Obama to Write Haiti Earthquake Cover Story for Newsweek

I can't ever recall a sitting president publishing a cover story at one of the national newsweeklies, but there's always a first. See, "Obama to Pen Cover Story on Haiti and the Earthquake for Newsweek."

I look forward to Newsweek going out of business. And if Obama's tanking approval levels have any relation, maybe that'll be sooner than later.

See Rasmussen for January 15th, "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll":

Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends).

Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 66% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 18% Strongly Approve and 43% Strongly Disapprove.

My Sister Chris!

This is my older sister, Chris. She's 50 (with a figure like Cindy Crawford's). This was a couple of days before Christmas, at my mom's house:

Chris and my Uncle Doug are here. (I wrote about Doug here.

Charli Carpenter Joins Lawyers, Guns and Money

Actually, this can't help Charli's reputation.

For something more respectable, see, "What to Read on Gender and Foreign Policy":

Feminists have long argued that it is wrong to ignore half the population when crafting policies meant to secure a stable world order. Now foreign policy experts are beginning to grasp a different point: a "gender perspective" is relevant not only to those concerned with making the world better for women, but also to anybody who cares about military effectiveness, alliance stability, democracy promotion, actionable intelligence, the stem of pandemic disease, or successful nation building. The following sources are essential reading for anyone interested in the connections between gender relations -- norms and assumptions about men and women, masculinity and femininity -- and the practice of foreign policy.

She's a nice woman and an excellent scholar. Here's hoping Charlie avoids the descent of Robert Farley.

Althouse 6-Year Blogiversary

Ann started blogging January 14, 2004.

I've posted at least once, each day in these 6 years, an average of 8+ posts a day. I've never had a guest blogger (or a ghost blogger), and I've written — with real enthusiasm — on the hardest work days, on the day I wrecked my car, the day I had surgery, the day I drove 1235 miles in one day, and the day I got married. And over 2,000 other days.

The picture's from Austin, "At the Caffeine Dealer":

Tea Party 'Precinct Strategy' Seeks G.O.P. Takeover

This is exactly what I've argued all along. From the New York Times, "In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P.":

The Tea Party movement ignited a year ago, fueled by anti-establishment anger. Now, Tea Party activists are trying to take over the establishment, ground up.

Across the country, they are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders, a position so low-level that it often remains vacant, but which comes with the ability to vote for the party executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms and decide where the party spends money.

A new group called the National Precinct Alliance says it has a coordinator in nearly every state to recruit Tea Party activists to fill the positions and has already swelled the number of like-minded members in Republican Party committees in Arizona and Nevada. Its mantra is this: take the precinct, take the state, take the party — and force it to nominate conservatives rather than people they see as liberals in Republican clothing.

Here, in a perennial battleground district outside Philadelphia, Tea Party activists are trying to strip the local committee of its influence in choosing the Republican nominee to run against Representative Patrick J. Murphy, a Democrat who won the seat in 2006 by about 1,500 votes.

After the local party said it would stick to its custom of endorsing a candidate rather than holding an open primary, Tea Party groups decided to hold their own candidate forum where people could cast a ballot. If the party does not yield, the groups say they will host a debate, too.

“We kind of changed the rules,” said Anastasia Przybylski, one of the organizers.

The Tea Party movement, named the original tax revolt in 1773, might be better described as a diverse, rambunctious and Internet-connected network of groups, powered by grass-roots anxiety about the economy, bailouts and increasing government involvement in health care. At one extreme are militia members who have shown up at meetings wearing guns and suggesting that institutions like the Federal Reserve be eliminated. At the other are those like Ms. Przybylski, who describes herself as “just a stay-at-home mom” who became agitated about the federal stimulus package.

And if the Democrats are big-government socialists, the Republicans, in the Tea Party mind, are enablers.

In some recent polls, a hypothetical Tea Party wins more support than Democrats or Republicans, and the most anti-establishment Tea Party activists push to fight as a third party. But as the movement looks toward the midterm elections in November, a growing number of activists argue that the best way to translate anger into influence is to infiltrate the Republican establishment (Democrats being, for the average Tea Partier, beyond redemption).

“If you want to have revenge against the Republican Party for using you for so many years, the best way is to turn around and use the Republican Party to your advantage,” said Eric Odom, a Tea Party activist in Chicago who recently started a political action committee, and on his blog urged Tea Partiers to stop complaining about the Republican Party and “move in and take it over” ....

The precinct strategy, like the Tea Party movement itself, has spread via the Internet, on sites like Resistnet.com. A National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month will feature seminars on how to take over starting at the precinct level.

RTWT at the link.

I just received this note from Orange County Tea Party organizers:

It is VERY important for all Tea Party Patriots to attend this Monday's GOP Orange County Central Committee Meeting. Scott Baugh, Chairman of the OCGOP, will be giving a "barn burner" of a speech and will be outlining the direction of our county's party for the 2010 elections ... He provided some details of his speech and ... you DO NOT WANT TO MISS IT. It is so very important for us to be strong and unified for the 2010 elections. So, please, if you have an hour Monday night, please come ....

Also, that Monday night, Mark Meckler, National Coordinator and Board Member of the Tea Party Patriots ... He is flying in from Sacramento and Dawn Wildman, and other tea party patriots, will be driving up from San Diego. We need to be let the OCGOP know that we are unified, we care, and we are committed to a party of principles with action and not to a party of empty words.

I should have a report on the event late Monday or early Tuesday.

SUFFOLK POLL: Scott Brown Up By Four in Massachusetts Senate!

William Jacobson has it, "Brown Up 4 In Suffolk Univ. Poll."

The Suffolk poll is at the Boston Herald, "Poll Shocker: Scott Brown Surges Ahead in Senate Race."

The internals are here, "Poll Results Highlighted." Of special note are Martha Coakley's high negatives:

Is your opinion of Martha Coakley generally favorable or unfavorable?

Never heard: 0%

Favorable: 49%

Unfavorable: 41%

Heard of/Undecided: 10%

*****

Is your opinion of Scott Brown generally favorable or unfavorable?

Never heard: 5%

Favorable: 57%

Unfavorable: 19%

Heard of/Undecided: 19%

See also, Big Journalism, "Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley." (Via Memeorandum.)

Scott Brown Sends Shock Waves Through Democratic Party!

From IBD, "Democratic Party Pouring Cash Into Mass. to Stop GOP Upset":

GOP state Sen. Scott Brown may be able to win Tuesday's special election to fill Ted Kennedy's old seat. Even if he loses, it's clear that his campaign's momentum has sent shock waves through the Democratic Party.

"No one thought this would be closer than a blowout of at least 15 percentage points," said Tobe Berkovitz, professor of advertising at Boston University. Though Berkovitz thinks Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley will pull it out, he added, "A lot of Democrats won't have much in the way of fingernails left after this."

Rasmussen Reports first gave hope to Brown last week when its survey found Brown trailing Coakley by nine points, 50%-41%. A subsequent Rasmussen poll found Brown narrowing that gap to two points — with Brown leading by two points among people committed to voting.

Could Be Narrowing

The Rothenberg Political Report on Thursday moved the race from "narrow advantage of incumbent party" to "toss-up."

"Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Tuesday's special election," the Report said.

Brown has capitalized on growing conservative grass-roots support, raising $1.3 million online in a 24-hour period this week.

This has garnered the notice of national Democrats and unions. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee each donated $500,000 for ad buys on Coakley's behalf. The Service Employees International Union is spending $685,000 to boost Coakley.

But energy and enthusiasm seem to be with the Brown campaign.

"I volunteered with the campaign over the weekend," said William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor who has been covering the race on his Legal Insurrection blog. "Loads of volunteers, phones ringing, people coming in to ask if they can help — it was bustling with activity."

That's our William!

The video's posted at his entry, "Brown Hip Checks Coakley On Fenway Insult."

Whoo hoo!

See also, Gateway Pundit, "MASSACHUSETTS SENATE RACE MOVED FROM “LEAN DEM” TO “TOSS-UP”." And Rothenberg's report is here: "MA Senate moved to Toss-Up" (via Memeorandum).

Haiti's Tragedy

From the Wall Street Journal, "Haiti's Tragedy: The U.S. Military Will Provide Relief, As Ever":

A man surveys hundreds of bodies of earthquake victims at the morgue in Port-au-Prince, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)

The hand of a dead student is seen under the rubble of St. Gerard church and school that collapsed in an earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010. Teachers and students are trapped underneath the rubble since Tuesday when a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck Haiti. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

*****

The world has had sufficient experience with earthquake relief to know that the first 72 hours are critical. There may be hundreds of people or more buried alive in the rubble; their lives now depend on the speedy arrival of professional rescue teams. Thousands of people urgently need medical help, and many more will soon require tenting, clean water, food, toilets and other necessities if a secondary disaster is to be prevented. U.S. military assets are likely to play a crucial role in these efforts, as they did after the tsunami and the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir—a fresh reminder that the reach of America's power coincides with the reach of its goodness.

The earthquake is also a reminder that while natural calamities do not discriminate between rich countries and poor ones, their effects almost invariably do. The 1994 Northridge quake was nearly as powerful as the one that struck Haiti, but its human toll was comparatively slight. The difference is a function of a wealth-generating and law-abiding society that can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.

In the long term, the best defense against future natural disasters is to promote the political and economic conditions that can move people out of the slums and shanties that easily become death traps. For now, however, we wish godspeed to the armies of relief headed for Haiti's desperate shore.

See also, Laura Rozen, at Politico, "Ships, Troops Arriving in Haiti." And Tracy Kidder, at the New York Times, "Country Without a Net." (Via Memeorandum.)

Photo Credits: The Big Picture, "Haiti 48 Hours Later."

Scott Ritter, Former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Busted in Poconos Child-Sex Sting

At the N.Y. Post, "Poconos sex sting leads to arrest of former chief UN weapons inspector":

A former UN arms inspector was busted in a kiddie-sex-sting after contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room that ended with him masturbating on a webcam, authorities said.

Scott Ritter, 46, who served as the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, is accused of contacting what turned out to be a Pennsylvania cop posing as a teenager.

According to the affidavit, the cop said he was a 15-year-old named "Emily" during an online chat room on Yahoo! when he was contacted by someone using the screen name "Delmarm4fun."

Ritter told "Emily" he was a 44-year-old male from Albany.

"Emily" told Ritter she was from the Poconos, at which point Ritter asked for a picture other than the one "she" had posted on her account.

Police said that's when Ritter then sent her a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate.

"Emily" asked Ritter for his cell phone number, which he gave her during the February 2009 conversation.

Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told "she" was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was a minor and abruptly turned off his cam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.

Ritter then told "Emily" he had been fantasizing about having sex with her, to which she replied: "Guess you turned it off."

That's when Ritter replied, "You want to see it finish" -- turning his webcam back on until he ejaculated, police said.

RTWT at the link.

Also, from the New York Times, "Ex-U.N. Weapons Inspector Is Charged in Child-Sex Sting."

And at Gateway Pundit, "Former UN Arms Inspector & Bush-Basher Busted in Sex Sting."

Hat Tip: Pocono Record (via Memeorandum).

White People (GET BUSY)

From Jim Treacher's, "Okay. She’s not famous. Explain":

States Ease Standards for High School Exit Exams

I meant to write on this the other day. From the New York Times, "As School Exit Tests Prove Tough, States Ease Standards." Naturally, states are lowering standards so kids can pass, and leftist constiuencies are claiming "racism" for being held to tougher requirements. The question for me is not so much are exit exams a good thing, but, more broadly, what are we going to do to improve student learning in the pre-college years? I can tell you first hand, sometimes I fear for the country with the soaring levels of disengagement and unpreparedness I encounter among thousands of college freshman in Southern California.

So, it's interesting to see Jay Mathews, at Washington Post, calling for the end the of the Bush administatration's landmark educational initiative, No Child Left Behind. See, "Mr. Obama: Kill NCLB." But in junking NCLB, Mathews says we should go with a single national assessment, "a uniform national test," that holds all students accountable.

Joanne Jacobs endorses the idea, "The time and energy now devoted to NCLB compliance could be devoted to arguing over what the national exam should test and how to test it. That would be a useful argument."

Many conservatives thought Bush's education agenda was a disaster because it increased federal power and expanded the bureaucracy. That's true, although no Democratic administration has done as much to put student achievement at the center of the national debate, and always remember, education is this era's greatest civil rights challenge -- and we're failing at it, to the horrible detriment of entire generations of Americans. (Recall my thoughts on this, at "'The Providence Effect': Astonishing Educational Achievement, 'The Way It Should Be Done'.")

That said, Cato at Liberty takes issue with Jay Mathews and says get the Fed out of educational policy - give power to families:

While Mathews’ approach would do less harm than NCLB, it wouldn’t do much good. Mathews suggests that just having the feds “shame” states with bad national scores would force improvement, but we’ve seen public schools repeatedly shrug off massive ignominy since at least the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk. As long as they keep getting their money, they couldn’t care much less.

So neither tough standards nor shaming have led to much improvement. Why?

As I’ve laid out before, it’s a simple matter of incentives.

With punitive accountability, the special interests that would be held to high standards have strong motivation — and usually the power — to demand dumbed-down tests, lowered minimum scores, or many other accountability dodges. The result: Little or no improvement.

What if there are no serious ramifications?

Then the system gets its money no matter what and again there is little or no improvement.

It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

So what are reformers to do? One thing: Take government — which will almost always be dominated by the people it employs — out of the accountability equation completely. Give parents control of education funds and make educators earn their pay by having to attract and satisfy customers.

Unfortunately, that still seems to be too great a leap for Jay Mathews. But one of these days, I’m certain, he’ll go all the way!

Haiti Despairs

From this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Haiti Despairs as Quake Deaths Mount":

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti—Cries from victims entombed beneath concrete debris pierced the air of seemingly every street in this crowded capital Wednesday, where shocked residents carried the injured and the dead a day after the nation was hit by a quake that some estimate has killed more than 100,000 people.

Haitians tried digging through rubble with their bare hands to rescue people trapped after the biggest earthquake to hit the impoverished Caribbean nation in two centuries. Thousands of buildings from shanties to the presidential palace were destroyed, streets were blocked by debris and telephone service was knocked out. Countries around the world, meanwhile, scrambled to send in help.

"Amwe! Amwe!"—"Help me!" in Creole—one woman called out amid the rubble of a primary school that collapsed in the Turgeau neighborhood.

Florence Devereaux, a paraplegic often found sitting outside her house in the Bois Verna neighborhood of Port-au-Prince, pointed to a house next door that had collapsed, burying at least four children under rubble. "We heard them asking for water, asking to get them out. But we can't. We have no tools. Where are the rescue teams?"

Many Haitians complained about the nonexistent rescue efforts from their own government and the apparently slow arrival of help from abroad, in particular the nearby U.S. "Who is in charge?"—Ki e ski responsab?—was a common question on the streets.

"A Chinese rescue team and two rescue teams from the U.S. should have arrived this evening," United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters. He said the U.N. would coordinate the rescue effort of teams from various nations that will be arriving in coming days.

France, Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe and other nations were also sending help to the Haitian capital, U.N. officials said. The government of Mexico, which regularly suffers from earthquakes, said it sent a team of specialists with trained dogs to help look for survivors.

For many Haitians, help was already too late. "It's a horror show," said John Burns, an American agricultural consultant who drove a four-wheel drive car around the city. "There are dead people all over the place, some covered, some uncovered."

Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN and Reuters that the death toll could top 100,000.

"I don't think that's an exaggeration," said Alice Blanchet, a special adviser to the Haitian prime minister who lives in Brooklyn. She said Haiti's Justice Minister Paul Denis was unaccounted for. "I don't know of a single friend or family member of mine in Haiti who hasn't lost their home. They are all sleeping on the street. I have two cousins who are unaccounted for," she said, pausing for a moment. "I don't think I can understand what a big tragedy this is."

Among those who lost their home was the Haitian President René Préval, who told CNN that he didn't yet know where he would spend the night.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared the earthquake tragedy with the Asian tsunami that killed more than 220,000 people five years ago. "This will be a very high loss of life as well," said Mrs. Clinton, who said she is cutting short a trip to the Asia-Pacific to return to Washington to help oversee U.S. relief efforts.

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Haiti: How to Help."

BONUS: Former President Bill Clinton, "What We Can Do to Help Haiti, Now and Beyond."

Tom Campbell May Enter Race for Barbara Boxer's Senate Seat

A pretty big development, from the Los Angeles Times, "Senate Race to Unseat Boxer Takes Unexpected Turn":

The race to unseat U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is growing increasingly volatile: The presumed Republican front-runner's fundraising is anemic, the underdog is attracting the party's most passionate voters, and a third major GOP politician is pondering whether to leap into the contest.

For months, multimillionaire businesswoman Carly Fiorina and conservative Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore have brawled in a race that mirrors the philosophical debate cleaving the GOP nationwide -- a candidate favored by the party's pragmatic establishment facing a passionate challenge from one fancied by its conservative base.

But Fiorina's candidacy is being undermined by unexpectedly lackluster fundraising -- a weakness that undercuts one of her strongest rationales for securing the nomination. Further roiling matters is the potential entry of former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell, who is a gubernatorial candidate. Campbell is widely believed to be switching races and is expected to announce his decision Thursday.

The conflict among Republicans threatens what many see as the GOP's best chance against the three-term Democratic senator since she won the seat in 1992. Anti-incumbent fervor is rippling across the nation against the party that controls the White House and Congress.

"This could be the toughest race Sen. Boxer has faced, with the recession, the off-year electorate, and with one of our opponents, who could spend millions of her personal fortune," said Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer's campaign manager.

More at the link.

My Only Prayer Will Be, Someday You'll Care For Me...

Okay, I said I'd be back tonight with the second half of my post on Marshall Crenshaw, and his hit song, "Someday, Someway." Actually, Crenshaw's song was first recorded by retro-rockabilly star Robert Gordon in 1981. Recall from my entry on Elvis Presley the other day, I went way in for rockabilly in the early-1980s, and next to the Stray Cats, Gordon was the absolute coolest. Plus, there's a lot of emotional baggage there as well. I saw Robert Gordon in concert at the Hollywood Palace in 1981. (Now the Avalon, at that time the Palace, at Hollywood and Vine, was the very best concert venue for smaller music events). Just as Robert Gordon's band started playing, I was walking up toward the stage and a young woman stepped on my foot. I apologized, then she apologized, and the next thing I know I had my arm around her waist and we were swinging to the music. Her name was Kathleen. We exchanged phone numbers and were soon dating. Kathleen's father was Richard Egan, who was a big movie star in the 1950s. He starred as Elvis Presley's older brother in Love Me Tender in 1956. This of course wasn't my generation, but my dad's best friend was Ruble Blakey, who was a singer with the Duke Ellington Orchestra. Ruble was the one who told me all about Richard Egan. The Egans lived in Brentwood, and I would drive up there on the weekends to go out with Kathleen. I had a head injury in 1983. Kathleen went away to college again, and we drifted apart. I was heartbroken, of course. A freewheeler with the ladies, I was swept off my feet by Kathleen. I remember driving home late night from Los Angeles sometimes and I first realized what it meant to be in love. I was simply floating after being with her. We had fun together, just hanging out. We enjoyed each other's company. So, that's what I meant yesterday when I said that hearing Marshall Crenshaw on the radio triggered some memories. Robert Gordon's version of "Someday, Someway" is at bottom below. It's a better cut the Crenshaw's. But especially pay attention to the two videos at top. The first, "It's Only Make Believe," is a cover of the 1958 hit by Conway Twitty. Glenn Campbell had a hit with the song in 1970, so I was vaguely familiar with the tune - and I loved Gordon's rendition. It still reminds me of Kathleen when I hear it. The second video below is Gordon's cover of Billy Lee Riley's 1957 hit, "Flying Saucer Rock and Roll." But listen carefully to the clip: Gordon's guitarist is Link Wray, who was the original "power-chord" guitarist of American rock and roll. (The power chord became "the major modus operandi of modern rock guitarists.") So, take your time listening for a few minutes, and especially to the hammering guitar jams during "Flying Saucer Rock and Roll":

Michael Meehan, Coakley Campaign Staffer, Apologizes for Making Weekly Standard Reporter Stumble, or Something...

The Associated Press reported that the Weekly Standard's John McCormack "stumbled as he tried to speak with the Democrat while simultaneously videotaping her and trying to pass a metal grate on a Washington sidewalk."

Funny thing is, though, Meehan has now apologized for McCormack's "stumble." See, "Apology Accepted" (via Memeorandum):

A remorseful Michael P. Meehan called today to apologize (see here for background).

He said: “I just want to say to you that I’m sorry. And I’d just like to apologize. I appreciate your calling me back. I don’t want to make a big federal case out of it.”

He continued: “I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were a reporter because you didn’t have any credentials, so I apologize for not knowing you were a reporter.”

I asked Meehan if he disputed anything that I wrote. “No,” he said.

I thanked Meehan for his apology.

Also from McCormack: "Assailant Was a Coakley Staffer on Loan from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee?"

It's not like AP's in the tank for Martha Coakley or anything. And of course, Coakley blamed GOP "stalkers." See, "Coakley cites GOP ‘stalkers’ in D.C. dust-up."

See also, Fox News, "Weekly Standard Reporter Shoved Outside of Democratic Fundraiser." And Dana Loesch, "Coakley Staffer Knocks Reporter to the Ground."

RELATED: From Legal Insurrection, "Coakley Takes Slap Shot At Fenway Fans." Also, from Guy Average, "Scott Brown Versus Martha Coakley For The Open Senate Seat In Massachusetts. Coakley Has Thugs Who Wear Purple Shirts Under Their Coats And Who Protect Her From Challenging Questioners. Brown Is Running For The People's Seat."

Supreme Court Bans TV Broadcasts in Proposition 8 Trial

From the San Francisco Chronicle, "High Court Bans TV, YouTube for Same-Sex Trial":

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, presiding over the trial, had not given the public enough time to comment before he approved live telecasts of the trial to be shown in several courthouses around the country and delayed uploads to posted on YouTube.

The justices also said Walker had picked the wrong case to televise under a just-started pilot program allowing some nonjury civil trials heard in federal court to be aired. No federal trial in California has ever been shown on TV or the Internet.

The ruling permanently bars a broadcast that the high court temporarily blocked just before the trial started Monday at the federal courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Ave. Opponents of Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that prohibited same-sex marriage, are suing to overturn the measure as a denial of equal protection of the law ....

Today's ruling means the only place people can watch the case on TV is in a 19th floor conference room at the Golden Gate Avenue courthouse that seats about 150. Thirty-six seats are available to the public for the trial itself in Walker's courtroom on the 17th floor.

The Supreme Court, which has refused to televise its own proceedings, said it was not ruling on the legality of airing federal trials. But the court said it has recognized that "witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast," even the testimony of paid expert witnesses.

Even if the rules had been followed, "this case is ... not a good one for a pilot program," because the potential for harm is greater in a contentious, high-profile case, the court said.

The ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

The dissenters were the court's more liberal members, Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, the newest justice.

Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the public had ample opportunity to comment, there was no evidence that witnesses would be harmed, and those outside the courthouse were losing an opportunity to view a trial of "great public interest."

See also SCOTUS Blog, "Prop. 8 Trial TV Blocked." (Via Memeorandum.) The Court's decision is here, "DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. KRISTIN M. PERRY ET AL. - ON APPLICATION FOR STAY."

Notice how the Court sharply divided, 5-4, on traditional left-right lines. As is always the case, critics will decry the lack of "consensus" and we'll likely see heightened demand for publicly-televised broadcasts in hot-button cases, especially decisions involving gay rights. (See, "Prop. 8 Trial Video Barred -- For Now.") And radicals at Firedoglake are already attacking Court's conservative majority:

It is curious that the Supreme Court is fine with a video feed to other locations in the same courthouse as the trial, but not to other secure Federal courthouses. Again, it must be assumed this is all about insuring that the objecting five pompous justices never have to have their demeanor and conduct seen by the citizens they serve. As I explained in the previous post, the Supreme Court, in Chandler v. Florida, has already admitted it is not about constitutional due process; therefore it is, whether admitted or not, about their vanity and elitism.

When the Supreme Court, in its opinion, says:

We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question withoiut expession any view on whether such trials shold be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirements of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements ourselves.

[It] sure strikes me that the Court’s basis for finding the Local rule was violated, or inappropriately amended, is strained. At best. Others may differ, but for my money, this has everything to do with the inherent prejudices and fears of the majority Justices.

Keep an eye out for this kind of leftist demonology as the case moves foreward. The trial case will be appealed to the intermediate level no matter the outcome, and it's likely that the Supremes will ultimately hear the case as some point. My concern is Anthony Kennedy. He's the key author of the amorphous "evolving standards of decency" doctrine that was used to strike down capital punishment for defendants in capital cases under the age of 18. Plus, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (here), the 2003 decision overturning Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and extending a constitutional right sexual privacy for homosexuals. Kennedy drew on international legal precedent for parts of the ruling, as well as the Court's earlier jurisprudence in abortion rights (the "doctrine of penumbras," creating a right to privacy for reproductive rights); and Lawrence's benevolent language about "enduring, personal bonds" in gay relationships was interpreteted at the time as perhaps setting the groundwork for the legalization of gay marriage.)

So, perhaps the Firedoglake extremists might pay more attention the Court's previous rulings before excoriating the very Justices who in the end may rule in their favor.

RELATED: "Justice Anthony Kennedy and Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court."

Haiti Death Toll Could Reach 100s of Thousands: U.S. to Lead Humanitarian Effort

I'm just posting some quick information now.

See, Boston Globe, "Earthquake in Haiti." (Via Memorandum.) And from ABC News, "Haiti: Earthquake's Death Toll Rises, Disaster Relief Mobilized: Port-au-Prince in Ruins; Obama Calls Haiti Tragedy 'Incomprehensible'":

A day after the great Haiti earthquake, government officials today estimated the death toll could surpass a seemingly unimaginable 100,000.

Stunned Haitians piled their dead on the crumbling streets of the capital, Port-au-Prince, and President Andre Preval reported stepping over dead bodies.

But as the dimensions of the disaster were still unfolding, Haiti's Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN that he believes there are well over 100,000 dead, and leading senator Youri Latortue estimated the number at possibly as high as 500,000, according the Associated Press.

While specifics on the number of casualties from the earthquake remained unclear, early reports point to heavy and widespread damage in a country that is the poorest in the western hemisphere.

President Obama today said the United States government would offer "swift, coordinated, and aggressive" aid to the estimated three million people caught in the disaster.

Plus, at USA Today, "Obama: Haiti will get 'full support' of U.S."

Google May Leave China

I like this story because it's an excellent example of the influence of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in international politics.

From the Los Angeles Times, "Google may leave China in wake of hacker attacks: The Internet firm says it will stop the scorned practice of censoring users' search results":

In a rare corporate rebuke of Asia's economic superpower, Google Inc. on Tuesday said it might leave China and the country's 350 million Internet users after it was the victim of a series of cyber attacks that originated from that nation.

According to Google, a "highly sophisticated" December attack on its main corporate computers resulted in "the theft of intellectual property."

The company said it believed that a key goal of the attackers was to access the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, raising the possibility that China's government not only may have hacked in to Google but also may have been using the company's network to conduct political espionage.

"These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered -- combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the Web -- have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China," said Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, in a blog post titled "A new approach to China."

As part of the review, Google said it planned to end its practice of censoring search results in China. For years, Google has acquiesced to Chinese officials' wishes by blocking access to information on politically sensitive topics such as the 1989 student uprising in Tiananmen Square.

The company said that over the next several weeks it would try to find a way to operate an uncensored search engine in China, if Chinese authorities approved.

If not, Google said it might pull the plug on its operations there.

More at the link, but make sure you read the initial Google blog post, "A New Approach to China." Also, the politicization has begun, from James Fallows, "The Google News: China Enters its Bush-Cheney Era." (Via Memeorandum.) You'll have to read Fallows all the way down to get the meaning of his "Bush-Cheney" jibe, although he's an Asia expert, and his argument here is fairly reasonable:

I have long argued that China's relations with the U.S. are overall positive for both sides (here and here) ....

But there are also reasons to think that a difficult and unpleasant stage of China-U.S. and China-world relations lies ahead. This is so on the economic front, as warned about here nearly a year ago with later evidence here. It may prove to be so on the environmental front -- that is what the argument over China's role in Copenhagen is about. It is increasingly so on the political-liberties front, as witness Vaclav Havel's denunciation of the recent 11-year prison sentence for the man who is in many ways his Chinese counterpart, Liu Xiaobo. And if a major U.S. company -- indeed, Google has been ranked the #1 brand in the world -- has concluded that, in effect, it must break diplomatic relations with China because its policies are too repressive and intrusive to make peace with, that is a significant judgment.

Again, RTWT for the full argument. I'm please Google's taking a hard line. China's probably more of a threat than Fallows allows, and it's actions are certainly not those of a trusted partner in a mutually interdependent economic and security relationship.

Martha Coakley Ducks Question on Taliban 'Gone' From Afghanistan

The background is a my earlier entry, "They’re Gone? Martha Coakley Clueless on AF-PAK Strategic Theater."

And now this from CNN, "Coakley Dodges Question About Afghanistan Claim" (via Memeorandum):

Democrat Martha Coakley dodged a pointed question Tuesday about her claim during a Massachusetts Senate debate the night before that terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan.

During Monday's debate with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley questioned why the United States still has troops in Afghanistan. She claimed that the al Qaeda terrorists who were originally targeted by American military action have migrated elsewhere, rendering the mission moot. "They're gone," she said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan."

A reporter asked Coakley about that claim after a Capitol Hill fundraiser on Tuesday. "Do you stand by that remark?" he asked.

Coakely, standing before a small cluster of reporters and cameras, listened to the question, then quickly looked in a different direction.

"I'm sorry," she said. "Did anybody else have a question?"

The Democrat responded to another reporter who asked why she made the last-minute fundraising trip to Washington.

Coakley said she was in the middle of "a very intense campaign."

"We are facing a candidate from Massachusetts who is being supportive by extreme right groups including many Republican groups who are pouring money into Massachusetts attacking my record and distorting my record," Coakley said. "I'm doing everything that I need to be competitive in this race."

RELATED: From Legal Insurrection, "This Photo May Change The Election," and "Does Coakley Oppose Care for Rape Victims?"

Also Blogging:

* Cold Fury, "Hey, Dems: In America, Politics are what we do INSTEAD of fighting in the streets; we call it “The Rule of Law”."

* Flopping Aces, "Washington DC Health Care Lobbyists Throw A Fundraiser For Coakley."

* Ed Driscoll, "The Ominous Parallels."

* The Hill, "Dems, Labor Pour Cash Into Kennedy Seat."

* Hot Air, "Video: Coakley associate shoves Weekly Standard reporter; Update: Photo of assailant."

* Jules Crittenden, "Martha vs. The Ladies Gardening Club."

* Melissa Clouthier, "Scott Brown And The Republican Big Tent."

* Michelle Malkin, "Martha Coakley: The voice for Fat Cats and Corruptocrats."

* Nice Deb, "Boston Political Analyst Declares Scott Brown Winner of Monday Night’s Debate."

* The Other McCain, "Is Martha Coakley Even Sleazier Than Tila Tequila? BUMPED: Reporter Hassled."

* Reaganite Republican, "Brown Within TWO POINTS in New Rasmussen Poll!"

* Snooper Report, "Scott Brown Making History ... So Is That Fruitloop Coakley."

Video is here:

Let me know if I left your blog off the list!

If You Can't Tell Me What You Need .. All I Can Do is Wonder Why...

I had another nice surprise on my late-afternoon drive-time today. As readers will recall, I've been enjoying KSWD 100.3 The Sound for some months now. And I got a blast from the past today when Marshall Crenshaw's "Someday, Someway" came over the speakers. This triggered a lot of related memories, but I'll relate that story tomorrow sometime:

A more recent acoustic performance is here. And the studio version is here.

Plus, don't miss my good friend Anton's post from last week, "Happy Birthday Elvis." And of course, Theo Spark's, "Bedtime Totty ..." (with full-size image here).

Sarah Palin Debuts on Fox News

Noel Sheppard is reading my mind, "Well that certainly didn't take long":

And at The Hill, "Palin Blasts Critics in Fox debut: 'A Bunch of B.S.'" (via Memeorandum).

Rozlyn Papa Denies Affair on 'Bachelor'

I'll tell you what: I got home kinda late from my first full day at the new office. All I had was a bowl of cereal when I got home and was almost ready for bed. But my wife and sons were watching The Bachelor. Actually, I like that show. For one thing, Jake Pavelka's a cool guy. I was bummed last year when he got dogged by Jillian Harris on The Bachelorette. So last night I'm watching this season's show for the first time and I see this Rozlyn Papa hanging out with Jake and I immediately knew she was a scammer. I could just tell right away. She looked totally insincere, and fake breasts are unbecoming, IMHO. So it was no surprise to me when host Chris Harrison pulled Jake aside to let him know that there was some big development -- that Rozlyn had entered into an "inappropriate relationship" with a "staffer." Nope, I wasn't surprised at all.

Anyway, my wife wants Jake to pick Ali Fedotowsky, and she does seems so geniune -- and just girl-next-door pretty. I'm sure some of the other women on the show are really beautiful people inside as well, but if Jake goes for Ali ... man, that's going to be so awesome for him!

For the background from last night, see OK!, "‘Bachelor’ Contestant Rozlyn Denies Affair with Producer," and US Magazine, "Bachelor's Rozlyn Lashes Out: I Was Thrown "Under the Bus."

See also, People Magazine, "The Bachelor Host: Contestants Saw Rozlyn with Producer

Shock and Awe in Massachusetts

Kenneth Davenport predicts a Scott Brown victory in the Massachusetts special election. See, "Prediction: Shock and Awe in Massachusetts."

And you know, that might be a pretty good bet. From Amy Walter, "How Long Will Massachusetts Dems Feel Blue? Among Enthusiastic Voters, The Bay State's Senate Race Is A Surprising Dead Heat":

How does a special election in Massachusetts, one of the bluest states around, go from a slam dunk to a nail-biter? One word: enthusiasm. Republicans have it. Democrats don't.

The good news for Democratic Senate hopeful Martha Coakley is that there's still a week to go before Election Day. Plus, the more the state and national media focus on this as a tight race, the more it helps rouse her currently uninterested base.

Can Republican Scott Brown really win? If you look at just those who say they are the most interested in voting on Jan. 19, the answer is yes. Among those in the recent Boston Globe poll who said they were "extremely interested" in the race, Coakley and Brown were tied at 47 percent. Last week's Rasmussen poll showed similar results. Among those who said they were most likely to go to the polls, Coakley led by just 2 points -- 47 percent to 45 percent. (Coakley still had an overall lead of 15 points in the Globe poll and 9 points in Rasmussen.)

Another less scientific but still telling statistic from the Boston Herald: Brown's crushing Coakley on Facebook. Brown has 20,000 supporters compared to Coakley's 6,000. More interestingly, the "Facebook Women for Brown" group has over 1,000 members, while the "Women for Coakley" group has just 45.

Even so, time is not Brown's friend. Up until now, Coakley's run a positive campaign. I'd expect that to end soon. She was aggressive with Brown at a debate late last week. The tone of her ads is also likely to get much tougher. This is where Coakley's money advantage should pay off. Can Brown afford to both defend himself from attacks and keep up his own messaging? At this point, neither the Republican Senate committee nor the Republican National Committee has invested significant resources here (although an online "money bomb" organized for the Brown campaign has reportedly raised him more than $1 million).

Brown also has to be worried about this race becoming too nationalized. It's not an oversight that none of Brown's ads mention he's a Republican. Brown's message is to "end business as usual in Washington." The last thing in the world he needs is a supportive tweet from Sarah Palin. Not only would that turn away independents (with whom Brown is doing quite well), but it'd likely invigorate the Democratic base, as well.

For Democrats in swing states like Virginia or Colorado, a drop in Democratic intensity is deadly, especially if it's combined with losing independents (see Deeds, Creigh). In Massachusetts, however, Democrats make up such a big percentage of the vote that Brown needs to win over a good chunk of them -- or hope that Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy can take some too. Public Policy Polling and Boston Globe data suggest an electorate that's anywhere from 44 percent to 56 percent Democrat. Coakley's getting almost 80 percent of that vote. Let's say that the Democratic turnout ends up at 50 percent, while independents make up 30 percent and Republicans make up 20 percent. As long as she takes 80 percent of the Democratic vote, she can win, even if she takes just 40 percent of the independent vote and none of the GOP vote.

But the closeness of this race highlights the bigger problem for Democrats going into this midterm election: motivation. Revving up their base was easy when it was all about Bush. Now that it's all about them, Democrats aren't as interested. To be sure, the Coakley campaign itself deserves some of the blame for failing to engage her base more actively. But this lack of Democratic excitement is not all about her. It's been evident in state and national polls for a while. And health care is not the issue that will motivate them.

And from Legal Insurrection, "New Poll - Coakley Only Up 2 Pts."

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Nice Work... New Coakley Attack Ad Misspells Massachusetts." (Via Memeorandum.)

They’re Gone? Martha Coakley Clueless on AF-PAK Strategic Theater

As I've reported many times, the Taliban's active terror cells in the AF-PAK security theater constitute a regional network grouping that knows no national borders. The Waziristan region of the tribal hinterlands is especially ripe with Taliban jihadi activities, with operations being conducted from Kabul to PesHawar.

It's thus extremely troubling to listent Democrat Martha Coakley, who's running against Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election, to suggest that the Taliban "are gone" from Afghanistan, and thus it's time for the U.S. to come home:

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

More at Gateway Pundit, "Martha Coakley Is Not Just Wrong on Terror War – She’s Dangerous." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also, blogging, Flopping Aces, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The Lonely Conservative, Moonbattery, Nice Deb, NO QUARTER

Simon Cowell Out at American Idol

The show won't be the same, although I'm not one to say it's through. From the Wall Street Journal, "Blunt but Popular Simon Cowell Will Bow Out of 'American Idol'":

Simon Cowell, the brusque personality who has been behind TV blockbusters on several continents, plans to leave the Fox network's singing competition "American Idol" after the current season, leaving a question mark over the biggest hit on American airwaves.

The 50-year-old Mr. Cowell said he was "offered a lot of money" to remain a judge on "American Idol," which has been a mega-hit for the Fox network. But Mr. Cowell, who parlayed music-producing acumen into television celebrity, said he had decided to leave because "The X Factor," another singing competition that has taken off in Britain, is set to debut—also on Fox—in 2011.

Mr. Cowell will serve as executive producer and judge on the U.S. version of "The X Factor," the network said. Mr. Cowell hasn't been an executive producer for "Idol" and the additional title suggested he may reap bigger financial gains with "The X Factor" if the show is a hit in the U.S., as it has been in other parts of the world.

Based on the British series "Pop Idol," "American Idol" launched on Fox in 2002 and has become the most popular series on television.

"Idol" made Mr. Cowell a household name on both sides of the Atlantic and became a linchpin of Fox's television lineup. But after eight seasons on air, ratings were down 7.8% for the last season, compared with the previous year.

Speaking to reporters during a Fox media event in Pasadena, Calif., network executives said they expect "American Idol" to continue for many years.

Mr. Cowell's exit comes as speculation also swirls about Fox's late-night plans. Conan O'Brien, the host of NBC's "Tonight Show," has considered leaving the General Electric Co. network over plans to move his show a half hour later to make room for "The Jay Leno Show" at 11:35 p.m. weeknights. While Fox executives played down the likelihood of Mr. O'Brien landing at the network, Fox has had informal talks with Mr. O'Brien's circle about hosting a late-night show, Kevin Reilly, president of entertainment for Fox, confirmed Monday. "I love Conan personally and professionally, but right now he's got a decision to make about his future," Mr. Reilly said.

"American Idol" has been one of network TV's biggest cash cows largely because of its allure to young viewers advertisers pay a premium to reach. The program commands some of the highest ad rates in broadcast television, with the price of 30 seconds of ad time on the program reaching $707,000 in 2009, according to TNS Media Intelligence, an ad-tracking unit of WPP PLC.

"American Idol" generated about $843.3 million in advertising in 2009, according to TNS, down from $883.7 million in 2008 when ad prices reached $737,000 for a 30-second slot. The Fox network generated $2.8 billion in gross advertising revenue last year, according to SNL Kagan.

Simon's a real prick sometimes, but when he does open up to real talent, it's quite powerful to behold.

Final Brown/Coakley Debate in Massachusetts

Neo-Neocon has the a short video clip, "Can Mr. Brown go to Washington?":

In case you missed the money quote, Scott Brown said:

With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.

Also, at Politico, "Final Debate Marks Mass. Stretch Run":

Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown faced off over health care, the war on terror and abortion during Monday night’s final televised debate in the Massachusetts special Senate election.

With the vote to fill the remainder of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) seat just one week away, the race has popped up on the nation’s political radar screen as tighter than expected. While some recent polls have indicated Brown neck-and-neck, others, including internal Democratic surveys, have shown Coakley ahead by a comfortable margin in a race she has been heavily favored to win.

Health care and economic issues took up nearly half of the hour-long debate, held at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. Brown continued to push his candidacy as one that would give the GOP the votes needed to stop the current health care reform bill in the Senate, saying he would be proud to be the 41st vote needed to uphold a filibuster and arguing for state-level reforms like Massachusetts has enacted. “We will be subsidizing what other states have failed to do,” if a national plan is passed, Brown said.

Also, Fred Bauer's got a nice take on some of the polling controversies. (Via Memeorandum.)

Thanks From a Student

Classes started today. So I thought I'd share a wonderful e-mail I received from a student who took my class last semester, by permission:

Hello Dr. Douglas,

I just wanted to thank you for posting my grade. I honestly thought it would be much worse. As you may have noticed, I hate politics, hence the reason it took me 2 semesters to get through your class. That being said, you should know that I did, however enjoy your class enough to stick it out through to the end and I don’t regret it. I did learn a lot from you because I enjoyed the way you taught it. I can tell you are more than 100% into what you do and I appreciate that. You are a great teacher and I’m sure you appreciate having students who go on to become involved with politics. I’m sorry I’m NOT one. I have theatre in my blood and that’s a far cry off. I want to wish you good luck through the new year and many more to come.

It's one of the nicest rewards of teaching, to hear back with words of appreciation.

I'm enjoying my office in the new building as well. See, "South Quad Complex Opens at Long Beach City College."

The college has a ribbon-cutting celebration scheduled for Friday, January 22, at 10:00am. I hope to see you there!

Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Proposition 8 Trial

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 began today with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

After the opening statement David Boies gave the direct examination of Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami.

OPENING STATEMENT(as prepared) ...

Also, from the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial" (via Memeorandum).

See also my earlier commentary, "Arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger."