'Courage, New Hampshire' Premiers Sunday

At Hollywood Reporter, "Tea Partiers Create Their Own TV Show and Production Company (Exclusive)."

Also at Big Government, "‘Courage, New Hampshire’: Tea Party’s Shot Across Liberal Hollywood’s Bow." It's playing at the Krikorian Theater in Monrovia, but tickets are sold out. The program's going to DVD, so something to keep to look forward to.

No doubt. WaPo's Rachel Weiner concurs, "Can liberals start their own tea party?" (via Memeorandum).

Ann Coulter Goes Canadian!

The good kind of Canadian.

Via Blazing Cat Fur.

I love this description at the YouTube page:

Ezra Levant and guest Ann Coulter discuss violent leftist retards.

Word.

It's a lengthy clip, but asked toward the end on what to do when besieged by the mob, Coulter nails it:

When faced with a mob you must smash it. You cannot reason with the mob. It is an irrational, violent organism. Rationality does not work. Calming the mob down does not work. You must always smash a mob. And whether that involves police activity, or pressing charges, calling the police --- engaging in serious self-defense, you don't back down to a mob. That only lets it run wild.

Exactly.

That's why I never back down to progressives, especially the evil mob attacks from the likes of Lawyers, Guns and Murder, or the Sadly No! freaks, people who've contacted my college in continuing campaigns of personal destruction. I'm a threat to these progressive mobsters. They can't touch my moral clarity, for they are immoral, demonic. Flustered and impotent, they've repeatedly demonstrated their violent mob tactics against me. I don't back down, and they hate it. It drives them crazy. They are dangerous. Yes, dangerous, personally to me. If I was a public speaker I too would need a body guard, like so many conservatives I've met in the last couple of years. The progressive mob is about one thing: shutting down those who deviate from and challenge the neo-communist agenda, by any means necessary. I don't cower. I don't relent in standing up for what's right. I stand up to the mob. Ann Coulter is awesome. Read her book! Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

Census Data Reveal Strong Increase in Nontraditional Households

A fascinating report, but the way the Times sought to spin it is, well, a little weird.

See Los Angeles Times, "California families are changing, U.S. Census data show":

On a leafy drive in west Los Angeles, at a newly renovated home with cathedral ceilings and a backyard pool, 4-year-old Kate Eisenpresser-Davis' friends have been known to pose an intriguing question: "Why does Kate have three mommies?"

Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser's ex-partner.

When asked to describe their life, Eisenpresser and Courtin respond with the same word: "Normal." Days are spent searching for the right balance between work and home, and zigzagging through Mar Vista to meetings, school and gymnastics.

Courtin is pregnant. Kate will soon have a sister, Phoebe, conceived from Eisenpresser's egg and sperm from a donor — the same 6-foot-1 Harvard grad, who scored a 1580 on the SAT, who served as Kate's donor.

"It's almost like I'm too busy to be thinking too deeply about being gay and different," Eisenpresser said.

Maybe she shouldn't bother. According to a Times analysis of new U.S. Census figures, the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises are on the leading edge of change — of a steady evolution in the meaning of "family" and "home" in California.

It's not "evolution" but "erosion," but read on:

New census figures show that the percentage of Californians who live in "nuclear family" households — a married man and a woman raising their children — has dropped again over the last decade, to 23.4% of all households. That represents a 10% decline in 10 years, measured as a percentage of the state's households.

Those households, the Times analysis shows, are being supplanted by a striking spectrum of postmodern living arrangements: same-sex households, unmarried opposite-sex partners, married couples who have no children. Some forms of households that were rare just a generation ago are becoming common; the number of single-father households in California, for instance, grew by 36% between 2000 and 2010.

For centuries, "family" connoted a sprawling, messy, almost tribal identity. Industrialization, wealth and mobility allowed, even encouraged, the family unit to shrink. The term "nuclear family" didn't enter the lexicon until the boom after World War II — a suggestion that the immediate family, built on a foundation of marriage and traditional gender roles, was the nucleus of social structure, even of American morality.

That paradigm, though, began to fray even before "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" went off the air in 1966. Today, California is a stark reflection of a new dynamic: the traditional Hallmark card image is hardly obsolete, but it is the minority. And new sorts of households — blended families; bands of middle-class singles who live and vacation together; families that were once called "broken" — are increasingly the standard.

More at the link, but that's a shamefully exhuberant report. What's so great about less than one-quarter of California's households being "traditional nuclear"? Well, not so much, as the Times grudgingly concedes:

The preservation of what is viewed by many as the traditional family has long been a hot-button political issue. There is little dispute that some modern living arrangements, particularly the growth of single-parent households, often result in financial burdens and other challenges.

Ron Haskins, the co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families who once served as President Bush's senior advisor for welfare policy, said that children born to unmarried parents or raised in a single-family household, in particular, are more likely to be poor and to commit crimes. He said there is a national movement to promote marriage, such as marriage education requirements in some high schools.

It's interesting that the Times dropped that information so far down below the fold. But it's the key bit of information most important for social policy. Unless someone's a fanatical bigot, folks ought not disagree too much with a family like the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises --- they look happy, their kid loved and well cared for, and their household is apparently financially stable. (And the Eisenpresser-Courtin-Davises aren't the model for same-sex families in California, in any case. The extremist gay radical rim-station freaks are, the ones constantly in the news, ramming their gay rights agenda down the throats of average Californians, at the expense of poor and minority communities. Gay progressives are a violently selfish demographic disgrace.) The fact is almost half of households headed by a single parent live in poverty, and that's based in 2009 data. It's no doubt higher now, amid the Obama Depression. Society needs to find a way to promote healthy stable families, all around. We shouldn't downplay or ignore the worst family tragedies and denigrate the historic nuclear model by glorifying nontraditional structures with non-representative images of "cutting-edge" same-sex households.

Presidential War Powers and Obama's Wars

Video c/o Reason.

This is a fascinating exchange. Gene Healy opens with a compelling argument, but comes off as more ideological. Michael Ramsey, speaking second, sounds more scholarly, and makes implicit reference to the political science consensus on the expansion of presidential power. Healy gives short shrift to the impact of the Cold War, and especially the concentration of power in the executive dealing with a U.S. response to nuclear danger. There are no more existential threats than those the U.S. faced from Soviet strategic weapons during the Cold War. Has the U.S. gone too far with the war on terror? Perhaps. It's worth noting that we're having the most robust discussions on the War Powers Resolution in decades under a Democratic administration. A needed discussion, in any case. If it were me, we wouldn't be in Libya and we'd be fighting to win in Afghanistan :

Ellie Goulding — 'Your Song'

An encore from yesterday.

Goulding sang at the Royal Wedding. See Telegraph UK, "Royal wedding: singer's joy at 'honour' of royal wedding performance."

Maid Beheading in Saudi Arabia Draws Outrage

As it damn-well should.

At Telegraph UK, "Maid's beheading in Saudi Arabia halts Indonesian domestic worker scheme":

Migrant worker Ruyati binti Sapubi, 54, was executed after she was convicted of murdering her Saudi employer, Khairiya bint Hamid Mijlid, with a meat cleaver.

The maid carried out the killing after she was denied permission to leave the kingdom and return to her family in Indonesia, according to officials in Jakarta.

"The Indonesian government has decided to impose a moratorium on sending workers to Saudi Arabia," labour minister Muhaimin Iskandar was quoted by state news agency Antara as saying.

The report did not provide further details but local media indicated the move was aimed at domestic workers, who make up about 70 per cent of the 1.2 million Indonesian workers in the Gulf state.

The suspension will take effect on August 1 and will remain until the Saudi government agrees to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to protect Indonesian workers' rights, Iskandar said.

I'd love to hear more of the facts behind this. The woman was "denied" the right to return home to her family. Why? Was she being abused by her boss, serially raped? One doesn't take a meat cleaver to an employer for small slights. Islam is domestically violent, and Saudi Arabia is historically and horrifically wicked to women. Sad.

Federal Regulators to Probe Google

Google seems like it pisses off a lot of people, but this is an even larger thing.

At WSJ, "Feds to Launch Probe of Google":

Federal regulators are poised to hit Google Inc. with subpoenas, launching a broad, formal investigation into whether the Internet giant has abused its dominance in Web-search advertising, people familiar with the matter said.

The civil probe, which has the potential to reshape how companies compete on the Internet, is the most serious legal threat yet to the 12-year-old company, though it wouldn't necessarily lead to any federal allegations of wrongdoing against Google.
While Google has faced several antitrust probes in recent years, the U.S. has limited its investigations largely to reviews of the company's mergers and acquisitions. The new inquiry, by contrast, will examine fundamental issues relating to Google's core search-advertising business, its biggest money maker, said the people familiar with the matter.

I was reminded of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, and the comparison is made further down at the report. Obviously other search companies have complained:

Those companies said that Google's anticompetitive practices include using other companies' content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google's products, and buying up competitive threats to its dominance.

Google—which handles about two-thirds of all U.S. Web searches, according to comScore Inc., and more than 80% in many parts of Europe—has denied doing any of these things. It argues that users can easily navigate to other choices on the Web. In statements, the company has said it "built Google for users, not websites, and our goal is to give users answers."

RTWT.

I enjoy Google products. Blogger and G-mail work well together, and I'm told Blogger blogs search better on Google than Wordpress. We'll see, for like Legal Insurrection, I'm considering a switch-over. Not only because of Blogger's blackout issues, some of the progressives who've attacked American Power long ago threatened a demonization campaign at Blogger to get this blog deleted. I'm sticking with Blogger for now, but one of the biggest reasons folks bail on Blogger is to gain some security and independence for themselves.

Two Men Arrested in Plot to Attack Military Recruiting Station in Seattle

At the Seattle Times, "Two men arrested in plot to attack Seattle military processing facility" (via PACNW Righty):

Two men have been arrested in Seattle in what federal agents say was a terrorist plot to attack a military recruit processing station in Seattle.

Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, also known as Joseph Anthony Davis, 33, of Seattle, and Walli Mujahidh, aka Frederick Dominque Jr., 32, of Los Angeles were arrested Wednesday and charged in a complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

Among the charges were conspiracy to murder U.S. officers, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and unlawful possession of firearms.

Both men appeared this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, who ordered them held pending a detention hearing next Wednesday. A preliminary hearing is set for July 7, which will be held only if the men are not indicted by a grand jury before then.

Both men face up to life in prison if convicted.

Okay, the system worked. Move along. Nothing to see here.

RELATED: At the DoJ, "Two Men Charged in Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center" (via Memeorandum.)

'Results Not Rhetoric'

Via Marathon Pundit, "First in Iowa: T-Paw releases TV ad":

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.