Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Might Cast Deciding Vote Striking Down Proposition 8

Well, actually, Kennedy's not all the conservative these days, so it won't be a surprise.

He's into the "evolving standards of decency" doctrine that's been used is left-wing decisions on the death penalty; and more importantly, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in 2003. I'd have to research it, but the Court often hesitates to overturn state-level initiatives, arguing that the judgment of the Court can't be assumed superior to the voters in those states where a case originates.

That said, here's David Savage, at Los Angeles Times, "Gay marriage fight may hinge on Supreme Court's Anthony Kennedy":

The Supreme Court has nine justices, but if the constitutional fight over same-sex marriage reaches them this year, the decision will probably come down to just one: a California Republican and Reagan-era conservative who has nonetheless written the court's two leading gay rights opinions.

JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy, 75, often holds the court's deciding vote on the major issues that divide its liberals and conservatives. More often than not, that vote has swung the court to the right. But on gay rights, Kennedy has been anything but a "culture wars" conservative.

One of his opinions lauded the intimacy between same-sex couples and demanded "respect for their private lives," provoking Justice Antonin Scalia to accuse him of having "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

"He is a California establishment Republican with moderately libertarian instincts," Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said of Kennedy. "He travels in circles where he has met and likes lots of gay people."

Based on Kennedy's past opinions, Karlan is confident that if the Supreme Court takes up the issue of California's same-sex marriage ban, "it meansProp. 8is going down to defeat," she said. "There is no way he will take it to reinstate" the ban.

Not all court observers share her prediction, but the uncertainty about how Kennedy might vote may, by itself, be enough to deter the high court from hearing an appeal of the decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Four justices must vote for the court to consider a case, but a majority is needed to issue a ruling.

When an appeal reaches the high court, the four most conservative justices will face a tough choice: Vote to have the court hear the case and run the risk that Kennedy would side with the more liberal justices to go beyond the 9th Circuit decision and establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Or turn the case aside, leaving same-sex marriage intact in California but setting no national precedent.

More at the link.

BBC Tracks Down Notorious Internet Troll

Sometimes you just gotta smack down these f-kers.

Via Althouse:

Europe's German Future

From Christopher Caldwell, at the Weekly Standard, "Über Alles After All":

Last week Germany reclaimed its status as the leading power in Europe. In the two years since it became apparent that Greece was, essentially, bankrupt, there have been dozens of emergency meetings of the countries that use the common European currency, the euro. Most of the euro-using states believe that Germany—with a booming industrial economy, vast trade surpluses, a reputation for fiscal probity, and a history that makes it reluctant to reject the counsel of France—ought to cover the bill. Germany has long argued that Greece must become competitive again by selling off state assets and cutting government handouts. More recently, Germany has added another demand—that EU authorities be empowered to discipline Greece and other delinquent countries. At the Brussels summit on January 30, the Germans won.

Germany is fortunate to have, in the moment of its triumph, a chancellor who does not scare people. Angela Merkel is an East German intellectual, a physical chemist, the childless daughter of a clergyman. She mumbles. Her taste in clothing runs to pantsuits. She isn’t brawny and forceful like her Christian Democrat mentor Helmut Kohl, who presided over the reunification of Germany at the end of the Cold War. She isn’t eloquent and haughty, or tempestuous and randy, like her Social Democratic predecessors Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder, respectively. “This lack of a presidential demeanor is a big advantage,” says longtime Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber, whom Merkel replaced as party leader. Germany’s economy naturally provides it with a leadership role, but its history means that that role is something Germany cannot be seen to claim. “Neither personally nor politically does she come off as wanting to blow her own horn, along the lines of ‘I am the leader of Europe.’ ”

By “Europe” Stoiber means the 27 countries that make up the European Union. The EU was launched in the wake of the Second World War as a way to organize Europe through economics, not war. This is a polite way of saying it was meant to keep Germany from dominating Europe with its army. A decade ago, the EU acquired a common money, the euro, which replaced the franc, the lira, the peseta, and the super-strong deutsche mark. The new monetary regime was meant to keep Germany from dominating the continent with its currency.

But the euro has backfired. In 1990 British trade secretary Nicholas Ridley was forced to resign for calling the EU “a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe.” Ridley was quite wrong about Germany’s intentions, but he was right about the result. Joining Germany in a currency union meant playing by its rules. In fact, so big and rich is Germany—particularly now that reunification has brought its population to 80 million—that joining it in anything means playing by its rules. This is not Germany’s fault. It is the classic “German problem” that has confronted Europe for the whole modern era. It was camouflaged for six decades only by Germany’s reluctance to express any wishes whatsoever.

As long as Germany wasn’t complaining, others could make free with Germany’s credit card. Once in the euro, Greece, Italy, Spain, and other countries that bankers used to consider reckless or unstable could borrow at the same rates. (The treaties that bound all these dissimilar countries together stipulated that there would be no bailouts for those who borrowed too much, but bankers obviously didn’t believe that.) A boom in lending pushed up wages and prices in those “peripheral” countries, rendering them uncompetitive. After the financial crisis of 2008, the countries that had overborrowed were saddled with more debt than they could comfortably repay. The eurozone’s Mediterranean members have come to think that Germany ought to rescue them. But the Germany to which they are addressing their petitions is not the penitent, diffident, and easily browbeaten land that they came to know over the last three generations. Germany has its own ideas about economics and morality, and it is ready to insist that its weaker neighbors adhere to them.

That's a great piece --- pretty accurate all around.

Continue reading at the link.

'Halftime in America' — Parody

Via Theo Spark:

And the text is at Reason.

My previous comments are here.

Widener Law School Settles Lawsuit Filed by Professor Lawrence Connell

I saw this at William Jacobson's yesterday morning, "Widener Law settles with Prof. Lawrence Connell."

 I received the following statement from Connell’s attorney:

I am authorized today, February 8, 2012, to make the following announcement about my client professor Larry Connell’s pending lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court against the Delaware Law School of Widener University, Dean Linda Ammons, and students Jennifer R. Perez and Nadege Tandoh.

“All claims amongst all parties have been resolved amicably and Professor Connell’s employment with the University and Law School has been concluded. Specific terms of the resolution are confidential. So, we have no further comment.”

Thank you.

Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq. Attorney for Professor Connell

I hope Connell received just compensation. He certainly deserved it. 

And at FIRE, "Widener Settles Lawsuit Filed by Law Professor who was Punished for Protected Speech":

While Connell may be prevented by the terms of the settlement from continuing to comment on Ammons' tyrannical behavior in this ordeal, FIRE faces no such restrictions. We will continue to make sure the public remembers the many wrongs committed by the Widener Law administration against Lawrence Connell. Prospective law school students should think twice (or more) before sending their applications to Widener.

Drone Strike Video

Not a lot of details, but pretty wicked.

Via Weasel Zippers:

Life and Death in Homs

Video c/o Telegraph UK.

And see: "The Agony of Homs."

More at LAT, "Syria violence: Who is helping the wounded?"

And NYT, "As Russia Seeks Talks, Syria Is Said to Pound City."

Pamela Geller on Michael Coren's 'The Arena'

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Michael Coren & Pamela Geller Discuss Honour Killing."

I was reading over at Pamela's earlier today. Don't miss this, among other things: "CPAC for Sissies: Self-Censoring for Sharia."

Roland Martin's Homophobic Tweets

Well, this is interesting.

At Washington Post, "CNN's Roland Martin suspended for homophobic tweets." And New York Times, "CNN Suspends Roland Martin for Remarks on Twitter":

[VIDEO PULLED]

5:26 p.m. | Updated CNN said Wednesday that it had suspended Roland Martin, one of its commentators, three days after he posted Twitter messages that were interpreted by some to be anti-gay.

“Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive,” the cable news channel said in a statement. “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

In one of his many Twitter messages, Mr. Martin suggested on Sunday that if a “dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad,” he should be smacked. In another message that day, he made a similar suggestion about a football fan shown on TV wearing a “head to toe pink suit.”

When Mr. Martin received angry comments from online readers about the Beckham remark, he defended himself by saying that he was mocking soccer players, not gay people.

Right.

The hashtag was #teamwhipdatass.

See a slideshow of Martin's tweets at Huffington Post, "CNN's Roland Martin Under Fire From GLAAD For David Beckham Super Bowl Tweets."

This is especially interesting since Roland Martin is a progressive lefty, and these folks are supposed to be all about tolerance.

Santorum Victories Set New Tempo for GOP Race

Wow, what a night!

At Los Angeles Times, "Rick Santorum wins Republican votes in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado":

Republican long shot Rick Santorum poked holes in Mitt Romney's aura of inevitability Tuesday night with a trio of upset victories that shifted the dynamic of the 2012 presidential contest.

The former Pennsylvania senator's wins in the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and Missouri primary were setbacks for Romney, the national front-runner, who had been expected to cruise easily through a series of relatively minor February voter tests. He must now wait three weeks to regroup, when Arizona and Michigan hold what suddenly are shaping up as unexpectedly important primaries.

In remarks to delirious supporters in St. Charles, Mo., Santorum took a swipe at Romney's big advantage in money and the negative ads he's used to defeat his opponents in previous states. He also lashed out at President Obama, describing him as someone "who thinks he knows better" and doesn't listen to the American people.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum said, setting off chants of "We pick Rick!"

Reflecting what he sees as the altered shape of the race, Santorum told CNN that "now we're in a little bit of a no-man's land" as the candidates move into states where they haven't had months, or years, to campaign.

Romney, who won Minnesota four years ago, was running a weak third behind Santorum and Ron Paul.

Speaking to a deflated crowd of backers in Denver, Romney said he was "pretty confident" he would come in either first or second in Colorado's caucuses, his last hope for salvaging a bad night. But hours later, state Republican Chairman Ryan Call announced over CNN that Santorum had won.

He congratulated Santorum and said that he looked forward to coming contests and a united party when the primaries ended. But he also struck a pose as a populist outsider, speaking of his father's humble roots and casting himself as the antidote to the problems in the nation's capital.

RTWT.

And see William Kristol, "Romneycare: Worth Getting Worried About." (Via Memeorandum.)

Obama's Super PAC Hypocrisy

From Mark McKinnon, at Daily Beast, "Obama’s Super PAC Hypocrisy: Giving Blessing to Priorities USA Action," and from Sissy Willis, "How Obama learned to stop worrying and love the super PAC" (via Linkmaster Smith).

And at yesterday's New York Times, "Obama Yields in Marshaling of ‘Super PAC’":

WASHINGTON — President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign.

Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and announced in an e-mail to supporters.

“We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” Jim Messina, the manager of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said in an interview. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”

Neither the president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., nor their wives will attend fund-raising events or solicit donations for the Democratic group. A handful of officials from the administration and the campaign will appear on behalf of Mr. Obama, aides said, but will not directly ask for money.

Freakin' asshats.

Michael Coren Interviews Douglas Murray

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Michael Coren & Douglas Murray: The Threat to Islam's Critics."

Murray's video at the Cambridge Student Union on the threat from Iran went viral last week, and Blazing has that one as well.

Israel's Case for War With Iran

From Niall Ferguson, at Newsweek, "Israel and Iran on the Eve of Destruction in a New Six-Day War."

The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion.

War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.

Arizona Supreme Court Rules to Keep Limited-English Candidate Off the Ballot

Well, chalk that up for common sense, for the moment at least.

At LAT, "Arizona Supreme Court bars candidate with limited English":

A would-be city council candidate in Arizona will not appear on an upcoming ballot because her English skills are insufficient, the state's Supreme Court decided Tuesday.

In a brief two-page order, the high court affirmed a Superior Court judge's ruling, which struck Alejandrina Cabrera's name from the March ballot in the town of San Luis.

The case, which attracted international media attention, was closely watched because of possible legal repercussions for other border communities where Spanish predominates. Cabrera's lawyers argued that the court should not set a standard for English and that the issue should be decided by San Luis voters.

Cabrera acknowledged her English is weak, but said she knew enough of the language to represent San Luis. Almost 99% of the town's residents are Latino, and Spanish is spoken virtually everywhere.

Continue reading.

Sarah Palin: 'Life With Trig'

From Governor Palin, at Newsweek, "Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child."

Via Dan Riehl on Twitter, and follow the links for the controversy.

Charles Johnson Whines After Getting Smacked Down for Attacks on Pamela Geller

See Diary of Daedalus, "Chuck continues to play victim."

And The Other McCain, "Saint Charles, Martyr of LGF."

RELATED: Pamela at CPAC: "CPAC 2012: ISLAMIC LAW IN AMERICA -- GELLER, SPENCER, PANTANO, MUISE, ADAMS."

The Waning Influence of U.S. Constitution Around the World?

Well, yeah, the waning influence of the Constitution according to the New York Times, "‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World."

Here's the part about Justice Ginsburg:

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

RTWT.

And then compare to IBD, "Our Constitution is the Best Model a Country Could Have":

We're not ashamed to declare the U.S. Constitution a magnificent document that, along with the Declaration of Independence, forms the greatest national charter in human history.

No other document has ever guarded freedom the way it has, and no other contract has provided such a foundation for prosperity. It's not perfect, but it's as close to perfect as man has come.

Thank you.

Santorum Wins Missouri and Minnesota

Well, Missouri's a beauty contest with no delegates, but Santorum scores some needed momentum and no doubt throws a monkey wrench in Romney's post-Florida victory parade.

See Bloomberg, "Santorum Gets Two Wins in Republican Race":

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania won contests in Missouri and Minnesota today, shaking up the Republican presidential race just days after Mitt Romney had won two races in a row to claim front-runner status.

The Associated Press called Missouri for Santorum, as he had 55 percent of the vote, with 81 percent of precincts reporting. Romney had 25 percent and U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas had 12 percent. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich wasn’t on the Missouri ballot.

The AP also projected a victory for Santorum in Minnesota’s caucuses, where he led with 46 percent of the vote with 38 percent of precincts reporting. Paul had 26 percent, followed by Romney with 16 percent and Gingrich with 11 percent.

The results suggest a lingering weakness for Romney, especially among the Republican Party’s most conservative voters who are focused on such social issues as their opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

At the same time, Santorum’s new strength may aid Romney in a prolonged fight for the nomination. A revitalized Santorum campaign may mean that he and Gingrich will continue to split the anti-Romney vote, leaving neither with a commanding count of delegates.
“After tonight, you’ll see this is a wide open race,” Gingrich said on CNN before the results began to be released.

California's Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

The ruling today, at the 9th Circuit, was no surprise.

See the New York Times, "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California."

And from Maggie Gallagher, at National Review, "Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots." (Via Memeorandum.)

And still more at Legal Insurrection, "9th Circuit holds Prop. 8 violates 14th Amendment."

Michele Bachmann: 'I Was the Perfect Candidate'

Well, she wasn't quite perfect, but far superior to anyone else in my opinion.

See The Hill, "Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks that America missed its opportunity with 'the perfect candidate'," and CNN, "TRENDING: Bachmann says she was the ‘perfect candidate’." (Via Memeorandum.)

I'm pictured with Congresswoman Bachmann last April at David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat in Palos Verdes. She hadn't announced her candidacy yet, but I was certain she'd be candidate and I backed her from the start. No, she wasn't perfect. But I thought she best represented my interests in the race, and I do agree with her contention that no other candidate was as consistently opposed to President Obama and the ObamaCare debacle as she was.

Why Lessons of the Fall of Communism Have Not Been Learned

John Hinderaker has a must-read post from the other day, "Communism Collapsed: Who Cares?"

And following the link there takes us to Janet Daley, at Telegraph UK, "The lessons of the fall of communism have still not been learnt."

Also blogging: Bruce McQuain, "Why has the collapse of Communism had so little impact on political discourse in the West?"

There's an answer here that the above commentators have missed. The question of why progressives haven't "learned" from the collapse of communism assumes that leftists conceive of politics through reason. That is, it's an erroneous assumption to assert that since capitalism emerged objectively by the end of the twentieth century as the single working economic system that it thereby follows that progressives will see the errors of their ideological ways and abandon the collectivist's historical program.

Leftists are true believers. Their religion is the Utopian of the Marxist state. Progressive weren't deterred from their goal of a communist revolution because they don't believe true communism has been tried. I'll perhaps write more on this, but for now remember my review of David Horowitz's book, The Politics of Bad Faith, and the quote from Horowitz:

Totalitarianism is the possession of reality by a political Idea --- the Idea of socialist kingdom of heaven on earth; the redemption of humanity by political force. To radical believers this Idea is so beautiful it is like God Himself. It provides the meaning of a radical life. This is the solution that makes everything possible; the noble end that justifies the regrettable means. Belief in the kingdom of socialist heaven is faith that can transform vice into virtue, lies into truth, evil into good. In this revolutionary religion, the Way, the Truth, and the Life of salvation lie not with God above, but with men below --- ruthless, brutal, venal men --- on whom faith confers the power of gods. There is no mystery in the transformation of the socialist paradise into Communist hell: liberation theology is a satanic creed.

More on this later. In the meanwhile, see "Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea."

Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III

Look, at minimum, the purpose of progressive intimidation and harassment is to drive political enemies off the net. Plain and simple. It'd be easy to ignore these people, some claim. Just don't visit their blogs, right? Sure, except that oftentimes ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. In my case the progressive harassers have taken it all the way to my employer, and Walter James Casper III has authorized the attacks at his blog, promoted attacks against me in various online forums, and has long since escalated his harassment attacks to personal cyber-stalking.

Again, I don't post links to American Nihilist, but Casper is arguing that my wishes not to be contacted don't matter --- that he has a right to comment at this blog and send emails --- whenever he chooses --- and that these in fact are not harassing communications as defined by state and federal laws. Casper is wrong. He is harassing. He commented at my Fiat post for sole purpose to annoy. Seriously. Nothing "prohibits" him from commenting, so he comments even after he's been told repeatedly to stay away? And why? To indicate his disapproval and to reprove me for my posting. That's it. In other words, to say fuck you and your blog, you are wrong, and I'm going to link to the proof in the comments whether you like it or not. Fuck you, Douglas. You wishes don't mean shit. You're on the Internet and I don't like you and I'm going to let you know, since you are a bad man.

I will be continuing my contacts to the authorities this week. It's a time consuming process. Meanwhile, the Halt Abuse website I linked to earlier has this discussion, which goes to show clearly and without a doubt that Casper's contacts are indeed harassing and designed to annoy and cause psychological disruption. See, "It It Harassment?":

First, you need to determine whether or not what you're experiencing is truly harassment.

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."

This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.

If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn't harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn't overtly threatening probably hasn't harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn't harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they're forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else's web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.

Casper has been "told to go away" repeatedly. He is by definition harassing.

I think I've said this a couple of times, but for people who are now just coming to this debate and are ill-informed: This is not exclusively about Walter James Casper III. This is a fight over an idea, the concept that there is right and wrong in the world, and that evil will indeed triumph over good if people of right don't stand up to defend decency.

Claiming that another person's wishes to be left alone at the blog are meaningless and that absent legal prohibitions it's perfectly fine to harass someone is the definition of evil in my book. Casper has made repeated comments at the blog and he's sent emails when comments have been closed to prevent the abuse. That's harassment. Walter James Casper III has been warned away. So no. Casper has not "won." Casper will never "win," because his evil cannot defeat me, no matter what happens with this blog. I refuse to be harassed with impunity. I refuse to be intimidated by a liar and sociopath who is the epitome of the radical left's program to silence all dissent from the collectivist narrative.

Something's gonna change. You watch.

'Euphoria'

Via Theo Spark:

Entire Staff at Miramonte Elementary Removed Amid L.A. Unified Sex Abuse Investigation

This is big.

At New York Times, "School Linked to Abuse Claims Will Replace Entire Faculty":

LOS ANGELES — The entire faculty at Miramonte Elementary School, where two teachers were arrested last week on accusations of child sexual abuse, will be replaced by new teachers this week, the Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent announced Monday night.

And at Los Angeles Times, "Parents applaud removal of all teachers at troubled L.A. school."

Michael Coren to Speak at Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Michael Coren to Address AFDI Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference in Dearborn, Michigan at Hyatt Regency."

Video c/o Atlas Shrugs.

PREVIOUSLY: "Charles Johnson's Servitude to Savages."

Charles Johnson's Servitude to Savages

It's an unfortunate component of being a partisan blogger, but as folks of late have seen around here, you can't cower from the hatred. You must never cave to the progressive totalitarians. Few people live that dictum with more resolve than Pamela Geller.

See, "Charles Johnson, Misogynist, of Little Green Footballs In Servitude to Savages":

I will not submit to the whitewashing and outright cover-up of honor killings in the West, despite the withering personal attacks on me.

That these monstrous crimes of murder do not unite rational men on the basis of sheer humanity is indicative of how debased and morally bankrupt the monsters on the left are. I hold them ultimately responsible. Devout Muslims who support or subscribe to religiously sanctioned gendercide are merely adhering to their faith. What's the left's excuse?

Imagine someone so twisted and dysfunctional that he would vilify those who are fighting against an ideology that oppresses, subjugates and slaughters women. Honor killings are a family affair, and there are as many accomplices as there are killers. Jessica Mokdad was subjected to years of strict religious punishment in that hellish house. Where was her mother? Who lured her back to that deadly house after she had run away?

The once fiercely counter-jihad now viciously pro-jihad Chuck Johnson is rabid with news of my human rights conference, mixing moral equivocation with good old-fashioned lies. Really nuts.

I/we asked the Hyatt for nothing. After they apologized profusely for canceling a Geller event in Sugar Land, Texas (the mistake of a weak, on-site tool), the Hyatt offered to give us space and pay for it at any of their hotels in America. I never bullied Hyatt. I never even contacted them.

I am always surprised when someone sends me a link from the green swamp. No one reads this boil on the ass of the blogsophere anymore, but look what's become of him. Once the pre-eminent blog on the right, the now notorious leftwing troll is mocking the fight for the right to live and live freely as a "ghoulish obsession": Pamela Geller's Ghoulish Obsession With 'Honor Killings' Takes an Ugly Turn. Fighting to save girls' lives is a "ghoulish obsession." I guess CJ would call Elie Wiesel's work on the Holocaust a "ghoulish obsession." Or any human rights group or anti-torture organization -- do they have "ghoulish obessions," too?

Continue reading.

Pamela adds:

Evil.

And although no one takes this tool seriously anymore (he was us, now he's them, tomorrow he is Gregor Samsa), it is illustrative of the left's canny ability to paint good as evil. "Ghoulish obsession" -- think about that.

It is evil. It's not simply disagreement. It's a demonically obsessed campaign to destroy her.

Pamela also a posts a screencap from Little Green Footballs, where the Little Green Gargoyles in the comments compare honor killings to circumcision and warn that Pamela and the AFDI/SIOA organizers are "looking for trouble." And on cue, Charles Johnson's posts another attack on Pamela, at the Twitter link here: "Pamela Geller Spews Hatred at LGF Again."

The hatred in the comments is heating up right on schedule.

This is what you deal with when you stand up for right. I'm engaged in this kind of thing at American Power. It's f-king unbelievable the depths of genuine evil I deal with, but as you can see with Pamela, there's black contagion spreading and people of good faith can't stand aside.

NEVER CAVE TO THESE ASSHOLES.

Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses

For some reason, Walter James Casper III doesn't think I'm serious here. In response to my latest report, Casper continues to argue that nothing under the law prohibits him from his harassing contacts that I have repeatedly warned him not to make. See: "Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of 'Human Voices'." I am not linking to his harassment blog or to Capt. Fogg's. But Casper is arguing that the federal anti-harassment law requires either the distribution of pornography or anonymous contacts. That is not true. Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy. As one writer indicates:

Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself:

Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both.

By this definition, Casper's repeated indecent and harassing contacts directed to me against my wishes constitute a federal crime --- and this is why I will continue to repudiate Casper's criminal activities, and why I will not be bullied into silence or intimidated into withdrawal. This is bigger than this one progressive's attacks. Why on earth does Casper insist that he has a right to comment at the blog against my wishes, and why especially does he believe that he has a right to email me with malicious and annoying comments?

The answer, of course, is that he's a progressive totalitarian. Progressives do not and will not tolerate difference, and that is what has been driving Casper since he became a troll stalker at this blog years ago. After I banned him he refused to stay away. And he and his allies have taken their malevolence to another level --- it's simply obscene what assholes like this think they can get away with and I refuse to be bullied. The man runs a hate blog pure and simple. I have reported him to the police. And as I noted by the officer, Casper's actions were indeed harassing and that such activities were possibly criminal actions under Section 653m of the California Penal Code. See my report: "California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III."

Now, since Casper has argued that he is not restrained by state law I have indicated I will take it to the federal level. I am researching my options under the law. If the harassment continues I will be speaking to my U.S. representative, and I'll contact federal law enforcement officials. I intend to show that Casper is harassing not only under Section 223 but that he may also be liable for federal civil rights violations. Casper's harassment could be driven by both ideological and racial bigotry. See the FBI's page, "Hate-fueled crimes are not just a thing of the past." Casper has a long history as attacking me as "halfrican' and he's also routinely made disparaging remarks against people of color, indicating, for example, that he judges people first by their racial and ethnic identities, which is a form of racial profiling. And top of that, I've long documented the racist hatred that's routinely spewed in the comments at Casper's harassment blog. It's a vile repository of hate. It's simply amazing that a radical leftist purportedly committed to racial equality could in fact be so filled with racial hatred as this. But again, progressives are totalitarian and I'm more than ready to use their racial rights regime to stop their own hate and intimidation.

So, all this is for the record. Walter James Casper III is on warning once again to stop the harassment. No one should be subject to that kind of hatred and campaigns of destruction simply for ideological disagreements. But these are progressives, so this is what they do by their essence. Leftists are freaks, dirtbags, and secular demons.

NOTE: Casper has commented here, earlier this morning. He is banned but for some reason feels he can act with impunity to comment and harass whenever he likes.

I'll update after I speak with the authorities. Comments are closed.

UPDATE: I have contacted my congressman's office and am waiting to hear back. This is the beginning of a federal investigation. I will also be notifying the Long Beach Police Department to get them into the loop, which will facilitate the inclusion of the congressional representative for the LBCC district. This is going to take some time and persistence, but that's what it takes to smack down the f-king progressive totalitarians.

NEVER CAVE TO THESE ASSHOLES.

Diamond Jubilee

At Telegraph UK, "Queen renews her dedication to the nation."

BONUS: Patt Morrison has a thoughtful commentary at the Los Angeles Times, "Queen Elizabeth II's diamond jubilee, and all that."

Sexy Fiat 500 Abarth Super Bowl Ad (VIDEO)

Well, at least it wasn't J. Lo.

Clint Eastwood: 'It's Halftime in America'

The U.S. bailed out Chrysler so this ad about halftime in America is deceptive. Most regular folks can't count on Big Brother to come to the rescue, as much as we love Clint Eastwood's grit and determination. It rings a little hollow in the end.

It went over pretty well, in any case. See CNN, "Chrysler is king of the Super Bowl spots."

And at Instapundit, "CLINT EASTWOOD LOSES RESPECT: “Would Dirty Harry ask for a handout?”"

New York Giants Defeat New England Patriots 21-17 in Super Bowl XLVI

The New York Times has the story, "Giants Beat Patriots in Final Rally."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Eli Manning rallies Giants to another Super Bowl victory":

Reporting from Indianapolis -- His brother built this house.

Eli Manning raised the roof.

The sleepy-eyed quarterback woke up the past Sunday by leading the New York Giants to a 21-17 victory over the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLVI at Lucas Oil Stadium.

Manning was named the game's most valuable player, just as he was in February 2008.

It was the second time in four years Manning lifted the Giants over the Patriots on the NFL's grandest stage -- and the second championship ring for Manning, one more than his older brother, Peyton. The game was played in the stadium Peyton has called home.

The Lombardi Trophy is the fourth in five Super Bowls for the Giants, the first nine-win team in a 16-game schedule to win a Super Bowl and the first to weather a four-game losing streak in the process.

The winning touchdown was a six-yard run up the middle by Ahmad Bradshaw with 1:04 to play. By all appearances, the Patriots allowed him to score in order to get the ball back in the hands of Tom Brady for one more chance.

Bradshaw attempted to stop just short of the goal line so the Giants could use more of the clock, but his momentum carried him into the end zone.

Brady, who was going for his fourth ring in five tries, took possession with 57 seconds left, and got his team to midfield, but his Hail Mary heave on the final play fell incomplete.

The Giants' season was marked by their incredible resolve. They needed to win their finale against Dallas to get into the postseason. New York was the second team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl by beating three opponents with better records, matching the feat of the 2008 Arizona Cardinals.

Continue reading.

Rare Truth-Telling Piece at L.A. Times Skewers Radical Left's Hypocrisy on Protecting the Environment

The development of a solar power plant in the Mojave will decimate large swaths of the desert --- all in the name of creating alternative energy sources and driven by global warming hysteria. Both the Bush and Obama administrations share the blame. Tens of billions of dollars have been made available for the development of non-fossil fuel burning energy sources, and the costs to the consumer will be substantially higher than that of traditional sources --- and that's to say nothing of the costs to taxpayers in the subsidies going to fund this boondoggle.

It's pretty messed up all around, but the inevitable result of a regulatory state that would make the old Soviet bureaucrats proud.

See, "Sacrificing the desert to save the Earth":

For decades, America's Western deserts have been dusty storehouses for government scrap, a lode for minerals, a staging ground for tanks and military maneuvers.

But the thrum of industry is afoot, bringing Space Age technology and a bustling sense of urgency.

The BrightSource solar plant stands as an exclamation point in the desert.

The $2-billion plant is an amalgam of gadgetry designed to wring the maximum energy from the sun. Computers continually focus the field of mirrors to a center tower filled with water, which will heat to more than 1,000 degrees. The resulting steam drives an array of turbines capable of generating 370 megawatts, enough to power roughly 140,000 homes during peak hours.

Capturing a free and clean source of energy is not cheap. Solar is the Cadillac of energy, with capital costs and other market factors making it three times more expensive than natural gas or coal.

Ratepayers' bills will be as much as 50% higher for renewable energy, according to an analysis from the consumer advocate branch of the state Public Utilities Commission.

What has opened the way for such a costly source of energy is the dramatic turn in federal policy. As early as 2005, the Bush administration established generous programs to reward renewable energy developers. The Obama administration sweetened the pot, offering $45 billion in federal tax credits, guaranteed loans and grants.

On the state level, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger freed large solar plants from property tax and handed out $90 million in exemptions from sales and use taxes. Under Gov. Jerry Brown, the state invested more than $70 million in clean energy research last year, funded by a ratepayer surcharge.

The funding has sparked a land rush echoing the speculative booms in mining, railroad construction and oil and gas on Western federal land.

One of the first firms out of the gate was Oakland-based BrightSource Energy Inc., which received $1.6 billion in federally guaranteed loans in addition to hundreds of millions in private capital derived from such disparate sources as NRG Energy Inc., Google Inc., investment bank Morgan Stanley and CalSTRS, the state's teachers' retirement fund.

By taking advantage of the available government subsidies, shrewd solar developers can get taxpayers to cover close to 80% of a multibillion-dollar project. The rest comes from investors, attracted by what amounts to a tax shelter.

But other companies — often no more than a website and a phone number — obtained solar permits from the federal Bureau of Land Management with no apparent intention other than to sell their place in line. Some gobbled up permits, sat on the land and never turned a spade of soil.

Federal and state officials have used job creation to partly justify their subsidy of private solar companies. During the two to three years of a solar plant's construction, most new jobs will go to union tradesmen. But after a plant is built, employment opportunities are limited.

BrightSource's Ivanpah facility is expected to employ 1,000 workers at the height of construction, but that will shrink to 86 full-time maintenance and facility workers once it is up and running.

"What troubles me is that the public has bought the whole solar expansion hook, line and sinker because it's 'renewable,'" Schramm said. "The public would be up in arms if someone was building Disneyland next to a national park."

You gotta read it all.

Virtually the entire roster of the big environmental interest groups have been either silent or in on the planning. And here's this from the Times:

The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the nation's most aggressively litigious environmental groups, has not challenged the Ivanpah project. It signed a confidential agreement not to oppose the project in exchange for concessions for the desert tortoise — mandating that BrightSource buy land elsewhere for conservation.

Some 24 environmental groups signed statements largely supporting the aims of solar developers. National environmental groups joined BrightSource and other solar companies in a letter sent Dec. 14 to the White House, asking the president to continue a federal renewable-energy subsidy.

The national office of the Sierra Club has had to quash local chapters' opposition to some solar projects, sending out a 42-page directive making it clear that the club's national policy goals superseded the objections of a local group. Animosity bubbled over after a local Southern California chapter was told to refrain from opposing solar projects.

Look, that's lockstep compliance with the global warming program or else. Who cares about the desert's biodiversity, right? The maw of the bureaucratic climate change industry destroys everything in its path, from desert wildlife to recalcitrant opponents.

That's totalitarian.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

Newt's Bad Night

I called him a sore loser, and Jonathan Tobin elaborated the point.

Now here's Victor Davis Hanson, "Gingrich’s Speech — How to Make a Bad Night Worse" (via Memeorandum):

Gingrich should carefully play a tape of his post–Nevada caucus performance, and then he would quickly grasp that it was little more than a litany of excuses, whining, and accusations — characterized by stream-of-conscious confessionals and rambling repetitions. And, I think, will hurt him more than anything yet in the campaign.

And see Freedom's Lighthouse, "Newt Gingrich Slams Mitt Romney as “Fundamentally Dishonest” in Nevada Press Conference; Says He Can be Frontrunner Again by the April 3 Texas Primary – Complete Video 2/4/12."

ADDED: At The Other McCain, "Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucuses; Gingrich Blames Mormons for His Loss," and The Lonely Conservative, "Newt Gingrich gave an angry speech. He even brought up Mormons. At this point, I’m all for anyone but Newt. The guy is nuts."

What? No Beer for the Superbowl? What's Happened to This Country?!!

Well, maybe the numbers are down, but I don't think we've seen the end of beer consumption on Superbowl Sunday.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Beer brewers revise playbooks to win back lost customers":

Super Bowl Sunday promises to be another epic day in the annals of gluttony, with Americans consuming 1.3 billion chicken wings, 2,000 tons of popcorn and enough avocados to cover the floor of the Indianapolis stadium 28 feet deep.

But there will probably be a bit less beer to wash it all down because of changing tastes and the growing appeal of wine and cocktails as alternatives.

Beer sales have been on the decline in the U.S., with shipments dipping 1.4% last year to 210 million barrels, an eight-year low, according to trade publication Beer Marketer's Insights. Anheuser-Busch, whose brands include Budweiser and Bud Light, slipped below the 100 million-barrel benchmark for the first time in a decade.

Brewers are fighting back, introducing craft beers and other spins on the classic beverage in a bid to recapture straying customers. Anheuser-Busch InBev, which is spending at least $30 million on Super Bowl ads, will devote two of its six game-time spots to one of those products, its new higher-alcohol Bud Light Platinum.

That brew's 6% alcohol content reflects Americans' growing thirst for drinks with more kick and perceived sophistication. Sales of both wine and hard liquor such as vodka, bourbon and whiskey are up 4% or more over the last year, helped in part by images in popular media.

Continue reading.

More later.

Tea Party Activists Will Back Romney

Romney's no tea partier, and he's learning conservatism on the stump, with difficulty. But he's winning and he's looking more inevitable. And tea partiers won't have anywhere else to go --- and it'd be a disaster if they stayed home on election day.

At Boston Globe, "Tea Party voters more open to Romney":

RENO, Nev. - Tea Party activists, long dismissive of Mitt Romney, insist that most of the movement’s legions will back him if he continues to surge toward nomination, with a few already urging Republicans of all kinds to unite now to defeat President Obama.

The slowly building shift in outlook on Romney is by no means universal or set in stone. Some activists still express hope that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul will regain traction.

Yet, groups previously opposed to Romney are beginning to prepare their members to embrace the former Massachusetts governor as their best shot at defeating an incumbent president they distrust even more.

Continue reading.

Defiant Gingrich Vows to Stay in Race

At Washington Post, "Gingrich vows to fight on to the convention."

And at New York Times, "Gingrich Pledges Bitter Battle Until Convention":

Newt Gingrich vowed again to stay in the Republican presidential contest until the convention in August and said he will spend the next several months engaged in a bitter battle with Mitt Romney.

Speaking to the press after the Nevada caucuses Saturday, Mr. Gingrich repeatedly hammered Mr. Romney as a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-taxes candidate who has the backing of the Republican establishment.

“I am a candidate for president of the United States,” he said. “I will be a candidate for president of the United States. I will go to Tampa.”

Mr. Romney ignored Mr. Gingrich in his victory speech tonight. But Mr. Gingrich seemed insistent on making sure that his rival cannot simply look the other way.

He accused Mr. Romney of purposely leaking false information about Mr. Gingrich’s plans to drop out of the presidential race, calling that Mr. Romney’s “greatest fantasy” in the race.

And Mr. Gingrich said that recent meetings he held with donors were meant to map out a plan to continue getting his message out despite Mr. Romney’s superior fund-raising.

“The entire establishment will be against us,” he predicted. But he said that by appearing on national television and doing interviews in newspapers, he will spread his agenda.

“The American people want somebody who is genuinely conservative, who is prepared to change Washington,” Mr. Gingrich said.

The question, really, is where can Newt win? Where will he do well in upcoming states? And when? He needs to do something fast. I don't have the answers right now, but I'll check and update. It's one thing to pledge a campaign all the way to the GOP convention in Tampa. It's another thing to do so without making yourself look like a sore loser and a fool.

More from Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "New Newt? Same Sore Loser Strategy."

Syria Releases Abu Musab al-Suri, Mastermind of London's 7/7 Terrorist Attacks

At Telegraph UK, "Syria releases the 7/7 'mastermind’":

The alleged terrorist mastermind behind the July 7 London bombings is reported to have been freed from a Syrian jail by President Bashar Assad's regime.

Abu Musab al-Suri had been held in Syria for six years after being captured by the CIA in 2005 and transported to the country of his birth under its controversial extraordinary rendition programme.

But he is now said to have been released as a warning to the US and Britain about the consequences of turning their backs on President al-Assad’s regime as it tries to contain the uprising in the country.

Al-Suri, also known as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, was al-Qaeda’s operations chief in Europe and has been accused of planning the London bombings, in which four British-born terrorists detonated three bombs on the Underground and another on a bus, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700 others in 2005.

More at the link.

Great Tim Tebow Interview with Suzanne Malveaux on CNN

Hey, I watched this on Friday and here's the clip.

Tim Tebow is a real good guy and an awesome role model for young people:

RELATED: At Instapundit, "PROF. DONALD DOUGLAS takes a stand against bigotry."

Global Islamist Jihad and the Threat to America

Via Weasel Zippers, "Paint by Numbers: Andrew C. McCarthy — The Grand Jihad":

Super Bowl Viewers Don't Think Madonna's a Good Choice For Halftime Show

At Rasmussen:

Most Americans who plan on watching the Super Bowl this Sunday say they’ll watch the halftime show, but they aren’t thrilled about the performer. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 29% of Adults Who Will Watch the Super Bowl think Madonna is a good choice for the game’s half time show. Fifty-seven percent disagree, while 14% are undecided.

Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of 'Human Voices'

Well, speaking of progressive totalitarians, cowardly left-wing hate blogger Capt. Fogg has been talkin' shit at Racist Repsac's harassment blog. I'm not commenting at Casper's, but I've had enough of his weaselly attacks and harassment, and I've had enough of his sponsorship of the hate. So to be clear: If folks are going to congregate at a criminal harassment blog, and if they're going to continue to coordinate their attacks against me and my livelihood, I'm going to continue calling them out. Fogg's a pseudonymous pussy. Get these people out into the real world, using their real names, and then report them to the authorities for criminal harassment. Don't back down to these losers, ever. See: "California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III."

Comments are closed at this post.

If I get comments or emails from these thugs, or other offline complaints, I'll be updating my reports to the police. And as to justify their continued harassment, some are now claiming (without documentation) that California has no jurisdiction in the matter. So the progressive harassers should beware of my seriousness: I will take it to the federal level if necessary. After I check back with local law enforcement, I will also report unwanted contacts to my congressman's office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice. See U.S. Code 18 Section 2261A, and especially U.S. Code 47 Section 223, which makes it a crime to use electronic equipment to engage in online harassment with the intent to annoy:

§ 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS

(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person...

To reiterate: Walter James Casper III and his progressive totalitarians are not going to continue to harass with impunity. They will not conspire to harass without consequence. These people are engaged in criminal activity and it needs to stop.

All appropriate law enforcement agencies will be notified, local, state, and federal.

PREVIOUSLY: "W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians."

RELATED: At Zilla's, "Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win."

The Real Story of Ronald Reagan in Hollywood

See Ron Radosh, at PJ Media, "What Ronald Reagan Accomplished in his Hollywood Years: A New LA Times Article Tells us The Real Story."

And following the link takes us to John Meroney's piece at the Times, "Left in the Past."

Good stuff.

Romney Wins With Wide GOP Support, Consolidates Momentum

At New York Times, "Romney Scores Nevada Victory With Broad G.O.P. Support":

LAS VEGAS — Mitt Romney handily won the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, solidifying his status as the front-runner and increasing his momentum as he seeks to use the month of February to ease doubts within the Republican Party about his candidacy and begin confronting President Obama.

Mr. Romney ran well ahead of his three opponents on a night that delivered his second decisive first-place finish in four days, following his victory in the Florida primary on Tuesday.

He appeared elated as he took the stage at his election headquarters at the Red Rock Casino hotel here, kissing his wife, Ann, who reminded the crowd that Nevada would be important in the general election, and hugging his sons before delivering a speech geared toward the fall.

“This is not the first time you’ve given me your vote of confidence, and this time I’m going to take it to the White House,” he said as the crowd chanted his name. And he delivered a harsh critique of Mr. Obama: “This week he’s been trying to take a bow for 8.3 percent unemployment. Not so fast, Mr. President.”

Nevada offers only a sliver of the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination, making it more of a symbolic triumph than a practical one. But it gave Mr. Romney an important opportunity to make a more assertive case that the party is finally coming together behind him.

It also gave him an advantage in his attempt to dispatch his chief Republican rival, Newt Gingrich, through the contests this week in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine.

The Romney victory further deflated the once-vital challenge posed by Mr. Gingrich, girding for a rough few weeks of political weather during which Mr. Romney is expected to do well. But Mr. Gingrich, who remained defiant on Saturday, hopes to revive his chances with stronger showings in the 11 states that vote on March 6, “Super Tuesday.”

Far from competing with Mr. Romney here in Nevada on Saturday, results showed that Mr. Gingrich was vying to place a distant second to Mr. Romney against Representative Ron Paul of Texas.

Also, at Washington Post, "Mitt Romney’s Nevada caucus win: What it means."

Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucuses

The outcome wasn't in doubt.

I think the question is what's up with Newt Gingrich? I'm watching his bizarre election-night press conference right now. I'll have more on that later. Meanwhile, here's LAT, "Mitt Romney cruises to win in Nevada caucuses: Win solidifies standing as overwhelming frontrunner":

Reporting from Las Vegas — Mitt Romney romped to a commanding victory Saturday in Nevada's Republican presidential caucuses, posting a second consecutive win and laying an impressive marker in a battleground state both parties will vigorously contest in November.

The strong showing, on top of Romney's landslide win Tuesday in Florida, boosted his delegate count and enhanced his standing as the overwhelming frontrunner in the fight for the GOP nomination.

Trailing far behind were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who were vying for second place. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who eked out a win in Iowa but has faded since, was a distant fourth.

It takes 1,144 delegates to win the nomination and Romney has staked an early lead in that count. But more meaningful was the momentum he gains from strong back-to-back showings, which will carry him forward to the next round of balloting Tuesday in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri.

Plus, Lonely Conservative has some comments, "Romney Takes Nevada" (via Memeorandum).

Russia and China Veto United Nations Resolution on Syria

This isn't surprising at all, or at least the actions of Russia and China.

What's surprising is how firm --- even bellicose --- Ambassador Susan Rice comes across in her statements. I'm long past the point of regime change in Syria, and we don't need the U.N to do it.

At the New York Times, "Russia and China Block U.N. Action on Syrian Crisis."

Newt Gingrich Explains Why He Didn't Call Mitt Romney After Florida Primary

Well, Gingrich didn't call Romney a punk, although Allah claims he's dyin' to, "Gingrich: Why should I call to congratulate some punk whose campaign says it’s trying to destroy me?"

RELATED: At National Post, "Mitt Romney poised to boost lead over rival Newt Gingrich in Nevada caucuses."

Well, true, although Newt again pledged at the clip to take it all the way to the convention. So, I'm intrigued about this press conference Gingrich plans for late tonight. See National Journal, "Gingrich to Hold Post-Caucus Press Conference." Maybe he going pull a Breitbart and tell the press to f-ck off. That'd be in keeping with his debate performance in weeks past, for example. That said, there's more on Gingrich in Nevada at the New York Times, "Gears Grind as Gingrich Shifts to Nevada."

'Extremely Loud'

I saw "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close." I went yesterday afternoon. I was intrigued by this film from the moment I saw the preview, just days before Christmas. It came out in limited release in order to qualify for the Academy Awards. It opened Christmas Day.

Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock star, and of course that had something to do with my interest. Tom Hanks is probably my favorite actor, and I say probably because I don't really rate actors all that much. Hanks is on the left of the spectrum politically, but he's not progressive in the sense of the mainstream Democrat Party establishment today. Hanks is what a "liberal" used to be --- someone patriotic who believes in the positive role of America in the world in the defense of freedom. I imagine Hanks is also "liberal" in the old sense of believing that governmental institutions can leaven markets and help solve collective action problems (while not specifically attempting to destroy capitalism). And of course, Hanks' advocacy for the memory of the World War II generation is a major contribution to contemporary American life.

So it was no surprise to me that he'd be playing a lead role in a film which takes the September 11 attacks as the foundation of the story. I went into the movie with only the vaguest details of the story, since I frankly just skimmed the reviews in the most obligatory manner at the time. I knew I wanted to see it for the reasons stated above. Now that I have I confess to being more profoundly moved than I thought I'd be, and I say that with the confession that I did expect to be moved a little bit. I'm a hopelessly emotional sap when it comes to stuff like this. I think I've mentioned it before but the movies are the only place where I'll really cry. I don't get that emotional most other times. But the movies sometimes open me up and I wish I'd brought a box of tissue. This movie doesn't really have that one emotionally devastating scene where you can't hold it in any longer. The gushy scenes kind of ratchet up until the film's crescendo toward the conclusion. I was wiping my eyes a little by that time, but it wasn't a gusher or anything.

Mostly I was just amazed at how well the story was all tied together. The main character is Oskar, the 11-year-old boy who loses his dad (Thomas, played by Hanks) on 9/11. Thomas was in one of the towers, caught above the impact zone 100 stories or so near the top of the skyscraper. Thomas calls home and leaves messages on the answer machine. Oskar's school is closed because of the emergency and he comes home to hear the his father's voice. It's hard early in the movie to figure out how significant those taped messages are, but it's a powerful scene when we learn what happened.

Oskar is beyond precocious. He and his dad play together like best friends and Thomas designs games and adventures to challenge his son and help build his character. It's a love story between a boy and his father. There's some craziness in the pacing of the movie. The flashbacks between the present and the past are hard to separate temporally since the flashbacks only flash back a year to two before the present. And parts of the movie seem improbable: Oskar finds a key that belonged to his dad and he's convinced the key holds some magical significance. No doubt it's closure, but most 11-year-olds probably wouldn't be able to walk across all of New York City to track down the people, hundreds of people, who might have an answer to the mystery. (What does that key open?) But movies sometimes require a willing suspension of disbelief, and this one is so realistic in other respects --- and we love and trust the actors so much already --- that it's not hard to do.

It's a great film. It's nominated for best picture, although I can't say it's the best of 2011, having only seen one or two others that were nominated. However, it's a much more powerful movie than "War Horse" (which I saw a couple of weeks back and meant to write something about but procrastinated). There's an emotional closeness to "Extremely Loud" that's at once both endearing and devastating. "War Horse" was much less intense in that regard, although it's a great movie that deserves a nomination.

So with that, I was a bit caught off guard (although not surprised, actually) at progressive hate-blogger Scott Lemieux's attack on the movie, at the communist Lawyers, Guns and Money, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Shitty?":

This was truly a banner year for terrible movies....

But I was interested to see several critics in the New York survey mentioned Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. About 15 seconds into the first time I saw the preview it was clear that it was going to be a major threat to be the Academy’s middlebrow doorstop of choice. And that was before I knew it had been directed by Stephen Daldry, the homeless man’s Lasse Hallström and the most obvious choice to produce the kind of kitschy “serious” films that simulate content without having any. It’s based on a prominent bad novel using one horrible historical event as a backdrop, and also invokes two other horrible historical events while telling you nothing you didn’t already know about any of them or about anything else. It has an annoying precocious kid, who encounters Noble African-Americans. It has Tom Hanks. I mean talk about your Oscar bait. So did it get nominated? Oh, yes, and I can’t imagaine anyone thinks this is surprising. Has anyone seen it? Could anything be as bad as it looks?

All that and Lemieux hadn't even watched the film. And the "several critics" mentioned are those cited at a New York article on the year's worst movies. Reading those, along with Lemieux's response, it's not hard to figure out that these people simply can't stand that September 11th is used as an historical anchor to a movie about family, grief, and recovery. Progressives think the U.S. deserved 9/11 and they hate the institution of the family. Why on earth would they give a fuck about a film that features these things as the subject matter? Perhaps read the LGM comments there as well, at least to get a feeling of what radical leftists think about cinema and annual Oscar pageant overall. These losers aren't representative --- not of regular Americans, of course, but not of people in the movie industry either. "Extremely Loud" got great reviews, or at least great reviews in respectable sources. Here's Betsy Sharkey, at the Los Angeles Times, for example:

"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" is a handsomely polished, thoughtfully wrapped Hollywood production about the national tragedy of 9/11 that seems to have forever redefined words like unthinkable, unforgivable, catastrophic.

It has also redefined our expectations of filmmakers who try to examine the still aching wound — and perhaps explains why most films about 9/11 haven't resonated with audiences. Mindful of that, director Stephen Daldry has taken great care in looking at it through the eyes of a precocious New York City boy in a film filled with both sentiment and substance.

Finding the right balance was critical to making any adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer's provocative novel work. But this is a filmmaker who's equally sensitive and bold in handling films with heavy emotional and political content as he has in "Billy Elliot," "The Hours" and "The Reader," all of which earned him Oscar nominations. He's up to the task again with "Extremely Loud," which opens Sunday.

Like the novel that inspired the film, screenwriter Eric Roth ("Munich") has brought things back to ground zero through the story of one family torn asunder by the World Trade Center attacks. So it seems a smart choice to put two quintessentially heartland stars in Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock at its center. It makes acceptance easier, offense harder.

Keep reading.

Manohla Dargis is more critical in her review at the New York Times, "A Youngster With a Key, a Word and a Quest." She writes:

In truth, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” isn’t about Sept. 11. It’s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works. It exploits familiar images, be they puppies or babies — or, as in the case of this movie, the twin towers — and tries to make us feel good, even virtuous, simply about feeling. And, yes, you may cry, but when tears are milked as they are here, the truer response should be rage.

Okay. Right.

We should have rage. Personally, it's enraging that we've had so few films of this caliber dealing 9/11 that we should bemoan kitsch and demand rage. That's progress.

In any case, Mandelyn Kilroy has an approving review at Philly Buzz, where she notes, it's "a must-see movie, just make sure to pack the tissues."

That's good advice.

Totalitarian Feminism

From James Taranto, at Wall Street Journal, "Big Sister Is Watching You: Totalitarian Feminism and the Smearing of Susan G. Komen" (via Memeorandum and Neptunus Lex).

More From Gwyneth Paltrow in Harper's Bazaar

Following up from my earlier report, "Gwyneth Paltrow on March Cover of Harper's Bazaar."

This can be today's big Rule 5 entry.

Mississippi Mom Linda Smith Devastated by Haley Barbour Pardon for Convicted DUI Felon

This clip is almost unbearable to watch. It makes me cry.

At CNN, "Pardoned DUI Convict Faces More Charges in Fatal Accident":

Background on the pardons here.

Big-Time Sports Have Become the Public Face of American Universities

This is one of the other big topics of discussion when Professor Greg Joseph and I meet for lunch.

USC's the worst (or at least we think so), although some of the other universities mentioned here are right up there.

At New York Times, "How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life":

IT was a great day to be a Buckeye. Josh Samuels, a junior from Cincinnati, dates his decision to attend Ohio State to Nov. 10, 2007, and the chill he felt when the band took the field during a football game against Illinois. “I looked over at my brother and I said, ‘I’m going here. There is nowhere else I’d rather be.’ ” (Even though Illinois won, 28-21.)

Tim Collins, a junior who is president of Block O, the 2,500-member student fan organization, understands the rush. “It’s not something I usually admit to, that I applied to Ohio State 60 percent for the sports. But the more I do tell that to people, they’ll say it’s a big reason why they came, too.”

Ohio State boasts 17 members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, three Nobel laureates, eight Pulitzer Prize winners, 35 Guggenheim Fellows and a MacArthur winner. But sports rule.

“It’s not, ‘Oh, yeah, Ohio State, that wonderful physics department.’ It’s football,” said Gordon Aubrecht, an Ohio State physics professor.

Last month, Ohio State hired Urban Meyer to coach football for $4 million a year plus bonuses (playing in the B.C.S. National Championship game nets him an extra $250,000; a graduation rate over 80 percent would be worth $150,000). He has personal use of a private jet.

Dr. Aubrecht says he doesn’t have enough money in his own budget to cover attendance at conferences. “From a business perspective,” he can see why Coach Meyer was hired, but he calls the package just more evidence that the “tail is wagging the dog.”

Dr. Aubrecht is not just another cranky tenured professor. Hand-wringing seems to be universal these days over big-time sports, specifically football and men’s basketball. Sounding much like his colleague, James J. Duderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan and author of “Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University,” said this: “Nine of 10 people don’t understand what you are saying when you talk about research universities. But you say ‘Michigan’ and they understand those striped helmets running under the banner.”

For good or ill, big-time sports has become the public face of the university, the brand that admissions offices sell, a public-relations machine thanks to ESPN exposure. At the same time, it has not been a good year for college athletics. Child abuse charges against a former Penn State assistant football coach brought down the program’s legendary head coach and the university’s president. Not long after, allegations of abuse came to light against an assistant basketball coach at Syracuse University. Combine that with the scandals over boosters showering players with cash and perks at Ohio State and, allegedly, the University of Miami and a glaring power gap becomes apparent between the programs and the institutions that house them.

“There is certainly a national conversation going on now that I can’t ever recall taking place,” said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University of Maryland system and co-director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. “We’ve reached a point where big-time intercollegiate athletics is undermining the integrity of our institutions, diverting presidents and institutions from their main purpose.”

RTWT.