We’re the party that freed the slaves!” For many, maybe even you, it’s a concern that so many in the Black community don’t know the history of the party and we’re always looking for a way to get the truth to them. The party that always wanted to keep them down was the Democratic Party. The party that really shares their values is the Republican Party.

We suffer from frustration because it appears that many of our party leaders are at a loss for how to get the message to the communities of color that we have always been the party of equality, prosperity, and individual liberty. Sometimes it appears we are just feeling around in the dark trying to grasp for an answer and we keep coming up empty handed.

The team of RagingElephants.org feels we have a plan that will be effective. Our mission is to focus on “messaging”, to engage the communities of colors with truth, and compel them to learn more about the party of Lincoln and reassess their political affiliations.

Our messaging has to rely heavily on “old media” — radio, TV, periodicals, and billboards. Although the rise of new media has been fast and furious, the facts are it’s still a relatively small number of people that enjoy Facebook, Twitter, and all the other social networking sites. Everyone has a radio, a TV, or passes by billboards most everyday.

Our next big messaging project is a massive billboard in the African-American neighborhood of 3rd Ward/Sunnyside, in Houston.

A few weeks ago when this revelation came to me, this billboard was not available and was being leased. Just a few weeks later, on my way to my church that’s in this neighborhood, what do I notice? — it’s available. I think this is divine intervention and we have to take advantage of this opportunity, NOW!

What’s so special about this billboard? It sits at the Martin Luther King, Jr. exit of the 610 South Loop in Houston. And we want to lease the billboard with the phase, “Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican” to greet everyone that intends to travel on MLK, Jr. Blvd.

We think this is the type of messaging — psychological warfare, if you will — that will go a long way to achieving our goal of compelling voters from minority communities to become aware of the political history of their community, and take a fresh look at the GOP and conservative principles.

See also, KRIV FOX 26 Houston, "MLK Billboard SparksHeated Debate":

Also, see Common Sense Political Thought, "What would Dr King say?"

The Definitive Peggy Noonan Takedown...

From Doctor Zero at Hot Air, "A Seemingly Very Nice Middle-Class Girl":

Peggy Noonan used her Friday column in the Wall Street Journal to throw some dirt on Sarah Palin’s grave. It’s vintage Noonan: airheaded, dripping with condescension, and completely missing the point. No serious conservative needs to hear anything from Noonan except her groveling apology for being so horribly wrong about Barack Obama, who she energetically supported for president. However, it’s worth picking through the flotsam and jetsam of this embarrassing column, to appreciate the kind of intellectual fat that conservatives need to trim from the Republican Party.

The whole thing is here, via Memeorandum.

See also, Robert Stacy McCain, "Doctor Zero vs. Peggy Noonan."

My leftist friend, Tim Gaskill, actually e-mailed me the Noonan piece, saying: "This is a very nuanced article written by a Republican. Go figure. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Please, no knee-jerk response though."

Anything that confirms the left's Palin derangement syndrome is good, "nuanced" even.

In response, I simply quoted the "by a Republican" portion (i.e., not a conservative) and clicked "send."

But I'll forward the Dr. Zero piece to Tim now ...

I'm testing out the theory in "Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics."

Only Liberals Can Present 'Facts' Without Becoming Evil

It's probably too early to be laughing, but check out Right Wing News, "Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics." This piece is actually a follow-up to an earlier essay at House of Eratosthenes, so let's start at the beginning:

It’s a dicey, personal subject and I don’t like to vent about such a thing on the innerwebs…even on my own, personal pages, which as we’ve said many-a-time before — altogether now — nobody reads anyway. But this time, the aggrieved party was sufficiently gracious to explain her feelings very early on. Not so early that she behaved with consistency. But early enough that it’s pretty simple to retrace what happened here.

I wanted to know if we had a wager in effect about the 2010 midterms. Or if our first upcoming bet was about the President being re-elected.

She presented a chart showing the public debt (as a proportion of GDP) has been going up when Republicans were office, and down when democrats were in office, from Truman onward anyway.

I questioned which party had Congress during those times, and sent her the chart exploring where the debt is projected to go from here-on-out.

She sent back a soothingly scolding retort observing that she “must have hit a nerve,” counseling me that her husband likes to argue but she does not.

How else do I put this? I’m tired of pretending it’s my problem. I understand good manners involve one side acting completely guilty and the other side acting completely innocent. I understand the protocol expected is for the righty-tighty to leap, chest-downward, on the grenade. I understand the expectation is to repeat the scene where Tom Sawyer gets the whipping so Becky whats-her-name’s glorious butt cheeks remain unscathed. I get all that.

I’m just tired of doing it. It comes down to something very simple. ONLY LIBERALS CAN PRESENT “FACTS” WITHOUT BECOMING EVIL ....

**********

I remember years ago I sent a certain family member a particularly well written, fact-supported article that I recall being published by The Heritage Foundation. This family member had always presented herself as proud of being pragmatic and open minded, not left or right, but her pragmatic reasoning just happened lead her to fall squarely to the left side of the divide.

Her reply to the article was something like, well, I see that came from the Heritage Foundation and they are well known for being conservative

That was it. It was an argument for dismissal based upon the fact that it came from conservatives and presented the conservative viewpoint. No rebuttal of facts. Merely being conservative was enough to dismiss it. To say “I don’t believe this.” To say “don’t read this”.

In other words ...

Shut Up.

Now, when you finish that, go back to Right Wing News. The first "rule" of arguing with liberals? "IN, or OUT. Your preference is to argue politics, or not to ..."

Can Community Colleges Save the U.S. Economy?

Here's a little follow-up to my recent post on community college teaching, "Can Community Colleges Save the U.S. Economy?":

Many politicians and their well-heeled constituents may be under the impression that a community college — as described in a promo for NBC's upcoming comedy Community — is a "loser college for remedial teens, 20-something dropouts, middle-aged divorcées and old people keeping their minds active as they circle the drain of eternity." But there's at least one Ivy Leaguer who is trying to help Americans get past the stereotypes and start thinking about community college not as a dumping ground but as one of the best tools the U.S. has to dig itself out of the current economic hole. His name: Barack Obama.

**********

Only 31% of community-college students who set out to get a degree complete it within six years, whereas 58% of students at four-year schools graduate within that time frame. Students from middle-class or wealthy families are nearly five times more likely to earn a college degree as their poorer peers are. In 2007, 66% of white Americans ages 25 to 29 had completed at least some college, compared with 50% of African Americans and 34% of Hispanics.

The whole essay is here.

See my commentary, "Political Science at LBCC: Training the Next Generation of Leaders."

'United States = Culprit': Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters

From Andrew McCarthy, "Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters":

You may not have wanted to addle your brain over his tutelage in Hawaii by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, nor his tracing of Davis’s career steps to Chicago, where he seamlessly eased into the orbit of Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi, anti-American terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Maoist “educator” Michael Klonsky — all while imbibing 20 years’ worth of Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist “black liberation theology.” But this neo-Communist well from which Obama drew holds that the world order is a maze of injustice, racism, and repression. Its unified theory for navigating the maze is: “United States = culprit.” Its default position is that tyrants are preferable as long as they are anti-American, and that while terrorist methods may be regrettable, their root cause is always American provocation — that is, the terrorists have a point.

See also my earlier essay, "Obama's Apology Tour, Sub-Saharan (Black) African Edition."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Also Blogging: Pat in Shreveport and Power Line.