At ABC News, "Exclusive: Kirk Cameron Responds to Critics, 'Hate Speech'."
And at WND, "Kirk Cameron Fires Back."
You just don't hear this stuff that much these days. And amazing segment:
Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education - from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Mitt Romney eked out a narrow win in Ohio and extended his delegate lead on Super Tuesday, but voters failed to deliver a decisive victory that could have brought a swift end to the Republican nominating contest.Continue reading.
Mr. Romney notched wins in Ohio, Massachusetts, Idaho, Virginia and Vermont, while Newt Gingrich took Georgia and Rick Santorum won Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota. Alaska returns were the last tallied.
The down-to-the-wire contest in the important battleground of Ohio illustrated both Mr. Romney's vulnerabilities as a front-runner and his organization's capacity to beat back a stiff challenge. Mr. Romney had a four-to-one advantage in TV and radio advertising.
Each of the top candidates showed strength, as expected, in friendly territory—Mr. Romney in the Northeast, including Massachusetts, where he had served as governor, and Mr. Gingrich in the state he represented in Congress. In winning Tennessee and Oklahoma, Mr. Santorum carried states where his social conservatism had been expected to resonate.
The returns came as voters turned out for primaries and caucuses in 10 Super Tuesday contests packed with consequence for all four of the major GOP presidential candidates.
Tuesday was billed as a test of Mr. Romney's national reach as the party's front-runner, as well as a measure of whether Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Santorum would emerge as his toughest challenger.
Mr. Santorum now has a strong claim to that role after winning at least three states and battling to a close second in Ohio. Outside of Georgia, Mr. Gingrich finished no better than third place on Tuesday.
Budget cuts have forced California's public colleges and universities to make tough choices about how to continue to serve students. They are cutting back on classes, limiting enrollment and raising tuition. And one reason is the cost of the remedial education they have to provide.
For example, fully 90 percent of students who enter Long Beach Community College need remedial classes in math and English. That dismal number comes despite efforts by the Long Beach Unified School District, which does more than most to ensure students' success, and its partners at CSULB and LBCC to prepare students for college.
Called the Long Beach College Promise, the program guaranteed LBUSD graduates admission to California State University Long Beach if they met the minimum requirements for college. Now, under a plan being discussed by CSU officials, the bottom 10 percent of those students would have to take remedial courses at LBCC before they could be admitted.
Given the elimination of tens of millions of dollars in funding for CSU and UC schools, the days of guaranteeing the lowest performers a place in the classroom could be over, and rightly so....
The reality of higher education is that less money is available as more students compete for scarce spots. The other reality is that far too many high school graduates can't read and write and do math. That puts an unnecessary burden on community colleges, which have to offer far too many remedial classes.
With my apologies to the majority of the public school teachers who are hard working and dedicated, our public education system today is inwardly focused, protectionist, money driven and broken.I've recently written a couple of times about my dealing with the crushing bureaucratic totalitarianism at my college. Oh, boy, if only I'd known 15 years ago what I know today, but then again, you live and learn and become wiser. Let's just say that I'm facing a lot of restraints on the job, and these are the kind that are frankly political and ideological in nature --- and the administrative bosses fit perfectly into that power-hungry template outlined by Mr. Callahan above. What's depressing is that all the stuff you hear about driving out the best and the brightest from the public schools is true, or at least in my case, if I decide on the earliest retirement possible because of what's essentially a hostile workplace environment. It's pretty ridiculous. In any case, at some point I'll be able to tell the full story on all of this, but not yet, not just yet.
The system is run by politicians, unions and administrators whose apparent goal is to extract the maximum amount of funds from the taxpayer. Instead of educating children to function and excel in society, they are molded into a society of underachieving conformists who will give up their liberty and acquiesce to the government’s power and authority while devoting more of their personal resources, particularly financial, to expanding government.
Reporting from Dayton, Ohio— In the fading evening light, Jeff Snider played catch in the middle of the street with his 14-year-old son, the baseball thwacking their mitts. They stepped out of the way and waved when cars passed. The friendly neighborhoods in hilly Oakwood, a picture-perfect suburb nestled against Dayton, belong in a brochure for the American Dream. But the tranquillity hides a churning discontent.Continue reading.
A lanky high school math teacher, Snider worries about the mortgage and the cost of sending four children to college. He's dismayed by the federal debt, unhappy that the bank bailout "benefited people with huge, huge salaries," irritated that politicians cater to the rich and the poor but not the middle class, and distressed "big time" by the nation's division into hostile political camps.
In this season of political promises, the 44-year-old had a crisp response to whether he believed the country was headed in the right direction, or the wrong one. "No direction," he pronounced. "I look at the candidates running for president, and I say, 'That's the best they can do?' "
For almost a decade, as manufacturing jobs ebbed and cities shrank, Ohioans have told pollsters they are discouraged about the fate of the nation, putting them at the head of the pessimism curve. Even as Super Tuesday's 10 contests — with Ohio the key battleground — arrived with undercurrents of an economic revival, interviews with voters in the Dayton area found that deep anxieties remain.
Ohio, where polls are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., is one of 10 states holding nominating contests today. But far and wide it is being watched as a decisive prize in a primary season that has gone on longer than many anticipated. The Buckeye State awards 66 delegates to the Republican National Convention and remains a top electoral target in the fall.Also, from Dan Riehl at Big Government, "Super Tuesday Preview." And from Erin McPike and Scott Conroy at RCP, "How the Super Tuesday States Shape Up."
Congratualations, America: You’ve been scammed!Following the link takes us to College Politico, although the server's crashed with all the attention. Here's the Memeorandum link, and check Media Research Center as well: "Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance."
After a dozen contests, 20 debates and the prospect of weeks or even months of continued skirmishing, there is a growing clamor among Republicans to bring the presidential nomination race to a close for fear of hopelessly damaging the party's chances against President Obama.That sounds like a lot of establishment fear-mongering to me. Let's see how it all plays out on Tuesday. Then we'll really know how this primary race will affect the GOP. If Romney's not wrapping things up there's good reason for that. He's not broadening his base of support, which so far has been the media's attack on the other challengers to frontrunner status.
Republicans designed their plan for picking a nominee to test their candidates with a longer, more grueling campaign. But the move threatens to backfire in favor of a Democratic incumbent who has gained strength as the increasingly nasty GOP contest has worn on.
"There's been plenty of preliminaries," said Curt Steiner, a Republican strategist in Ohio, the most important of the nearly dozen states voting this week on Super Tuesday. "It's time to focus on the general election."
Steiner backs Mitt Romney, so it's no surprise he would like to end the primary season with the former Massachusetts governor ahead, if still far short of the 1,144 convention delegates needed to secure the nomination. Sending a signal from Washington, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia on Sunday announced his endorsement of Romney ahead of his state's Tuesday primary.
It's not just Romney backers, though, who worry about the toll of a prolonged and increasingly nasty contest.
"The campaign has become deeply personal and very negative," said Steve Schmidt, who managed Arizona Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and is staying neutral this time. "There is no optimistic vision. It's all about stabbing the opponent."
The damage, Schmidt said, is evident in polls that show Obama gaining ground against challengers while negative views of the Republican field increase. More worrisome from the GOP perspective is the shift of political independents toward Obama and the risk of further alienating those swing voters as the discussion strays from economic issues to the merits of contraception and the separation of church and state.
"This is stuff that will do great harm to the Republican Party," Schmidt said, a view shared, quite happily, by the Obama camp.
Vladimir Putin declared victory in Russia's presidential election Sunday night, but his historic win was overshadowed by widespread reports of vote-rigging and ballot fraud.And check Russia Today, "Video: Teary-eyed Putin addresses 110,000 crowd near Kremlin."
Addressing a rally outside the Kremlin, Mr Putin had tears rolling down his cheeks as he claimed he had won an "open and honest battle" and secured "clear victory" over his four rivals.
Early results suggested he had won more than 63 per cent of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off against another of the candidates and deliver him an unprecedented third term.
However, he faces mass protests after opposition activists said they had recorded more than 4,000 instances of alleged vote-rigging and malpractice that rendered the contest illegitimate.
They promised to bring tens of thousands of people on to the streets on Monday after claims that the regime had sought to guarantee victory by transporting groups of supporters around multiple polling stations to vote several times over.
However, as he spoke to an estimated crowd of 100,000 outside the Kremlin, Mr Putin, who was flanked by the outgoing president, Dmitry Medvedev, insisted: "We have won in an open and honest battle.
"I promised you we would win, we won. Glory to Russia!"
His voice hoarse with emotion he added: "We showed that no one and nothing can tell us what to do. We were able to save ourselves from political provocations that have just one aim: to overturn the Russian state and usurp power. Such attempts will not succeed on our land. They won't succeed!"
What an honor it was to work for a man like Andrew Breitbart, a man so uncommonly decent that those who would seek to defame him in the hours directly after his death would only have complete and utter falsehoods to work with.
I'm looking at you, CNN.
Thursday, in private, we reached out to CNN, with the request that they correct the record. Since they have made the choice to let their falsehoods stand, we are now publicly requesting CNN make a full retraction.
Just hours after his death, during two different segments, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux and Howard Kurtz epitomized everything Andrew Breitbart dedicated his life to fighting: the intentional furthering of completely false narratives; the attacking of people unable to defend themselves (which, sadly, is the position Andrew is in today), and the repeating of that which isn't true until it "becomes" true.
This first clip with Malveaux aired Thursday morning at right around 11:25 ET. Please watch and listen closely:
GREAT FALLS, Va. — Rick Santorum was, in his own words, a “nominal Catholic” when he met Karen Garver, a neonatal nurse and law student, in 1988. As they made plans to marry and he decided to enter politics, she sent him to her father for advice.Keep reading.
Dr. Kenneth L. Garver was a Pittsburgh pediatrician who specialized in medical genetics. The patriarch of a large Roman Catholic family, he had treated patients considering abortion but was strongly opposed to it.
“We sat across the table and the whole evening we talked about this issue,” Mr. Santorum told an anti-abortion group last October. He left, he said, convinced “that there was only one place to be, from the standpoint of science as well as from the standpoint of faith.”
For Mr. Santorum, a Republican candidate for president, that conversation was an early step on a path into a deeply conservative Catholic culture that has profoundly influenced his life as a husband, father and politician. Over the past two decades, he has undergone a religious transformation that is now spurring a national conversation about faith in the public sphere.
On the campaign trail, he has attacked President Obama for “phony theology,” warned of the “dangers of contraceptives” and rejected John F. Kennedy’s call for strict separation of church and state. His bold expressions of faith could affect his support in this week’s Super Tuesday nominating contests, possibly helping with conservative Christians, especially in the South, but scaring off voters uncomfortable mixing so much religion in politics.
Central to Mr. Santorum’s spiritual life is his wife, whom he calls “the rock which I stand upon.” Before marrying, the couple decided to recommit themselves to their Catholic faith — a turnabout for Karen Santorum, who had been romantically involved with a well-known abortion provider in Pittsburgh and had openly supported abortion rights, according to several people who knew her then.
The Santorums went on to have eight children, including a son who died two hours after birth in 1996 and a daughter, now 3, who has a life-threatening genetic disorder. Unlike Catholics who believe that church doctrine should adapt to changing times and needs, the Santorums believe in a highly traditional Catholicism that adheres fully to what scholars call “the teaching authority” of the pope and his bishops.
“He has a strong sense of that,” said George Weigel, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where Mr. Santorum had a fellowship after losing his bid for re-election to the Senate in 2006. “He’s the first national figure of some significance who’s on that side of the Catholic conversation.”
The loss of the Santorums’ son Gabriel, in 1996 — just as the senator was leading the fight in Congress to ban the procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion — was devastating for the couple. Mrs. Santorum was nearly 20 weeks pregnant; doctors discovered a fetal anomaly. After a risky operation, she developed an infection and took antibiotics, which the couple knew would result in the birth of a baby who would not survive.Awesome.
Critics likened it to an abortion, but in a 1997 interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mr. Santorum said that was not the case. Mr. Schoeneman, the couple’s friend, said the death convinced them that “God had a purpose in Gabriel’s life, and they were going to live out that purpose in their lives.” Both Santorums began speaking out more strongly against abortion; Mrs. Santorum became prominent in her own right after publishing a 1998 book, “Letters to Gabriel.”
In the Senate, Mr. Santorum started a prayer group and would go on to help convert a fellow senator, Sam Brownback, now the governor of Kansas, to Catholicism.
After Mr. Santorum’s re-election in 2000, the family traveled to Rome, where they had a private audience with Pope John Paul II.
“He said to the pope, ‘Father, you’re a great man,’ ” Mr. Schoeneman said, recounting the session as Mr. Santorum told it to him. “And the pope turned to him, because Rick at this point had all six children sitting there, and he said, ‘No, you’re a great man.’
“And it was like a message from God,” Mr. Schoeneman said, “that he was living his life in the right way, that his path was correct.”
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.Read it all...
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
For decades, Georgetown University law students have led the push to have the student health-insurance plan cover contraception.If you've seen clips of Fluke's testimony, the full video above is a riot just for Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's triumphant introduction and the deeply concerned yet agreeable nods of the sitting Democrats on the committee. And after you watch some of that, see AoSHQ, "Jake Tapper Finally Gives Hero of the Left a Chance to Speak Without Being Questioned About Her Claims":
Sandra Fluke fit the profile of those who have gone before her: Law students are typically older than Georgetown’s undergraduates, less likely to be Catholic at the Catholic institution, and more likely to rely on school-provided insurance.
But unlike those others who were part of a running campus controversy, Fluke became part of a heated and highly personal national debate when she agreed to testify before a congressional committee last month.
Fluke said she anticipated criticism but not personal attacks from prominent pundits including Rush Limbaugh, who repeatedly has called her a “slut,” and from hundreds of people who have typed even more offensive slurs on Twitter.
“I understood that I’m stepping into the public eye,” said Fluke, 30, a third-year student studying public interest law. “But this reaction is so out of the bounds of acceptable discourse . . . These types of words shouldn’t be applied to anyone.”
Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host, was criticized by prominent Democrats and Republicans. A handful of companies suspended their commercials on his show in protest and by Saturday, Limbaugh apologized in a statement on his Web site.
In the statement, he said “my choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir.”
Fluke appeared on the national television circuit on Friday explaining her position. Meanwhile, her cell phone buzzed with calls from friends, classmates and supporters, including President Obama.
Fluke (pronounced as if it rhymes with “look”) said she was not a stranger to criticism women can face advocating for causes related to their sexual health and relationships.
I've attempted to get Jake Tapper to answer the question "Did you ask her about the $9 per month pills at Target, 2.8 miles from Georgetown U's campus?"Well, there's your reproductive health crisis. These women must not be able to schlep the 2.8 miles over to Target!
As he has ignored every single question along these lines, I have to take the answer to be "No."
Let’s specify that what Limbaugh said did nothing to advance the cause of civil debate on the issue. But those who decry the lack of civility in politics generally tend to limit their complaints to hyperbole uttered by people whose views they do not share. The same people who are voicing outrage at the hurt feelings of Ms. Fluke do not scruple at mocking or name calling when it comes to Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum or others whose beliefs on this or any other subject they believe to be antediluvian. The church and its adherents have been subjected to withering ridicule.Word.
Moreover, though it has been lost amid the outcry against Limbaugh, he’s right to point out that, those who believe institutions ought to be compelled to fund free birth control are, in effect, demanding a subsidy for having sex. Of course, that is not the same thing as being a prostitute. Nor does it make anyone who wishes to take advantage of such a subsidy a “slut.” Such terms are abusive. But that is exactly why an entertainer like Limbaugh uses them much as Stewart and liberal comics employ similarly nasty terms to people they wish to deride. Need we really point out that comments made in the context of this sort of show is not the same thing as remarks recorded in the Congressional Record and should thus be judged by a slightly different standard?
Rush Limbaugh will survive this latest attempt to destroy him and may, in fact, benefit from being the subject of a White House barb. But conservatives and those who care about religious liberty should be dismayed by the way the left has been allowed to shield an ominous attempt to expand government power and subvert religious freedom behind a faux defense of women’s rights.
No one is trying to prevent Sandra Fluke or any other woman — or man — from doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But what Fluke and President Obama are trying to do is to force religious institutions to pay for conduct their faith opposes. That, and not Rush Limbaugh’s scorn for Fluke’s birth control bill, remains the real issue at stake in this debate.
One of our editors once made the mistake of referring to James Q. Wilson as a sociologist, and he was quickly rebuked with a note that, no, the professor was a political scientist. Jim Wilson liked to get things right, which as far as we can remember he always was.Previously: "James Q. Wilson, 1931 – 2012."
Wilson was indeed a political scientist, and in the old-fashioned sense: He only concluded what the evidence allowed, and he applied this method to politics, broadly defined as the choices we make about how we govern ourselves. Over his career, as the modern university grew more and more obscurantist and irrelevant, Wilson's scholarship—on everything from poverty to crime to bureaucracy to morals—moved public policy and changed America for the better. He died yesterday, at 80, from leukemia.
Wilson made his name in the last century, when he was a young professor at Harvard and people still believed that government could create something it would call "the Great Society." Wilson belonged to the cohort of thinkers including Edward Banfield, Irving Kristol and Pat Moynihan who were skeptical of such central planning and abstractions. The joke about the French philosopher—"We know it works in fact, but will it work in theory?"—is less funny when the supposed technocrats don't care if something works in fact, only in theory....
One reason Wilson's ideas were successful—welfare reform is among his other policy contributions—is that they were grounded in data, hard facts and the evidence of experience. But his empiricism was special because it always respected the complexity and contingency that prevails in the real world. Few phrases in the English language are responsible for as much bad thinking as "studies show" or "research suggests." If Wilson was guided by good evidence, not ideology, he also understood its limits.
In what was surely a rare move for the conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to the Georgetown University law school student he called a "slut" and "prostitute" earlier in the week.More at that top link, but see Limbaugh's apology (via Memeorandum).
The apology, posted to his website, said he did not mean to make a "personal attack" against Sandra Fluke. The third-year law student had testified before Democrats in favor of President Obama's new rule requiring employers to offer health insurance plans that cover birth control.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," he wrote. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.Civility. Right.
Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.
In the war against the institutional Left, Andrew Breitbart was the Right’s Achilles; the bravest of all the warriors, now fallen on the plain. There was no combat in which he would not engage, no battle — however small — he would not join with glee, and no outcome acceptable except total victory. His unexpected death last night at the young age of 43 is not the end of his crusade, but its beginning.Continue reading.
No figure on our side was more despised in the whited sepulchers of the media/academic/political Left, and Breitbart wore their loathing as a daily badge of honor. His refusal to grant even a glimmer of moral absolution constantly enraged them, and his very existence was an affront to their carefully constructed — to use one of Andrew’s favorite words — “narrative” of moral superiority. Naturally, they are already dancing on his grave, with the manic joy of being suddenly and miraculously delivered from one of their most potent enemies.
Breitbart’s death is a tragedy, not only for those who delighted in following him into battle but for those who cheered him on as well. Andrew was larger than life, a charismatic natural leader, a big man in every way — physically, spiritually, and intellectually. He would meet a total stranger and immediately try to enlist him or her into his army, railing against the Left’s mendacity and misdeeds. He would practically pick you up by the lapels and shake you in order to make you understand the furious, urgent necessity of his fight.
In the last 10 days, voters learned that Mitt Romney's wife drives two Cadillacs, and that while Romney does not follow NASCAR that closely, he is "great friends" with some team owners.Okay, sound's reasonable enough.
They have learned that John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech on the separation of church and state made Rick Santorum want to vomit, and that Santorum thinks President Obama is a "snob" for urging people to continue their education after high school.
For a lot of voters — and many critics — such remarks have reinforced stereotypes about the candidates: That Romney, a multimillionaire, is out of touch with average Americans, and Santorum, a staunch social conservative, is a throwback to the mores of an earlier time.
Now, as Super Tuesday's crucial contests loom next week, both candidates for the GOP presidential nomination have struggled to recover from those and other self-inflicted wounds.
In 1961, he joined the faculty at Harvard University, where his scholarship on policing drew the attention of President Johnson's administration. He was invited to join a presidential commission on crime, which sparked an inquiry that eventually became the focus of his professional work.VIDEO: "Annual Lecture with 'Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy' James Q. Wilson at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California" (parts 2-4 at the link).
"The standard question was why did people commit crimes. I wanted to ask why people don't commit them," he told the New York Times in 1998.
Many of his books tackled thorny questions of crime and race, such as "Crime and Human Nature," co-written with Richard J. Herrnstein and published in 1988.
"Even to allude to the possibility that races may differ in the distribution of those constitutional factors that are associated with criminality will strike some people as factually, ethically or prudentially wrong," they wrote. "We disagree."
Wilson's views won favor among neoconservatives, not a popular faction at a liberal bastion like Harvard.
In 1986, after more than 25 years at Harvard, he moved to UCLA's Anderson School of Management, where, some colleagues suggested, the more conservative atmosphere was a welcome change.
But Wilson, referring to his early years in Southern California, said he just wanted to come home. He later taught at Pepperdine.
Some of u are probably sitting in this internet/Facebook audience saying, Who in the "H" is Megan Barth, and how does she "know" Andrew Breitbart?More updates throughout the weekend.
Well, I can't say that I do know Andrew. I have not been to his house; I have not broken bread with the man; I have had a cocktail with him....ok maybe two or three, but, true, I do not "know" him. But, I know him for one of my greatest memories that he selflessly gave to me. The first time I called him and asked him for a favor, he didn't hesitate to say yes.
In March of 2009, I asked him to speak at a Tea party Rally in Santa Ana on April 15, 2009. I had left him a message on his cell phone--the number which I had received from a mutual aquaintance. An hour later, I get a call back and he says, "Megan Barth? Andrew Breitbart. What is this tea party thing about and oh yeah, Count me in." And, two weeks later, he was speaking at his first tea party on a chilly and windy day, in front of a crowd of over 2000, at the "Circle of Flags." He brought with him his fiery friend, Gary Graham, and his father in law Orson Bean. They each spoke to the crowd with such conviction, fun, kindness and passion. It is a day that I will never forget.
After that day, I would run into him at various events and he would jokingly refer to me as "his first." I always made sure I shook his hand or gave him a big hug, not only because I so appreciated him for coming to speak on that day in April, 50 miles from Brentwood, but appreciating him and thanking him for being all that inspires me.
Andrew encapsulated/emulated everything that I found good and decent and honorable. His love of family and country, his tenacity, his strength, his humor, his fire that he so tirelessly gave--he didn't seem to want for anything else but for the truth, and, of course, to piss off liberals. The truth, you see, and honesty, isn't a commodity. You don't find it often and you don't find it easily. Andrew's fight in order to bring truth and light to the masses was like David fighting Goliath. Andrew had this slingshot and the MSM, the Giant, had the narrative. Yet, Andrew beat them with that slingshot, head on. He wasn't afraid. He stood his ground. He took the battle to them and outsmarted their best generals. He exposed their false narrative--which is the Giant's ironic weakness. Andrew showed all of us that the impossible can be the possible...particularly with the truth on your side. It ain't gonna come easy and it ain't gonna come cheap. Andrew, today, gave his life for it. His family, that stood behind him and with him, made it possible.
When I heard the news this morning, I started screaming, "Why Why Why God!! Why him? " Why take a man from his wife and four children? What did he do? He had so much more to do! Why now, God? Why?! "
And then, after talking to my 3 parents (yes, I have 3. 4 actually, but I talked to 3 of them), and scouring the blog roll and Twitter/Facebook feed, I was reminded that the only answer to these and many more questions, is the one that we all will eventually find, and with the truth and the spirit of Breitbart on our side, we will all come to know, "Why." The truth will be Andrew's legacy as it has been our, my, inspiration.
Andrew leaves behind a pair of shoes which cannot be filled. He was a one in a million, a happy warrior, a truth seeker, a torch bearer. There are millions of those who he has inspired that are ready and willing to carry that torch--and that is what must be and will be done. He wouldn't have it any other way. He designed the battle plan. He deserves no less.
In his own words from the upcoming "Hating Breitbart"
"WAR"
Rest in peace and thank you, my friend, for absolutely everything.
And reader Jonathan Rubinstein writes: “The outpouring of ghoulish and sophmoric hatred at the death of Andrew Breitbart is a warning to us all that the remaking of America is not a conversation over coffee in the late afternoon. The real struggles that are ahead have hardly begun. Politics is ruthless and the failed political class will not go quietly. The disgusting comments are not a tribute to the decline not of civility — there has never been much in America — but the complete disintegration of self-respect. We will engage, we will remake America, we will miss Breitbart but there will be many more joining the struggle.”I'll be writing a memorial later. It was a sad day. I am praying for Breitbart's family.
Reporting from Seattle—RTWT.
Royal Dutch Shell launched an extraordinary preemptive legal strike Wednesday against opponents of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, filing suit against more than a dozen environmental organizations likely to challenge its plan for drilling exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea this summer.
In a petition for declaratory relief filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, the oil giant seeks to have the court rule that the U.S. government complied with federal law when it approved Shell’s oil spill response plan for upcoming exploratory well-drilling in the Arctic.
The move is a clear attempt to beat environmental organizations to court and avert potentially costly delays for a project on which Shell has already spent $4 billion without drilling a single well.
The oil company launched a separate petition against Greenpeace, whose activists last week boarded the drilling rig now moored in New Zealand and scheduled to begin drilling in the Arctic in July. Six activists, including television actress Lucy Lawless, climbed the rig before being arrested.
A hearing was underway Wednesday afternoon in federal court in Anchorage on the company’s request for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Greenpeace from engaging in “illegal and dangerous actions” tied to the upcoming offshore drilling program.
“This is a very unique legal approach. I’m not sure anything like this has ever been done before,” Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh told the Los Angeles Times.
"Nothing From Nothing. "
Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit "AND THE ROLE OF EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN WILL BE PLAYED BY…: Liberals’ Knives Come Out for Nate Silver After His Model Points to a Trump Victory..."
R.S. McCain, "'Jews Are Dead, Hamas Is Happy, and Podhoretz Has Got His Rage On ..."
Ace, "Georgia Shooter's Father Berated Him as a "Sissy" and Bought Him an AR-15 to 'Toughen Him Up'..."Free Beacon..., "Kamala Harris, the ‘Candidate of Change,’ Copies Sections of Her Policy Page Directly From Biden's Platform..."