President Obama Misspeaks at Ft. Drum (VIDEO)

The gaffe is at 3:30 minutes at the clip, and the text is at Shallow Nation, "President Obama Fort Drum Speech Video June 23, 2011: Address to 10th Mountain Division Soldiers." Turns out some of our uniformed personnel are not pleased. See Blackfive, "PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TERRIBLE MISTAKE" (via Memeorandum). And don't miss the comments. It's literally painful.

The president had a rough day. Blows his Ft. Drum speech, losing a little more respect among our service personnel, and heckled at the LGBT fundraiser. All I can say is keep it up. It's less than 18 months until election time, and some folks believe Obama will be a one-termer.

Obama Heckled at LGBT Democrat Fundraiser in Manhattan!

BWAHAHA!

He's such a pussy.

Gay rights extremists thought Obambi was their man back in 2008, and since his election it's been one disappointment after another. And in recent weeks the gay pushback against the administration has been relentless (progressives threw Obama under the bus at Netroots Nation).

Anyway, the pain's not going away. See NYT, "Obama Speech Is Interrupted by Gay Marriage Supporters":

President Obama said he expected some heckling and he got it. More than 600 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people paid $1,250 each to attend a Democratic fund-raising dinner in Manhattan on Thursday and, to the vocal disappointment of some, they did not hear him endorse same-sex marriage generally or the bill that would legalize it in New York State.

Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, had said early in the day that the president would not announce any shift in his longstanding but “evolving” position on same-sex marriage — that it is a matter for states to decide. Even so, some in the mostly male audience at the hotel ballroom seemed to hang on his words as if waiting for just such a shift.

Gay bloggers are debating Obama's fundraiser, but check this clip to see what a puss the president is. It's no wonder they mock this guy as TOTUS. Obama's speech is already measured, but it's like EACH. AND. EVERY. WORD. has to be checked at the front door of the cerebellum before being uttered. What an idiot. Just come out for it. Scared or something? Just come out for gay marriage. We know you back it. You're just chicken, despite polls showing a newfound and clear majority backing gay marriage nationally. And it must suck being a progressive when the president, from your own party, is such a spineless slimeball. Really sucks.

Snark aside, HRC's Fred Sainz sounds reasonable at the clip, but right on cue John Aravosis shows himself to be the classic gay thug we've witnessed since at least the passage of Prop. 8. The dude's a rank rim-station progressive bully.

RELATED: "HONESTLY, IS JOHN ARAVOSIS A PIECE OF EXCREMENT OR WHAT?"

InstaVision: 'Libertarians to the Rescue'

Via Glenn Reynolds:

Buy the book: The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl Suspend Participation in White House Debt Ceiling Negotiations

At ABC News, "Top Republicans Walk Out of VP Biden's Debt Talks":

Vice President Joe Biden's debt ceiling talks hit a brick wall Thursday after two key Republicans walked out in a dispute over the idea of raising taxes.

The departures of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Thursday morning left the formerly bicameral, bipartisan talks with no Republicans left at the negotiating table.

Cantor said the group had reached an "impasse" because Republicans oppose any and all tax hikes, while Democrats say they are a necessary in a balanced attempt at deficit reduction.

"As it stands, the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases," Cantor said. "There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don't believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue."

Also at Wall Street Journal, "Tax Dispute Stalls Debt Talks" (via Memeorandum).

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech

Some big news today on Geert Wilders' acquittal, at Telegraph UK, "Geert Wilders 'delighted' after being cleared of 'hate speech'."

And he writes about it at Wall Street Journal. A snippet:

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

RELATED: At Atlas Shrugs, "PAMELA GELLER, BIG GOVERNMENT: GEERT WILDERS VERDICT: WEST 1, ISLAM 0."

And EXTRA LULZ: Lizard Loser Charles Johnson is bummed that Wilders was acquitted: "Dutch Hatemonger Geert Wilders Acquitted of Inciting Hatred."

Should Evolution Be Taught in School?

Ann Althouse has a lengthy response:

These women don't seem to realize how well-established the theory of evolution is and how central it is to the study of science. Of course, it should be taught in school. The more lively present-day issue is whether intelligent design may also be taught alongside evolution, but that isn't what the women were asked. The question prompts them to think of evolution as something that perhaps ought not to be taught in schools. From the bizarre similarity of the answers, I would extrapolate standard beauty-contest advice: Look for the prompt in the question and echo it back with some embellishment that makes you sound thoughtful, caring, and respectful of diversity.

There's a lot of silly responses, yet I'm noticing some regional variation. The Southern girls appear more likely not to accept evolution as science, and thus is something that perhaps shouldn't be taught in schools, as if that would threaten belief systems. That said, these aren't ignorant responses to the one. Maybe someone's quantified this with a content analysis, but listen to Brittany Thelemann at about 7:20 minutes and I think that's an example of some very well-rounded beliefs. Althouse takes issue with Miss New Jersey in particular, and note that it's the demonic progressive outrage that prompted her post in the first place (notice how the clip is titled "Miss Ignorance USA"). Faith and religion is not science, and the existence of God isn't falsifiable, despite all the claims of militant atheists. (Certitude!) So possibilities will always remain and stir questioning and wonderment. Interestingly, some scientists suggest that the notion of an "In the beginning" type moment isn't incompatible with what we know --- or, especially, what we don't know --- about the universe and human evolution.

College Budget Update

From Ann-Marie Gabel, LBCC Vice President for Administrative Services:

And at Los Angeles Times, "With budget talks stuck, blame game begins," and "Gov. Brown warns of initiative war if bipartisan talks breakdown."

Also at Sacramento Bee, "Republicans now want election, but won't extend taxes on own." And San Jose Mercury News, "Questions abound over what's next at Capitol."

Obama Declares Afghanistan Victory Before It's Been Achieved

At WSJ, "Unplugging the Afghan Surge":

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background.

Not long ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about only a token drawdown this year, but he's now on his way out of the Pentagon. This time Mr. Obama overruled his military advisers and sided instead with Vice President Joe Biden and his political generals who have their eye on the mission of re-election. His real generals, the ones in the field, will now have to scramble to fulfill their counterinsurgency mission, if that is still possible.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will start to remove troops next month, returning 10,000, or three or four brigades, by the end of the year. The entire 33,000-soldier Obama surge will be gone by next summer, and withdrawals will continue "at a steady pace" after that. So the full surge force will have been in Afghanistan for only a single fighting season, and even the remaining 68,000 troops are heading out. Mr. Obama reiterated NATO's previously agreed on date of 2014 for the full transfer of combat operations to Afghan forces, but that date now seems notional.

The President rightly pointed to the coalition progress against the Taliban in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, in building up an Afghan army and eliminating terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. But the military knows these gains are tentative, and it pressed the White House to keep all the fighting brigades in Afghanistan to press the advantage.

Still more at the top link.

It really is cut and run. And too bad too. Afghanistan was the one area I'd given Obama credit. I thought it weird for so long that folks like Pamela Geller and Diana West were calling for an American withdrawal. But they were right. The president's never been committed to strategic victory. It's all been political, depressingly so, considering so many people of good faith and morals who placed trust in this man, this president. He's betrayed a lot of people, and when Taliban and Al Qaeda violence escalates, the blood with be on his hands, and Joe Biden's. Losers.

Rolling Stone's Misogynistic Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann

Doug Ross has the story, "The new civility: Rolling Stone slanders Michele Bachmann as 'bats*** crazy', with 'testicles swinging under her skirt', a 'political psychopath'."

The Rolling Stone hit piece is here: "Michele Bachmann's Holy War." For example:

Michele Bachmann, when she turns her head toward the cameras and brandishes her pearls and her ageless, unblemished neckline and her perfect suburban orthodontics in an attempt to reassure the unbeliever of her non-threateningness, is one of the scariest sights in the entire American cultural tableau.

Colorfully misogynistic, but typically progressive.

And Tabbai's interviewed by Don Imus. He's a geek. A stupid, childish geek:

Inside the Anonymous Army of 'Hacktivist' Attackers

At WSJ:

HOOGEZAND-SAPPEMEER, Netherlands—In this sleepy Dutch town last December, police burst into the bedroom of 19-year-old Martijn Gonlag as he hurriedly pulled on jeans over his boxer shorts. He was hauled away on suspicion of taking part in cyber attacks by the online group calling itself Anonymous.

Mr. Gonlag admits taking part in several attacks on websites, but he recently had a change of heart as some hackers adopted increasingly aggressive tactics.

"People are starting to grow tired of" the hackers, he said in an interview. "People are also starting to realize that Anonymous is a loose cannon."
Now he appears to be a target himself. A chat room he hosts faces frequent hack attacks, he says.

Mr. Gonlag's role reversal provides a glimpse of the unruly hunt-or-be-hunted world underpinning a string of online attacks against major companies and government bodies—incidents that have sparked a digital manhunt by law-enforcement agencies in several countries.

What once was just righteous rabble-rousing by Anonymous in the name of Internet freedom has mutated into more menacing attacks, including by a splinter group of Anonymous called LulzSec, which is alleged to have moved beyond paralyzing websites to breaking in to steal data.

The tumult over online agitators like Anonymous comes at a time when the world's computers are under unprecedented attack. Governments suspect each other of mounting cyber espionage and attacks on power grids and other infrastructure. Criminal gangs using sophisticated viruses cull credit-card and other sensitive data to steal from bank accounts.

Now "hacktivists" who populate groups like Anonymous and LulzSec, mostly young males from their teens to early 30s, have also ignited increasing concern among computer experts over the security of corporate and government systems.

RTWT.

It was bound to happen. These are supposedly anarchists, but mostly they're a bunch of young leftist criminals with too much time on their hands. They'll get more menacing and deadly, their attacks more brazen and malicious, and ultimately these same people will be found allying increasingly with various terrorist groups. Some of the recent bombings, in Spain, for example, were the work of anarcho-communist cells. It's all of a piece, and no coincidence that people like this are championed on the progressive left.

'Starry Eyed'

At the recommendation of my oldest son, Ellie Goulding:

X Games 2011 Los Angeles Tickets on Sale Today

X Games 17 tickets on sale today, at Ticketmaster locations and the Staples Center box office.

I think my son would like to go, but not sure which event. There's so many!

The schedule: "X Games 17 Competition Schedule."

And video from last year:

Sacramento Mom Accused of Killing Baby in Microwave Oven

I flinched when I first saw this story, at the Los Angeles Times.

See also, Sacramento Bee, " Sacramento mother arrested on suspicion of killing baby in microwave":

In a case as rare as it is nightmarish, police arrested a North Sacramento woman Tuesday who they said killed her 6-week-old daughter in March by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
Ka Yang, 29, was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on suspicion of murder and assault that resulted in the death of a child. She is being held without bail.

"It's unthinkable," said Norm Leong, Sacramento Police Department spokesman. "Everyone was stunned at the cause of death. Even the detectives were shocked."

Mirabelle Thao-Lo was found dead March 17 by firefighters called to the home in the 800 block of Rood Avenue, in the city's Robla neighborhood.

People at the scene said an adult holding the baby had suffered a seizure and dropped her, Fire Department Battalion Chief Niko King said at the time.

Fire officials summoned police because of the child's traumatic injuries, King said.

Investigators spent three months trying to determine what caused the infant's severe and unusual burns, authorities said.

"She had some really deep tissue burns, fourth-degree burns. It was probably the worst case I've seen," said Sacramento County Coroner's Office spokesman Ed Smith.

Early on, detectives speculated that a household appliance, perhaps the microwave, caused the burns, Leong said. But the rarity of such cases made the investigation more difficult and time-consuming, he said.

More at that link, and also, "Mother accused of killing baby in microwave said she might have split personality." That makes sense, because it's inexplicable beyond mental infirmity. I can't understand it. Sad.

Gloria Molina, L.A. County Supervisor, Said She'd Like to 'Cut the Testicles Off' Agency Executive Under Her Authority

Los Angeles County government is a lot like the Cook County political machine. A bastion of Democrat Party power, top officials run government like fiefs, and they wield power in the style of the big city party bosses of yore.

In an article today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles County board of supervisors has sought to kneecap County Chief Executive William T. Fujioka. He is CEO for the County, in charge of managing a $23 billion budget and over 100,000 employees. Apparently Fujioka, whose grandparents were sent to internment camps during World War II, is a hard-knuckled administrator, having honed his political skins navigating the rough and tumble of L.A.'s east side gang scene growing up. On the job as County CEO since 2007, Fujioka initiated an administrative reorganization that worked to take power from the hands of the elected board:

The county plan to centralize authority was the brainchild of Fujioka's highly respected predecessor, David Janssen. The new chief executive was to have increased responsibility over the department heads who guide the delivery of services for 10 million constituents, ranging from housing the skid row homeless to defending exclusive hillside neighborhoods from mudslides.

Fujioka was given more staff, and his office's budget climbed 53% to $43 million in four years. Eventually, Fujioka was to have received greater power to hire and fire most agency chiefs.

Under the new structure, supervisors were to have taken a back seat in day-to-day operations. The structure presumed the high level of respect and openness Fujioka's predecessor enjoyed. But most supervisors and their staffs have served for decades and developed expertise and deep interests in certain issues, and the transfer of trust did not come naturally.

No doubt.

It turns out that board members Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, and Zev Yaroslavsky moved "to strip the Children and Family Services and Probation departments from Fujioka's control." There's more to the story at the link, including some ugly politics among members of the board, but this passage really caught my attention, and looks like an abuse of power:

While a majority of Fujioka's elected superiors may be critical, his subordinates praise him. County managers have complained about pointed attacks and contradictory direction from board offices in the past. "It's a very scary thing if you are a lowly department head," said Janice Fukai, the county's alternate public defender. "If you go in with the CEO, you feel a little more insulated and a little more protected."

Fujioka's backers say he has been particularly frustrated by some of the supervisors' interventions in the children's services agency, which has been grappling with child fatalities following errors in handling cases. It is one of the departments being taken away from Fujioka. Molina is especially hands-on, summoning top agency officials to her office to demand explanations. In one instance, she said she would like to cut the testicles off an executive because of problems in the agency, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

Gloria Molina's homepage is here. Clicking her page begins a photographic slide show of her service, beginning with a photo of Molina posing with President Barack Obama and ending with a shot of her posing with Former President Bill Clinton.

Her appearances with Democratic presidents form the bookends of a career in Los Angeles government spanning 20 years. In that time she's clearly developed an authoritarian style, which features crude and threatening accounts of her treatment of administrative subordinates. That Supervisor Molina refused to answer questions about the comment, as the Times indicates, is not surprising:

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

In a time of fiscal austerity, government officials at all levels have been coming under increased attention. But I think it's fair to say that it's especially inappropriate for an L.A. County Supervisor to announce she wants to "cut the testicles" off subordinate agency officials, and when asked about it to further denigrate them as "children."

Progressives would be all over this story if a Republican official has made comparable remarks. But this is the Los Angeles big city machine, and County elected officials obviously feel they can act with impunity.

UPDATE: From Russ, in the comments:

I think when she says "children", she is referring to the children under the protective services that have died while under their authority, NOT the supervisors she threatened with castration.

I also got an e-mail from someone objecting to my comment on Molina's reference to "the children." I won't be surprised if some ASFLs contact my college to complain. Democrats and progressives are evil like that. So let's be clear: "The outcomes" may clearly refer to a purposeful act in the active sense, as in the actions of the administrators who have taken power from the hands of the board. Of course Molina might be referring to "the outcomes" of the children in the passive sense, but then again, considering she's threatening administrative subordinates, maybe not. She's a Democrat. They talk down to people like that. Progressives are losers.

Also, linked at Instapundit, because, you know, no one pays attention to this blog, or something:

THREATS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM A DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER IN LOS ANGELES ...

I hope the Department Of Justice will investigate this egregious civil rights violation. For that matter, I suspect it’s a violation of California state civil rights law. Gloria Allred, call your office!

Word.

VIDEO: President Obama Speech on Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal, June 22, 2011

And the transcript is at ABC News, "Full Speech: Obama on Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal (Transcript)."

Also at New York Times, "Obama Orders Troop Cuts in Afghanistan." (At Memeorandum.) Also, at Los Angeles Times, "Obama announces drawdown of forces from Afghanistan, saying 'tide of war is receding'."

Michelle Malkin Right Online Interview at PJTV

She's an especially astute observer of politics, and she strikes a pragmatic tone toward the end of the interview. But she hammers on the need to avoid another John McCain-style candidate, and at her column today she pinpoints Jon Hunstman, mercilessly, "Jon Huntsman: McCain on Wheels":

Just like the failed 2008 GOP contender whose consultants are now fueling the Huntsman bid, McCain 2.0 is a big-spending accommodationist more in tune with the Democratic elite than with the conservative rank-and-file. In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty on Tuesday, Huntsman assailed the current economic crisis overseen by the Obama administration as “totally unacceptable” and “totally un-American.” Yet, Huntsman retains nothing but “respect” for his former boss in the White House and laments the loss of “civility” wrought by “corrosive” political debates.

More at the link, plus video of Huntsman being booed at at 2009 tea party. Ouch.

Germany's Far-Left Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism

Well, yeah.

And this is a surprise?

At Der Speigel, "A Map without Israel: Germany's Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism" (via Memorandum):

Swatiskas intertwined in the Star of David, a map of the Middle East with Israel missing, boycotts of Israeli products: Germany's far-left Left Party, many feel, has a growing anti-Semitism problem. The issue threatens to divide the party.

Germany's far-left Left Party has been struggling for months to have its voice heard on the national political stage. Falling membership numbers, shrinking support and a very public leadership battle this spring have all left the party struggling to find relevance.

Now, though, the party is facing yet another challenge. For years, the Left Party -- a partial outgrowth of the East German communists -- has been criticized for harboring anti-Semitism and being overtly critical of Israel. Just recently, Left Party floor leader Gregor Gysi pushed a resolution through the party's parliamentary faction stating: "In the future, the representatives of the Left Party faction will take action against any form of anti-Semitism in society."

The party, the resolution read, will no longer participate in boycotts of Israeli products, will refrain from demanding a single-state solution to the Middle East conflict and will not take part in this year's Gaza flotilla.

That resolution, however, did not sit well with the party's left wing. The group protested against being "muzzled," complaining that Gysi's declaration was "undemocratic" and "dangerous," as Left Party parliamentarian Annette Groth complained. And Gysi, formerly head of the party, gave in. This week, he plans to compose a further resolution on anti-Semitism.

He provided a hint at what it might contain in a recent interview with the leftist paper Neues Deutschland. "I don't see a problem with anti-Semitism in the Left Party," he said. "I am not a fan of the inflationary use of the term 'anti-Semitism.'" Gysi himself is from a family that has Jewish roots, several members of which were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Yet More Strife

More pragmatic members of the Left Party are up in arms. "A further resolution on the subject ... wouldn't solve a single problem, rather it would create new ones," said Raju Sharma, a Left Party parliamentarian who is also the party's treasurer. Michael Leutert, also a member of Germany's federal parliament, the Bundestag, is concerned that the issue could plunge the party into yet more strife.

Still, it seems unlikely that the Left Party will be able to quickly silence the debate. On Monday, Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote a guest commentary for the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung in which he accused Left Party members, particularly those from western Germany, of "downright pathalogical hatred of Israel." He also wrote that the "old anti-Zionist spirit from East Germany still stains the party."

There are many within the party who agree. Chief among them is Benjamin-Christopher Krüger, a founding member of a Left Party working group which aims at rooting all forms of anti-Semitism out of the party. "We have an anti-Semitism problem," he said.

A recent study by the University of Leipzig quoted in the daily Frankfurter Rundschau would seem to support Krüger's claim. The study said that positions hostile to both Israel and Jews are "increasingly dominant within the party" and critics of anti-Semitic positions are "increasingly isolated."

Several recent incidents bear witness to the problem. In April, the website of the district chapter of the Left Party in the western city of Duisburg featured a swastika entangled with a Star of David. The symbol linked to a pamphlet which called Israel a "rogue nation" and called for a boycott of Israeli products. The Duisburg Left Party chapter distanced itself from the pamphlet and claimed that the site had been illegally manipulated -- but the head of the Duisburg Left Party has long supported a boycott of Israeli products.

In May, Inge Höger, a member of the Bundestag from the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia, appeared at a Palestinians in Europe conference attended by numerous Hamas sympathizers. She was wearing a scarf printed with a map of the Middle East that did not include Israel. Höger claimed that she was handed the scarf and didn't want to be impolite.

More at the link and at Memeorandum.

At least the German Left Party is debating the issue, and looking to rid itself of the vile hatred.

Not so in the U.S.

The Democrats revile Israel, the Obama administration is working toward the destruction of the Jewish state, and longtime affiliates of Barack Obama continue to promote the cause of Israel's delegitimation. See, "PASTOR WRIGHT, OBAMA'S MENTOR OF OVER 20 YEARS, CALLS ISRAEL "ILLEGAL, GENOCIDAL," URGES BLACKS TO DISAVOW THEIR COUNTRY."

RELATED: From Mark Steyn, at National Review, "Hate Couture."

Britney Spears at Staples Center

A concert review, at Los Angeles Times:

And pics: "Britney Spears’ Femme Fatale Tour — Is Britney Having Fun Yet?"

Audrina Patridge Looks Fabulous on Cover of July Shape

Fox News reports, "Audrina Patridge says anyone can look good in a bikini."

Check that link for lots of pics and gossip.

Jon Huntsman Announces Presidential Campaign

I'm not familiar with Jon Huntsman, but he's announced his candidacy.

Left Coast Rebel is not impressed, "Jon Huntsman's Candidacy May Have Worked in Different Times..."

The one thing I have noticed is Huntsman's frankly weird presidential rollout. Candidates announced late this year, which surprised me, but Huntsman was laying the formal groundwork for a campaign while still serving as Ambassador to China. Sounds like what a Democrat would do, so I don't know.

We'll see, in any case.

More at New York Times, "Huntsman Finishes Opening Day with Big Money Haul" (via Memeorandum).

Yo, Janice Hahn 'Got Me Out'!

From Robert Stacy McCain, "CA-36: Democrats Threaten Legal Action Against Controversial Ad," and "Ladd’s Ad Gets Results." And from Turn Right USA, "Our Response to the LACDP Attorneys."

Democrats are sweating bullets and progressives are escalating allegations of racism.

They're freaking now that the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE is involved with a new webpage, "Hahn Got Me Out."

And somebody's making death threats, according to Da Tech Guy, "CA-36 Are apparent death threats more offensive than a viral video?"

And in the news, at L.A. Weekly, "Republicans Launch Fresh Attack On Janice Hahn Over Gang Workers."

Meanwhile, Fox 11 Los Angeles stands by its reporting.

Yo, Hahn got me out!

Added: Cool. Linked by AoSHQ, "Special Election in California District 36: Craig Huey Vs. Gangster Moll Janice Hahn." Thanks!

Breitbart Responds

On Twitter last night, when I tweeted him the news that Netroots Nation will hold its 2012 conference in Providence, RI., where organizers got a "no compete clause" from the convention center and hotels, which would prevent Right Online from holding a parallel meeting simultaneously. See Legal Insurrection, "Confirmed – Netroots Nation 2012 Chose Providence To Keep RightOnline Away."

And coincidentally, I finished Breitbart's book yesterday, Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World! I was almost through with it, and got busy with something else. And I'm also reading a bunch of other stuff, but I came back to finish Righteous Indignation after the Breitbart meetup, which was cool (remember, he'd just gotten back from the Weiner confessional press conference). Anyway, I'll have more to say on the book. If you're a conservative activist, it's almost of Biblical importance.

RELATED: From Joy McCann, at The Conservatory, "More on the Right Online-Netroots Nation Interactions."

NLRB Announces Proposed Changes to Speed Up Union Elections

At WSJ, "Plan to Ease Way for Unions":

The National Labor Relations Board Tuesday proposed the most sweeping changes to the federal rules governing union organizing elections since 1947, giving a boost to unions that have long called for the agency to give employers less time to fight representation votes.

The NLRB's proposals would likely compress the time between a formal call for a vote by workers on whether to join a union, and the election itself. It is the latest in a series of actions by the board and other agencies controlled by Obama administration appointees that respond to labor leaders' calls for more union friendly federal labor policies.

The rules governing organizing are the focus of a power struggle between unions and employers after decades of declining union membership. Only 6.9% of private sector workers belonged to unions in 2010, and just 11.9% of all U.S. workers, according to the Labor Department. In 1983, unions represented 20.1% of all workers.

"This is another not so cleverly disguised effort to restrict the ability of employers to express their views during an election campaign," said Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits.

Some companies say cutting the lead time before an election would make it harder for them to build a case for opposing a union, because union campaigns often begin months earlier without an employer's knowledge.

Unions praised the proposal, although Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, called the board's step a "modest" one that doesn't address "many of the fundamental problems with our labor laws."

Modest. Right. Trumka's a thug.

This will be an extremely significant change if approved. See Peter Kirsanow, "Major Changes to NLRB Rules Announced Today":

This is a very big deal. Union representation of the private-sector workforce has fallen from 35 percent 50 years ago to just 6.9 percent today. Implementation of the NLRB’s proposed rule changes would significantly increase the latter percentage. Here’s why:

The proposed rules would substantially shorten the time period between the filing of a petition for a union-representation election and the actual conduct of the election. Right now, initial elections normally are conducted within 38–40 days of the filing of a petition by the union. Since the typical employer is completely oblivious to the fact that a union has been organizing his workforce for the last 6–8 months, the filing of the representation petition is usually the first time the employer becomes aware of the unionization campaign. The employer then uses the 38–40 days between the filing of the petition and the election to make his case to his employees.

That’s not much time for the employer to get his message out. Indeed, in 2009 and 2010 unions won approximately 68 percent of elections (this does not include the number of petitions withdrawn by unions). Yet the “quickie election” rules proposed by the NLRB will shorten the time frame to a mere 10 –20 days. Make absolutely no mistake: That’s not enough time for even the largest and most sophisticated employers to counter what the union has been telling employees while organizing them for the last 6–8 months. The union win rate will far exceed 68 percent. In fact, it’s likely that many employers will choose to not even go through the expense of an election that he’s sure to lose, but will simply voluntarily recognize the union upon a showing of authorization cards.

These people suck. Freakin' commies.

'I can tell you there are not much worse feelings than waking up knowing you've been pounded and not remembering it...'

That's the comment from FreudianNips, at Althouse's interesting post on the homosexual left's response to Althouse's suggestion that Bristol Palin may have been raped: "'I've never understood the assumption that if a woman was drunk and doesn't remember giving consent that it must be rape'."

O.C. Grand Jury Questions Officials' Salaries in 3 Cities

At Los Angeles Times.

It's not as bad at the Bell scandal, but there's some big taxpayers money involved:

A first-of-its-kind report by the Orange County Grand Jury questioned whether top officials in three upscale cities — Laguna Hills, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach — are paid too much.

The report was commissioned in the wake of questions over city employee compensation fueled by last year's salary scandal in Bell, where top officials were earning salaries as high as $787,000.

The grand jury found no salaries in the 34 cities surveyed that the panel considered "abusive." The three cities were called out because they appeared to be paying out more than most Orange County cities.

In the case of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the grand jury questions what it said was a large number of employees earning $100,000 or more. Laguna Beach, with a population of about 25,000, had 22 such employees, and Newport Beach, with a population of about 86,000, had 60. The grand jury found that the two cities had more high-paid workers per capita that other cities.

Officials in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach disputed the findings. They said that although their cities' populations may be smaller than others, they are both full-service cities, meaning that they use city employees for services that other cities contract out. Both are also coastal cities with tens of thousands of tourists creating an added demand on city services.

"I think [the report's conclusions] were a bit misleading," said Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig. "To do an analysis like this without comparing the services is really an apples-to-oranges comparison."

More at the link. Laguna Hills City Manager Bruce Channing makes a total of $378,000 including benefits, which is considered "excessive" if not "abusive."

I wish I was making that kind of money. Sheesh.

NewsBusted: 'NY gallery opens photo gallery devoted to Obama'

Jodi Miller's on vacation, via Theo Spark:

'X-Men: First Class'

When we saw "Super 8" a couple of weekends back, the movie previews were wicked: "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," "Captain America," Green Lantern," "Zookeeper," "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2," and "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1."

I thought my youngest son would give me fist-bump during "Transformers," but it might have been a little scary, so he kept his fist to himself. But when "Captain America" previewed, he looked over and said, "You and me, you and me!", so I guess we're going to that one.

Anyway, on Father's Day my oldest boy said let's go to the movies, and we saw "X-Men: First Class," which as great. That said, mixed reviews at Los Angeles Times and New York Times:

Michele Bachmann: Obama 'Has Failed the African American Community'

Another reason why I just love Michele Bachmann.

This has been one of my biggest criticism of the administration, one I've been making for a long time. Obama's failed minority communities all around.

At Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Michele Bachmann: President Obama Has Failed African-Americans":

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Obama has failed blacks, says Bachmann as African-American unemployment hits 16%."

Conservative Blogger John Hugh Gilmore Arrested in Muslim Hijab Altercation

The background's at AmericaBlog, "GOP blogger arrested at Netroots Nation for allegedly harassing two female bloggers for wearing Muslim head scarves in public. Women don hijabs and hold flash mob at right-wing blog conference to protest."

The guy's name is John Hugh Gilmore, of the Minnesota Conservative blog. The arrest sheet is here. And here's the flash mob:

Robert Stacy McCain was at Right Online and he reports, "Disorderly Conduct at Right Online?":

I have never met Gilmore and, until I saw this story, had never heard of him or his blog. The “hijab flash mob” appears to have been a provocative stunt by the Left — at one point, these women came to Right Online trying to waylay Herman Cain — and I regret that any conservative would allow himself to be provoked, which served only the purposes of the provocateurs.

The left goes around looking for trouble, exploiting the very stereotypes they allegedly decry. It's pretty bad, pathetic even. But when you got noting but bankrupt collectivism, you gotta try to generate some sympathy one way or another.

Jon Stewart on 'Fox News Sunday'

This is an amazingly testy interview. Jon Stewart gets visibly angry, repeatedly. And kudos to Chris Wallace for keeping cool. I read over the weekend that Jon Stewart lashed out at Wallace, calling him "insane." And he did:

At Part 2 Stewart claims that Fox News has "the most consistently misinformed media viewers." And this has created a huge war over truth claims online. Steve Benen, at Washington Monthly, hopped on Stewart's claim faster than Anthony Weiner hitting the delete key: "The ‘most consistently misinformed media viewers’." I thought Benen's response typically opportunistic, but not serious, because political science shows a huge level of political non-sophistication among the American population. But lefties hate Fox News, so that was ammo for the battle. And then along came PolitiFact, which called out Stwart: "Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the 'most consistently misinformed media viewers'." (At Memeorandum.)

Anyway, "Hammering" Jane Hamsher actually fact-checks PolitiFact, or she dictionary-checks, lamely claiming that Stewart didn't really say Fox viewers were misinformed when he said they were the most consistently misinformed, or something.

Anyway, see also Da Tech Guy, "Jon Stewart and Irony Overload," and Lonely Conservative, "Politifact: Jon Stewart’s Claim Fox News Viewers ‘Most Consistently Uninformed’ Is False."

Facebook Restores Roger Ebert Page After 'Jackass' Controversy

His Facebook page is here.

Lame though.

Turns out that Ebert was on both Facebook and Twitter, talkin' trash on Ryan Dunn, who died Monday in a car crash in West Goshen, Pennsylvania. CNN has a report. And Philidephia Inquirer and Wall Street Journal. Also at Gossip Cop, "Roger Ebert’s Facebook Page Taken Down Amid Ryan Dunn Controversy."

Ebert has a write up at his blog, "Friends don't let friends drink and drive." The dude loves the controversy.

Background on Ryan Dunn at The Other McCain, "‘It Appears He Was Drinking Heavily Before Climbing Behind the Wheel …’"

Lady Gaga Attracts Marxist Philosopher Slavoj Žižek (and Vice Versa)

I still like her, but she makes it hard. Sheesh.

At New York Post, "Marxist Theorist Slavoj Žižek 'The World's Hippest Philosopher' Catches Lady Gaga's Attention."

Lady Gaga has struck up a strong friendship with mysterious Marxist Slavoj Zizek, dubbed "the world's hippest philosopher."

In the midst of her rift with long-term boyfriend Luc Carl, eyebrows were raised over Gaga's decision to spend a lot of time with the 62-year-old, bearded, postmodern theorist and pal of Julian Assange while she was touring the UK and US this spring.

Sources say Gaga and Slovenian-born Zizek -- who like Salman Rushdie seems to be intellectual catnip to beautiful women and who was once married to Argentine model Analia Hounie -- spent time together discussing feminism and collective human creativity. The pop star also agreed to support Zizek at a March rally in London when the lecturers' union UCU was on strike.

In a recent blog post titled "Communism Knows No Monster," Zizek called Gaga "my good friend" and said, "There is a certain performance of theory in her costumes, videos and even (some of) her music." He says her infamous meat dress is a reference to "the consistent linking in the oppressive imaginary of the patriarchy of the female body and meat, of animality and the feminine."

More at that link above, and check DSG, "ŽIŽEK/GAGA: Communism Knows No Monster." Too much drivel, but it's the nihilist, postmodern insight into Gaga and culture's that's key. Freaky.

RELATED: See Adam Kirsch, at TNR, "The Deadly Jester":

The curious thing about the Žižek phenomenon is that the louder he applauds violence and terror—especially the terror of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, whose "lost causes" Žižek takes up in another new book, In Defense of Lost Causes—the more indulgently he is received by the academic left, which has elevated him into a celebrity and the center of a cult. A glance at the blurbs on his books provides a vivid illustration of the power of repressive tolerance. In Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, Žižek claims, "Better the worst Stalinist terror than the most liberal capitalist democracy"; but on the back cover of the book we are told that Žižek is "a stimulating writer" who "will entertain and offend, but never bore." In The Fragile Absolute, he writes that "the way to fight ethnic hatred effectively is not through its immediate counterpart, ethnic tolerance; on the contrary, what we need is even more hatred, but proper political hatred"; but this is an example of his "typical brio and boldness." And In Defense of Lost Causes, where Žižek remarks that "Heidegger is 'great' not in spite of, but because of his Nazi engagement," and that "crazy, tasteless even, as it may sound, the problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough, that his violence was not 'essential' enough"; but this book, its publisher informs us, is "a witty, adrenalinfueled manifesto for universal values."

More Stalinist terror AND Hitler wasn't violent enough.

No wonder he's the bomb on the left. The is right up Robert Farley's alley!

(And folks gotta read that whole TNR essay. It's a real encapsulation of today's left:

That liberalism is evil and that communism is good is not his conclusion, it is his premise; and the contortions of his thought, especially in his most political books, result from the need to reconcile that premise with a reality that seems abundantly to indicate the opposite.

Hence the necessity of the Matrix, or something like it, for Žižek's worldview. And hence his approval of anything that unplugs us from the Matrix and returns us to the desert of the real—for instance, the horrors of September 11. One of the ambiguities of Žižek's recent work lies in his attitude toward the kind of Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated the attacks. On the one hand, they are clearly reactionary in their religious dogmatism; on the other hand, they have been far more effective than the Zapatistas or the Porto Alegre movement in discomfiting American capitalism. As Žižek observes, "while they pursue what appear to us to be evil goals with evil means, the very form of their activity meets the highest standard of the good." Yes, the good: Mohammed Atta and his comrades exemplified "good as the spirit of and actual readiness for sacrifice in the name of some higher cause." Žižek's dialectic allows him to have it all: the jihadis are not really motivated by religion, as they say they are; they are actually casualties of global capitalism, and thus "objectively" on the left. "The only way to conceive of what happened on September 11," he writes, "is to locate it in the context of the antagonisms of global capitalism" ...

When it comes to the heart of the matter, what Žižek wants is not dialectic, but repetition: another Robespierre, another Lenin, another Mao. His "progressivism" is not linear, it is cyclical. And if objective conditions are different from what they were in 1789 or 1917, so much the worse for objective conditions. "True ideas are eternal, they are indestructible, they always return every time they are proclaimed dead," Žižek writes in his introduction. One of the sections in the book is titled "Give the dictatorship of the proletariat a chance!"

He's murderous. That sounds like REPSAC = CASPER. Perfectly. Evil)

'What Third World Women Want'

"According to First World Feminists," by Charlotte Allen, at Weekly Standard.

It's about an academic conference, "Driving Change, Shaping Lives: Gender in the Developing World." I love this part, especially the "Battle of the Filipina Hostesses":

The first speaker was Valerie M. Hudson, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, leading off a panel titled “Shifting Populations.” Hudson delivered a genuine population-shift shocker: In China and India, which between them account for about 40 percent of the world’s 7 billion people, women, who in the West slightly outnumber men because they tend to live longer, are outnumbered by the male sex to the tune of 33 million in China and 28 million in India. The reason? As Hudson explained, it was the female-lethal combination of sex-selection abortion following the advent of fetal ultrasound during the 1980s and China’s longtime one-child policy, which has resulted in widespread female infanticide along with many forced abortions. As she rattled off disturbing statistics​—​120 boy babies for every 100 girl babies in China in 2005, and 121 for every 100 in India​—​Hudson pointed out that sex-selection abortion and female infanticide are illegal in both countries, but the laws on the books have failed to dent the cultural phenomenon of “son preference” in Asia, in which sons are valued because they’re expected to support elderly parents, whereas daughters often cost dowry money. “That’s 90 million missing women,” Hudson said.

In 2004 she and Andrea den Boer, a lecturer in politics and international affairs at the University of Kent, had published a book, Bare Branches, about the negative repercussions for a society, such as in China, that produces large numbers of surplus young men who cannot find wives and form families. “Those who don’t marry tend to have no skills and no education,” Hudson explained. “They are already at risk for violent behavior, since young men without stable social bonds tend to commit most violent crimes. They tend to be targets for military recruitment, and societies with surplus males tend to be marked by an aggressive foreign policy and ethnic groups pitted against each other.”

Maybe it was because abortion makes women’s studies people skittish, but Hudson’s ominous statistics​—​and indeed her entire presentation​—​were promptly forgotten, submerged in what might be called the Battle of the Filipina Hostesses. The combatants were Hudson’s two fellow panelists, Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California and self-described former Filipina hostess, and Amy O’Neill Richard, a senior adviser in the State Department’s Office of Trafficking in Persons, a priority project of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the 1980s and 1990s tens of thousands of young women were imported into Japan by labor contractors from the chronically impoverished Philippines to sing, dance, flirt with, and coax drink purchases from stressed-out salarymen in bars and nightclubs​—​until a 2005 crackdown by the Japanese government reduced the hostesses’ numbers by 90 percent, from 80,000 in 2004 to 8,000 in 2006. Few of the Filipinas, it seemed, had any training as the professional entertainers that their visas said they were. The Japanese government maintained that most of them were actually prostitutes or near-prostitutes, pushed into long hours of dubious servitude by the contractors and the clubs, many of which had ties to yakuza mobsters. A spate of brutal murders of hostesses​—​along with some murders committed by hostesses of their pimps​—​fueled the drive to clamp down on the hostess business and send most of the women back to the Philippines.

Taking the podium after Hudson, Parreñas went on the warpath. She announced that she had no intention of abiding by the 10-minute presentation limit for panelists and then proceeded to read a fiery 20-minute paper that she titled “Migration as Indentured Mobility: The Moral Regulation of Migrant Women.” The paper blasted the hostess crackdown as part of “a U.S.-backed war” against “sex work” fueled by “moral imperialism and conservative values” (the U.S. government funds anti-trafficking programs in about 70 countries). In the crackdown the hostesses were “stripped of their livelihood,” Parreñas lamented. “They go to Japan of their own volition​—​they’re not drugged or forced to go. They find it empowering to be a hostess.” Parreñas’s theory was that “there are multiple moralities in society,” and that some Filipinas’ moral codes happened to permit “paid sex with the men they call their boyfriends.” The problem, as Parreñas saw it, was that many Japanese clubs tended to have a different “moral culture” from that of the hostesses who worked there, but the hostesses couldn’t quit until their indentures were up. Nonetheless, Parreñas insisted, “most of them resent the United States, and they resent being rescued” from the hostess life by being kicked out of Japan. Her solution to the hostess problem: open immigration in the West for developing-world sex workers so they could get jobs in, say, the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal.

Parreñas proved to be a tough act to follow. Richard, the human-trafficking expert from the State Department, seemed dumbfounded. “I think America is a wonderful country,” she said. She rattled off some information about the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000, along with some alarming-sounding numbers: 70 percent of the estimated 12 to 27 million human-trafficking victims in the world these days are women and girls, most of whom end up in bondage, often sexual bondage, in East Asia and the Middle East. Parreñas was having none of that. “It’s quite tricky to lump all trafficked people together,” she sniffed. “Most migrant workers are domestic workers, and many countries, including the United States, don’t even count domestic work as an occupation.” Nor did Parreñas have any positive words for Hudson and her bare-branches research. “Did you interview any of those single men you describe as psychopathic and poor?” Parreñas demanded of Hudson. “Did they see themselves as unmarriageable?”

Republican Party Splitting Over U.S. Role in Libya

I don't think Obama's Libyan war violates the War Powers Act, but unlike my fellow neocons, I'm more reserved in my support for the NATO campaign against Gaddafi. Recall Victor Davis Hanson's essay at the start of the war, "A Middle East Policy in Shambles." Completely ad hoc, and spineless too, it's hard to get excited about this, especially since Afghanistan (and Pakistan) remains the central danger point in U.S. international affairs.

Anyway, I think my concerns are not unfamiliar among the wider conservative establishment. Michele Bachmann, in particular, seemed to impart the sense that America's a bit overextended at the moment. See, LAT, "GOP splitting over U.S. role in Libya and Afghanistan":

Republicans are facing a widening fissure over the U.S. role on the world stage as party leaders decide whether to confront President Obama this week over his policy toward Libya.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other congressional Republican leaders have said that U.S. involvement in NATO's bombing campaign, which hit the 90-day mark Sunday, violates the War Powers Act. The House could seek to cut off money for the war as it takes up the annual Pentagon spending bill this week.

Several of the party's potential presidential candidates have called for the U.S. to quit the fight in Libya and questioned the depth of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Other Republicans have begun pushing back, criticizing what they see as a growing isolationist agenda within the party. The result is that Republicans, once relatively unified on foreign policy issues, now have a division that parallels the long-standing split in Democratic ranks.

The debate was on public display Sunday as two of the GOP's leading figures on defense and foreign policy, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, criticized Republican presidential hopefuls and congressional leaders who question the country's military intervention around the world.

"There has always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party," McCain said on ABC's "This Week," "but now it seems to have moved more center stage.... That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world."

Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that any debate over cutting funding for the Libya war would encourage resistance by Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi. "Congress should sort of shut up," he said.

McCain and Graham also criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's leading in the polls for the party's presidential nomination, for referring to the fighting in Afghanistan as a "war for independence" that the U.S. should leave to others.

"I wish that candidate Romney and all the others would sit down" with U.S. commanders "and understand how this counter-insurgency is working and succeeding," McCain said.

Romney was one of several presidential hopefuls who, in last week's Republican candidate debate, focused criticism on U.S. military operations in Libya and Afghanistan. None took the sort of hawkish positions that McCain advocated during his presidential run in 2008.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, questioned what U.S. interest is at stake in Libya. "We were not attacked," Bachmann said. "We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest."

U2 Live at Angel Stadium Anaheim

At LAT, "Live Review: U2 at Angel Stadium":

U2, formed in Dublin, Ireland, in 1976, returned to the Southland to make up for two concerts they were forced to cancel when singer Bono, 51, injured his back during rehearsals last spring.

During that forced intermission, other real-life hurdles challenged the notion that the band was indestructible. U2’s two principal songwriters, Bono and guitarist The Edge, teamed up with director Julie Taymor for a Broadway adaptation of Spider-Man called “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” that has become the butt of jokes, the scene of injuries and the target of scathing reviews for nearly two years.

In an early critique of a preview "Spider-Man" performance, Times critic Charles McNulty called the music created by the two “a cacophonous brew.” The refurbished show officially opened last week, and the new reviews aren’t much better. Add to that Thursday's news that the California Coastal Commission had rejected The Edge's development proposal, decried by many conservationists, to build five mansions on an undeveloped site above Malibu, and, well, this hasn’t been a great year for U2.
So the question pre-concert became: How deep were these wounds? Could the power of music help redeem a band that throughout its career has declared over and over again its desire and ability to do just that? Basically, could U2 still bring it?

At the beginning of the concert, not really. Starting with “Even Better Than the Real Thing,” the band sounded muddled, the engine of the music not yet warm, the stadium not yet tuned, the fans experiencing the initial adrenaline rush but not yet buried inside the rhythms. And “I Will Follow,” the first cut on the band’s first album, "Boy” (1980), hasn’t aged well, even if it pulls at the nostalgia strings for many; the rhyme scheme is young and clumsy, the guitar line relatively simple and undynamic.

And when, during “Get on Your Boots,” two rolling bridges that connect different parts of the circular stage first rolled into place and The Edge and bassist Adam Clayton played in the middle above the crowd, the maneuver felt very 2009; too staged, too postured, and a touch clumsy -- even though the song is one of the danciest, most propulsive songs in the band’s catalog.

But something magical happened about 20 minutes in, during “Elevation.” Maybe it was the overjoyed crowd bellowing the song’s “Woooo-oooo” chorus in unison, or the way the lights reflected off the masses. Whatever it was, it rushed across Angel Stadium like a cold front, leaving in its wake the sacred sensation that all music lovers seek. The sound and vision clicked, the world started sparkling, the audience moving and singing as one. The moment swirled as Bono went carnal on us: “Higher than the sun, you shoot me from a gun,” he declared to his lover, and the thousands did it too. “I need you to elevate me here/At the corner of your lips/As the orbit of your hips’/Eclipse.

Internationalism After America

I really enjoyed this piece, from G. John Ikenberry, at Foreign Affairs, "The Future of the Liberal World Order":

The recent global economic downturn was the first great postwar economic upheaval that emerged from the United States, raising doubts about an American-led world economy and Washington's particular brand of economics. The doctrines of neoliberalism and market fundamentalism have been discredited, particularly among the emerging economies. But liberal internationalism is not the same as neoliberalism or market fundamentalism. The liberal internationalism that the United States articulated in the 1940s entailed a more holistic set of ideas about markets, openness, and social stability. It was an attempt to construct an open world economy and reconcile it with social welfare and employment stability. Sustained domestic support for openness, postwar leaders knew, would be possible only if countries also established social protections and regulations that safeguarded economic stability.

Indeed, the notions of national security and economic security emerged together in the 1940s, reflecting New Deal and World War II thinking about how liberal democracies would be rendered safe and stable. The Atlantic Charter, announced by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1941, and the Bretton Woods agreements of 1944 were early efforts to articulate a vision of economic openness and social stability. The United States would do well to try to reach back and rearticulate this view. The world is not rejecting openness and markets; it is asking for a more expansive notion of stability and economic security.

*****

Pronouncements of American decline miss the real transformation under way today. What is occurring is not American decline but a dynamic process in which other states are catching up and growing more connected. In an open and rule-based international order, this is what happens. If the architects of the postwar liberal order were alive to see today's system, they would think that their vision had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Markets and democracy have spread. Societies outside the West are trading and growing. The United States has more alliance partners today than it did during the Cold War. Rival hegemonic states with revisionist and illiberal agendas have been pushed off the global stage. It is difficult to read these world-historical developments as a story of American decline and liberal unraveling.

In a way, however, the liberal international order has sown the seeds of its own discontent, since, paradoxically, the challenges facing it now -- the rise of non-Western states and new transnational threats -- are artifacts of its success. But the solutions to these problems -- integrating rising powers and tackling problems cooperatively -- will lead the order's old guardians and new stakeholders to an agenda of renewal. The coming divide in world politics will not be between the United States (and the West) and the non-Western rising states. Rather, the struggle will be between those who want to renew and expand today's system of multilateral governance arrangements and those who want to move to a less cooperative order built on spheres of influence. These fault lines do not map onto geography, nor do they split the West and the non-West. There are passionate champions of the UN, the WTO, and a rule-based international order in Asia, and there are isolationist, protectionist, and anti-internationalist factions in the West.

I think Ikenberry overstates the "after America" thesis, and then comes back to nullify it somewhat at the conclusion here. A great review on the origins of the multilateral system after World War II, however. Something I might be able to use in my World Politics class in the fall.

Mavi Marmara Timeline

From the Israeli Defense Forces:

Colleges Cut Summer

Actually, I never liked summer school, but it plays a vital role for colleges and college students. But this summer sucks.

At LAT, "Amid budget cutbacks, California colleges reduce or eliminate summer school."

And from yesterday's Letters to the Editor:

Gov.'s budget stand

Re "Brown veto dismays Democrats," June 17

I want to publicly thank Gov. Jerry Brown for vetoing the sham budget adopted by the Democratic majority in the state Legislature. I also want to acknowledge the minority party's complicity in the budget stalemate.

California has been living in a financial house of cards for decades. We need to build a new house on a firm and sustainable foundation.

The state's budget crisis can be solved with both spending cuts and revenue increases. The choice is not one or the other. I call on our elected representatives, of every political persuasion, to work toward achieving a sustainable financial future.

Nancy I. Day

Los Angeles

Actually, we don't have a revenue problem, but at least she admits the need for spending cuts. And get union give-backs in there, and that'd be the makings of a deal.

How a Naked Female Scientist Tries to Tame Belugas in the Freezing Arctic

Awesome report at London's Daily Mail, via Instapudit, who notes:

Photos tasteful, but possibly NSFW given the Taliban-like sensibilities of many corporate HR departments ...

"Taliban-like sensibilities." Sounds like Scott Eric Kaufman. He's a liar too.

Hillary Clinton's Intern

That's all I can mention. I'm loathe to indicate more lest Taliban Scott Eric Kaufman react with extreme malice in some way. Just check Robert Stacy McCain for the details and also Memeorandum and TMZ.

Courtney Alexis Stodden, 16, Marries 'Green Mile' Actor Doug Anthony Hutchison, 51

It's weird.

She's a worldly 16, that's for sure.

At New York Post, "'Lost' actor Doug Hutchison, 51, marries 16-year-old in Vegas." Stodden's parents would have had to okay the marriage, since Nevada law requires an 18 year-old minimum age. And so, hey, if everybody's cool with it. To each his own. Otherwise we'd end up like Taliban Scott Eric Kaufman, butting into everyone's personal lives and destroying families.

See also London's Daily Mail, "Green Mile actor Doug Anthony Hutchison, 51, marries aspiring country music singer, 16, in Las Vegas."

Americans Join Flotilla to Break Gaza Blockade

At Sacramento Bee.

And at Jerusalem Post, "US flotilla ship: We intend to break Gaza blockade":

NEW YORK – Passengers on a US-flagged vessel, The Audacity of Hope, spoke at a press conference on Monday to discuss their plans and reasons for joining the “International Freedom Flotilla II – Stay Human,” a flotilla intended to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

It is estimated that people from more than 20 countries will participate in the eight to 10-ship flotilla, which will set sail in the last week of June, in part from Greece. One quarter of the participants on the US vessel, which will have 36 passengers, are to be American Jews.

According to a letter that The Audacity of Hope group sent to President Barack Obama, in addition to the 36 passengers, 4 crew members, and 10 members of the press, the ship “will carry thousands of letters of support and friendship from people throughout the US to the women, children and men of Gaza. There will be no weapons of any sort on board.

“We will carry no goods of any kind for delivery in Gaza,” the group’s letter read. “Our mission is from American civil society to the civil society of Gaza. We do not serve the agenda of any political leadership, government or group. We are engaged solely in nonviolent action in support of the Palestinian people and their human rights.”

Passenger Ann Wright said: “Citizen activists are coming to the Mediterranean from all over the world to confront the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza and US government protection of Israeli criminal acts.

It's not about human rights for Gaza. It's about the delegitimation and destruction of Israel. And I don't believe all of these people are peaceful.

Jerry Brown's Budget Soap Opera

At Wall Street Journal, "As Sacramento Turns":

'All My Children" may be off the air, but the soap opera is still running in Sacramento. In the latest installment, Governor Jerry Brown divorced his fellow Democrats by vetoing their budget. Democrats and unions are furious and plotting revenge, while both sides blame the evil Republicans for refusing to sanction a referendum that would give voters a chance to endorse a tax increase.

Where's Susan Lucci when you need her?

Mr. Brown deserves credit for vetoing the Democratic budget that reverted to Sacramento form to close a $9.6 billion deficit, deferring several billion dollars of bills into the future, borrowing from special funds, and raising the state's sales tax and vehicle registration fee without the constitutionally required supermajority vote. Even the Democratic treasurer warned that the state couldn't finance its short-term debt with such a risky plan, and Mr. Brown cashiered it.

Democrats are now blasting him for suggesting that an "all cuts" budget is the only alternative if Republicans won't agree to allow a vote on a five-year extension of what was supposed to be a temporary income tax surcharge, among other tax hikes. Democrats are frustrated because they expected Republicans to cave months ago. But Republicans have shown laudable discipline, and they know that their relevance in state politics hinges on extracting concessions from employee unions that will reduce the future cost of government.

Mr. Brown needs at least two GOP votes in each chamber to put the tax increases on the ballot. And Republican lawmakers have said for months that they're willing to do so in return for modest pension and regulatory reforms and a hard spending cap.

More at the link.

Unions are basically killing any deal, even one that includes GOP concessions to Jerry Brown tax increases.

RELATED: At Instapundit, "SHOCKER: Companies Leaving California In Record Numbers."

Alleged Denial of Service Attack Against Turn Right USA PAC

Sounds about right. Because, you know, this is just what progressives do.

See "Do Hahn’s Homeboyz include Hackers?"

And at The Rhetorican, "Leftie Hacker Gets Fingered By Conservative PAC?":

Sounds like another instance of ‘Freedom of Speech for me but not for thee’, all too common among the oh-so-tolerant Left.

Exactly.

Wouldn't be surprised if RACIST REPSAC was involved, and his progressive anti-free speech thugs? They're known to engage in similarly aggressive campaigns of intimidation.

Also, at Film Ladd, "Did The Hahn Campaign Hire A Hacker?"

'Why is David Epstein Still a Columbia University Professor After Incest Plea?'

Good question.

A Columbia Professor of POLITICAL SCIENCE?

See The Other McCain for the reply.

Epstein's homepage is here.

Professor Charli Carpenter Quits Lawyers, Guns and Money! — UPDATE!! Repsac = Racist = ASFL = Lying Asshat!!!

And I'm claiming credit for forcing her to abandon that demonic progressive stinkhole.

I noticed that Charli's name had been removed from the blog's masthead, and then new LGM blogger Erik Loomis introduced himself a few weeks ago, noting, "... how intimidating it is to be replacing someone as superb as Charli Carpenter. Those are some big shoes to fill. I know I’ll miss reading her posts."

Charli quit immediately following the publication of my essay, "Dr. Charli Carpenter and the Laws of War." I had long suggested to her that blogging at LGM was harmful to her academic reputation, and of course Charli's ambitious within the field of political science. She dismissed my advice and admonished me not to involve her in flame wars. But I offered legitimate criticism at "Dr. Charli Carpenter and the Laws of War," and she nevertheless ignored the post and then fled the scene of battle. Maybe it was the Serr8d Photoshop of Charli in a bikini, sporting what looks like to be a terrorist's bombing set-up. Feminists hate that stuff. (The bikinis, that is. The pro-Palestinian terrorism? Not so much.) And note how plugging "Charli Carpenter and International Law" or "Dr. Charli Carpenter" into Google pulls up my post at the #1 and #2 ranking. That's gotta hurt.

And that tells you something. Charli was listing Lawyers, Guns and Money at her biographical information on her Foreign Affairs articles, and she's still blogging at The Duck of Minerva, more than ever it seems. Charli likes blogging and wouldn't have quit LGM on a whim.

Frankly, it must have been damaging to be associated with a hate dump like Robert Farley's Lawyers, Guns and Money. And especially so now that LGM has emerged as a big outlet for progressive anti-Semitism in recent months, led by the idiot juvenile Scott Lemieux and his ill-considered blogging on Israel-bashing playwright Tony Kushner.

It's telling all around. Not only had blogging at LGM become a liability for Charli, but it goes to show that when challenged, progressives are cowardly when forced outside of their demonic cocoons.

I'm going to have lots more on the bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money. They've been attacking me and this blog for years, and recently those attacks took a very personal turn, which required me to retain an attorney. I'm still holding off on reporting on that, but it's going to be blockbuster when it comes out. One of the bloggers over there is going to be outed as evil once and for all. He'll be even more discredited than he already is, and while this has been costly, it's nothing that I initiated. Cheap kicks while it lasted it, but not anymore. Basically, don't fuck with me, assholes. You reap what you sow and it's very ugly. And you deserve the ignominy that's coming your way.

Stay tuned.

*****

UPDATE (2:25pm PST): I've been out taking my kid skateboarding, so a little late getting back to the blog. Not only that, I'm trying desperately to pull myself up after ROTFLMFAO, because REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL has responded to this post, and writes hilariously that Charli Carpenter is "paying little if any attention to Donald Douglas." Perhaps not, but stalker REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL sure the hell is!!

See: "Professor Donald Douglas is Envious of Professor Charli Carpenter."

And more lulz. Note how Charli Carpenter quit blogging precisely while coming under withering fire at this blog. Yep, perfect timing. The so-called "Grad Director" gig is a convenient out for pulling her name off the masthead at LGM, and totally transparent. God, that's pathetic, but expected, since she no doubt found she could no longer blog at a premier progressive anti-Semitic hate dump. It's pretty self-explanatory. And she's meanwhile blogging up a storm at Duck of Minerva. Yep, that "Grad Director" gig sure is taking up a lot of time, yuk yuk!!

And wrong, not envious in the least, RACIST REPSAC3 ASFL. I'm a tenured professor at a college without a grad program, so "Grad Director" is not something I'd be doing. And I have no need to publish, since community colleges are teaching institutions. But WE KNOW progressives like you hate teaching and denigrate those who do, cuz ur a typical asshat. And I'm raising two kids myself, not to be demonic left-wing terrorist wannabes, of course. Unlike you, freaking stalker.

Plus, I'm not "outing" anyone's identity, you idiot. I plan to report and document the moral degeneracy and evil of one of the bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Murder. Still waiting for the go-ahead from the attorney, but you've got skills in this area, so it'll be interesting to demonstrate a past pattern of collaboration on your part. See: "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE --- Another year, another UPDATE: 2/17/2011." At the update, that's where hate sponsor RACIST = REPSAC = ASFL denies that he had anything to do with the campaign of workplace intimidation directed against me at my college, which of course is a lie, because RACIST = REPSAC = ASFL personally administers the blog and he personally recruited the progressives who published all of my workplace contact information, with the exhortation:

We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at The Swash Zone; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President **** ****** at (562) ***-**** or Executive VP of Academic Affairs ****** **** at (562) ***-**** and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).

This was published at REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL's blog, American Nihilist, Feb 12, 2009. (See here.) And REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL is fully implicated in this initial campaign of workplace intimidation, and he's now even doubled-down about how he thinks I should be fired for practicing my First Amendment rights to freedom of the expression, the right to be free in my private personal affairs. It's pretty bad, but this is what progressives do. And when I'm able to report fully on recent legal developments with my blog, REPSAC = RACIST = ASFL may well be implicated in the moral deviance, evil, and libelous activities that have been recently launched to destroy the moral clarity of myself and American Power.