Obama the Fiscal Conservative?

At the video, CNN's Rick Sanchez interviews Judson Phillips, the organizer of the Nashville tea party convention. It's a moderately interesting discussion, but toward the end Mr. Phillips blanks when Sanchez argues that President Obama inherited the current unprecedented budget deficits from the Bush administration. It's simply not true, as Julia Seymour argues at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Submits Largest Budget in History, But Networks Portray Him as Fiscal Conservative":

President Obama just submitted a $3.8 trillion budget proposal, the largest federal budget ever, which will come with a "record amount of red ink." The projected deficit of that budget would be $1.6 trillion, yet the networks didn't criticize him for being spendy.

To put this in perspective: Obama is proposing a budget $700 billion larger than big spender Pres. George W. Bush's last budget. It's TWICE the size of Pres. Bill Clinton's last budget of $1.9 trillion, who was credited with generating a budget surplus.

Despite the "staggering" size of Obama's budget, which broadcast networks admitted was "dripping with red ink," the reports managed to paint him as a fiscal conservative and deficit slasher.

NBC's Savannah Guthrie portrayed all the excess spending as a way to get the economy back on track saying: "He's asking for $100 billion to spur job growth - things like tax cuts for small business, tax breaks to increase wages - and he's doing this knowing that it will drive up the deficit, certainly even more in the short term. But all economists agree the real way to get a chunk out of the deficit is to increase hiring."

But Guthrie was highlighting only a tiny fraction of the overall budget and failed to criticize the administration for not finding ways to cut more waste.

CBS's Bill Plante also agreed with Obama's spending priorities for the $3.8 trillion budget Feb. 1 when he said the president "needs" to spend right now.

"The president has a serious money problem. He needs to spend more money in the short-term to create jobs, but he desperately needs to spend a lot less over the long-term," Plante said on "The Early Show."

Obama began his budget announcement on Feb. 1 by once again passing the buck to "previous administrations." Clearly blaming Bush for what he termed a "decade of profligacy," Obama criticized the funding of two wars, prescription drug spending and tax cuts before presenting himself as a fiscal conservative.

ABC's David Muir must have bought it, because his Feb. 1 "World News" report echoed Obama. Muir pinned the record deficits on President Bush's tax cuts and war spending when he answered the question: "How did we get here?"

His timeline of the expanding federal deficit began with an image of Bush signing a bill and the words "Tax relief for America." This has long been the claim of the national news media. While Bush was certainly responsible for helping balloon the federal deficit, American's for Tax Reform's tax policy director Ryan Ellis told the Business & Media Institute the tax cuts weren't the problem, overspending was.

"The networks are stupid if they think tax cuts had anything to do with this," Ellis explained. Tax revenues were higher than the average when Bush took office, but fell before the tax cuts because of the dot-com bust and the 2001 recession.

"Federal tax revenues are much more dependent on the economy than they are on tax policy. Tax revenues ROSE as a percent of the economy in the years after the BTC (Bush Tax Cuts) became law. They only fell again when the economy imploded."

According to Ellis and others, the real problem is government spending. Even a budget expert with the liberal Brookings Institution told the Wall Street Journal that Obama's "proposals will still leave us with unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see."

Yet, none of the broadcast network morning or evening news shows mentioned that Bush's last budget was $700 billion less than Obama's proposal for 2011 or that Clinton's last (nominal) budget was half its size.

A couple of those reports cited political dissatisfaction with Obama's budget but none actually criticized Obama for spending too much.

There's more at the link.

RELATED: From Rasmussen, "Americans Reject Keynesian Economics" (via Memeorandum).

Tea Parties Generating Major National Media Attention

Really interesting things are happening down in Tennessee. Glenn Reynolds comments on the MSM press conference at the Nashville tea party convention: "Funny to think that the Tea Party movement is less than a year old, and that when it started only bloggers were covering it."

And here's Bill Whittle's great discussion with Andrew Klavan on exactly this topic:

I'll be updating on the convention as I find new information. But check Memeorandum. Also, interesting piece from WSJ, "Tom Tancredo to Tea Partiers: ‘Thank God John McCain Lost’."

Plus, at ABC News, "Tea Party Fireworks: Speaker Rips McCain, Obama, 'Cult of Multiculturalism'," and from Nashville Scene, "Morning Roundup: Tea Partiers Hiss Mention of 'Socialist Ideologue' Obama on Convention's Opening Night."

'Orange County Local News Network' Just Spammed My Blog!

Now, that's got to be a compliment, or something!

I saw Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier at last night's Newt Gingrich lecture. They were sitting right in front of me, on the floor actually, during the talk. In fact, that's Mike Reicher on the right in this picture, where we see Speaker Gingrich exiting stage right:

The truth is, I would have never even known who the hell Mike Reicher and Gretchen Meier were until someone at "Orange County Local News Network," their online magazine, spammed my comments. They left a link to their story on the event last night, "Gingrich Riles Irvine Crowd With Jobs, Other Proposals."

Here's a screencap of the editorial staff, at the introductory essay, "Hello, Orange County!":

Look, I've been blogging long enough to know some of the do and don'ts of the trade, and one thing these folks might want to do is get to know who's out there blogging on the issues before they start making theirselves at home in the comments with advertising links. I'll give 'em credit though: It's a pretty gutsy move to a launch magazine start-up in this economic environment. But if they're adopting an old-school hierarchical mindset, they're going to be in for some epic fail. Folks might remember what happened to Hollywood Today. Editor and Publisher Jeffrey Jolson actually went so far as to allege libel in an e-mail to me, and I told him to take a hike (see, "Jeffrey Jolson, Publisher and Editor-in-chief at Hollywood Today, Responds to Absence of Source Attributions at Tareq Salahi ATFB Story").

Thus, my suggestion to the editors at Orange County Local News Network is understand that there is NO HIERARCHY anymore. Bloggers take down the media's big boys all the time nowadays, so it pays to learn the lay of the land. In this case, a link first THEN a track-back would have been perfectly legit. Indeed, that's how you go about making folks feel appreciated, and in turn you might get some links thrown back your way. So, yo! You sho' wanna be keepin' good with us homies (citizen journalists) of the blogosphere! Because, man, sometimes "It's REALLY Hard Out There..."

Kris Stoke Newington is a Bleedin' Idiot!

Man, this is both a blast from the past and a shot out of thin air, to mix the metaphors there. But Kris Stoke Newington, for the damnedest of reasons, left this broadside just now:

Trust you Donald, to weigh in of "practicalities" and "military effectiveness" - given you've never served and all.

Even you will be aware that gays have been openly serving in the British military for the past 10 years - with dignity and the respect of their peers, junior and seniors.

I don't suppose you're now going to lecture us on Brit Forces being a bit "gay" for your liking. I doubt our troops would.

You've rolled out the same tired arguments - and their foundation rests on your twin specalities of prejudice and conjecture. Go you.

I await your "editing".

Editing? No way, this is gold, I tell you, GOLD!!

Kris is commenting at my post, "Against Gays in the Military," where I write -- WAIT FOR IT -- >>>>> ...... ******* ++++++ ### ..... $$$$$ ..... @@@@ !!!! >>>>>> :

I don't write about it often, but I oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Some of my opinions have been influenced by academic research, especially, Aaron Belkin's, "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Also interesting has been some of the milblog arguments against the ban on open service. I'm also not convinced current policy has been effective ...

Perhaps the title of the post was confusing for "Stoke-Hooligan"? But that'd be Mackubin Thomas Owens who's "against gays in the military," at the Wall Street Journal, not me. Actually, I thought dunderhead Scott Erik Kaufman might have been tripped up by the title, so aggressively on the prowl he is to find "stoopid" conservatives. But maybe he should be hanging out at the Political Jungle or American and Proud instead. Real blogging Einsteins over there, ya know, with good old Texas "Dunce Cap" Fred sitting in the corner!

But wait! I've been trying to get along with all the shoot-the-immigrants-advocatin' bloggers of Texas Fred's posse! Oh well, ... screw it. They never link my blog anyway!

Condescending Leftists

I don't use the old-fashioned term "liberal" to describe today's political left, and while my view on this has been firmly grounded in abstract ideological thinking (which some, in futility, have challenged), it's interesting we have some confirmation of such leftist identification in David Paul Kuhn, discussing Gallup's new poll, "Majority of Dems View Socialism Positively."

And that socialist ideological foundation -- found in places like the vapid rogue's gallery of Larisa Alexandrovna, Lawyers, Guns and Money, and No More Mister Nice Blog (and not to mention the T-Bogg demon seed) -- provides the background for Gerard Alexander's essay, "Why Are Liberals So Condescending?" (via Memeorandum):

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a long liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, social issues and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling's 1950 remark that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." During the 1950s and '60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to "the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind."

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter's presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians' speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

RTWT at the link.

Post-American Bandstand with Pat Boone

Pat Boone on Pajamas TV!

Tea Party Nation Convenes in Nashville

I haven't met Chuck DeVore yet, but I can't find anything to disagree with in this interview with Dylan Ratigan. Dan Riehl, also at the clip, has the MSNBC video, which includes Ratigan's longer introduction:

As Dan notes, he's been a consistent critic of Tea Party Nation and its pay-to-play scheme for the convention. Personally, I have no qualms with the profit motive. It's just that Judson Phillips' organizing model seemed a bit more self-interested than I'd prefer, although by the looks of those who're heading to Nashville, such concerns have been subordinated in the larger grandeur of the moment. See Gateway Pundit, for example, "Liveblogging the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville" (via Memeorandum). And Melissa Clouthier has some comments on the movement. See, "The Tea Party Movement, Tea Party Nation & Judson Phillips: A Round-Up."

Also, at the Washington Post, "'Tea Party' Leaders to Unveil National Strategy for Grass-Roots Organizing." And, at CNN, "Tea Party Convention Aims to Boost the Movement."

The Left's Shameful Politicization of the Census

Marco Rubio is absolutely awesome in the interview here, and as always, Michelle Malkin shreds the Democratic Party's illegal alien political empowerment census scam:

And at Michelle's blog, "The Super-Sized Census Boondoggle."

Gingrich in 2012?

Okay, following up on my post from last night, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!," unlike many other politicians I've met, Newt Gingrich seemed like a cold, self-superior political actor. There was no sense of inclination toward glad-handing. In contrast, videos of Sarah Palin at her book signings show a potential candidate eager to engage her followers and supporters. Gingrich gave a good talk, and had I just left after the lecture I might have a different opinion of him. When he walked into the reception room for the signing, there was a punfunctory feel and a forced-smile atmosphere to the event. I can't remember feeling that I'm getting a privilege to meet someone who might very well be asking for my support. Call me selfish, but I don't necessarily view Gingrich as a model of personal integrity and leadership. He's an idea man, most of all. Super smart, he provided the GOP the punch for its comeback in the 1990s. But personally, he doesn't seem that much different than a lot of other run-of-the-mill partisan hacks. He's been under ethical clouds, and his fidelity to matrimonial sanctity leaves something to be desired. Nevetheless, he's a huge player on the right, and time tends to smooth the rough edges of political notoriety.

In any case, the editorial board at the Orange Count Register met with Gingrich, and the paper's got the results published this morning. See, "Gingrich Lays Out Terms for 2012 Run":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he would need the support of a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents before he would consider a 2012 presidential bid.

Speaking to the Register's editorial board, Gingrich spoke of building a “tripartisan movement.”

While many core Democrats view him antagonistically, his message of government reform and lower taxes are similar to views expressed by Republicans, Tea Party followers, frustrated independents and Reagan Democrats.

“I spend time every day thinking about how to build that,” he said.

Gingrich has given no indication that he is pursuing a presidential bid, but he has not ruled it out.

Gingrich came for meetings throughout the area. Also on Thursday, his American Solutions group met with small-business owners at the Irvine Hilton. On Saturday at the St. Regis resort in Dana Point, he's speaking at the annual summit meeting of Legatus, a Catholic organization for business and civic leaders.

Gingrich said that next February, he and his team would gauge the prospects of a 2012 presidential run. He said he would have to feel a “citizen obligation.”

“Do I have a responsibility that I can't walk away from?” he asked.

Gingrich was in town to tout his American Solutions organization and its “Jobs First” proposal.

He described the country's economic malaise as being perpetuated by a “secular socialist machine that is fundamentally trying to change this country.” The next several election cycles will be critical to determining the future of the country, he said.

“We're either going to decide to be a secular socialist system or we're going to throw the rascals out.”

He blamed the movement on the influence that public unions, trial lawyers and liberal activists have over the government, and he took several shots at President Barack Obama.

“The president has lots of words, almost none of which has meaning,” he said. “He says we can't afford to spend more while he's increasing spending. … He says he's for jobs, except that he wants to tax everybody who raises money.”

Gingrich outlined five tax changes he said will spur the economy and job creation:

Give a two-year, 50 percent reduction of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes paid by both employers and workers. He said the difference could be made up by unspent TARP and stimulus money.

Allow small businesses to deduct 100 percent of new equipment purchases.

Abolish taxes on capital gains.

Reduce the business tax rate to 12.5 percent.

Abolish the estate tax.

More details from Jan Norman, "Newt Gingrich Has Small-Biz Jobs Proposal," and Peggy Lowe, "Jobless Are the New Soccer Moms."

See also, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

VIDEO HAT TIP: American Solutions, "Platform of the American People."

Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

Okay, got home a little after 9:00pm from the Newt Gingrich lecture at the Irvine Hilton. After I found a seat (reserved up front), I took this shot of the crowd while standing at the podium at the stage. The event is still filling up here:

As I was taking the picture, I saw a commotion at the back of the ballroom. I made my way back there to see what was happening. Newt Gingrich was preparing for his interview on Hannity:

Back up front, I'm photographed here with Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. He's a true leader in the state's conservative movement, and was Speaker of the California State Assembly in 1996:

Here's Mayor Pringle introducing Speaker Gingrich:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich greets the crowd. And from the American Solutions website: "LIVE BLOG: Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, CA:

Beginning his talk:

You can see how packed it was in the ballroom during the lecture. Audience members were able to comment and ask questions:

Speaker Gingrich responding to questions:

I'm not particularly thrilled by Speaker Gingrich. He gave a very good speech, naturally, and he was especially strong in his views that enemy combatants should not be getting Miranda rights, etc. But last October/November I was really bothered by Gingrich's endorsement of RINO Dede Scozzafava. And even during his address tonight he came off a little too moderate. I'm with Michelle Malkin on this, for example: "Dear Newt Gingrich: Meet Ronald Reagan." Doug Hoffman ran within a couple of points of Democrat Bill Owens, NY-23's winner, on election night November 3rd. Had Speaker Gingrich endorsed Hoffman, and perhaps campaigned for him in New York, he could have provided the lift for the conservative Republican to take the seat. I don't really understand Gingrich's thinking on that one.

I bought a book anyway. Gingrich did a signing and I thought I might as well go for it rather than regret it later. I studied Gingrich's House leadership in some detail in graduate school, so better to be open-minded as far as historical significance goes. And honestly, I'm pleased so far with the book, Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History.

And here's the obligatory picture. This was a high-speed production, as you can see. Speaker Gingrich was signing the next person's book while posing for a photo with me:

Anyway, I'm glad I attended, even if Speaker Gingrich was too businesslike and impersonal at this stage of the evening. There were roughly 75 people or so at the signing. Michelle Malkin had more people waiting in line when I met her, and she took the time to smile, shake hands, and stand for photos with those in attendence at her event.

All in all, though, a worthwhile evening.

UPDATED!! - Sean Hannity Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!

UPDATE: I just came from the event at the Irvine Hilton. Actually, Hannity interviewed Speaker Newt Gingrich via satellite (which I just missed right now coming home) on the 9:00pm encore broadcast. I'll look for a video of that tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll be posting pictures from the lecture in a new blog entry. I'll update this post when that's published.

*****

UPDATE II: Here's the report, "Newt Gingrich in the O.C.!"

*****

I just got word this afternoon that Sean Hannity will do his show tonight live from the Irvine Hilton. Hannity's Twitter page is here. And Melinda Stone's tweet has the details:

Here's the American Solutions announcement, "Real Jobs Summit in Irvine, California":

There's a chance I'll be part of the live audience, so I'm planning on arriving to the event at 5:00pm. Check back later here tonight for a report!

RELATED: I actually don't care much for Newt Gingrich, so this is interesting: From CNN, "Club for Growth Targets Gingrich" (via Memeorandum).

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us...

Hey, maybe rock blogging is catching on among us conservatives!

From Sean Hackbarth, "Why Nirvana’s Nevermind Is Overrated":

A Twitter chat tonight with @LizMair, @ToddThurman, @CalebHowe, and others involved the supposed greatness of Nirvana. There’s no doubt they altered popular music for the better when Nevermind was unleased in 1991. But they’re also the most overrated band in modern times. Critics and supposed smart people too often speak of Nirvana in the same breath as The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And it’s all pretty much based on Nevermind–or to be more exact “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”

More at the link.

Actually, I was never much into Nirvana personally. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a wicked song, but I was especially turned off by Kurt Cobain's death, which seemed to me a copy-cat suicide seeking the same kind of rock immortality as Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin. All a waste, and especially for someone like Cobain, who clearly had a long future in the music world.

Lyrics here. And Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty ..."

NBC Loves Them Some Fried Chicken and Collard Greens!

Actually, this wouldn't bother me, since I SHO' DO LOVE ME SOME COLLARD GREENS! Hmm, hmm, mammy!

But considering the stereotypical nature of this AND the hypersensitivities of today's black folk, well, perhaps this isn't the best idea:

Mediaite has the story, "NBC Cafeteria Celebrates Black History Month With Fried Chicken Special." And from the links there, "Cook Defends Fried Chicken Choice for Black History Month Menu":

See also, Michelle Malkin, "MLK, Black History Month, and Cuisine Correctness" (via Memeorandum).

Social Security Meltdown is Here

It's been almost a couple of years now, but when I challenged Bruce Webb sometime back on his endless claims of "solvency" for Social Security, the guy practically blew a gasket. And now he's got some totally unintelligible post up today on the public debt ceilings and entitlement reform, although this quote gives you an idea of his agenda:

As long as the Social Security Trust Funds are throwing off enough interest dollars to cover the gap between Income excluding Interest and Cost there is absolutely no reason why workers should simply sacrifice their own interests here.

Translated: There's no reason for reforming the system to reduce liabiliaties or shift to marketization. But for Bruce Webb, frankly, if you keep spinning out enough opaque accounting gimmicks, there'll never be any reason to consider actually reforming a system that's essentially bankrupt. And Bruce will come back screaming in your face that there's now way you can truly understand these issues unless you've read the "primary documents" like he has!

Actually, it's not that complicated. In fact, John Hawkins has the goods: "It Has Begun: The Big Social Security Meltdown":

For years, conservatives have been saying that we need to get a handle on Social Security. Even George Bush, who wasn't a fiscal conservative, understood the risks and he tried desperately to reform the program -- but, not no avail.

Well now, a few years earlier than most people predicted, the program is going into the red:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.

...No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).

This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.

...Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security's days of being flush are over.

To be sure -- three of the most dangerous words in journalism -- the current Social Security cash deficits aren't all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.

But this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it's a problem for the present.

For a long, long time in this country, we've sacrificed the "future" for the "now." The problem with doing that is that eventually, the future arrives and you have to deal with it. Say hello to the future of Social Security, folks, because it's here a little early.

There's more at the link. And John's link goes to CNN, "Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security."

But no doubt Bruce Webb's got everything under control!

What Tea Party Fracture?

Mainstream media outlets have sought to destroy the tea party movement from the beginning. It's just lately that a few on the left have admitted that America's conservative populists are having a dramatic effect on national poltics. But as Sarah Palin prepares to deliver the keynote address at the Nashville convention, there's more media attempts at marginalization. Today we have yet another recycled hit piece at CNN, "Fractures Emerge as Tea Party Convenes." I've responded to the left's mendacity on this already, but readers might benefit from Just-a-Grunt's discussion at Jammie's Place, "MSM Finally Acknowledges Existence of the Tea Parties":

Much has been made lately about a group of Tea Partiers holding a convention in Nashville that comes with, for many of those who support the effort, a steep price tag. My reaction has always been, so what? If you want to pay the money to attend more power to you. I have yet to figure out why this is such a big deal. It would seem the narrative being pushed in the media is that because this movement is supposed to be all about the common man everything they do must come with a Wal-Mart style price tag.

So while the Democrats are holding fundraisers in Hawaii, and their defeated candidates can go to Washington, DC to accept donations from big unions and others are holding campaign fundraisers at posh resorts and venues, the press thinks it is despicable for the Tea Party folks to holding a event that are charging for.

I think maybe it has more to do with Sarah Palin being the keynote speaker and the fear she embodies in the liberals and they are afraid of what might happen if the movement, which is really a bunch of local organizations, should get organized under one banner.

For the record, I don't think the Tea Party should be a national organization. It works best when it remains focused on the local level and holds local politicians accountable more then when they take on trying to present a solid, one size fits all, type personality.

No, trying to reign in the Tea Partiers is like herding a bunch of cats. It is an endeavor best not entered into.

The good news is that an organization that couldn't get an honorable mention on the nightly newscast last year is now having their every move scrutinized. Like they say in Hollywood, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

More at Memeorandum.

Image Credit: "Orange County Tax Day Tea Party."

Jon Stewart on the 'O'Reilly Factor'

Freedom's Lighthouse provides the videos. And here's this from the Los Angeles Times, "Comedian Jon Stewart Takes the Hot Seat with Bill O'Reilly":

Jon Stewart showed up alone for his showdown Wednesday afternoon with Bill O'Reilly.

"Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T," he told the security guard in the lobby of Fox News' midtown Manhattan headquarters. "I'm here to get crushed by O'Reilly."

In fact, what unfolded over the next 40 minutes was a vigorous, policy-laden debate between two of television's most popular figures who hail from increasingly polarized political worlds. Their discussion careened between talk of tort reform, global warming and the trials of the 9/11 terrorists.

But most of all, Stewart used his second appearance ever on "The O'Reilly Factor" to levy a robust critique of Fox News and its coverage of President Obama.

"Here's what Fox has done, through their cyclonic perpetual emotional machine that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: They have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao," the comedian told his host.

"I think some people do that, but most people don't," O'Reilly responded, calling it "the narrative of a couple of guys."

Media criticism is nothing new for Stewart, who engages in it every night on "The Daily Show," gleefully splicing together news footage in bracing send-ups of media outlets, particularly Fox News. His mockery of CNN's political talk show "Crossfire" helped persuade executives to cancel that program. And last year he jousted fiercely with CNBC host Jim Cramer, accusing him of overstating the health of the stock market.

But when Stewart lodged his case against Fox News on the network's own air, directly to its top-rated host, it made for a rare and remarkable television exchange.

More at the link, as well as a Fox News video of the broadcast. (Via Memeorandum.)

Karen Alloy's Bouncing Babies Beat Carly Fiorina's Cyborg Sheep Any Day!

Wouldn't you prefer to watch Karen Alloy hanging with a bouncing baby than a Carly Fiorina attack ad featuring psychedelic cyborg attack sheep? Yep, I thought so:

But hey, Carly gets technical points for FCINO, no?

Flex Days at LBCC

My college had "Flex Days" yesterday. Billed as faculty professional development, it was pretty traditional department meetings this time (dealing with the latest classroom challenges and program developments, etc.). And for my colleagues in History and Political Science, this was the first time we've met together to discuss our move into the new building.

My department chairman expressed his sense of finally working in a truly professional workplace, one designed for what we do specifically -- he said it really felt like being at a college. I've felt that way too, especially when I get to look out over Carson Street everyday to view the college green and the main campus building.

But our college is facing a lot of challenges, and the information discussed here is in the public realm. Most important of these is the budget crisis that's hitting the community colleges hard. There are discussions of LBCC's budget picture here, here, and here. Not reported is the college trustees' contract proposal for a 4.615 percent salary reduction across the board. We had a long discussion on this during the department meeting. Not only will contract negotiations be pretty intense (with the possiblity of some kind of union job action), but it's going to be a big year in district board elections as well. (Our college's executive administration is bloated and generously compensated, so while I have a problem with public unions, etc., it's hard to even sustain talk of a salary rollback for faculty when administrative growth -- and growth in executive compensation relative to faculty -- has been dramatic.

The second challenge clearly was on the issue of classroom management, and especially technology in the classroom. I've always struggled a bit with our student demographic in fostering a learning environment really conducive to academic excellence. And to this day, I'm still amazed at the absence of a culture of learning among young people today. Now though, things have reached a critical mass. Whereas in earlier years I often felt as a lonely voice in the wilderness on standards of classroom decorum, now I'm hearing all kinds of stories. There's been a noticeable change over the last year, really, and it coincides perfectly with the invasion of cellular technology in the classroom. I recall the turning point being about 2003 or so, when most everyone had a phone and many students were distracted. But in the 6 or 7 years since, it seems that the prohibitive norms limiting student use during class have completely broken down. Perhaps its an addiction for a lot of kids, but texting is out of control, and in addition to phones, there are all kinds of music/MP3 devices being deployed, as well as laptops. The progressive members of the department, and one in particular who've I've discussed here previously, could not give a satisfactory response to the question of managing those students who completely tune out teaching in favor of surfing the web, checking Facebook, and playing cumputerized poker. These students are often faring the worst academically, but progressives want a free-flowing classroom driven by the much-idolized spontaneous "teachable moment." So what if a couple of students use the technology to blow off participation and learning? At least they've been empowered with the right to fail!

Anyway, I've mentioned earlier that I did not distribute the syllabus on the first day of classes. Instead I used that time to set the tone for the semester. It's worked fairly well so far, but during last week's exams too many students failed to either get to class on time for the exams or to have brought the necessary test-taking materials with them. Things that seem so basic and logical to the well-organized individual are generally foreign to so many students today, and not all of them young kids fresh out of high school. I'll be making some more adjustments to classroom procedures as the semester develops.

Anyway, I feel good that I'm not leaving anything to chance. Last semester was something of a disaster in a couple of my classrooms, in terms of keeping kids on task. I've found a good niche this year, and one of students today even asked me where I bought my Doc Martens!

It's all about finding that happy medium, yo!

Fiorina Struggles to Attract Social Conservatives

From the Los Angeles Times, "Fiorina, Targeting Boxer, is Still Cultivating Her Base":

As Senate candidate Carly Fiorina spoke to a standing-room-only meeting of local Republicans here, she hit familiar points -- her rise to become leader of Hewlett-Packard, her "common sense" approach to fixing the nation's economy and her pledge to give incumbent Barbara Boxer the fight of her life.

Amid all the fiscal talk, Fiorina dropped in a line about her conservative social beliefs.

"Barbara Boxer has never faced a candidate like me. . . . I will not permit her, for example, just to assume that all the women of California will vote for her," Fiorina told hundreds of people crowded in a hotel ballroom. "I say this as a proud pro-life conservative who believes marriage is between a man and a woman."

The fact that Fiorina felt compelled to detail her views on abortion and same-sex marriage underscores one of her greatest challenges as she seeks the Republican nomination: The party's most faithful voters are not convinced she is one of them.

Part of the reason is that, unlike her primary opponents, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine and former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell, Fiorina is an unknown political quantity. She has never sought election to public office before now, so she doesn't have a paper trail of legislation, statements and votes.

More than that, Fiorina's own words threaten to undermine her efforts to forge an image in the Senate race, which is getting national attention.

Her prepared speeches and written statements on taxes, federal spending and the deficit are consistently conservative. But when asked about nonfiscal issues, she sometimes veers into more moderate territory.

She said last week that she supported President Obama's effort to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the policy excluding openly gay individuals from military service.

The week before that, when asked for an assessment of the president's first year in office, she said that although she disagreed with him on the economy and the decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, "I agree with many of the things he's done. . . . I think that he is doing everything he can to keep the nation safe and I applaud him for that."

That same week, a recording emerged of Fiorina praising the Rev. Jesse Jackson and saying that the nation will not be a "truly representative democracy" until women make up half or more of elected officials. Conservative pundits pounced, and people are still angry.

Fiorina said she stands by her statements. Although she disagrees politically with Jackson, she said, she applauds his efforts to highlight opportunities in Silicon Valley for minorities and the poor. On the matter of female politicians, she disputed suggestions that she was calling for quotas but said she believes that a true meritocracy would logically lead to more women in politics, business and other fields.

"We're better off as an industry and a nation if everybody gets to play," she said.

Fiorina said she finds the focus on such remarks "bizarre" and blamed DeVore's underdog campaign for their dissemination.

"His campaign strategy seems to be to misrepresent me," she said.

The article notes that these vulnerabilities could take a toll on Fiorina's campaign, and I hope so. See, "Carly Fiorina: The Next Dede Scozzafava?" Also, "McCain-Backed GOP Senate Candidate Carly Fiorina Hearts Jesse Jackson — and Radical Gender Politics."

Best Picture Nominations

From the Los Angeles Times, "Oscar Nominations That Are Ror the People":

They are precisely the kinds of movies hardly ever nominated for the best-picture Oscar -- a tear-jerker sports film, a space-alien thriller and an animated feature with a flying house and talking dogs -- but the populist pleasures "The Blind Side," "District 9" and "Up" all made the final cut for the top Academy Award.

Concerned that a steady stream of challenging, often little-seen art movies were dominating the Oscars and deflating TV ratings, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doubled this year's best-picture race to 10 contestants, and the results Tuesday were exactly as intended: the inclusion of movies that have sold a boatload of tickets.

The nominations for the 82nd annual Academy Awards were led by the presumptive best-picture favorites -- "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker," which each scored in nine categories. The two movies represent opposite extremes of audience recognition, as "Avatar" has generated almost 50 times more domestic revenue than "The Hurt Locker."

But to the delight of the March 7 ceremony's producers, four movies besides "Avatar" that have grossed more than $100 million made the best-picture competition: "Up" ($293 million), "The Blind Side" ($237.9 million), " Inglourious Basterds" ($120.5 million) and "District 9" ($115.6 million).

When last year's statuettes were presented, only one of the five best-picture finalists -- "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" -- had grossed more than $100 million.

"The fact that 'The Blind Side' made it in made me happier than anything," said Sandra Bullock, who also was nominated for lead actress. "The greatest thing the academy could have done is to make it 10 movies."

RTWT at the link.

Also, "The Cheat Sheet: Academy Awards."

I've seen two of the ten films nominated: "Hurt Locker" and "Precious." I wrote previously on "Precious," ("Seeing. Feeling. 'Precious'"). But for some reason I skipped a review of "Hurt Locker." I'll try to correct that later ...

Chuck DeVore Valentine's Day Reception

Via MAINFO, "Meet Chuck DeVore in Mission Viejo, CA, Feb 14:

Against Gays in the Military

I wrote about gays in the military last May. See, "Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military." I don't write about it often, but I oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Some of my opinions have been influenced by academic research, especially, Aaron Belkin's, "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Also interesting has been some of the milblog arguments against the ban on open service. I'm also not convinced current policy has been effective. That said, Mackubin Thomas Owens makes the case against open integration at today's Wall Street Journal. See, "The Case Against Gays in the Military" (via Memeorandum):

Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.

Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

See also, the Los Angeles Times, "Joint Chiefs Chair Says Gays and Lesbians Should Serve Openly in the Military."

P.S. I hate to say this, but I'm finding myself on the same side of this issue as the demonic Attackerman, God help me (although he doesn't help his case by mocking Mackubin Thomas Owens).

Obama Deficits Could Weaken American Power

Niall Ferguson, last November, published a pessimistic piece on the weakening economic foundations of U.S. power, "An Empire at Risk." I'm an optimist, of course, and I've commented here recently on my confidence that the next U.S. economic expansion will improve the nation's long-term prospects dramatically (balance of payments, chronic budget deficits, and the federal debt overhang). But this is a pretty staggering analysis:

The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

And that $1.4 trillion is just for starters. According to the CBO's most recent projections, the federal deficit will decline from 11.2 percent of GDP this year to 9.6 percent in 2010, 6.1 percent in 2011, and 3.7 percent in 2012. After that it will stay above 3 percent for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, in dollar terms, the total debt held by the public (excluding government agencies, but including foreigners) rises from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019—from 41 percent of GDP to 68 percent.

In other words, there is no end in sight to the borrowing binge. Unless entitlements are cut or taxes are raised, there will never be another balanced budget. Let's assume I live another 30 years and follow my grandfathers to the grave at about 75. By 2039, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, the federal debt held by the public will have reached 91 percent of GDP, according to the CBO's extended baseline projections. Nothing to worry about, retort -deficit-loving economists like Paul Krugman. In 1945, the figure was 113 percent.

There's more at the link.

And now here comes this from the New York Times, "Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power" (with emphasis added):

In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.

The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.

The United States can't easily be compared to Japan, but certainly there's danger in the long-term implications of monetizing the debt (a most logical response), which would devalue our currency and cause an increase in interest rates around the world, which would in turn cause U.S. borrowing costs to rise. It's unsustainable over the duration, but again, I'm not too worried, given appropriate and timely adjustments. The most important thing would be to get the disastrous Democrats out of power and return to a high-growth strategy of targeted tax breaks to expand the economy, along with a more cautious monetary policy to keep domestic inflation in check. Had the Fed not artificially stimulated the economy past the immediate period of post-September 11 crisis, it's unlikely the housing boom would have gone on as long as it did (holding the Democrats' Fannie/Freddie boondoggle constant), and the massive windfalls in tax receipts following the Bush tax cuts in 2003 would have been more sure to have kept budgetary pressures under control.

And note that that's the NEW YORK TIMES taking the Obama administration to task. This is not good for the demonic (O)CT(O)PUS' pseudo-analysis.

Why is Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams Having Heart Surgery in the U.S.?

Isn't the answer obvious? And of course, this should be a huge story in the press, but so far it's mostly Canadian outlets covering it. But see Pirate's Cove, "Hey, Mr. Canadian Premier, Where Do You Go For Heart Surgery? USA, USA!" And also, the National Post, "N.L. Premier Williams Set to Have Heart Surgery in U.S" (via Memeorandum):

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."

Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.

"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.

"The premier has made a commitment that once he's through this procedure and he's well enough, he's going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he's comfortable to do at that time," she said.

Reports indicate that Williams could have surgery elsewhere in Canada, and without a wait time. But clearly, the fact that he's choosing to fly to the U.S. indicates just that: choice. I'll have to check with some Canadian blogging buddies, but it's a huge extra expense of time, money, and worry for someone in Newfoundland to be required to travel to another province to have such surgery done. The premier's decision to travel to the U.S. is a massive repudiation of the Canadian system. We do have some Canadians blogging this already: See Ezra Levant, "Danny Williams Flies to U.S. Health Clinics, Just Like Jean Chretien Did," and Kate at Small Dead Animals gets right to the point: "It should be a Criminal Code offence for any sitting member of parliament or provincial MLA to leave Canada for medical treatment." (Hat Tip: Ed Morrissey.)

Photo Credit: CTV Calgary. The Newfoundland provincial government page is here.

What's a College Degree Really Worth?

I've been in department meetings all morning, and I've still got to record those Scantrons from yesterday. So, I'll have more posting a little later. Meanwhile, here's this from the Wall Street Journal, "What's a Degree Really Worth?":

A college education may not be worth as much as you think.

For years, higher education was touted as a safe path to professional and financial success. Easy money, in the form of student loans, flowed to help parents and students finance degrees, with the implication that in the long run, a bachelor's degree was a good bet. Graduates, it has long been argued, would be able to build solid careers that would earn them far more than their high-school educated counterparts.

The numbers appeared to back it up. In recent years, the nonprofit College Board touted the difference in lifetime earnings of college grads over high-school graduates at $800,000, a widely circulated figure. Other estimates topped $1 million.

But now, as tuition continues to skyrocket and many seeking to change careers are heading back to school, some researchers are questioning the methodology behind the high projections.

Most researchers agree that college graduates, even in rough economies, generally fare better than individuals with only high-school diplomas. But just how much better is where the math gets fuzzy.

The problem stems from the common source of the estimates, a 2002 Census Bureau report titled "The Big Payoff." The report said the average high-school graduate earns $25,900 a year, and the average college graduate earns $45,400, based on 1999 data. The difference between the two figures is $19,500; multiply it by 40 years, as the Census Bureau did, and the result is $780,000.

"The idea was not to produce a definitive 'This is what you'll earn' number, but to try and give some measure of the relative value of education attainments," says Eric Newburger, a lead researcher at the Census and the paper's co-author. "It's not a statement about the future, it's a statement about today."

Mark Schneider, a vice president of the American Institutes for Research, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, calls it "a million-dollar misunderstanding."

One problem he sees with the estimates: They don't take into account deductions from income taxes or breaks in employment. Nor do they factor in debt, particularly student debt loads, which have ballooned for both public and private colleges in recent years. In addition, the income data used for the Census estimates is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the 2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation.

Dr. Schneider estimated the actual lifetime-earnings advantage for college graduates is a mere $279,893 in a report he wrote last year. He included tuition payments and discounted earning streams, putting them into present value. He also used actual salary data for graduates 10 years after they completed their degrees to measure incomes. Even among graduates of top-tier institutions, the earnings came in well below the million-dollar mark, he says.

And just like any investment, there are risks—such as graduating into a deep economic downturn. That's what happened to Kelly Dunleavy, who graduated in 2007 from the University of California, Berkeley, with $60,000 in loans. She now works as a reporter for a small newspaper in the Bay Area and earns $34,000 a year. Her father is currently paying her $700 monthly loan payments. "It's harder than what I think I expected it to be," she says.

"Averages don't tell the whole story," says Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access & Success, a nonprofit group based in Berkeley, Calif. She points out that incomes vary widely, especially based on majors. "The truth is that no one can predict for you exactly what you're gong to earn," she says.

More at the link. (Via Memeorandum.) I'm with the folks at CATO on this one. See, "The College Earnings Premium — Why It’s Meaningless." Beyond variations in majors and the distribution of individual attributes (motivation, intelligence, skills), even if we broke down the gains from college in pure cost/benefit terms, there's too many intangibles that come from entering into a life of the mind. Or perhaps we might refer to Socrates, "The unexamined ..."

After Shopping...

Okay, following up on the shopping trip from Sunday. These are Doc Martens, my favorite shoes. Specifically, these are the ROBSON GRIFFIN 4 EYE CHUKKA, DARK BROWN OVERDRIVE. Never actually seen this style before, but I was looking for some brown Doc Martens, and these felt good when I tried them on. Nice:

And the shirt (made in China) ... it's beautiful, but not my favorite actually. I needed some new shirts to go with the slacks I bought (not shown is a second blue-and-white striped button-down as well). The shirt's not permanent press. I just ironed this one before I took my youngest kid to school. The cotton's super soft and the collar kind of wilts, so I might take it into the cleaners to have it pressed and starched. Haven't done that in a while:

Okay, at my college here, in the faculty dining area. Yesterday was exam day, and I'm taking a coffee break before my 12:30pm class. Look at those Scantrons, probably over 200:

My wife gave me a haircut and I shaved (notice the difference). Eye-glass frames by Ray-Ban (style RB 5095):

More later...

U.S. Prosecutor Recuses Himself in James O'Keefe Case

At Fox News, "U.S. Attorney Steps Down From O'Keefe Case." (Via Memeorandum.) Also, from the Times-Picayune, "U.S. Attorney Jim Letten Recuses Himself From Landrieu Phone Tampering Case." (Via Patterico.)

Also, James O'Keefe's interview on Hannity, "The People’s Office."

Meanwhile, Marcy Wheeler keeps it up with the sexualized slanders, "TeaBugger Victimology." And you gotta notice the dishonesty here. For example:

You know, several days ago I was willing to dismiss this as a stupid juvenile prank. But given the increasing concern that the perpetrators are showing–and their increasingly dubious stories–I’m convinced it merits a closer look.

Well, that's obvoiusly not true, eh, Marcy? See, "Leftists Allege Breitbart Behind Landrieu Office Arrests." And it's not a bugging case, either.