Rep. Paul Ryan is Back With Medicare Reform Plan

At Los Angeles Times, "Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, with Medicare changes, is back":

For a moment last year, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's star shone brightly as he unveiled his party's bold deficit-whacking budget proposal — that is, until seniors rebelled over his plan to dramatically change Medicare.

The backlash was swift and decisive. Democrats attacked the GOP, saying the plan would destroy the Medicare safety net, and the earnest Wisconsin wunderkind slid from the spotlight. When he walked the halls of the Capitol, he popped in his iPod earbuds, tuning out the noise.

Now Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, is returning to center stage as the GOP doubles down on his conservative budget priorities — including tax cuts for the wealthy and a new version of his plan for major changes in Medicare.

With an edgy new campaign-style video and a flurry of Ryan appearances timed with his upcoming budget release, Republicans believe theirs is a winning strategy: one that will showcase the GOP as willing to make tough choices to reduce federal deficits and present voters with a contrast to President Obama. Democrats believe just as strongly that the Ryan strategy will be a winner for them.

A Medicare overhaul, in particular, is a risky move in an election year when the GOP is trying to topple Obama, defend its House majority and win the Senate. Ryan won plaudits from some budget hawks and think tanks for being willing to tackle the difficult politics of Medicare cuts. But average voters overwhelmingly support keeping Medicare as is. They also favor Obama's approach of taxing wealthy Americans more heavily to bring budgets into balance, rather than offer more tax cuts, polls show...

Video c/o Legal Insurrection.

Calls Grow to Revamp Movie Ratings

This is an amazing coincidence.

I was covering interest groups last week in class and I mentioned that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was an example of a trade association. I gave a couple of examples of the movie rating system that MPAA administers, and a student raised his hand to ask about the controversy over "Bully." I mentioned that I wasn't too up on the issue, and so what do you know? The Los Angeles Times had a report yesterday, "'The Hunger Games,' 'Bully' prompt ratings fight."

And CNN has this:

See also, "Battle over ‘Bully’ rating heats up in nation’s capital."

Republicans Brace for Possible Open Convention

Well, this might be a continuing topic for some time.

See New York Times, "All Odds Aside, G.O.P. Girding for Floor Fight." (Via Memeorandum.)

And see Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard, "The Calendar Hurts Romney."

Duchess Kate Middleton Hands Out Shamrocks to the Irish Guards

She's lovely.

At Telegraph UK, "The Duchess presents shamrocks to Irish Guards."

Obama's War On Women

Via The Last Tradition:

'Act of Valor'

I caught "Act of Valor" this afternoon.

Some of the reviews are unforgiving in attacking this flick (CNN, New York Times), although Kenneth Turan gives it a decent write-up at the Los Angeles Times.

I thought it was great. The movie started out as a recruiting film and stars real Navy SEALs. I found myself on the edge of my seat and I could only marvel at the operational realism throughout. Ed Morrissey reviewed the movie when it came out, and he writes:

It’s easy to take this film seriously when it treats its subject with this much respect. Act of Valor celebrates traditional values of duty, honor, and especially sacrifice, and reminds us that every day men like these — and these men — keep us from harm we never knew was coming.

It's worth a look, big time.

Never Mind Kony, Let's Stop Clooney

From Rob Crilly, at Telegraph UK:

So George Clooney has been arrested outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington. After a week addressing Congress, briefing his president and bringing Sudan back into the limelight, he has taken his awareness-raising campaign to the next level by making sure news crews were on hand to watch him having his hands tied behind his back.

This has been quite the week for African conflicts. First we had the Kony 2012 video, which catapulted a long forgotten war in central Africa to the top of the news schedules. Now we have Clooney doing the same for a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the Nuba mountains of Sudan, first with his own video and then with Friday's arrest.

"I’m just trying to raise attention. Let your Congress know, let your president know," said Clooney, as he was led away.

Ah yes, just trying to raise attention. The modern campaign mantra. And what could be wrong with that? Well, quite a lot as it happens. Clooney has long been raising awareness for Sudan. In the past it was the conflict in Darfur. He spearheaded calls for United Nations peacekeepers to be deployed and for President Omar al Bashir to be indicted on war crimes charges.

There has never been such a successful campaign. Not only did he and the Save Darfur coalition mobilise an unprecedented amount of support for ending a war in a previously obscure region, but they actually got what they wished for. A struggling African Union peacekeeping force was given blue hats of the UN. And President Bashir has been charged with 10 counts of war crimes, including genocide.

And none of it made any difference. President Bashir is still in power in Khartoum and the blue hats ran into exactly the same problem as the African force – finding out the hard way that there is no point deploying peacekeepers if there is no peace to keep...

Continue reading.

Actually, it's a nice theory, but too simple. Sometimes there is no peace on the ground, no "homegrown solutions" to develop, so bringing attention to the issue, as Clooney is doing, might indeed to be worth a try, might reduce bloodshed and strife.

See Max Boot for more along those lines: "The Pentagon’s cold feet on Syria."

'Greyhound'

Well, it's Swedish House Mafia merging music with vodka promotion:

Flying Over the Earth at Night

Via Atlas Shrugs:

U.S. Soldier Could Be Charged in Afghan Massacre Today

At ABC News, "Staff Sgt. Robert Bales Being Kept Away From Other Prisoners At Fort Leavenworth."

And at New York Times, "U.S. Identifies Army Sergeant in Killing of 16 in Afghanistan."

The military on Friday identified the soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan villagers earlier this week as Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a 38-year-old father of two who had been injured twice in combat over the course of four deployments and had, his lawyer said, an exemplary military record.

 The release of Sergeant Bales’s name, first reported by Fox News, ended an extraordinary six-day blackout of public information about him from the Pentagon, which said it withheld his identity for so long because of concerns about his and his family’s security.

An official said on Friday that Sergeant Bales had been transferred from Kuwait to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where he had a cell to himself in the medium-security prison there. His wife and children were moved from their home in Lake Tapps, Wash., east of Tacoma, onto Joint Base Lewis-McChord, his home base, earlier this week.

Military officials say Sergeant Bales, who has yet to be formally charged, left his small combat outpost in the volatile Panjwai district of Kandahar Province early in the morning last Sunday, walked into two nearby villages and there shot or stabbed 16 people, 9 of them children.

Little more than the outlines of Sergeant Bales’s life are publicly known. His family lived in Lake Tapps, a community about 20 miles northeast of his Army post. NBC News reported that he was from Ohio, and he may have lived there until he joined the Army at 27. Sergeant Bales’s Seattle-based lawyer, John Henry Browne, said several members of the sergeant’s family moved to Washington after he was assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

I'll update later...

Obama Teaches Constitutional Law

Ben Shapiro's got a series going over at the Breitbart empire.

See:

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- PART I."

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- PART II."

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PART III."

Meghan McCain Name-Checks Dan Riehl

Well, some interesting blogging around the 'sphere.

At AoSHQ, "Meghan McCain Poses (Clothed, On Bed) In Playboy; Announces Her Sexual Orientation as 'Strictly Dickly'":

Here's the weird thing: Dan Riehl gets name-checked.

Dan Riehl responds: "Hey, Mom! I'm In Playboy Magazine!!"

More Meghan at London's Daily Mail, "'I love sex and I love men... I'm from a family of whiskey drinkers': John McCain's daughter Meghan opens up (but doesn't strip down) for Playboy interview."

(And thanks to R.S. McCain, "Asking the Important Questions: Why Does Gillian Anderson Want Me to Blog About Her Teenage Lesbian Affairs?")

Felix Baumgartner Lands Sky Jump From 71,580 Feet Above Roswell, New Mexico

This is wild, via Theo Spark:

And read about it at CSM, "Sky diver, after free-falling 13 miles, sets sights on record 23-mile jump."

The Academic Mainstreaming of Fringe Anti-American Theories

A surprisingly good piece from Peter Wood at The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Bell Epoque."

Discussing Soledad O'Brien's response to Joel Pollak on the Derrick Bell story, Wood writes:

The O’Brien-Pollak exchange is surely grist for divergent enthusiasms. What I find most interesting is O’Brien’s pretense that because critical race theory is a “theory,” it has nothing to do with “white supremacy.” She seems touchingly oblivious to the possibility that CRT is a theory that posits the centrality of white racism in the American legal system. The answer to her last question is surely yes: Pollak is attempting to connect President Obama with a “serious radical.” Bell’s appointment as a tenured professor at Harvard Law School in no way stands as evidence that he was not “a serious radical.” To the contrary, Bell prided himself on his radicalism. Those who paid attention to his career at Harvard, punctuated by outbursts of public protest against imaginary instances of institutional racism, can hardly think otherwise. Anyone doubting the radicalism of his theory can easily consult his own statements, as in his 1995 article, "Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?"

RTWT.

Gay Marriage Debate Roils Britain

Well, religious leaders aren't pleased at all.

See Telegraph UK, "Church powerless to stop same-sex marriage even if hundreds of thousands object":

A long-awaited official paper on same-sex marriage makes clear that the Church will be powerless to stop the change even if it mobilises hundreds of thousands of objections.

The Government’s national consultation document, which was published this morning, asks the public whether they “agree or disagree” with allowing homosexual couples to have civil weddings.

But it makes clear that, while the question is posed in principle, it is a matter of “how not whether” the change is introduced.
It also warns that the Government will take into account the various points raised in the consultation but “not the number of responses received”.

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, said that the launch of the paper was a “hugely important step”, upholding principles of “family, society and personal freedoms”.

But opponents of the move immediately accused the Government of holding a “sham” consultation” in which opposition would be “ignored”.

In its first official statement on same-sex marriage, the Church of England committed itself to “the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman”.

A carefully worded statement, drafted by the Archbishops Council, hinted that the question of marriage could undermine its position as the established church.

Announcing the four-month consultation, Miss Featherstone and the Home Secretary Theresa May said the Government committed to ending the ban on same-sex couples marrying in register offices.

“I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender," said Miss Featherstone.

Doesn't sound like this is going over too well, actually.

See also, "Q&A: Same-sex marriage," and "Gay marriage: this is a battle the Churches will lose – and it will be a messy business."

British Neoconservative Douglas Murray on the Failure of French Multiculturalism

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Robert Kagan: American Power Preserves Freedom and Prosperity

See Kagan's essay at CNN, "America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier":

We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom, the unprecedented global prosperity (even despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers.

In 1941 there were only a dozen democracies in the world. Today there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty.

The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind, and in prior centuries war among great powers was almost constant. But for the past 60 years no great powers have gone to war.

This is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit their interests and preferences.

Continue reading.

And ICYMI, see Kagan's "The Myth of American Decline," published in January at The New Republic.

Pamela Geller on Ezra Levant's Discussing New York Times Hypocrisy

This really is amazing, via Blazing Cat Fur:

PREVIOUSLY: "The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism."

L.A. Weatherman Kyle Hunter Files Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Against KCAL and KCBS for Hiring Smokin' Hot Young Women

Well, this is hilarious.

And it's not like it wasn't bound to happen --- CBS Los Angeles really does have some especially beautiful women.

At Hollywood Reporter, "L.A. Weatherman Sues CBS Stations For Hiring Young, Attractive Women."

PREVIOUSLY: "Evelyn Taft, Political Scientist."

Leon Wieseltier Slams Rachel Maddow's New Book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power

I didn't even know Maddow had a book, but I can't think of a better way to find out.

See Wieseltier, "Has Military Force Gone Out of Fashion":

TRASHING FORCE may win you a lot of friends, but it is stupid. There is nothing “artificial” about the primacy of defense because there is nothing artificial about threats and conflicts and atrocities. The American political system’s “disinclination” to war must not be promoted into a disinclination to history. We are not the country we were in the eighteenth century, as every liberal insists about every other dimension of American policy. Anyway, this is what President Jefferson said in 1806: “Our duty is, therefore, to act upon things as they are, and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be.”

There are few progressives who bug me more than Rachel Maddow, so I particularly enjoyed Wiesteltier's takedown. (And he's got an excellent discussion of Syria and Iran, so count that as an added bonus.)

RTWT.

Dharun Ravi Found Guilty of Hate Crimes in Rutgers Spying Trial

Actually, I don't recall this being a "hate crimes" trial. But that's the headline at the New York Times, "Defendant in Rutgers Spying Case Guilty of Hate Crimes."

And CNN has this:

"New Jersey enacted a law that said if you secretly record (someone engaged in an intimate act) with a webcam or any other kind of video and you broadcast that without their permission, that is a crime," Callan said. "Every place else in America up until this law was enacted, you could sue somebody for civil damages for the embarrassment, but you weren't going to go to jail. New Jersey said it's criminal."

And because prosecutors were able to prove that Ravi's actions were born of a gay bias, the possible sentence doubles from up to five years to 10 years behind bars.

Clementi's death stirred discussion about bullying, with President Barack Obama releasing a videotaped message condemning it. A few months later, New Jersey legislators enacted stricter laws to protect against bullying in schools.
"This haunting and awful case shows how much society has changed," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of Friday's verdict. "Even though he was not charged directly in connection with Clementi's suicide, that tragedy hung over the trial and undoubtedly played a major part in every aspect of the case."

After the verdict, Rutgers University released a statement saying, "This sad incident should make us all pause to recognize the importance of civility and mutual respect in the way we live, work and communicate with others."
Prosecutors had argued that Ravi, who sat expressionless in the courtroom Friday, had tried to embarrass Clementi because he was gay and that his actions were motivated by a desire to intimidate the Ridgewood, New Jersey, native expressly because of his sexual orientation.

"These acts were purposeful, they were intentional, and they were planned," prosecutor Julia L. McClure told the jury on the first day of the trial. Ravi "was bothered by Tyler Clementi's sexual orientation," she later said more bluntly.

Also at USA Today, "Lesson of Rutgers case: Online actions carry consequences."

Added: From London's Daily Mail, "Tears for Tyler: Mother of gay suicide teen cries in court as jury finds Rutgers student guilty of hate crime and spying on his tragic roommate."

The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism

This really is a year of anti-Catholic bigotry and few issues are revealing it like Pamela's fight with the nation's newspaper of record.

See: "VIDEO: Pamela Geller on FOX News Discussing NY TImes Hypocrisy."

More on Fox & Friends below, and at Fox News, "New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion."

And see Mark Steyn, "The Quit and the Dead."

Layoff Notices Sent to 20,000 Teachers in California

At San Francisco Chronicle, "More than 20,000 California Teachers Pink-Slipped":

More than 20,000 public school teachers in California opened their mailboxes over the last few days to find a pink slip inside as districts met the state's Thursday deadline for dispensing the dreaded news to the educators that they may not have a job in the fall.

The layoff notices are preliminary, the districts' best guess at the amount of money they will get to educate kids next year after the Legislature concludes its annual budget fight this summer. But a proposed tax measure on the November ballot offers more uncertainty than usual.

Districts won't know until two months into the new school year whether voters will approve a tax increase that would prevent a $4.8 billion trigger cut to education funding, as proposed in the governor's budget.

See also the Long Beach Press-Telegram, "LBCC braces for millions in budget cuts":

LONG BEACH — Long Beach City College is bracing for major budget cuts following an unanticipated loss of $3.5 million in mid-year state funding cuts, officials said Thursday.

College officials said LBCC must cut an additional $5 million from its $150 million general fund to balance the budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. The college will have to slash its budget by a total of $9.8 million if voters fail to pass a November tax initiative designed to help fund education.

"Long Beach City College is facing devastating budget cuts that have been imposed on all of California's community colleges by the state," LBCC President Eloy Ortiz Oakley said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, the news going forward is worse, with millions more being cut, increased student demand, and no new revenues or support projected for several years."

Oakley said LBCC will have to make difficult budget decisions in coming months. More announcements on specific cuts will be coming over the next several weeks.

So far, the college has frozen several open positions, including the dean of career education and workforce development and two contract faculty positions.

However, LBCC is still planning to hire new faculty in the English, speech, math and culinary arts departments. Oakley said these hires are essential for supporting student success and enrollment targets.

Oakley said students likely won't see any fee hikes or major reductions in courses, but the college is considering layoffs and cuts to programs and student services. Among the possibilities, the college is considering cutbacks in library and administrative office hours, reductions in programs including athletic programs, and the consolidation of certain services between its two campuses.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. That Brown tax initiative in November will go down to defeat.

More on this at Los Angeles Times, "Brown takes tougher tack on wealthy," and "Jerry Brown, tax realist."

Sarah Palin: 'Breitbart is Here'

From Governor Palin, at Big Government (via Memeorandum).

And check iOWNTHEWORLD for the original artwork.

Obama's Energy Lies: President Spews on American Energy at Prince George's Community College in Largo, Maryland, March 15, 2012

I watched the president's speech.

It's offensive. Indeed, it's offensive on so many levels my first thought was the proverbial, "Where to begin"?

Well, the easy answer is to start off with Obama's epic gaffe on Rutherford B. Hayes. Obama didn't simply botch a quote; he attempted to revise history. Folks are all over this at Memeorandum, for example, at Washington Free Beacon: "Obama on Pres. Hayes, 'Flat Earthers,' and the History of Science." It turns out that President Hayes never criticized the invention of the telephone with the comment that "It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?" Actually, upon first listening to the telephone, a blown away President Hayes said "That is wonderful."

But listen at the clip, starting around 22 minutes. Obama attacks unnamed "politicians" as members of a "flat earth society," and he doesn't stop there:

Now, all of that would be one thing. We can expect hard hitting partisan speeches from here on out until November. Indeed, today basically kicked off the Obama campaign's reelection drive, with Vice President Biden giving a speech earlier in Toledo, Ohio. But listening to Obama you'd think he was campaigning as Homeboy-in-Chief, trying to nail down the bandanas and grillz constituency. Obama's down with the misogynist hip-hop demographic, but this was a community college in suburban Maryland with the state's governor and members of Congress in attendance. You'd think one of the White House advisors would have suggested that O' save the swagga for the basketball court, yo.

Obama's continued insinuations of Republicans as backwater yokels are particular abrasive. This is a president who's giving a speech with manufactured history looking to smack down GOP "politicians" as anti-science nitwits and technological Luddites? Obama went on and on about how "drilling won't solve high gas prices," blah, blah, rehashing stump-speech remarks going back to 2008. His classic statistic is 2 percent. America's proven reserves amount to just "2 percent of world oil reserves." Frankly, all that talk is a bunch of bull, as Investor's Business Daily pointed on this morning, "Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims":

... the figure Obama uses — proved oil reserves — vastly undercounts how much oil the U.S. actually contains. In fact, far from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities — enough to meet all the country's oil needs for hundreds of years.

The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world's proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves "are a small subset of recoverable resources," because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.

When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the U.S., according to various government reports. Among them:

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.

Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.

Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.

As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Then, there's the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it's heated.

Continue reading at the link.

Obama doesn't mention any of those statistics. Instead, he portrays his political opponents as reactionary and un-American. This coming from an administration which has long touted its agenda to drive the coal industry out of business --- and now the Energy Secretary is walking back earlier comments calling for $8.00 gas prices like those in Europe.

The president wrapped up his speech with an attack on "Big Oil," claiming that the petroleum industry didn't need the "subsidies" since it was raking in windfall profits. The Wall Street Journal anticipated the president's attack on the oil companies, and noted with respect to subsidies:

As for the “subsidies” that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren’t direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They’re deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

But listen at the clip. The president's obviously desperate to change the narrative after recent polls have revealed a growing public backlash on gas prices. But to hear the president, it's not the White House that's behind the curve but the "anti-science" Republicans looking to turn back the clock. Meanwhile, with all those proven reserves sitting untapped around the country, folks have been thinking more and more about bringing that oil to market. While Obama whines about how out of touch those "politicians" are about the technologies of the future, the Los Angeles Times reports, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight":

Nationwide, fracking is driving an oil and natural gas boom. Energy companies are using the procedure to extract previously unreachable fossil fuels locked within deep rock. The industry is touting the potential of fracking in California to tap the largest oil shale formation in the continental United States, containing 64% of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.

State regulators said fracking here is "radically different" from drilling in the Rocky Mountain West, Mid-Atlantic region and Northeast, where operators inject millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand to break apart rock and release natural gas. In California, the process has long been performed for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.

"We believe it is a safe practice," said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn. "It is not a new technology. It is a tested, proven technology."

The report stresses the environmental side of the debate actually; but clearly, we have the technology to achieve energy independence, and industry experts affirm the safety and effectiveness of the procedure. In contrast, President Obama is spewing lies and distortions on America's energy capabilities, and attempting to paint political opponents as medieval.

The president's agenda is anti-American and anti-progress. It's driven by a statist ideology. Frankly, the country's not likely to expand domestic supply and reduce foreign dependence while the Democrats are in power. The only alternative is to throw the bums out.

Americans have long championed our rugged individualism and can-do spirit of self-sufficiency. The polls show a public longing for a renewed effort at energy independence using U.S. resources and home-grown ingenuity. It's time for an energy policy grounded in pragmatism and reality. A pro-market agenda can reduce gas prices now and secure energy independence long into the future. It's time for a change.

Left-Wing Hate Speech: Vet the President, Hollywood, and the Media

This is getting good!

Michelle notes so righteously:

"When you vet the President, you don't just vet the President, you're vetting Hollywood, and you're vetting the media, and they don't like it one bit!"

From the Marines: Toward the Sounds of Chaos

Via Theo Spark:

Obama Must Return Foul-Mouthed Comic's Million Bucks or Be Tainted By His Misogyny

At IBD, "Obama Obliged to Return Hate Speech Comic's Million":

Misogyny and hate-mongering are not things President Obama wants his re-election campaign tainted by. There's no avoiding getting his Super-PAC to return sleaze merchant Bill Maher's million dollars.

Just when you thought there couldn't be any worse double standards, a sewer-mouthed "comedian" gives a million smackers to help re-elect President Obama, yet the major media and leading Democrats think it's fine.

The same Democrats and media organizations blew a socket when Rush Limbaugh used "slut" to describe a feminist activist who wants taxpayers to finance her efforts at avoiding pregnancy. But consider how Bill Maher has treated Sarah Palin.

Not only has he called her the c-word in his act, and another four-letter obscenity with the same meaning; he compared Palin to a "pimp" and called her family — which includes a son with Down Syndrome — "inbred."

Maher also lumped former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Palin together using an obscene four-letter acronym little known outside pornographic chat rooms.

Turn the tables and imagine Mitt Romney, say, taking money from a comic whose routine included using the c-word to describe Hillary Clinton. Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be calling it a GOP war on women, and it would dominate prime time news coverage for weeks.

More at the link.

Tamara Holder: 'I Think MILF Is a Compliment of Sorts'

Actually, I had a student in class defend Maher (and by implication President Obama, whose PAC is taking that million bucks) by saying that he didn't have a problem with women being called sluts: "I don't have a problem with it."

Double standards really make progressive say and do awful things.

See Gateway Pundit, "Pathetic… Lib Pundit Defends Bill Maher: I Think MILF Is a Compliment of Sorts."

MILF is not a compliment. It's a slur that says you don't take a woman seriously, but only as a piece of meat. And for a progressive women to say this is really a compliment is patently brainless, to say nothing of tasteless. Andrea Tantaros' response is perfect, really. Tamara Holder is unbelievable.

Southern Wins Propel Rick Santorum Forward

An analysis at RCP.

And see Robert Stacy McCain, "A Santorum Miracle? ‘So Be It,’ Says Mitt."

Boeing's Dreamliner Jet Gets Big Rollout in Long Beach

This is interesting.

At Los Angeles Times, "Dreamliner gets a big rollout in Long Beach."

Just read it all at the link. The piece mentions the possible winding-down of production at the Long Beach C-17 plant, which I toured previously.

Goldman Sachs Executive Makes Huge Public Spectacle in High-Profile Resignation

Greg Smith, who worked at Goldman for 12 years, has this commentary in yesterday's New York Times, "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" (via Memeorandum).

And check this companion piece, "Public Exit From Goldman Raises Doubt Over a New Ethic."

I'm actually skeptical of this guy Greg Smith. It just sounds too pat. Securities firms aren't benevolent societies. "Greed is good" is more than a motto --- it's do or die. So, I'm betting the guy burned some bridges --- or just burned some people and decided to go out with a flourish, settling some scores in the process. Again, it's just too pat. Tyler Cowen concurs, "In any case, I am suspicious of his impulse to blame it all on a sudden shift in the moral propensities of the people he was working with." Right. And see Dan Drezner as well, "If you're going to be a whistle-blower, you need to acknowledge upfront your complicity in any malfeasance, be it legal or ethical. Smith's op-ed doesn't come close to doing this."

Santa Monica College to Launch Two-Tiered Pricing for Classes

Well, once you get your foot in the door it's hard to close.

Perhaps we'll see more of this, which will bring some demand-side accountability and competition to the colleges. The best teachers and the best classes could be put up for the higher fee structures, and the also-rans would fall by the wayside. Wait, that kind of sounds like merit-based instruction --- and the unions won't go for that. What am I thinking?!!

See Los Angeles Times, "Santa Monica College to offer two-tier course pricing":

Faced with deep funding cuts and strong student demand, Santa Monica College is pursuing a plan to offer a selection of higher-cost classes to students who need them, provoking protests from some who question the fairness of such a two-tiered education system.

Under the plan, approved by the governing board and believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the two-year college would create a nonprofit foundation to offer such in-demand classes as English and math at a cost of about $200 per unit. Currently, fees are $36 per unit, set by the Legislature for California community college students. That fee will rise to $46 this summer.

The classes would be offered as soon as the upcoming summer and winter sessions; and, if successful, the program could expand to the entire academic year. The mechanics of the program are still being worked out, but generally the higher-cost classes would become available after state-funded classes fill up. The winter session may offer only the higher-cost classes, officials said.

Students who qualify would be able to use financial aid such as Cal Grants for the classes, college officials said, but they are also seeking private funds to establish scholarships for needy students.

The 34,000-student Santa Monica campus has one of the highest transfer rates to four-year universities in the state and a reputation for innovative programs that are a model for other community colleges. But some say higher-priced classes are tantamount to privatizing the public institution.

It's not privatizing. It's rationalizing, and we could use a whole lot more of that in this state.

Oil Industry Pays More Federal Taxes Than Any Other Business

More on oil politics, from the Wall Street Journal, "Big Oil, Bigger Taxes":

President Obama says he wants to end subsidies for what he calls "the fuel of the past," but lucky for him oil and gas will be the fuels of the future too. His budget-deficit blowout would be so much worse without Big Oil, because the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.

Much, much worse, actually. The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending—and it would cover a lot of Solyndras. That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business.

Not paying their "fair share"? Here's a staggering fact: The Tax Foundation estimates that, between 1981 and 2008, oil and gas companies sent more dollars to Washington and the state capitols than they earned in profits for shareholders.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil and gas company, says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon's 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's 2013 budget—like its 2012, 2011 and 2010 vintages—includes a dozen-odd tax increases that would raise the industry's liability by $44 billion over the next decade, according to the White House, and by $85 billion, according to the trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API). At any rate, the President's economists ought to be weeping for joy for the revenue windfall from an industry that grew 4.5% in 2011, compared to overall GDP growth of 1.7%...

As for the "subsidies" that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren't direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They're deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

Why he would still want to do this amid the political panic over $4 per gallon gasoline is a mystery. Even Mr. Obama now claims to want lower gas prices, commenting recently that "Do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher?" Too bad his every policy choice, and especially his tax agenda, would lead to higher prices.

PREVIOUSLY: "'Silver Bullet' for High Gas Prices: Drilling, Exploration."

'Toothless Tuesday'

See The Rhetorican, "Doubling down: Maher Insults Alabama and Mississippi Voters with ‘Toothless Tuesday”."

And at Twitchy, "Bigot Bill Maher dubs Deep South primary “Toothless Tuesday”; update: another vile tweet targets Newt, Santo."

And that CNN clip closes with the comment that for the right it's Bill Maher and for the left it's Rush Limbaugh, which of course assumes a level mass-media playing field that doesn't exist --- and that's not to mention that progressives are defending Maher, not hounding him off the air.

But the hits are building. See Jake Tapper, "Axelrod Cancels on Bill Maher — For Now."

Possibility of Brokered Convention Seems Less Remote After Santorum's Southern Sweep

I would personally love for this to go to Tampa, but I'm not banking on it yet.

But see National Journal, "After Alabama and Mississippi: Will the GOP Convention Be a Battleground?":

Is it time to take the Republican convention seriously as a potential battleground?

Republicans should know better by now. Their still-putative nominee, Mitt Romney, lacks the conservative support to capture the kind of expectations-exceeding primary win necessary to capsize underfunded but motivated rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
Romney didn’t do it in South Carolina, Colorado, or Tennessee. He proved unable once again on Tuesday to claim victory in a state, Mississippi, that seemed tantalizingly within reach.

The months-long trend makes it clear that Romney will have to win the GOP nomination with math, not acclamation, steadily accumulating enough delegates in friendly contests until he reaches the nomination-clinching number of 1,144. But that path is fraught with risk. There is always the chance that he’ll fall just short of the magic number, which raises the possibility of a contested August convention in Tampa.

Many mocked the notion a month ago, but it now seems increasingly likely. “After last night, you have to start think it’s possible,'” said political consultant Curt Anderson, a former political director of the Republican National Committee who advised Rick Perry before he quit the race. “It seems more possible than before, that’s for sure.”

Okay, continue reading.

National Journal mentions the Santorum memo released last weekend: "Santorum Path to Delegate Victory." The memo argues that Santorum's share of delegates is being underestimated. Iowa's actual convention delegates have yet to be allocated and Santorum will pick up more than currently projected, for example. And the memo indicates that the long proportional delegate selection process for 2012 will work to the advantage of the more conservative candidate over time.

Personally, my sense is that the proof is in the pudding. If Santorum can beat Romney in some upcoming winner-take-all states --- thus really banking the delegates, while further demonstrating widespread appeal across the GOP primary electorate --- I'll be more likely to consider the idea of a brokered convention. Especially important will be the Maryland and Wisconsin primaries on April 3. Wisconsin looks particularly crucial, as the winner there will (again, after Ohio) secure bragging rights as the candidate best situated to beat President Obama in November. In late February, the Marquette University Law School Poll had Santorum leading the GOP field in the Badger State with 34 percent. Romney was trailing Santorum at 18 percent, Ron Paul with 17, and Newt Gingrich at 12 percent. And a survey out March 1 from Public Policy Polling has Santorum at 43 percent, with Romney following at 27 percent, Gingrich at 10 percent and Paul taking 8 percent. No doubt those numbers will tighten up over the next couple of weeks, but it's the Santorum campaign that's got the big momentum at this point. Romney's campaign has been floundering, frankly, and the best argument he can make for his nomination is that he's got the most delegates --- he can't claim he's capturing the excitement of the Republican base. That said, political scientist Josh Putnam says the math is extremely prohibitive for Santorum, as does --- wait for it! --- Jennifer Rubin.

I'll have more on this later. Until then, let's hear it from Santorum himself:

More from Reuters, "Santorum to Puerto Rico: Speak English if you want statehood" (via Memeorandum).

And once more, Robert Stacy McCain, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Mathematical Impossibilities Happen."

Pressure Increasing for Newt Gingrich to Step Aside in GOP Race

At the clip is Rick Santorum campaign advisor John Brabender urging conservatives to unite behind one conservative candidate to deny Mitt Romney the nomination.

And here's this, at Telegraph UK, "US election 2012: Newt Gingrich under renewed pressure to drop out":

Newt Gingrich was under renewed pressure to drop out and back Rick Santorum for the US presidency, after the former Pennsylvania senator claimed a double victory in the Deep South.

The former House Speaker was urged to encourage Right-wing Republicans to unite behind Mr Santorum, who won Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday night, and halt the slow march to victory by Mitt Romney, the relative moderate ex-Massachusetts governor, in the race to be Barack Obama's opponent in November's election.

"The time is now for conservatives to pull together," Mr Santorum told jubilant supporters at a rally in Louisiana. He later told an interviewer that Mr Gingrich – who knocked Mr Romney into third place in both southern primaries – was no longer "in the mix for getting the nomination".

Party strategists said the time had come to allow Mr Santorum to take on Mr Romney alone. "Gingrich's final act could be king maker by getting out and endorsing," Erick Erickson, a leading Republican commentator, said on his blog.

Polls indicate that Mr Santorum, an evangelical Catholic and former senator for Pennsylvania, would collect a majority of Mr Gingrich's supporters, many of whom dislike Mr Romney for his past stances on abortion and gay rights in liberal-leaning Massachusetts.

"Newt had a great run but Santorum has earned a one-on-one shot with Romney," Keith Appell, a veteran Republican operative, told The Daily Telegraph. "Santorum so exceeded expectations in the South that his campaign will now be energised with money and enthusiasm".

If you're interested, Erickson's got a thread at Memeorandum: "Not Closing the Deal."

But don't miss Robert Stacy McCain either way, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Mathematical Impossibilities Happen."

BONUS: From Chris Cillizza, "5 lessons learned from the Alabama and Mississippi primaries":

Regardless of whether Newt knows it or not, his chances of remaining a major player in this race effectively ended with his second place finishes in Mississippi and Alabama. Prominent conservatives have already begun to go public urging him to leave the race and that drumbeat will only grow louder if he refuses.

U.S. Marines in Afghanistan Disarmed During Speech by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

At New York Daily News, "Leon Panetta visits Afghanistan: Hundreds of U.S. Marines unusually asked to disarm before he speaks." And at ABC News, "Security Scare During Defense Secretary's Afghan Visit."

It's a dangerous deterioration of security. See Los Angeles Times, "Roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan kills 8 as Panetta visits."

And at Althouse, "Did a suicide bomber in Afghanistan almost kill Secretary of State Leon Panetta?"

Americans Have Mixed Feelings on Afghanistan

Here's the latest from USA Today, "Poll: Half of Americans back faster pullout from Afghanistan."

And one of the more conflictual findings there:

Nearly six in 10 say they're worried that withdrawing U.S. troops too quickly will make Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists plotting attacks against the United States.

But RTWT.

Sandra Fluke Won't Be Silenced

It's amazing how this issue has gripped the nation, and also amazing how people seem to talk right past each other.

Gateway Pundit has Sandra Fluke's commentary piece from CNN yesterday, "Lib Hero Sandra Fluke: Free Birth Control Is a Natural Human Right – I Won’t Be Silenced."

And at The Blaze, "The Blaze's Will Cain Confronts Sandra Fluke and Her 'Logic' on CNN."

BONUS: From Doctor Zero at Human Events, "Obama craters in polls, loses support among women: Another media fairy tale bites the dust."

Laura Ingraham Slams the 'So-Called War On Women'

An excellent clip.

Ingraham hammers leftist Jennifer Brandt.

Soledad O'Brien Gets Schooled by Conservatives

Well, it must be rough for a progressive inflicted with ideological (cognitive) dissonance, and it's especially bad for CNN's Soledad O'Brien. She got everything wrong about Derrick's Bell racist theory, and it's coming back to bite her hard.

See Michelle's column out today, "What's the matter with Soledad O’Brien?"

And at Big Journalism, "Wikipedia Freezes Critical Race Theory Entry After Soledad Implosion."

Added: Michelle tweets Adams Baldwin: "Critical Journalism Theory!"

Kim Kardashian and Sisters Khloe and Kourtney Promote Their Kardashian Kollection

Whoa.

This is why these ladies are big --- and I mean big!! --- celebrities.

At London's Daily Mail, "In the bedroom with Kim Kardashian! The world's most famous siblings strip off to launch their new Intimates range."

'Silver Bullet' for High Gas Prices: Drilling, Exploration

One of the most pernicious memes we're hearing right now amid surge in gas prices is that "there’s little a president can do to affect the day-to-day price of fuel in a global market." That's not quite accurate, actually, and in fact to hear progressives you'd think that the administration should be completely absolved of the country's energy crisis.

In fact, Americans think that a whole lot could be done to revive U.S. energy production, and thus bring down prices at the pump. See IBD, "Poll: Public Anger Over Gasoline Prices Hurting Obama." And see also IBD's editorial, "Obama's Limits On Oil Output Cause Higher Gas Prices":

President Obama says Newt Gingrich "isn't telling the truth" when he claims he could cut the price of gas to $2.50 a gallon if elected. Well, the price of gas when Obama took office was $1.83 a gallon. Was that a lie?

'There's no silver bullet" for high gas prices, the president said Monday. This is utterly false. The "silver bullet" for anything in short supply is to make more of it, which lowers the price — something Obama steadfastly refuses to do with oil.

When Obama entered office in January 2009, a gallon of unleaded gasoline went for about $1.83. Today, that same gas goes for $3.53 — a 93% increase. Some of it, of course, is the Iran crisis. But, as the American Petroleum Institute (API) notes, that's not the main problem. Obama's policies are.

"Gasoline prices are higher today at least in part because government has neglected to pay sufficient attention to the importance of producing more of our own oil and natural gas," said API Director Erik Milito.

President Obama likes to brag that oil and gas output has risen during his term. True, but he had absolutely nothing to do with it. Output, according to a new API study, "increased in 2011 over 2009 only as a result of growing production on state and private lands — up almost 29% for oil and 22% for natural gas."

By comparison, on federal lands, which Obama's administration controls, production fell 7.9% for oil and 6.8% for natural gas over the same period.

Surprised? Don't be. President Obama's Energy Secretary Stephen Chu in 2008 said, "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's above $8 a gallon.

Also in 2008, then-candidate Obama likewise said he wanted prices to rise. So he can't feign surprise as his policies inevitably lead to less oil and higher prices.

Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline, which alone would have brought in 800,000 barrels of oil a day. He has shut off huge swaths of our offshore to further oil development, and slowed permitting in the Gulf of Mexico. He keeps our shale-oil reserves under lock and key.

All told, the U.S. has as much as two trillion barrels of oil equivalents trapped in the ground and offshore — about eight times the reserves Saudi Arabia has. Yet, Obama doesn't want us to get it. Less supply, higher prices, by design. Call it the Obama Gasoline Tax.

Ending Obama's energy policies would be a "silver bullet" for gas prices.

And still more at IBD, "IBD/TIPP Poll: Gas Turns Americans Dimmer On Economy."

Pamela Geller: New York Times Won't Run Counter-Jihad Facts

This is an amazing report, at Atlas Shrugs: "REJECTED! What the NY Times WON'T Run: Counter-Jihad Facts; What the NY Times Will Run: Anti-Catholic Smear Ads."

More at Memeorandum.

EARTH-SHATTERING BREAKING NEWS!!! Progressives Less Tolerant Online, Pew Research Center Finds

Well, who woulda thunk it!

Here's the report from Pew: "Social Networking Sites and Politics."

And Andrew Malcolm comments at IBD: "Online, Liberals Far Less Tolerant Than Normal People." (Via Memeorandum.)

And here's genetic mutant and trig truther Thers responding to the news:

Fuck you die now.

FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK FUCK BLOW ME WITH A BLOWFUCK FUCK, AND FUCK YOUUUUU, FUCK OFF, FUCKGOOBER FUCKBANANA FUCKOFFS, YOU STUPID FUCKNOSED FUCKNOBBLER FUCKSHIT FUCKS.

Oh, wait!

Wrong post. I found that at Thers' tag: "Motherfucking Civility."

Also available at that tag: "The National Institute for Civil Discourse." (Recall that progressives established that place after they blood libeled Sarah Palin for the Tuscon shootings, although nobody mentions it anymore, the mofos.)

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's the genetic mutant's response: "I Can't Imagine Why Anyone Would Ever Try to Avoid You, Mr. Sunshine."

Andrew Malcolm explains that according to Top-flight Scientifical Research, Conservatives are much more open to Civil Discourse and Reasonable Debate than are Liberals. Conservatives, Malcolm explains, are big-hearted and unfailingly polite, unlike Liberals, who are always sneering at people who disagree with them, the dirty little un-American shits...

Exactly.

MAS. From Ed Morrissey:

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you?

Of course!

Take that, Thers! You mofo mutant freak!

Rick Santorum Sweeps Southern Primaries (VIDEO)

Well, here's Rick Santorum's speech tonight following the supposedly "desperate end" to his campaign:

And see Los Angeles Times, "Southern sweep: Rick Santorum takes Mississippi and Alabama."And at New York Times, "Santorum Wins Alabama and Mississippi Primaries" (via Memeorandum).

Also at The Other McCain, "FREAKIN' HUGE! — GOP PRIMARY RESULTS HQ: SANTORUM WINS ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI: ‘WE DID IT AGAIN’."

BONUS: From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

Romney already knows he’s locked in a long, hard slog to get to the nomination even if the delegate math indicates that he will prevail in the end. But the longer he must keep fighting and fending off bitter attacks on his credibility, the harder it will be for him to unite his party behind his candidacy once the dust settles.

Well, actually, listen to Santorum at the clip. That "delegate math" doesn't seem to be discouraging him one bit. This campaign is going all the way to the convention --- and then who knows what's going to happen?!! The Big Mo's with Santorum.

Rick Santorum Wins Alabama Primary

And Mitt Romney was arguing that today's primaries were the "desperate end" of Santorum?

Man, no wonder the former Massachusetts Governor's not expected to make a speech tonight. Talk about eating crow.

And at CNN, "BREAKING: CNN projects Santorum to win Alabama primary."

Obama Approval Numbers Crash Amid Surge in Gas Prices

Well, finally, something in the news not rolling in favor of the Obama-commies in Washington.

At WaPo, "Gas prices sink Obama’s ratings on economy, bring parity to race for White House":

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.

The potential political con­sequences are clear, with the ­rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.

Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high.

Sixty-five percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy at the Washington Post poll, and there's more bad news at the New York Times, "Obama’s Rating Falls as Poll Reflects Volatility." (Via Memeorandum.)

BONUS: At Doug Ross, "'Are We Better Off Than We Were 4 Years Ago? Uh, No'."

Pathetic: Obama Campaign Pushes Fundraising Drive in New Ad Attacking Sarah Palin and 'The Far Right'

At Big Government, "Obama Targets Breitbart, Palin, Hannity With Heavily-Edited Ad."

Notice what Obama’s team left on the cutting room floor: the vast bulk of the interview about Bell and Maher. This is a selective editing hit-job designed to make Palin look like a racist. That’s how Obama’s team is fighting back. And that’s why we must not be afraid to vet this president. The dangerous rhetoric here isn’t Palin’s – it’s the rhetoric and philosophy that infused this president with his views on race relations. That must be exposed, despite all the bully tactics of the Obama left.

Freakin' progressive asshats.

California Needs Massive Reforms to Reverse Its Economic Decline

Well, this is exactly what I argued yesterday in my post on the fiscal crises of state and local governments.

See Michael Boskin and John Cogan, at Wall Street Journal, "California's Greek Tragedy":

Long a harbinger of national trends and an incubator of innovation, cash-strapped California eagerly awaits a temporary revenue surge from Facebook IPO stock options and capital gains. Meanwhile, Stockton may soon become the state's largest city to go bust. Call it the agony and ecstasy of contemporary California.

California's rising standards of living and outstanding public schools and universities once attracted millions seeking upward economic mobility. But then something went radically wrong as California legislatures and governors built a welfare state on high tax rates, liberal entitlement benefits, and excessive regulation. The results, though predictable, are nonetheless striking. From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.

California's economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms. The unemployment rate, at 10.9%, is higher than every other state except Nevada and Rhode Island. With 12% of America's population, California has one third of the nation's welfare recipients.

Partly due to generous union wages and benefits, inflexible work rules and lobbying for more spending, many state programs and institutions spend too much and achieve too little. For example, annual spending on each California prison inmate is equal to an entire middle-income family's after-tax income. Many of California's K-12 public schools rank poorly on standardized tests. The unfunded pension and retiree health-care liabilities of workers in the state-run Calpers system, which includes teachers and university personnel, totals around $250 billion.

Meanwhile, the state lurches from fiscal tragedy to fiscal farce, running deficits in good times as well as bad. The general fund's spending exceeded its tax revenues in nine of the last 10 years (the only exceptions being 2005 at the height of the housing bubble), abetted by creative accounting and temporary IOUs.

Now, the bill is coming due. After running a $5 billion deficit last year and another likely deficit this year, Gov. Jerry Brown's budget increases spending next year by $7 billion and finances the higher spending with income and sales-tax hikes. Specifically, he's proposing a November ballot initiative raising the state's top income tax rate to 12.3%, making it the nation's highest, and raising the basic state sales tax rate, already the nation's highest, to 7.75% from 7.25%.

Continue reading.

Also, at Lonely Conservative, "Blue State Blues – Public Employee Pensions Bleeding NY Cities and Counties Dry."

'Harden My Heart'

Enjoy Quarterflash:

Kim Kardashian Steps Out in Revealing Low-Cut Ensemble After Church

It's the "after church" part that doesn't sound quite right.

Boy, no doubt some of the parishioners were having a hard time following along with the sermon.

At London's Daily Mail, "Forgive me father! Kim Kardashian shrugs off Kris Humphries divorce drama as she steps out in revealing ensemble after church."

Israel, Gaza Terrorists Agree to Cease Fire

At Jerusalem Post, "Egypt: Israel, Gaza terror groups agree to cease-fire." And at Ynet, "Report: Gaza truce reached."

However, other reports indicate the possible resumption of hostilities. At Jerusalem Post, "PRC, Islamic Jihad vow to continue fighting."

And at Business Week, "Netanyahu Says Israel May Broaden Gaza Military Operation Amid Rocket Fire," and Haaretz, "Netanyahu: Israel is prepared to step up fighting against Gaza if rockets continue."

Internet Company BBH Labs Under Fire for Exploiting Homeless as Mobile WiFi Hotspots

Actually, if the company had actually paid the homeless people some good money, I doubt it'd be a big deal. But $20 a day? That's less than minimum wage.

Talk about exploiting the vulnerable. Sheesh.

See New York Times, "Homeless People as Internet Hot Spots Backfires on a Marketer":

AUSTIN, Tex. — Which product at this year’s South by Southwest technology conference received more attention than perhaps any other?

Homeless people as wireless transmitters.

A marketing agency touched off a wave of criticism and debate when it hired members of the local homeless population to walk around carrying mobile Wi-Fi devices, offering conferencegoers Internet access in exchange for donations.

BBH Labs, the innovation unit of the international marketing agency BBH, outfitted 13 volunteers from a homeless shelter with the devices, business cards and T-shirts bearing their names: “I’m Clarence, a 4G Hotspot.” They were told to go to the most densely packed areas of the conference, which has become a magnet for those who want to chase the latest in technology trends.

The smartphone-toting, social-networking crowds often overwhelm cellular networks in the area, creating a market that BBH Labs hoped to serve with the “Homeless Hotspots” project, which it called a “charitable experiment.” It paid each participant $20 a day, and they were also able to keep whatever customers donated in exchange for the wireless service.

But as word of the project spread on the ground and online, it hit a nerve among many who said that turning down-and-out people into wireless towers was exploitative and discomfiting.

Tim Carmody, a blogger at Wired, described the project as “completely problematic” and sounding like “something out of a darkly satirical science-fiction dystopia.”

A commenter on the BBH Labs blog offered mock praise for the project, then complained that “my homeless hotspot keeps wandering out of range, and it’s ruining all my day trades!”

On Monday, the project’s scheduled last day, BBH Labs was scrambling to explain itself.

Again, it's the pathetic remuneration that's the real problem. No one forced these people to pose as mobile towers. Indeed, one of the dudes, Clarence Jones, responds, "“Everyone thinks I’m getting the rough end of the stick, but I don’t feel that,” Mr. Jones said. “I love talking to people and it’s a job. An honest day of work and pay”."

Also at Wired, "The Damning Backstory Behind ‘Homeless Hotspots’ at SXSW."

The Los Angeles Times indicates that these folks were also getting commissions off sales, so who knows? See: "Austin SXSW homeless hot spots stir debate."

Feminist Progress

That's Oklahoma State Senator Judy Eason McIntyre at the picture below. She was protesting pro-life legislation at the state capitol last week. Notice her sign: "If I wanted the government in my womb I’d fuck a senator."

Stay classy, Democrats.

Sister Toldjah has more: "Idiotic #WarOnWomen sign of the day: “Vaginas Vote!”"

#stoptweetingSoledad!

A great piece at Twitchy, "Top 20 #stoptweetingSoledad tweets."

And see: "CNN's O'Brien Begs Viewers to Stop Tweeting Her About Critical Race Theory."

Israel Responds to Rocket Attacks From Gaza

At Wall Street Journal, "Missile Defenses Give Israel Measure of Calm in Conflict."

BEERSHEBA, Israel—Facing the worst barrage of rockets from Palestinian militants since 2009, Israel is getting a boost from a new interceptor system that destroys missiles in midair before they fall on population centers.

The "Iron Dome" missile system has provided an added layer of security for Israel's homeland by downing dozens of rockets in the past four days, buying more time for the country's leaders to confront militants with less citizen pressure to stem hostilities.

The system underlines Israel's shifting doctrine of emphasizing defense capabilities in addition to its offensive firepower, and offers a preview of how Israel will handle any retaliatory missile threat posed by Iran in the event of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities.

"It hasn't been easy to put into the public and military consciousness the need to learn defense and not only attack,'' Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor told Israel Army Radio on Sunday. "The Israeli character is aggressive."

Iron Dome is one four missile-defense systems used by Israel that are designed to block rockets with different ranges held in the arsenals of Iran and its allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iron Dome, manufactured by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is designed to stop short-range missiles.

Boeing Co.'s Arrow II missile system—developed with Israel after the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraq hit Tel Aviv with Scud missiles—was designed to intercept Iran's long-range Shihab missiles.

Also, from the IDF, "Israel Under Fire: More Than 200 Rockets Fired From Gaza."

And more at Memeorandum.

Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars

From Neil deGrasse Tyson, at Foreign Affairs, "The Case for Space":

In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama articulated his vision for the future of American space exploration, which included an eventual manned mission to Mars. Such an endeavor would surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- maybe even $1 trillion. Whatever the amount, it would be an expensive undertaking. In the past, only three motivations have led societies to spend that kind of capital on ambitious, speculative projects: the celebration of a divine or royal power, the search for profit, and war. Examples of praising power at great expense include the pyramids in Egypt, the vast terra-cotta army buried along with the first emperor of China, and the Taj Mahal in India. Seeking riches in the New World, the monarchs of Iberia funded the great voyages of Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan. And military incentives spurred the building of the Great Wall of China, which helped keep the Mongols at bay, and the Manhattan Project, whose scientists conceived, designed, and built the first atomic bomb.

In 1957, the Soviet launch of the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, spooked the United States into the space race. A year later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was born amid an atmosphere defined by Cold War fears. But for years to come, the Soviet Union would continue to best the United States in practically every important measure of space achievement, including the first space walk, the longest space walk, the first woman in space, the first space station, and the longest time logged in space. But by defining the Cold War contest as a race to the moon and nothing else, the United States gave itself permission to ignore the milestones it missed along the way.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress in May 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the Apollo program, famously declaring, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” These were powerful words, and they galvanized the nation. But a more revealing passage came earlier in the speech, when Kennedy reflected on the challenge presented by the Soviets’ space program: “If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take.”

Kennedy’s speech was not simply a call for advancement or achievement; it was a battle cry against communism. He might have simply said, “Let’s go to the moon: what a marvelous place to explore!” But no one would have written the check. And at some point, somebody has got to write the check.

If the United States commits to the goal of reaching Mars, it will almost certainly do so in reaction to the progress of other nations -- as was the case with NASA, the Apollo program, and the project that became the International Space Station. For the past decade, I have joked with colleagues that the United States would land astronauts on Mars in a year or two if only the Chinese would leak a memo that revealed plans to build military bases there.

The joke does not seem quite so funny anymore. Last December, China released an official strategy paper describing an ambitious five-year plan to advance its space capabilities. According to the paper, China intends to “launch space laboratories, manned spaceship and space freighters; make breakthroughs in and master space station key technologies, including astronauts’ medium-term stay, regenerative life support and propellant refueling; conduct space applications to a certain extent and make technological preparations for the construction of space stations.” A front-page headline in The New York Times captured the underlying message: “Space Plan From China Broadens Challenge to U.S.”

When it comes to its space programs, China is not in the habit of proffering grand but empty visions. Far from it: the country has an excellent track record of matching promises with achievements. During a 2002 visit to China as part of my service on a White House commission, I listened to Chinese officials speak of putting a man into space in the near future. Perhaps I was afflicted by a case of American hubris, but it was easy to think that “near future” meant decades. Yet 18 months later, in the fall of 2003, Yang Liwei became the first Chinese taikonaut, executing 14 orbits of Earth. Five years after that, Zhai Zhigang took the first Chinese space walk. Meanwhile, in January 2007, when China wanted to dispose of a nonfunctioning weather satellite, the People’s Liberation Army conducted the country’s first surface-to-orbit “kinetic kill,” destroying the satellite with a high-speed missile -- the first such action by any country since the 1980s. With each such achievement, China moves one step closer to becoming an autonomous space power, reaching the level of (and perhaps even outdistancing) the European Union, Russia, and the United States, in terms of its commitment and resources.

China’s latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another “Sputnik moment” for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts. But in addition to the country’s morbid fiscal state, a new obstacle might stand in the way of a reaction as fervent and productive as that in Kennedy’s era: the partisanship that now clouds space exploration.

Video c/o Theo Spark.