Austerity Program for Long Beach City College

The Long Beach Press-Telegram has endorsed LBCC Trustee Jeff Kellogg for reelection to the board on April 13th. See, "LBCC Trustees Area 1: Jeff Kellogg Points Out Record of Fiscal Responsibility." I don't know him personally. He's got a reputation as a pretty boy of the city's old-money power establishment. Be that as it may, the college is facing the most severe budget crisis in my ten years. Reserves have run out and last week tensions were running high between faculty and administration over a cost-cutting proposal to cancel the 2010 summer session. When students at the college turned out in large numbers for a recent board meeting, administrators and board members saw some real emotion on display. Too bad Kellogg turned himself into a Class-A prick:

That said, the college president published a long letter in Tuesday's Press-Telegram, "An Austerity Program for Long Beach City College." It's worth posting in its entirety:

For generations, Long Beach City College has been synonymous with success in Long Beach. The college has produced many of this community's leaders, including former mayors and its current superintendent of schools.

Just last week, LBCC was joined by Long Beach Unified School District, California State University Long Beach and the community to celebrate the second anniversary of the Long Beach College Promise - the unique seamless partnership that has put the Long Beach education system in the national spotlight.

Through the Long Beach College Promise, the Pathways to Success Partnership with CSU Dominguez Hills and the Student Success Initiative, LBCC students have experienced measurable improvements in the successful completion of their education goals. LBCC is now the number one transfer college to CSULB and has nearly tripled its applications to CSUDH.

However, these and other student successes are now in jeopardy. Due to the state budget crisis, LBCC has experienced a significant reduction in revenue that has dramatically reduced the number of students it can serve. Coupled with a tremendous surge in enrollment resulting from large high school graduating classes, high unemployment and cuts to CSU and UC, the competition for classes at LBCC has left thousands of students without the classes and services needed to succeed. Despite the efforts of the Board of Trustees to set aside funds for a rainy day, the loss in revenue and costs to operate the college have nearly erased that reserve.

These pressures have become visible to the public. This academic year, LBCC has cut 12 percent of its course sections. Programs and services that serve the neediest students have been reduced even further. Layoffs have occurred and the management team has taken a 5 percent reduction in salary through a one-day-a-month furlough. Recently, discussions about scaling back summer classes brought out teary eyed students to a board meeting expressing their frustration and fears for their future. Despite the economic realities faced by the college our faculty leaders have protested the canceling of classes and union leaders have pointed fingers instead of offering realistic solutions.

While LBCC has decided to offer one summer session this year to further our students' progress, this does not change the fact that the state is not providing funding to meet our enrollment demands. Without additional funding, which is highly unlikely, this shortfall will force further reductions in course and service offerings unless other savings in fixed costs can be achieved.

LBCC now stands at a crossroads. In order to continue to serve the most fundamental needs of our students: career certificates, Associate Degree and transfer success, I have asked the college to do the following: to reduce or eliminate programs that do not serve the core mission of the college and to streamline or consolidate services while protecting the courses that students need to graduate or transfer.

Most importantly, I have asked that every employee group make reductions to its salary and benefits in an equitable way to ensure that our students continue to have the classes they need to succeed. This point is critical since nearly 90 percent of the college's operating budget consists of salaries and benefits for employees.

If our employee groups join with the administration and temporarily reduce their salaries, and agree to health benefit plan modifications to reduce overall health insurance costs, we can preserve access for over 1,000 full-time students next year alone. This task will not be easy but it is necessary for the college to continue its long tradition of academic excellence and student success.

I ask for this community's continued support as we work through these issues. I hope that you will support our efforts to preserve access for students and that you will communicate to our legislature and the governor that the education of our youth can no longer be compromised.

You have my commitment that Long Beach City College will remain steadfast in its commitment to student success for this and the generations to come.

Eloy Oakley is president of Long Beach City College.

My union, the leadership of which I haven't the highest regards, has responded, FWIW: "CCA Response to Eloy Oakley's Press-Telegram Editorial."

I'll have more later ...

National Census Day

Today is National Census Day. April 1st is the deadline to turn in the census form. I'm heading over to the post office in a few minutes to mail mine. It's been sitting on my kitchen table. I brought it to school today to discuss with my classes. Hispanics are asked to identify their "national origin" (in 2010 Hispanic background is not classified as race). The follow-up question asked respondents to identify themselves by race, and some folks are just saying "American."

I filled out the racial sections of the forms. Despite my concerns over partisan manipulation and abuse, the census is nevertheless an important document. That said, Abigail Thernstrom has more, "Answer the Race Question":

Many of us believe America is too preoccupied with race. The race question on the census reflects that preoccupation. Why answer it, when it just perpetuates race-think? Aside from the question of whether doing so is against the law, why not refuse to fill in the blank?

Race is an obsession, and we conceptualize the term in a peculiar way. We are an ethnically diverse society, and presumably that’s good. But, in defining the diversity of the nation, why focus on blacks and Hispanics and ignore, for instance, Jews? Like Hispanics, Jews are an ethnic group. In fact, if we are going to understand America as a pluralistic society, why not both expand the definition of ethnicity and add a religious question?

In addition, the race/ethnic categories are a mess. For instance, East Indians are classified as Asians, but only because East Indian spokesmen in the 1980s pressured to have the group treated as a protected minority group by the Small Business Administration in order to get below-market-rate loans — even though East Indians generally have incomes far above the national average. The census picked up the classification from the SBA. It’s an arbitrary classification — and not uniquely so.

Many legitimate arguments are being made for refusing to answer the race question on the census by dear and admired friends of mine. But I see two problems: One, if you don’t answer, census officials will just impute your race, most often on the basis of the color your neighbors. Refusing to answer is thus a no-win strategy.

More important, if we want accurate information on, say, black unemployment, would we rather rely on census data or on the NAACP, which is driven by a political agenda that is not necessarily in the national interest? Steve and I make much use of census numbers in writing about race and ethnicity in America; we like to think we are conveying an accurate picture, thanks to the Bureau of the Census.

Added: At Red State, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), "Returning the Census is Our Constitutional Duty" (via Memeorandum).

From Cynthia McKinney to Hank Johnson: Boy, Georgia's Fourth District Got teh Awesome Congressional Representation!

I met Cynthia McKinney in March 2009. She was on something of a speaking tour to maximize her exposure following a confrontation with the Israeli navy. To simply say she's a consiracy nut is charitable. In any case, it turns out her successor is pretty far out there as well, Representative Hank Johnson:

Via Top of the Ticket and Memeorandum.

About That Playboy in My Drawer . . .

I don't keep a copy of Playboy in my office drawer, but Bret Stephens does:

It's time to make a personal and professional admission: I keep a copy of the Feb. 2007 issue of Playboy in a desk drawer in my Wall Street Journal office.

This is not the sort of thing I ever thought I'd publicly confess. But I'm prompted to do so now in response to a string of online rebuttals to my Tuesday column, "Lady Gaga Versus Mideast Peace," in which I argue that Western liberalism (in its old-fashioned sense) has done far more than Israel's settlements to provoke violent Muslim anti-Americanism.

In particular, I was taken to task by Andrew Exum—the "Abu Muqawama" blogger at the Center for a New American Security—for allegedly failing to watch my share of racy Arabic-language music videos, such as those by Lebanese beauty queen and pop star Haifa Wehbe. "With music videos like this one," writes Mr. Exum, "Stephens can hardly argue that Lady Gaga is the one importing sexual provocation into the Arabic-speaking world and stirring things up, can he?"

So let me tell you about that Playboy, and how I came to purchase it.

In the spring of 2007 I wrote a series of columns from Indonesia about the battle lines then emerging between religious radicals and moderates in the world's largest Muslim-majority country. I profiled Abdurrahman Wahid, then the former (now late) president of Indonesia and a champion of his country's tolerant religious traditions. I visited a remote Sumatran village that had expelled an itinerant Islamic preacher for his militant Wahhabi teachings. I interviewed Habib Rizieq, head of the Front for the Defense of Islam, a vigilante group known for violently suppressing "un-Islamic" behavior.

I also spent a delightful evening in the company of Inul Daratista, the Indonesian equivalent of Shakira, who had been accused by a council of Muslim clerics of committing pornoaksi—or "porno action"—for gyrating a little excessively in one of her music videos. A million Indonesians had taken to the streets to denounce the video, and legislation was introduced in Indonesia's parliament to ban pornoaksi, which could be defined as any female behavior that could arouse a sexual response in a man, such as the sight of a couple kissing in public or a woman wearing a backless dress.

One person I didn't manage to interview was Erwin Arnada, the editor of the Indonesian edition of Playboy. I did, however, get hold of a copy of the magazine (the one now in my office): It contains not a single picture of a naked woman. The Playmate in the centerfold is clad in the kind of lingerie that would seem a bit old-fashioned in a Victoria's Secret catalogue; a second photo essay in my magazine looks as if it belongs in a J. Crew ad.

Nevertheless, upon beginning publication in 2006 Mr. Arnada was almost immediately charged with violating Indonesia's indecency laws. (He was ultimately acquitted.) His Jakarta offices were violently attacked by Mr. Rizieq's goons, forcing the magazine to move to the predominantly Hindu island of Bali. "For Arnada," wrote New York Times reporter Jane Perlez, "all the fuss represents fears about the intrusion of Western culture. 'Why else do they keep shouting about Playboy?' he asked."

Mr. Arnada's comment gets at the crux of the argument I made in my column, which is that it is liberalism itself—liberalism as democracy, as human rights, as freedom of conscience and expression, as artistic license, as social tolerance, as a philosophy with universal application—to which the radical Muslim mind chiefly objects, and to which it so often violently reacts ...

More at the link.

Steven Givler Online Back Online!

My good friend Maj. Steven Givler, USAF, is now blogging again after completing the geographical logistics of his reassignment from Saudi Arabia to Portugal.

He's taken some photos of the scenery ...

And his new digs ...

The home features a beautiful interior, and Steven writes:

After two weeks of looking, here's what we've chosen. There are lots of newer houses, but none had the room, central location, and uniqueness of this place. It's about 5 blocks from the ocean, and within easy bicycling distance of where I'll be working.

I'm thankful for Steven's service. Stop over and comment at blog.

Take Another Little Piece of My Heart Now, Baby...

It's Joplin's screaming, seriously. I mean she's bluesy, but the guttural emotion in those screams toward the end of "Piece of My Heart" is simply unmatched. I've been enjoying this song more recently since listening to Chrystal Bowersox sing it (posted here previously). And 100.3 The Sound played it during my drive time the other day. Enjoy:

From the comments at the second video, "This song is brilliant. Its a metaphor for intense love that you know is bad for you but you keep coming back for more."

That's it for me tonight. Check out Ken Davenport, Right Klik, The Other McCain, Theo Spark, and Washington Rebel.

Democrats Don't Like Sports!

And that's only a slight exaggeration. See, "Sports Viewers Largely Republican." And check out that graphic:

If you're a GOP strategist looking for key primary votes, spend your valuable advertising money on PGA Tour events. If you're a Dem trying to win over your base, focus on advertising during NBA games.

So says a new study among hundreds of thousands of Americans examining the correlation between viewers' favorite sports and their voting habits. And, the survey shows, most dedicated sports watchers are much more likely to vote with the GOP than they are to vote with Dems.

Researchers at National Media Inc., a GOP firm, analyzed survey results from a total of 218K interviews between Aug. '08 and Sept. '09. The polling was conducted by Scarborough USA, a joint project of Nielsen and Arbitron, the 2 top ratings agencies in the country. The data helps TV and radio stations and the country's newspapers set ad rates by evaluating viewership habits.

GOPers are most likely to watch the PGA Tour, college football and NASCAR, according to the study. But if GOP ad buyers want to reach more frequent voters, they should focus on the PGA; golf fans told researchers they were much more likely to vote than NASCAR fans say they are. Meanwhile, Dems hold the largest advantages among basketball fans, both those who watch the NBA and the WNBA. And fans of World Wrestling Entertainment are also much more likely to favor Dems -- if they vote. Wrestling fans are less likely to cast ballots than any other sports fans.

Another signal, emerging independent of the Obama-media-industrial-complex, that leftists are not only outside the mainstream, but literally un-American according to key indices of popular culture. Sure, some Democrats are sports fans. But these data really should give pause to those on the left claiming to represent middle America. (And notice the elitists at Democratic Strategist trying to blow off the findings.)

Via Memeorandum.

The RNC Debacle

From Hugh Hewitt:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
2 Girls 1 GOP
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Rarely have the e-mails flowed in as quickly as they did Monday as news spread of the RNC's profligacy and of its highly objectionable choice of entertainment venues. They are coming from individuals who, as recently as Friday, had at my urging sent money to the National Republican Congressional Committee to help in the effort to oust Nancy Pelosi. They are coming from people who are living on tight budgets in an era of economic uncertainty but who had sacrificed because the country cannot afford another two years of a Pelosi-Reid led Congress.

They are coming from very, very angry Republicans.

And they are right to be angry.

Whether or not RNC staffers share the very traditional beliefs on moral questions of the vast majority of their regular voters, the idea of partying at even "upscale" sex-themed nightclubs is quite obviously not only at the top of the stupid charts, it also reflects thorough-going contempt for the folks that sent them to work in the first place.

This latest scandal follows another one wherein the crackerjack staff at the RNC circulated a memo dripping in disdain for the conservative rank and file . The memo-flap soon passed as staff memos just aren't that interesting.

This scandal will not soon pass. It is a huge blow at a time of otherwise gathering momentum, and the GOP's elected leadership need to respond decisively, as do Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and Sarah Palin – the four Republicans most likely to seek the party's nomination in 2012 and to have a shot of gaining it.

RTWT.

Plus, social conservatives aren't happy either. See, "Tony Perkins Urges Conservatives to Stop Giving Money to RNC" (via Memeorandum).

Rachel Maddow Can't Confirm Anything in Her Militia Member Smear on the Tea Party Movement

This Rachel Maddow segment pretty much sums up the total journalistic amateurism at MSNBC. She's spends five minutes stretching to find some kind of connection between the Hutaree militia and the "right wing extremists" (read tea partiers) who've been marching in anti-ObamaCare protests in D.C. And to top it off, her "expert" is the completely asinine hack Dave Neiwert, who argues that Americans freaked out over a few men with "turbans" on September 11, while the "real threat" to the United States is "right wing domestic terrorism." These people are bad.

I'll be the first to condemn the militia movement's extremism. I want nothing to do with them, and I can't name a single conservative blogger or tea partier -- and that by now includes dozens, even hundreds, of leaders in the conservative movement today -- who would even deign to associate with potential domestic terrorists. Meanwhile, the Obama administration keeps close ties with Code Pink fanatics who're serving as a direct link to the Taliban insurgency. This White House refused to condemn the Fort Hood attacks as domestic jihad, and the "system worked" when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit. But hey, I better watch it: That's RAAACIST!!!

And for comparison, see my earlier entry, "The Left/Right Divide: Which Side Would You Choose?"

In any case, TPM-Muckraker's working hard to generalize and normalize the militias, "For Hutaree, Militia Ethos Extended To Family Life."

But see tonight's New York Times, "Militia Members Draw Distinctions Between Groups."

'Stupid Evil Bastard' Attacks Tea Party 'Clueless Dolts'

My guess is the fact that Congress' own Members didn't even read their healthcare monstrosity is lost on "Stupid Evil Bastard," although he nevertheless attacks citizen patriots as "dolts" for not being able to pinpoint what page "death panels" were found.

Actually, I did read the original 1000-page House bill last summer, and Page 429, Lines 10-12 was widely interpreted at the time as limiting coverage to control costs (rationing). But hey, when your whole schtick is attacking conservatives as "dolts," who's got time for facts and superior argumentation:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people can be so willing to work against their own self-interests because FOX “News” told them to. These people have nothing but Republican talking-points to spew out in response to the questions being asked. None of them has put any thought into it beyond what they’ve been told by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. None of them has made the effort to find out what the bill really has in it on their own. They freely admit that they watch FOX because it reinforces what they believe already. They’re protesting something they have only misinformation about.

BREAKING! MoveOn to 'Condemn the Hate' Outside RNC Headquarters Thursday

From NewsReal, "MoveOn Plans Hate-In Outside RNC Headquarters Tomorrow":

The Democrat-media complex has been pushing the idea that patriotic nonviolent resistance and opposition to ObamaCare and President Obama’s drive to turn America into a full-blown socialist state somehow constitutes “hate.”

Leftists keep trying to invent new incidents supposedly showing how their political adversaries in the Tea Party movement are sinister racists.

They claim –in the absence of proof– that black Democratic lawmakers were called the N-word as they walked to the U.S. Capitol building to vote on ObamaCare. They claim –in the absence of proof– that an anti-gay epithet was hurled at Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), an openly gay lawmaker.

It is an indisputable fact that the violence America is beginning to see is almost exclusively on the left, whether it’s a deranged registered Democrat flying his plane into a federal building in Austin, Texas, or a progressive coward calling in a death threat against a Republican lawmaker.

It is all part of the left’s push to delegitimize opposition to the socialist takeover of America. If you oppose the murder-in-progress of the American republic you are smeared as a redneck, teabagging, racist obstacle to progress — and you deserve what’s coming to you.

So it’s not surprising that the street theater specialists at MoveOn.org are planning to host a propaganda event tomorrow intended to reinforce this false notion that Constitution-loving pro-limited government enthusiasts are eeeevil haters.

The leftist thugs at MoveOn plan to hold a rally outside Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. to urge the Republican Party to distance itself from the alleged “hate” caused by the passage of ObamaCare.

Of course, the left, and in particular the George Soros-led character assassins at Media Matters for America (I mean you, Jamison Foser, Eric Boehlert, and Terry Krepel) are largely responsible for the civil unrest that is growing across America. Anyone who supported ObamaCare is responsible for the tide of discontent that now threatens to tear the nation apart.

And take notice, MoveOn, Jamison, Eric, and Terry, that the American people will not silenced.

Here’s the call-to-arms email MoveOn just sent out ...

Follow the link for the letter.

'The Free Ride's Over for the Rich in This Country...'

A really angry, frequently incoherent, rant for socialism, from the Harry Reid thug who threatened Andrew Breitbart last weekend. At Founding Bloggers, "Class Warfare All The Rage in Searchlight, Nevada":

This kind of abuse, which is typical of Obama-era Democrats, is not going over well with the public. See Greg Sargent, "Gallup: Majority Says Dem Health Reform Tactics Were “Abuse Of Power”." (Via Memeorandum.)

See also, Gay Patriot, "Americans’ Negative View of Obama’s New Kind of (Chicago) Politics."

BUSH = HITLER: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same...

Scott Johnson has the background:

Evan Coyne Maloney is the documentary filmmaker and proprietor of Brain Terminal. During the Bush administration, Evan was out in the field with his camera observing protests and interviewing protesters. He is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?

Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.

Here's another photo of the BUSH = NAZI ideological demonization from March 20, in Hollywood:

Recall that "SS" stands for "Schutzstaffel," Hitler's paramilitary security state within the state.

Plus, posted previously, "BOOSH," the racist Bush slur.:

Here's Brian Maloney at Brain Terminal, "A Trip Down Memory Lane":

Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.

It’s true!

But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.

Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence ....

Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?

One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.

When it comes to the Democrats, I'm ashamed for my country. But I'm not resigned. The tea parties are the salvation of democracy.

And since I know lefties will say "both sides do it." .... No, sorry, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- comparable to the secular demonization and violent rhetoric against the GOP during the Bush years, and it contiues today.

See, Zombie, "Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years."

Imperial History of the Middle East

God, I love this video:

Hat Tip: William Jacobson, who links to Isreally Cool: "See if you can spot when a palestinian state existed."

Get the link code at Maps of War.

RELATED: See David Phillips, "The Illegal-Settlements Myth":

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.

BONUS: Melanie Phillips, "Israel as Czechoslovakia."

AAPS v. Sebelius

At Fox News, "Medical Society Files Lawsuit to Block Health Care Overhaul":

First, do no harm. Second, sue the government.

With the president's ink barely dry on the health care overhaul's final fixes, a group of nearly 5,000 American physicians is filing suit to stop the mammoth new law dead in its tracks.

"I think this bill that passed threatens not only to destroy our freedom in medicine but to bankrupt the country," said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The Arizona-based medical coalition filed suit on March 26, arguing that congressional reforms illegally coerce individuals into buying insurance from private companies.

Starting in 2014, anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance faces a small federal penalty, but in 2016 the fine jumps to $695 a year per person or 2.5 percent of overall income, whichever is greater. That means that anyone earning more than $27,800 would be subject to increasing penalties, with a maximum fine of $2,085 per family.

Supporters of the law call it a simple tax meant to shore up coverage nationwide; but the AAPS says the mandate is an "unprecedented overreach" — an unconstitutional grab that rewards insurance companies and allows the federal government to seize private property in violation of the 5th Amendment.

See also, MAINFO, "Physicians Sue to Stop Obamacare."

VIDEO HAT TIP: Bottom Line Up Front, "Sebelius-Obamacare Will Raise Taxes on Small Businesses Making Over $200K."

RELATED: At ABC News, "GOP Wary of Health Law Repeal Push in Fall Races" (via Memeorandum).

Jacob Laksin Interview at FrontPage Magazine

Jacob Laksin, the managing editor at Frontpage Magazine, is interviewed by Jamie Glazov, "The Threat We Face":

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Jacob Laksin, the managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. As a fellow at the Phillips Foundation, he reported about the war on terrorism from East and North Africa and from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is co-author, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Weekly Standard, City Journal, Policy Review, as well as other publications.

FP: Jacob, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I’d like to talk to you today about your view of the terror war, how the Obama administration is handling it and how a U.S. administration should preferably and ideally be handling it.

I would like to begin this discussion by talking with you about the nature of the threat we face in general. You and I have had a few disagreements (I think) in our own private discussions about Islam and to what extent it represents the “problem” in terms of the enemy we face. Tell us a bit about your thoughts on this issue, in terms of Islam and in what way you deem it to represent, or not represent, “the threat” to us in this terror war. And share with us some of your travels to the Islamic world that have, perhaps, influenced your outlook.

Laksin: First, thank you for having me, Jamie. It’s not often I find myself on this side of an interview, let alone in this space, but the honor is doubly great since one of my favorite interviewers is conducting it.

Islam is a complicated subject but I suppose where we disagree is in our definition of the threat it poses. You believe that Islam is the problem; I think there’s a good deal to that. Robert Spencer and others have made a convincing case that Islam is foundationally less tolerant, more supremacist, and more militant than other major religions and hence presents a unique threat. I’m willing to accept that argument, though more on empirical than doctrinal grounds: Wherever terrorism takes place today, Islam is usually connected. That is surely no coincidence.

But while I agree that Islam as such is a threat, I don’t agree that it is the threat. As I see it, Islamic texts may be immutable but Islam is not monolithic; it is a reflection of the society at large. Thus, Islam in Arabia is very different than Islam in Africa, and the differences are apparent even within the same continent. I’ve drunk boukha (a kind of fig liquor) with educated Muslims in Tunisia who have read the Koran, and I’ve been accosted and forcibly converted to Islam by a Muslim gang of young and likely illiterate thugs in East Africa. (I happen to be an atheist by persuasion, but when it comes to potentially life-threatening situations, I am not a stickler for principle.)

The lesson I draw from those experiences is that culture makes the difference. If you take the hothouse culture of, say, Saudi Arabia – tribal, puritanical, violent, sectarian – you are very likely to get something that resembles Wahhabi Islam. That also means that even if Islam ceased to exist tomorrow, the threat we associate with its terrorist followers would persist. I think this is what T.E. Lawrence was getting at when he wrote so lyrically of Wahabism that:

It was a natural phenomenon, this periodic rise at intervals of little more than a century, of ascetic creeds in central Asia. Always the voteries found their neighbors beliefs cluttered with inessential things, which became impious in the hot imagination of their preachers. Again and again, they had arisen, had taken possession, soul and body, of the tribes…the new creeds flowed like the tides or the changing seasons, each movement with the seeds of early death it its excess of rightness.

I see it similarly. So, while it may sound paradoxical, I think it’s simplistic to blame Islamic texts, which many in the Muslim world have not read – even in Egypt, a relatively modern state by the Arab world’s standards, almost half the population is illiterate – for the threat posed by Islamic extremism. Meanwhile, arguably the worst “Islamic” terrorist organization of the last half century, the Palestinian PLO, was at least notionally secular.

All that said, I think the points of agreement here are more important than the differences. Whether you think that Islam is the problem, or whether you think the culture from which it emerges is the problem, the same policy implications should follow: a reduction in immigration from Muslim countries; a skepticism about the Western world’s ability to transport its values and forms of government to that part of the world; a vigilance about Muslim extremism in the U.S.; and a steadfast support for democratic countries like Israel that live surrounded by the threat. If there can be some agreement on these points, I will accept that the rest is academic. Finally, though I don’t fully agree with the thesis that Islam as a religion is the main threat, I am dismayed that this is considered a fringe view while the idea that Islam is a “religion of peace” enjoys the status of mainstream truth. In a saner, more observant world, that would be reversed.

FP: Thanks Jacob, the debate on whether “Islam is or is not the problem” continues in many places and, obviously, also here at Frontpage and at NewsReal. So, while we disagree on several realms, we aren’t going to engage in a debate on it here today — and that is also not our purpose. For those interested, Robert Spencer has recently crystallized his argument at Newreal, and my own position is pretty much synthesized in my debate with Dinesh D’Souza.

Let’s follow up on the policy implications that you mention should be put in place in countering the threat we face. You point to a reduction in immigration from Muslim countries. Why is this important in your view and how could it be administered, especially in a climate of political correctness – that appears to not only shape the boundaries of national discourse but also the policies of the country?

More at the link.

The Overthrow of ObamaCare

From Yuval Levin, at the Weekly Standard, "REPEAL: Why and How Obamacare Must Be Undone":

To see why nothing short of repeal could suffice, we should begin at the core of our health care dilemma ....

Liberals ... propose ways of moving Americans to a more fully public system, by arranging conditions in the health care sector (through a mix of mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies) to nudge people toward public coverage, which could be more effectively managed. This is the approach the Democrats originally proposed last year. The idea was to end risk-based insurance by making it essentially illegal for insurers to charge people different prices based on their health, age, or other factors; to force everyone to participate in the system so that the healthy do not wait until they’re sick to buy insurance; to align various insurance reforms in a way that would raise premium costs in the private market; and then to introduce a government-run insurer that, whether through Medicare’s negotiating leverage or through various exemptions from market pressures, could undersell private insurers and so offer an attractive “public option” to people being pushed out of employer plans into an increasingly expensive individual market.

Conservatives opposed this scheme because they believed a public insurer could not introduce efficiencies that would lower prices without brutal rationing of services. Liberals supported it because they thought a public insurer would be fairer and more effective.

But in order to gain 60 votes in the Senate last winter, the Democrats were forced to give up on that public insurer, while leaving the other components of their scheme in place. The result is not even a liberal approach to escalating costs but a ticking time bomb: a scheme that will build up pressure in our private insurance system while offering no escape. Rather than reform a system that everyone agrees is unsustainable, it will subsidize that system and compel participation in it—requiring all Americans to pay ever-growing premiums to insurance companies while doing essentially nothing about the underlying causes of those rising costs.

Liberal health care mavens understand this. When the public option was removed from the health care bill in the Senate, Howard Dean argued in the Washington Post that the bill had become merely a subsidy for insurance companies, and failed completely to control costs. Liberal health care blogger Jon Walker said, “The Senate bill will fail to stop the rapidly approaching meltdown of our health care system, and anyone is a fool for thinking otherwise.” Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos called the bill “unconscionable” and said it lacked “any mechanisms to control costs.”

Indeed, many conservatives, for all their justified opposition to a government takeover of health care, have not yet quite seen the full extent to which this bill will exacerbate the cost problem. It is designed to push people into a system that will not exist—a health care bridge to nowhere—and so will cause premiums to rise and encourage significant dislocation and then will initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so increase them further. It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of Medicaid, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely only to raise premiums further, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.

The case for averting all of that could hardly be stronger. And the nature of the new law means that it must be undone—not trimmed at the edges. Once implemented fully, it would fairly quickly force a crisis that would require another significant reform. Liberals would seek to use that crisis, or the prospect of it, to move the system toward the approach they wanted in the first place: arguing that the only solution to the rising costs they have created is a public insurer they imagine could outlaw the economics of health care. A look at the fiscal collapse of the Medicare system should rid us of the notion that any such approach would work, but it remains the left’s preferred solution, and it is their only plausible next move—indeed, some Democrats led by Iowa senator Tom Harkin have already begun talking about adding a public insurance option to the plan next year.

Because Obamacare embodies a rejection of incrementalism, it cannot be improved in small steps. Fixing our health care system in the wake of the program’s enactment will require a big step—repeal of the law before most of it takes hold—followed by incremental reforms addressing the public’s real concerns.

RTWT.

Also, at USA Today, "Health Care Law Too costly, Most Say":

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats ...

RELATED HOPINESS: At NYT, "Obama Defends Health Care Law" (via Memeorandum). And at WSJ, "Obama Steps Up Confrontation."

Yeah. That'll work.

The Radicalization of Israel's Arabs

From Carolyn Glick:

As the local and international press corps converged on Jerusalem’s Old City to cover the Arab riots at the Temple Mount two weeks ago, little mention was made of the fact that Jerusalem was not the only flashpoint. In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned.

These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel’s national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Beduin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it.

Firebombing Jewish-owned vehicles is small potatoes in comparison to developments at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land.

The dimensions of this phenomenon were spelled out in last year’s State Comptroller’s Report. While the local and international Left pillories Israel when the state tries to demolish a handful of the thousands of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem, what goes unmentioned is that by the end of 2007 there were more than 100,000 illegally built structures in Israel. The overwhelming majority were constructed on state land seized by Arab land thieves in the Negev and the Galilee. By the end of 2009, the number of illegal buildings grew to an estimated 150,000. The scope of the theft is so vast that the Comptroller’s Report referred to it as a “national scourge.”

Most of the open land in Israel is owned by the state and administered by farmers, ranchers and the IDF. Farmers and ranchers – particularly in the North and the South, but in areas around Jerusalem as well – are daily terrorized by neighboring Arab thieves. The thieves destroy their fences, steal and slaughter their livestock and threaten to murder them if they raise any objections, mend their fences or install surveillance cameras. Many farmers and ranchers – like most business owners around Beersheba and Upper Nazareth – are coerced into paying protection money to the same Arab gangs who target their fields.

As the Comptroller’s Report makes clear, the threatened and abused farmers have no official body to turn to for help. While incidence of land theft has increased more than 50 percent in recent years, enforcement measures at all levels have decreased by 81%. In 2007, courts issued just 5,400 judgments on illegal construction. Of these, only 193 led to demolition orders. And just a handful of those orders were carried out.

Israel has no official policy for contending with the problem. A police unit formed specifically to enforce land laws has only recruited 55% of its allotted personnel and most of those 64 policemen devote their energies to routine policing duties.

More at the link.

Jaime Escalante, 1930-2010

At LAT, "Jaime Escalante dies at 79; math teacher who challenged East L.A. students to 'Stand and Deliver'." Note this in particular:

Escalante's rise came during an era decried by experts as one of alarming mediocrity in the nation's schools. He pushed for tougher standards and accountability for students and educators, often irritating colleagues and parents along the way with his brusque manner and uncompromising stands.

He was called a traitor for his opposition to bilingual education. He said the hate mail he received for championing Proposition 227, the successful 1998 ballot measure to dismantle bilingual programs in California, was a factor in his decision to retire that year after leaving Garfield and teaching at Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento for seven years.

He moved back to Bolivia, where he propelled himself into a classroom again, apparently intent on fulfilling a vow to die doing what he knew best -- teach. But he returned frequently to the United States to speak to education groups and continued to ally himself with conservative politics. He considered becoming an education advisor to President George W. Bush, and in 2003 signed on as an education consultant for Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign in California.

Lady Gaga Versus Mideast Peace

From Bret Stephens:

Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?

If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.

What is that wisdom? In a March 26 column in Human Events, Mr. Buchanan put the case with his usual subtlety:

"Each new report of settlement expansion," he wrote, "each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq."

View Full Image
Associated Press Lady Gaga at the 2009 MTV music awards. The global jihad disapproves.
.
Mr. Buchanan was playing off a story in the Israeli press that Vice President Joe Biden had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "what you're doing here [in the West Bank] undermines the security of our troops." Also in the mix was a story that Centcom commander David Petraeus had cited Arab-Israeli tensions as the key impediment to wider progress in the region. Both reports were later denied—in Mr. Biden's case, via Rahm Emanuel; in Gen. Petraeus's case, personally and forcefully—but the important point is how eagerly they were believed. If you're of the view that Israel is the root cause of everything that ails the Middle East—think of it as global warming in Hebrew form—then nothing so powerfully makes the case against the Jewish state as a flag-draped American coffin.

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called "the American Temptress."

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis "In the Shade of the Quran" is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay "The America I Have Seen," Qutb gave his account of the U.S. "in the scale of human values." "I fear," he wrote, "that a balance may not exist between America's material greatness and the quality of her people." Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the "primitiveness" of American values, not least in matters of sex.

"The American girl," he noted, "knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it." Nor did he approve of Jazz—"this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires"—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Qutb's disdain for America's supposedly libertine culture would not matter much were it not wedded to a kind of theological Leninism that emphasized the necessity of violently overthrowing any political arrangement not based on Shariah law. No less violent was Qutb's attitude toward Jews: "The war the Jews began to wage against Islam and Muslims in those early days [of Islamic history]," he wrote in the 1950s, "has raged to the present. The form and appearance may have changed, but the nature and the means remain the same."

RTWT. (Via Memeorandum.)

See also, Betsy Newmark.

America's First Principles

From, We STILL Hold These Truths:

In many circles, especially among the learned elites of our universities and law schools—those who teach the next generation, shape our popular culture, and set the terms of our political discourse—the selfevident truths upon which America depends have been supplanted by the passionately held belief that no such truths exist, certainly no truths applicable to all time. Over the past century the federal government has lost much of its mooring, and today acts with little regard for the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, which many now regard as obsolete. On both the Left and the Right, our political leaders are increasingly unsure of their way, speaking in inspiring generalities, all the while mired in small-minded politics and petty debates. As a nation, we are left divided about our own meaning, unable—perhaps unwilling—to defend our ideas, our institutions, and maybe even ourselves.

From the decline of civic education to the rise of a politics of government dependency, these societal problems are rooted in a deep confusion about the meaning and status of America’s core principles. In the midst of the many challenges we face—unsustainable spending and increasing debt, the future burden of social welfare entitlements, national security in a dangerous world—the real crisis that tears at the American soul is not a lack of courage or solutions as much as a loss of conviction. Do we still hold these truths? Do the principles that inspired the American Founding retain their relevance in the twenty-fi rst century? We will find it difficult to know what to do and how to do it as long as we are not sure who we are and what we believe.

The first chapter is here. And the Amazon link is here.

Hat Tip: TigerHawk.

RELATED: "Patriots Guide: What You Can Do for Your Country."

The New Racial Intolerance

From Victor Davis Hanson:

There is a new racial tension not present a year ago, one having nothing to do with the election of the nation’s first President of partial African ancestry. Instead, never in my experience have officials of the federal government, both in the campaign leading up to their governance and once in office, so deliberately chosen to polarize the country along racial lines.

In retrospect, it seems a sort of nightmare these now serial outbursts of our officials — “typical white person,” “clingers,” “cowards,” police who “stereotype” and act “stupidly,” “wise Latina,” “white polluters,” framed by the President’s pastor and once spiritual Audacity-of-Hope mentor screaming “God D— America,” bookended by hyper-racial comments of a Harry Reid or Joe Biden about Negro accents and cleanliness.

And, of course, soon followed the slurs and smears of those in the media accusing almost every opponent at sometime of being a “racist,” a word that now has as much currency as a German Mark around 1929.

Opposition to health care, cap and trade, illegal immigration, everything I think soon, is being reformulated as antipathy to some sort of Civil Rights issues akin to the legislation of the 1960s. Almost daily now a major media columnist writes an essay alleging someone is racist, or there are subtle racist thoughts behind a type of opposition or protest. “Racist” is a 1950s sort of allegation, an instantaneous judge/jury/executioner/no-appeal condemnation. How Orwellian that the most racist members of American society, who built entire careers of fabricating evidence and defaming opponents — an Al Sharpton, for example — have become go-to national referees of suspected bias. How weirder that one just pledges allegiance to the new agenda, and suddenly one is both more likely to say something racist in Reid- or Biden-fashion, and yet it is not racist at all

Code Pink Terror-Enablers Shout Down Karl Rove at Beverly Hills Book Signing!

God, what is happening to this country? And it's Jodi Evans too, President Obama's liaison to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Rove Gets Branded 'War Criminal' At Book Signing," and Weasel Zippers, "Video: Code Pink Co-Founder and Top Obama Fundraiser Jodie Evans Tries to "Arrest" Karl Rove..." (Via Memeoerandum.)

And from Michelle, "Code Pink Mob Shuts Down Rove Book Event":

They’re baaaaaack in full force. The speech-stifling, original angry mob of Code Pinkos shouted down Karl Rove during a book tour event in Beverly Hills tonight — forcing him to cut his remarks short and leave before attendees could get their books signed. Code Pink co-founder/terror-coddler/Obama funder Jodie Evans pulled her old “citizens’ arrest” prank and stormed right up to Rove with handcuffs. She and other members tried to incite the crowd with shouts of “war criminal”

Mama Said Knock You Out! Sarah Palin to Host First Fox News Show With LL Cool J!

At Mediaite, "Sarah Palin To Host First Fox News Show Thursday – With LL Cool J," via Memeorandum:

This is not an April Fool’s joke. Sarah Palin will take her first stab at television hosting when she fronts a new Fox News series, Real American Stories, premiering Thursday April 1 at 10pmET.

Guests for the first show include country singer Toby Keith, rapper/actor LL Cool J and Jack Welch. Get excited.

The show will “focus on a range of such stories including a Marine Medal of Honor recipient who gave his live to save his comrades.” But also there will be the celebrity guests – a very broad range of celebrity guests.

Airing in place of On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, the prime time spot ensures a large audience. And depending on just how large, we could see a lot more of Palin hosting on Fox News.

The program re-airs Sunday at 9pmET.

Also at Mediaite, " Still Surging: Fox News Has Best Quarter In Network History."

Harry Reid Thugs Threaten Andrew Breitbart!

Lots of video at Founding Bloggers. The first below captures the in-your-face threat made by a violent Harry Reid support as the Tea Party Express was rolling into Searchlight. See, "BREAKING VIDEO: Reid Supporters Throwing Eggs And Assaulting Andrew Breitbart":

Plus, also at Founding Bloggers, "MORE SEARCHLIGHT VIDEO – Union Thug Accuses Breitbart of Racism." This one is particularly thuggish. The black fellow argues that the "demographics in this country have changed ... your way of thinking is over." That's more of the conservatism is inherently racist cant. Man, that's bad:

Plus, see also, "(UPDATED) VIDEO – The Egg Man Of Searchlight, Nevada." (Via Memorandum.)

And Allahpundit resists generalization, but this thuggery is totally commonplace on the hard left. We've been seeing these demons in action for over a year now.

The Left/Right Divide: Which Side Would You Choose?

Zombie and I are on the same wavelength, since I've been thinking about the exact same thing all week. See his entry, "Searchlight vs. L.A.: Rival Rallies Reveal Stark Right/Left Divide":

On March 27, 2010, thousands of people gathered in the small town of Searchlight, Nevada, for a political rally.

Just 250 miles away and seven days earlier, there was another political rally of similar size in Los Angeles on March 20, 2010.

The Searchlight rally was generally oriented toward the political “right.”

The Los Angeles rally was generally oriented toward the political “left.”

Now, if you had only the entrenched media as your sole source of information about these rallies, you might likely assume (without even bothering to investigate) that the right-wing rally was an epicenter of hate, racism and craziness, whereas the left-wing rally was undoubtedly about peace, tolerance and rationalism.

Luckily, we no longer have to rely on the mainstream media. In both cases, citizen journalist bloggers were on hand to document the proceedings with eye-opening photo essays:

El Marco: Tea Party Express rally, Searchlight, March 27

Ringo: Anti-war rally, Los Angeles, March 20

Two rallies, not very far apart in time or location — and yet they couldn’t be more different.

I consider myself neither left-wing nor right-wing, and I disagree with one side or the other on various issues — but after viewing these images, I don’t think there’s any question where I’d feel more at ease.

Below is a sampling of images from each rally. (Click on the links above for the full reports.) Scan them and tell me: At which rally would you feel more comfortable?

Show this essay to people you know who are liberals, or conservatives, or middle-of-the-roaders, and ask them: In all honesty, if you had to choose to be associated with the protesters at either rally, which would make you least embarrassed?

They say you are defined by the company you keep. Time to choose ...

I wanted to post it earlier in any case, so I've only included El Marco's photograph of Hannah Giles at top. His full essay is here.

Zombie's got more pictures at his entry, and visit Ringo's Pictures as well.

And recall my coverage of the Hollywood protest, "Stop the Wars! - ANSWER L.A. 'U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq' - March 20, 2010."

And thanks to my dear readers for tuning in here. I'll be back tomorrow with more commentary and analysis.

Oh, Let the Sun Beat Down Upon My Face, Stars Fill My Dreams...

I've been meaning to post on Led Zeppelin since early February, when AOSHQ wrote about Jimmy Page, where he confesses, speaking of the documentary "It Might Get Loud", "This movie really made me want to listen to Zeppelin again...."

I actually used to listen to Led Zeppelin a lot, because I was in high school during the late-1970s, when the band was perhaps at their peak, and their music was inextricably bound with the culture of the day. Still, I hadn't yet become the music bibliophile that I was to became, and Zeppelin's discography remains to this day somewhat amorphous to my rock-and-roll sensibilities. In any case, last week while driving to work, 100.3 The Sound played the entire Side 2 of Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti. So, please enjoy the last song there, "Kashmir":

As always, check out Theo Spark's, "Bedtime Totty ..." Plus, from Anton at PA Pundits International, "Sunday Music – Nessun Dorma."

BONUS DIVERSION: Sir Smitty, "Democracy as an Obstruction to Swift Action is a Valid Point."

RELATED: It turns out that "Kashmir" is on John King's playlist.

On the New Rules of War...

I critiqued John Arquilla's recent essay at Foreign Policy in my piece, "Debating the New Rules of War."

Well, you can hear him elaborate on his theories at the video, from Peter Robinson, "New rules of war with Hanson and Arquilla":

Also, Victor Davis Hanson, who joins the debate, has a new book out, Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome.

Making Sense of ObamaCare

The New York Times isn't the best source of information on the Democratic healthcare agenda (especially if you've been reading the exceptional analyses at The Heritage Foundation), although they've got a couple of interesting features up tonight. Let's call them food for thought.

First, a bunch of stuff from the medical angle, "Making Sense of the Health Care Law."

But see especially, "Early Diagnoses of the New Law." I liked this analysis:

William H. Dow

Associate professor, University of California, Berkeley.

Expanding health insurance to 32 million more people will greatly strengthen our country’s safety net. The reforms will also improve the health of many of those currently uninsured, addressing a national disgrace: the premature deaths of uninsured people who cannot get medical care.

But inadequate health care accounts for just 10 percent of premature mortality. Even with these reforms, our populationwide health indicators will continue to trail those of other developed countries.

Significant improvements in life expectancy will require turning our attention to underlying social determinants that lead people to fall ill in the first place. The next major social policy fight should concentrate on the single most important factor that research suggests will improve the health of the next generation: investing in the education of disadvantaged youth.

The "education of disadvantaged youth" would be my first-pick domestic priority if I could have any wish, and I've said so at the blog repeatedly. What's especially interesting is that a number of the commentators at NYT are seriously questioning the ObamaCare legislation, especially its facility in expanding real health insurance coverage. But this was passed by the Obama administration, and if these idiots have proven anything, it's that no ambition to expand the state and the scale of nationalization is too small.

Senator Al Franken Unhinged

Yesterday I just posted the link to Jason Mattera's Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation at the sidebar. I'm looking forward to reading it. Meanwhile, the guy's getting some play today with his priceless takedown of Senator Al Franken, "Franken Unhinged: Shutting Up Staffers and Journalist":