"Without question and without exaggeration, the 'gay rights movement' is the angriest, most ruthless, most controlling, most intolerant of all the ideological enterprises in the country. Now, everyone knows it..."

Football-spiking cowards, don't be confused: yours is a Pyrrhic victory.

From Matt Walsh, "Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose":

Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.

It’s inevitable.

Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs.

Marriage is many things, but it is also this. And ‘this’ can never be removed from it, no matter the direction of the political winds, or the motion of the shifting sands of public opinion.

Marriage and the family are dimensions of the same whole. They cannot be detached from one another. They, as a whole, as an institution, can only be weakened — not erased or redefined. And so the campaign to protect and strengthen the institution was and is designed to do just that. It was never about ‘legislating love’ or imposing intolerance or ‘discriminating against gay people,’ or any other silly bumper sticker platitude.

You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been.

Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. Me, I love in many ways and in many directions. I love my wife, yes, and I also love my parents, and my country, and football, and hamburgers. These are all different kinds and degrees of love, yet still love.

But, alas, only one of these loves can (or should) result in the creation of a biological family. Thus, this love carries with it a certain distinction and a certain responsibility.

Bigotry? There is nothing bigoted about it. This is mere science. You see, bigotry only enters into the conversation when you try to destroy a man’s life just for participating in the conversation.

You are the agents of bigotry, my friends. You. You are what you say we are....

Because of your own behavior, when people like myself tell the world about the vicious death wishes and vulgar hate mail we receive from your kind on a DAILY basis, everyone will believe us. It’s no secret anymore. Without question and without exaggeration, the ‘gay rights movement’ is the angriest, most ruthless, most controlling, most intolerant of all the ideological enterprises in the country. Now, everyone knows it.

So you’ll lose. People are starting to see that you are the pigs on this Animal Farm, and the equality of which you preach is a very unequal equality indeed.

More.

I've been dealing with people like this all day.

.@NotGayDalek YOU'RE A LIAR.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 5, 2014

.@NotGayDalek YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING AN ASSERTION, THAT BRENDAN EICH QUIT VOLUNTARILY. YOU LIE. STOP LYING.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 5, 2014

.@NotGayDalek HE WAS PERSECUTED FOR HOLDING AN OPINION IN 2008 NO DIFFERENT FROM BARACK OBAMA. YOU'RE A LIAR AND UN-AMERICAN.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 5, 2014

.@AmPowerBlog @NotGayDalek My kind of Tweet! You go...

— Alessandra Ref (@Alessandra_Ref) April 5, 2014

Yes, evil, hateful people whose masks have been thrown to the wind, like caution. The tide will turn on this charade of homosexual marriage, as it has on the "pro-choice" movement, which only tolerates one choice, murder of the unborn. So, time is on the side of goodness and decency. The hate trolls are showing their true colors, black and gangrenous oozing hate-filled purplish bile. And they will not learn, even when engaged with respect and reason. Knaves, fools and liars. It's not going to end well for them.

Meredith Powell, Former Math Teacher, Accused of Having Oral Sex with Two Male Students Inside Her Locked Classroom

At the Other McCain, "#RapeCulture: Fourth Boy Says Teacher Told Him: ‘This Stays Between Us’":

After she pleaded not guilty to charges made by three previous accusers, the news coverage led another accuser to come forward. And you know it’s a great story when the link to the prosecution affidavit carries a warning for GRAPHIC SEXUAL CONTENT...

More.

And at London's Daily Mail, "A FOURTH student comes forward with allegations Math teacher, 24, had sex with him 'when he asked about raising his grade'."

Women Voted Throughout #Afghanistan on Saturday

Following up from earlier, "Afghans Vote in Strong Numbers Despite Taliban Threat."

Via Twitter:

Best thing about this pic is the pose, circa 1990s hip hop. Peace sign looks kinda badass. And it is #AfElex pic.twitter.com/ZUxy29FoJZ

— Muhammad Lila (@MuhammadLila) April 5, 2014

And at Haaretz, "Afghans vote in historic elections, undeterred by threats."

Weightlifting Mom Lea-Anne Ellison Back to the Gym Just Three Weeks After Giving Birth

Remember the lady who was doing those overhead snatch lifts in (what looked like) her third trimester.

She's looking incredible now!

At London's Daily Mail, "'My baby is great and I'm back in the gym!' New mother whose pregnant-weightlifting photos sparked media storm continues to defy her critics."

Volokh Conspiracy on Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta

I actually checked over at Volokh before blogging my last entry, "Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Obama Administration Over Drone Strikes."

They've got something up now. Kenneth Anderson does the honors, "Al-Aulaqi ‘Bivens’ damages suit in drone strikes dismissed":

Judge Rosemary Collyer (District Court of DC) yesterday dismissed a damages lawsuit filed by families of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, his son Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, and Samir Khan, who were US citizens killed in US drone strikes. This was a Bivens suit for damages against individual US government officials alleged to be responsible for violations of the 4th and 5th amendments. After finding that the case is not precluded by the political question doctrine, Judge Collyer found that the 4th amendment was not at issue and focused her discussion on the 5th amendment instead; she then dismissed, with some hesitation, finding that cautionary principles attached to Bivens actions, counseling against judicial encroachment on the political branches, urged dismissal. The 41-page ruling is here and the national security and law website Lawfare has coverage of the oral argument from last July here and discussion and links to the briefs here. A couple of observations...

Keep reading.

Anderson doesn't quibble too much with Judge Collyer's decision, although I raised some additional/different questions at my post and I'm sure I'll be seeing more about them later. (Glenn Greenwald's too busy shilling around with Edward Snowden at the moment, but do check back.)

And FWIW, at the ACLU, "Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Drone Killings of Three Americans."

Viewers Reject Megyn Kelly Dress That Highlights Her Rack

It does look kinda strange, heh.

At Twitchy, "Viewers adore Megyn Kelly, not so sure about Friday’s dress" (via iOWNTHEWORLD).



More Megyn Kelly blogging at the link.

Why Firefox Is Blocked — #UninstallFirefox

There's a website for that:

Mozilla recently forced its CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign over his personal support for traditional marriage. The firing followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid, in which OKCupid blocked Mozilla users from visiting their website.

We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access our site, given Mozilla’s crackdown on political and religious positions held by millions of Americans.

We're sorry for the inconvenience, but we feel that fighting discrimination and intolerance of this kind is worth some inconvenience today to avoid massive loss of freedom in the future.

Catholic Vote is on the case.



And from John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, "It’s Time For Christians to Blacklist Mozilla Firefox and OkCupid."

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Obama Administration Over Drone Strikes

The case is Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (sometimes called Al-Awlaki v. Panetta), filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki.

This one's touchy for me. Anwar al-Awlaki had certainly joined al-Qaeda and was indeed an "enemy combatant." But he was a U.S. citizen and his targeted killing denied him of due process in a court of law. He should have been captured and brought to justice, just like the president always says he's going to do when Americans are killed in terrorists attacks. To be clear, I shed no tears for the man. I just don't love the idea of the U.S. government targeting its own citizens for extrajudicial killings. Other than that, I love the drone warfare program. It's killer!

See the New York Times, "Judge Dismisses Suit Against Administration Officials Over Drone Strikes":

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against top Obama administration officials that was filed by the parents of three United States citizens whom the government killed without trial in drone strikes, including Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric.

In a 41-page opinion, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that courts should hesitate before deciding to hold a government official personally responsible for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights in the context of a wartime action.

“The persons holding the jobs of the named defendants must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution when they intentionally target a U.S. citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress,” Judge Collyer wrote. “They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”


The lawsuit sought unspecified damages against several top national security officials for the deaths caused by two American drone strikes in Yemen.

In September 2011, a strike targeting Mr. Awlaki killed him and Samir Khan, also an American citizen. Two weeks later, another drone strike killed Mr. Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Obama administration has said that the deaths of Mr. Khan and the younger Mr. Awlaki were unintentional.

If it stands, the ruling suggests that courts have no role to play, before or after, in reviewing the legality of government decisions to kill citizens whom officials deem to be terrorists in overseas wartime operations, even away from “hot” battlefields where conventional American forces are on the ground.

“We believe the court reached the right result,” said Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesman. Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which helped bring the suit, said they had not decided whether to appeal.

Baher Azmy, the center’s legal director, criticized the judge for accepting “at face value the government’s claims” that Mr. Awlaki was a terrorist without first conducting an adversarial hearing to gather evidence.

“The Constitution cannot permit the killing of U.S. citizens based on the government’s untested claim of dangerousness,” Mr. Azmy said.

Judge Collyer cited officials’ statements that Mr. Awlaki was a terrorist leader with the Yemeni group known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. She also cited an account of his role in a plot to blow up a Detroit-bound jet in 2009, based on court documents from the trial of a Nigerian man who pleaded guilty to trying to bomb the plane, and statements by Mr. Awlaki praising and encouraging acts of terrorism.

Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman, and Sarah Khan, Mr. Khan’s mother, filed the lawsuit in July 2012 against several officials it accused of authorizing and directing the strikes, including the secretary of defense and the director of the C.I.A. It did not name the president, who is immune from such lawsuits.

I've bolded the key bit. There's something about unchecked, unreviewable executive power that rankles here. Maybe I've been reading too much Glenn Greenwald, but remember Jonathan Turley has spoken out against the Obama administration's tyrannical moves as well.

I'm not going to spend too much more time with this one. I think Judge Collyer is too deferential to executive/military power and uncritical of distinctions between U.S. citizens and non-citizen enemy combatants. Unfortunately, I think the plaintiffs erred in seeking damages from individual governmental officials. Officials are acting in the name of the state, and that's where the liability should lie. But we'll see. I doubt this will be the last on this. The concentration of power in this administration must give Dick Cheney a hard on.

Americans' Concern About Global Warming Ranked Lowest in List of Top Environmental Threats

A list composed and asked of respondents in Gallup's continuing surveys of Americans' views on climate change.

See, "Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming":

PRINCETON, NJ -- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new report this week warning of the existing and potentially severe adverse future impact of climate change, yet most Americans continue to express low levels of concern about the phenomenon. A little more than a third say they worry "a great deal" about climate change or about global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight environmental issues.

Remember, the global warming consensus is man-made.

Keep reading.

Jessica Davies Bouncing

I case you're still waking up, lol.

Via Twitter:



BONUS FLASHBACK: "Rachel Williams: Zoo's Great British Babe Search Winner 2013."

Afghans Vote in Strong Numbers Despite Taliban Threat

At NYT, "AFGHAN TURNOUT IS HIGH AS VOTERS DEFY THE TALIBAN":

KABUL, Afghanistan — Defying a campaign of Taliban violence that unleashed 39 suicide bombers in the two months before Election Day, Afghan voters on Saturday turned out in such numbers to choose a new president and provincial councils that polling hours were extended nationwide, in a triumph of determination over intimidation.

Militants failed to mount a single major attack anywhere in Afghanistan by the time polls closed, and voters lined up despite heavy rain and cold in the capital and elsewhere.

“Whenever there has been a new king or president, it has been accompanied by death and violence,” said Abdul Wakil Amiri, a government official who turned out early to vote at a Kabul mosque. “For the first time, we are experiencing democracy.”

After 12 years with President Hamid Karzai in power, and decades of upheaval, coup and war, Afghans on Saturday were for the first time voting on a relatively open field of candidates.

Election officials said that by midday more than three and a half million voters had turned out — already approaching the total for the 2009 vote. The election commission chairman, Mohammad Yusuf Nuristani, said the total could reach seven million.

But even as they celebrated the outpouring of votes, many acknowledged the long process looming ahead, with the potential for problems all along the way.

International observers, many of whom had fled Afghanistan after a wave of attacks on foreigners during the campaign, cautioned that how those votes were tallied and reported would bear close watching.

It is likely to take at least a week before even incomplete official results are announced, and weeks more to adjudicate Election Day complaints. Some of the candidates were already filing fraud complaints on Saturday.

With eight candidates in the race, the five minor candidates’ shares of the vote made it even more difficult for any one candidate to reach the 50 percent threshold that would allow an outright victory. A runoff vote is unlikely to take place until the end of May at the earliest.

More.

Also, at BCF, "Nothing to do with Islam.... Afghan Police Commander Shouts Allahu Akbar Shoots 2 Reporters Killing 1." And NYT, "Covering Afghan Vote, Until Shot by an Ally."

Dartmouth University Parkhurst Occupation

Well, I'm guess I'm a little late to this party. I'm just finding out about the student occupation of the Dartmouth administration building at the Wall Street Journal, "Oppressed by the Ivy League":

The demonstrators had a 72-point manifesto instructing the college to establish pre-set racial admission quotas and a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum for all students. Their other inspirations are for more "womyn or people of color" faculty; covering sex change operations on the college health plan ("we demand body and gender self-determination"); censoring the library catalog for offensive terms; and installing "gender-neutral bathrooms" in every campus facility, specifically including sports locker rooms.

We rarely sympathize with college administrators but we'll make an exception for Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon, an accomplished mathematician who for some reason took the job last year. The occupiers filmed their confrontation and uploaded the hostage video to the Web, where Mr. Hanlon can be seen agog as his charges berate him for his "micro-aggressions." Those are bias infractions that can't be identified without the right political training.

Mr. Hanlon left after an hour and told the little tyrants that he welcomed a "conversation" about their ultimatums. They responded in a statement that conversations—to be clear, talking—will lead to "further physical and emotional violence enacted against us by the racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist structures at Dartmouth." They added: "Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack."

Read the rest, but the bottom line is the president should have had the students arrested for trespassing and and placed under administrative investigation for violation of the college's academic contract with the threat of expulsion. The fact that he didn't gives you some idea of how screwed up we are as a society nowadays (partly explained at the editorial by the power of the U.S. Department of Education's civil rights Torquemadas).



In any case, there's more at Campus Reform, "Dartmouth College protesters stage sit-in at president's office."

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Hostile Takeover Week at College Insurrection," and Power Line, "DARTMOUTH’S CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST — IN THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE."

Alex 'Ping-Pong Balls' Pareene Calls for Expropriating the Expropriators on Heels of McCutcheon v. FEC

This is the longtime leftist ghoul who attacked Michelle Malkin as an "Asian whore."

No surprise, but the idiot went all out with his collectivist machinations following the Court's campaign finance ruling, and he's all butt-hurt people called him out for it. At the regressive hell-hole Salon, "Want to cut the rich’s influence? Take away their money!":

boy there are a lot of people who think "taxing rich people" is indistinguishable from forced collectivization

— alex pareene (@pareene) April 4, 2014

If the super-rich had less money, they would have less money to spend on campaigns and lobbying. And unlike speech, the government is very clearly allowed to take away people’s money. It’s in the Constitution and everything. I know it wasn’t that long ago that it also seemed obvious that the government could regulate political spending, but in this case the relevant constitutional authority is pretty clear and there is no room for a so-called originalist to justify a politically conservative reading of the text. Congress can tax income any way it pleases.

There is one glaring problem with my plan, of course, which is that Congress is already captured by wealthy interests, and is not inclined to tax them. But all I’m saying is that would-be campaign finance reformers ought to give up on their lost cause and shift their energies toward confiscation and redistribution.

And of course, on cue, Erik "Lumberjack" Loomis, at Lapdogs, Ghouls and Murderers, lays out a plan, "Tax 'Em!":

I don’t think this would totally solve the campaign finance issue unless the tax rates were set very high; after all, Sheldon Adelson is a very rich man. But it would help. Also higher taxation on the rich would do a lot more to solve the much more important social problems in this country.

Should we start at 70% taxation on everything, including capital gains and all investments, for all money over $1 million a year, 90% on everything over $10 million? Seems a good place to start. We can always raise it if we want more of their money. Also, massive punishments for using offshore tax havens. Perhaps property confiscation.

This is not parody, astonishingly.

Seriously. Read the comments at the LGM skank-hole. And believe you me, "confiscation" would be just the first blood-flecked sprinkles of terror with these jackboots. Heads mounted on pikes would quickly be the order of the day, not metaphorically either.

Blame America Historian Blames America for Russia's Incursion in #Ukraine

Well, since I've been on the topic of radical academics, get a load of radical historian Stephen Cohen, at the Nation, "Cold War Again: Who’s Responsible?":

The East-West confrontation over Ukraine, which led to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea but long predated it, is potentially the worst international crisis in more than fifty years—and the most fateful. A negotiated resolution is possible, but time may be running out.

A new Cold War divide is already descending in Europe—not in Berlin but on Russia’s borders. Worse may follow. If NATO forces move toward western Ukraine or even to its border with Poland, as is being called for by zealous cold warriors in Washington and Europe, Moscow is likely to send its forces into eastern Ukraine. The result would be a danger of war comparable to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Even if the outcome is the non-military “isolation of Russia,” today’s Western mantra, the consequences will be dire. Moscow will not bow but will turn, politically and economically, to the East, as it has done before, above all to fuller alliance with China. The United States will risk losing an essential partner in vital areas of its own national security, from Iran, Syria and Afghanistan to threats of a new arms race, nuclear proliferation and more terrorism. And—no small matter—prospects for a resumption of Russia’s democratization will be terminated for at least a generation.

Why did this happen, nearly twenty-three years after the end of Soviet Communism, when both Washington and Moscow proclaimed a new era of “friendship and strategic partnership”? The answer given by the Obama administration, and overwhelmingly by the US political-media establishment, is that President Vladimir Putin is solely to blame. The claim is that his “autocratic” rule at home and “neo-Soviet imperialist” policies abroad eviscerated the partnership established in the 1990s by Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. This fundamental premise underpins the American mainstream narrative of two decades of US-Russian relations, and now the Ukrainian crisis.

But there is an alternative explanation, one that’s more in accord with historical facts. Beginning with the Clinton administration, and supported by every subsequent Republican and Democratic president and Congress, the US-led West has unrelentingly moved its military, political and economic power ever closer to post-Soviet Russia. Spearheaded by NATO’s eastward expansion, already encamped in the three former Soviet Baltic republics on Russia’s border—and now augmented by missile defense installations in neighboring states—this bipartisan, winner-take-all approach has come in various forms.

They include US-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs more deeply involved in Russia’s internal politics than foreign ones are permitted to be in our country; the 1999 bombing of Moscow’s Slav ally Serbia, forcibly detaching its historic province of Kosovo; a US military outpost in former Soviet Georgia (which, along with Ukraine, was one of Putin’s previously declared “red lines”), contributing to a brief proxy war in 2008; and, throughout, one-sided negotiations, called “selective cooperation,” which took concessions from the Kremlin without meaningful White House reciprocity and followed by broken American promises.

All of this has unfolded, sincerely on the part of some of its proponents, in the name of “democracy” and “sovereign choice” for the many smaller countries involved, but the underlying geopolitical agenda has been clear. During the first East-West conflict over Ukraine, occasioned by its 2004 “Orange Revolution,” an influential Republican columnist, Charles Krauthammer, acknowledged, “This is about Russia first, democracy only second.… The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east.… The great prize is Ukraine.” The late Richard Holbrooke, an aspiring Democratic secretary of state, concurred, hoping even then for Ukraine’s “final break with Moscow” and to “accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO.

That Russia’s political elite has long held this same menacing view of US intentions makes it no less true—or any less consequential. Formally announcing the annexation of Crimea on March 18, Putin vented (not for the first time) Moscow’s longstanding resentments. Several of his assertions were untrue and alarming, but others were reasonable, or at least understandable, not “delusional.” Referring to Western (primarily American) policy-makers since the 1990s, he complained bitterly that they were “trying to drive us into some kind of corner,” “have lied to us many times” and in Ukraine “have crossed the line,” warning: “Everything has its limits.”

We are left, then, with profoundly conflicting Russian-Western narratives and a political discourse of the uncomprehending, itself often the prelude to war...

Keep reading.

And yeah, well, screw Cohen. The U.S. has interests in keeping Russia out of Europe. Cohen rejects those interests and blames America for the escalation of tensions. He's a Putin defender and propagandist of the first order. (And the Nation's a longtime pro-Soviet outlet of anti-American bilge.) Screw these idiots.

Yosef Lapid's 'The Third Debate' 25 Years After: A Symposium

I'm currently sitting on a political science hiring search for my department, and have thus been very busy this last couple of weeks. It's fascinating how reviewing applications brings back a lot of memories about graduate school and the academic job search when I was first on the market years ago.

In any case, since I'm in such a professional political science mode, here's an interesting symposium at the International Studies Quarterly homepage, "The 'Third Debate' 25 Years Later."

You can click all the articles at the link, although I just finished reading Cynthia Weber's, "The Gentrification of International Theory," which kinda gave me a chuckle at how disgruntled are critical IR scholars at the supposed lack of progress toward a really radical IR paradigm. I actually love reading this stuff, and often bring a lot of it into my classes, if for nothing else but to highlight the fringes of the field and some of the kookier stuff that's out there. For example, Weber has a forthcoming piece that bemoans the absence of a genuine "queer" international relations paradigm, "Why is there no Queer International Theory?" And as you can see, it's probably a pretty good bet that Professor Weber is queer herself, although she's clearly by no means as attractive as Professor Caroline Heldman (while I suspect she's a helluva lot smarter).

In any case, back to the symposium. Yosef Lapid is Regents Professor and Director of the Masters of Arts Program at the University of New Mexico. The symposium is revisiting his 1989 research paper, "The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era." (I love how you can access all these old academic articles on the web nowadays. Lots of great pieces have been posted in PDF format, no doubt to the consternation of the original journal publishers who own the copyrights.)

This "third debate" was pretty much on the margins of mainstream scholarship when I was at UCSB for grad school. The department was very mainstream and positivist, so to the extent that we read this literature it was mostly for reasons of breadth rather than as part of an active research program. Indeed, now that I think of it, UCSB's Department of Political Science was pretty tame ideologically. The one guy who was literally radical was Professor Fernando Lopez-Alves, a comparativist and Latin American expert who taught the department's core seminar on Theories of Comparative Politics. He was so radical that he's no longer a faculty member the department, having moved over to the Department of Sociology, a place obviously more in tune with the hardline collectivist, post-colonial ideologies of the ubiquitous Marxist professoriate in the U.S. (Professor Lopez-Alves assigned Perry Anderson's "Lineages of the Absolutist State" back in the day, which I recently pulled off the shelf to reread the first chapter. Heh, a totally Marxist explanation of the class basis of feudalism's transition to the modern monarchic-absolutist state system in Europe --- and a great read!)

Well, that's enough for now. I should get back to my regular piddly ideological blog battles with idiot Internet trolls and wannabe #FullCommunism online collectivists, lol.

'Parents should warn their daughters about pimps and liberal arts colleges...'

From Robert Stacy McCain, "#RapeCulture: Did Anybody Notice This?"

"Parents should warn their daughters about pimps and liberal arts colleges." http://t.co/6pEc31tDr8 cc @AmPowerBlog @instapundit #Occidental

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) April 4, 2014

BONUS: "Feminist College Girls Gone … Well, OK, Not ‘Wild,’ Exactly. But My Point Is …"

.@AmPowerBlog Almost peed my pants at @rsmccain's post

— Bossy & Proud of It (@lamblock) April 4, 2014

Fort Hood Shooter Was Being Treated for Depression

At NYT, "Fort Hood Gunman Was Being Treated for Depression":

KILLEEN, Tex. — The commanding general of Fort Hood said on Thursday that the soldier who killed three people and wounded 16 others during a shooting the previous day might have argued with at least one other soldier shortly before the attack.

The base commander, Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley, said investigators also believed that the mental health of the gunman, identified as Specialist Ivan Lopez, had contributed to the rampage. Specialist Lopez had an “unstable psychiatric and psychological condition,” General Milley said at a news conference on Thursday outside Fort Hood.

“There may have been a verbal altercation with another soldier or soldiers,” General Milley said. “We have strong indications of that.” The shooting, the general said, began shortly after that altercation.

Earlier on Thursday, the secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Specialist Lopez had been examined by a psychiatrist within the last month but had shown no signs that he might commit a violent act. “The plan forward was just to continue to monitor and treat him as deemed appropriate,” Mr. McHugh said.

Mr. McHugh added that doctors had been evaluating Specialist Lopez for post-traumatic stress disorder before the shooting and that he had been prescribed Ambien, a sleep aid, and other medications to treat anxiety and depression.

“It’s not clear how common that is or whether this was something larger,” a senior law enforcement official said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder.

More.

Plus, at WSJ, "Fort Hood Officials Focus on Shooting Suspect's Mental Health: Accused Shooter Ivan Lopez's Medical History Showed 'Unstable Psychiatric or Psychological Condition'."

Also at USA Today, "One Fort Hood victim was barricading door to packed room."

And the Austin American-Statesman has all kinds of coverage.

'If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out...'

Says Andrew Sullivan, "The Hounding of a Heretic":

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure....

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

As much as I dislike Andrew Sullivan, he's been consistently standing up against the left's gaystapo of late.

Walter James Casper III not so much. The stalking hate-troll RT'd this disgusting piece from regressive dirtbag Will Oremus:

Sorry, Brendan Eich: If you're against gay marriage, you're a bad CEO. http://t.co/hj6kGWPcpL

— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) April 3, 2014

Lots more at Memeorandum. And see Allahupundit, especially, "Mozilla CEO “resigns” after uproar over his opposition to gay marriage," and "How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8?"

None of this is new. See Michelle Malkin, "Anti-Prop. 8 mob watch: L.A. Film Festival director resigns over donations," and "The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob."

This brings back a lot of memories, since for months after the 2008 election I blogged the homosexual marriage issue every which way you can think of. I'm kinda bored with it at this point. It's not like we didn't see this coming. Leftists feel empowered with their newfound majority approval of homosexuality and they're going to force dissenters to get in line. Indeed, that's the exact language they use. Wilson Cruz told Phil Robertson to "get in line." If you don't, you're going to pay. Leftist fascism is out and proud.

Alleged Leaked Nina Agdal Nude Photo Floating Around

At COED.

And Boston Barstool, "PSA: None of Your Friends F-ked Nina Agdal."

Remember, SI "broke the nude barrier" with the current swimsuit edition, featuring Ms. Agdal.

She's definitely a looker.

PETA's 'Cruelty Caseworkers'

You gotta read this letter.

Wow. This is such an interesting letter. @Peta, can you confirm this is real, and from you? #PETA http://t.co/i4OQYwVJ4O

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 3, 2014

Not ethical. Not humane. Simply more leftist hypocrisy and evil.

Reason-Rupe Poll: Americans Feel More Violated by Government Data Collection Than Private Data Collection

At Reason.

Sarah Palin on Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon: Vladimir Putin 'No Match for a Mama Grizzly...'

You gotta love it, via Theo Spark:

American Physical Society Reviews Its Climate Change Statement

At IBD, "Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits an Iceberg":

(IBD) Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits An Iceberg http://t.co/o4ropZhQTu - http://t.co/MsqmAFupBU - pic.twitter.com/6mihzBS6Fg

— Daniel John Sobieski (@gerfingerpoken) April 2, 2014

Junk Science: Climate change "deniers," as global warm-mongers call those who think empirical evidence is more reliable than computer models, may soon count among their number a 50,000-strong body of physicists.

At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.

Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

And at the APS, "Climate Change Statement Review." In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"

The other three American Physical Society members, reports Quadrant Online, maintain that climate change is real, disaster is imminent and man is at fault. They are long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who in 1996 drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a "discernible" influence of man-made CO2 on climate), IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

The APS, to its credit, is addressing the chasm between computer models that cannot even predict the past and actual observations suggesting that warming is on hold and largely influenced by natural factors.

Computer models are simply not adequate to address the infinite number of variables, natural and man-made, that contribute to climate, often leading to wild-eyed predictions.

More.

And at the APS, "Climate Change Statement Review."

Paranoid Rape-Culture Harpies Running Wild at Occidental College

I've been reporting on Professor Caroline Heldman and the radical feminist takeover at Occidental College for some time now.

But things have gotten even worse over there, "progressively" worse, if you catch my meaning, and increasingly paranoid.

See KC Johnson, at Minding the Campus, "Irrational 'Rape Culture' Activism at Occidental and BuzzFeed."

And going straight to BuzzFeed (and those paranoid harpies), "Inside the Sexual Assault Civil War at Occidental College."

At this point, I would recommend my transfer students steer clear of Occidental. That place is pretty much the Duke University of the West Coast by now. FUBAR, in other words.

Sophie Reade, Stacey Poole, Kym Graham and Joey Fisher for Nuts April 2014

Lovely ladies.

At Egotastic!, "Humpday Huzzah! Sophie Reade, Stacey Poole, Kym Graham and Joey Fisher Topless and Showing Off for Happy Visual Times."

Charles Koch: 'I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society...'

At WSJ, "Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination":

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism....

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal...

Keep reading.

Interesting timing in light of today's ruling in McCutcheon.

Perhaps Mr. Koch was all ready to go with the op-ed in expectation of the Court's decision. Either way, the leftists are howling. Here's the headline at the (ironically billionaire-backed) Think Progress, "How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors." And the no-surprise headline from Politico, "Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling."

Right. Democrats are collectivists who oppose free speech, want to control people's lives, and advocate the expansion of government to give more power to leftist bureaucrats and regressive politicos. They're un-American and depraved.

Shooting at Fort Hood

It's still fluid down there.

At the Austin American-Statesman, "McCaul: Four dead, 14 injured in Fort Hood shooting."

And CNN, "Suspected Fort Hood shooter dead; situation ongoing."

And check Memeorandum for developments.

Dear Mr. Colbert – Me So Stupid. You So Funny!

From Michelle Malkin:

Question: Who are the most prominent, public purveyors of Asian stereotypes and ethnic language-mocking in America?
The right answer is liberal Hollywood and Democrats.

The wrong and slanderous answer is conservatives, which is what liberal performance artist/illegal alien amnesty lobbyist Stephen Colbert wants Americans to believe. Last week on his Comedy Central cable show, Colbert resurrected his “satirical” 2005 “Ching Chong Ding Dong” skit, in which he speaks in pidgin English with a grossly exaggerated accent. He used it in a bone-headed attempt to ridicule Republican football team owner Dan Snyder and others who defend the Washington Redskins’ name.

“Oh, I ruv tea. It’s so good for you. You so pretty, American girl,” Colbert in his conservative talk show host persona jibber-jabbers in the 2005 segment. “You come here. You kiss my tea make her sweet. I need no sugar when you around. Come on my rickshaw, I give you a ride to Bangkok.” Forward to 2014: To mock Snyder’s recent creation of a foundation to benefit Native Americans, Colbert replayed the skit and jeered in character that he was “willing to show the Asian community that I care by introducing the Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.”

A group of diehard liberals, led by a young Korean-American writer, Suey Park, gave Colbert a hard time about his cringe-worthy act, which was accompanied by an awkward laugh track and left the distinct impression that the real Colbert enjoys crude ethnic-language mockery just a little too much.

Park and her liberal Twitter followers tenaciously questioned Colbert’s use of “satire” that ends up stoking the racism it purports to mock and abhor. They obviously picked the incendiary #CancelColbert hashtag to force attention on their complaints. My view is and always has been that the answer to speech you disagree with is more and better speech. For me, #CancelColbert wasn’t about censoring his show. It was about exposing his hypocrisy and don’t-you-understand-satire double standards.

More. And at Twitchy, "Racist ‘joke’ has people calling for Comedy Central to #CancelColbert; Update: Tweet deleted."

I'm sure racist Walter James Casper III has defended Colbert. He's the biggest left-wing hypocrite asshat.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Campaign Contributions

Wow. Another blow to leftist hypocrite speech muzzlers.

Headline via Puff Ho.

And at WaPo, "Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations":

Here's the SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling striking down aggregate campaign donation limits ==> http://t.co/CeahbeetCA

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) April 2, 2014

Free speech wins again! http://t.co/chgOfgMgku #tcot

— David Bossie (@David_Bossie) April 2, 2014

Looks like Koch-mas came early this year! http://t.co/zB68IT28M8

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) April 2, 2014

The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.

“If Citizens United opened a door,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in reading his dissent from the bench, “today’s decision we fear will open a floodgate.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion striking down the aggregate limits of what an individual may spend on candidates and political committees. He noted that the limit on individual contributions to a specific candidate was not affected by the ruling.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The aggregate totals that the court struck down in the case — McCutcheon v. FEC --imposed a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates during a two-year election cycle, plus $74,600 total on giving to political parties and committees.

The base limits on contributions left unchanged by the ruling allow donations to candidates of $2,600 for both primary and general elections.

The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.

I love it! What a fabulous victory for money in politics.

And at Twitchy, "‘Koch-mas came early!’ SCOTUS upholds 1st Amendment, crazy Harry Reid hardest hit."

Americans Still Hate #ObamaCare

At Yid With Lid, "Quinnipiac Poll Americans Still Hate Obamacare" (via Hot Air and Memeorandum).

American voters oppose the Affordable Care Act 55 – 41 percent and 40 percent are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Obamacare, while 27 percent are more likely and 31 percent say this will not affect their vote.

#7MillionAndCounting #tcot #teaparty pic.twitter.com/oCl3EEchCC
— The People's Cube (@ThePeoplesCube) April 1, 2014

The #ObamaCare Copperheads

At WSJ, "If the law is now such a success, why are Senate Democrats still fleeing?"

Because the people who matter --- the voters --- don't buy the MSM bullshit about 7.1 million signups and how it's such a great law after all.

Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.

In the Rose Garden Tuesday, President Obama reported that 7.1 million people had signed up so far, confirming a Monday night White House news leak. "That doesn't mean all our health-care problems have been solved forever," he conceded with customary modesty. The government appears to have tapped heretofore-unknown reserves of bureaucratic efficiency by releasing numbers timed to this campaign-style pep rally.

Yet for months the Health and Human Services Department has refused to disclose crucial contextual data, such as how many insurance contracts are in force, the market-by-market totals and how many beneficiaries were previously covered. Regardless of your partisan sympathies, the White House's selective disclosure is a crime against transparency and accountable government.

Then there are the 12 Democratic Senators up for re-election who each cast the decisive 60th vote for ObamaCare. They're acting as if the law is still a political threat, and presumably their polls say as much. The ObamaCare Dozen have tried to create an alibi by saying the plan isn't perfect but mend it don't end it. They've now proposed some concrete fixes, and they must think their constituents aren't paying attention.

Courtesy of Democrats like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Warner of Virginia, the big idea is to create a cheaper, worse type of coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges. All current plans are more or less interchangeable because of the law's benefit and wealth redistribution mandates. They differ based mainly on how much of the upfront cost is built into the premium, with tiers known as platinum, gold, silver and bronze.

The Senators want to create a new "copper" policy that would cover 50% of average medical expenses with the rest out of pocket. Are people really clamoring for even higher ObamaCare deductibles? A true fix would deregulate the exchanges and trust American consumers to choose the benefits they want or need, rather than forcing them to pay slightly less for one uniform standard. These mandates were determined via HHS administrative discretion, not by the statute or written by a finger of light.

The Democratic fixers also want to ask state insurance commissioners "to develop models for states to sell heath insurance across state lines" and "discern the benefits and challenges of selling health insurance in this manner." In other words, ask local regulators how much of their vast new ObamaCare powers they want to give up in the name of national competition. Predetermined answer: None...

More via Memeorandum.

Drunk ASU Freshman Naomi McClendon Falls 10 Stories to Her Death

Completely plastered at a party, she fell over the rails.

This used to happen at UCSB when I was there in the 1990s. High-rise dormitories and college drinking do not mix.

At the Arizona Republic, "ASU student death investigated by Tempe police":

Tempe police consider the death of an 18-year-old Arizona State University student a classic example of the dangers posed by under-aged drinking and are investigating who furnished her with alcohol at a party.

Sgt. Mike Pooley, a police spokesman, confirmed the investigation into furnishing alcohol for minors but said he cannot discuss further details. Pooley said that surveillance video shows that victim Naomi McClendon was clearly intoxicated after she left the party and entered 922 Place, a high rise off-campus apartment complex near Rural Road and Apache Boulevard where she was visiting a friend.

The surveillance video shows McClendon was unsteady on her feet early Sunday morning as she entered the lobby, rode in an elevator and walked in a hallway to her friend's apartment, Pooley said.

While McClendon's friends left the 10th floor apartment briefly, the victim walked onto the balcony, where she straddled the railing, lost her balance and plunged to her death at 2:45 a.m., Pooley said.

It was the sort of tragedy Tempe police were hoping to prevent earlier this year through their Safe and Sober Campaign, which cracked down on under-aged drinking, loud parties and driving under the influence of alcohol in the "loud party corridor" near ASU, where a study found a high incidence of major crimes. The corridor is bounded by University Drive, Broadway Road, Price Road and Rural Road.

"We know as a police department that minor, youth consumption can be a dangerous and sometimes deadly activity," Pooley said, especially when it involves binge drinking...

Talks Falter on Middle East Peace

At WSJ, "U.S. Gambit on Mideast Peace Talks Falters" (via Google):

The Obama administration's campaign to forge a Middle East peace agreement appeared near collapse Tuesday, despite a U.S. move to negotiate the release of a convicted American spy in a last-gasp effort to win more concessions from Israel.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who was set to visit Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday, canceled his trip, the State Department said.

A formal breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, which the White House stressed hasn't occurred, would throw into turmoil President Barack Obama's second-term foreign-policy agenda, already reeling from rising tensions with Russia and an inability to stop the civil war in Syria.

Mr. Obama has said solving the Mideast conflict is one of three main international objectives of his second term. Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday criticized his administration's last-minute discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to offer up the spy, Jonathan Pollard, to persuade the Israelis to make good on previous promises to release prisoners. They called it a sign of a White House desperate for a major foreign-policy success.

"Releasing Pollard, in the context of the current peace-process travails, is bad policy," said Aaron David Miller, who served for some two decades as an adviser to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. "It reflects the weakness and desperation of the administration that is presiding over a peace process not yet ready for prime time."

Mr. Obama's allies on Capitol Hill questioned the move.

"I've followed this issue closely over the years. It's hard for me to see how releasing Jonathan Pollard would help jump-start Middle East peace talks," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said. "It's one thing to consider releasing him after an agreement has been reached, but it's another to discuss setting him free before that has happened."

White House officials refused to declare the peace effort a failure on Tuesday. One senior administration official said the situation is "still fluid," and it is unclear how it will conclude.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama hasn't made a decision on whether to release Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Kerry has made a peace agreement the barometer through which to gauge his tenure by making dozens of trip to the Mideast over the past year and often holding meetings with Israeli and Arab officials by himself. Mr. Kerry has argued that ending the conflict would bring broader stability to the region and rob extremist groups like al Qaeda of an important recruiting tool.

Despite eight months of negotiations spearheaded by Mr. Kerry, diplomacy appeared to be unraveling late Tuesday after Mr. Abbas said he had signed papers formally applying to join 15 international organizations affiliated with the United Nations.

The U.S. had pressed Mr. Abbas during the negotiations not to move forward with such actions, which would have given the Palestinians more authority to press grievances. Washington hoped to forestall such a move through Israel's agreement to release political prisoners and to take other confidence-building steps as part of a larger process with a goal a formal peace agreement by April 29.

Mr. Netanyahu, though, had balked at following through with the prisoner release, infuriating the Palestinian side, and precipitating the U.S. offer of Mr. Pollard in a bid to get more Israeli cooperation.

All three sides have remained tight-lipped about how far the negotiations had progressed since their start in July, including the issue of the prisoner release...

Also at the Times of Israel, "Despite Palestinian unilateralism, talks will likely limp on," and "Pollard-for-prisoners deal said to be near completion."

And at the New York Times, "Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter."

Also at NY Daily News, "Kerry’s shambles: Mideast peace push turns to mush."

Muriel Bowser Defeats Mayor Vincent Gray in Democrat Primary for D.C. Mayor

At Associated Press, "Bowser Tops Incumbent Gray in DC Mayor Primary."

And the Washington Post, "Councilwoman Bowser defeats incumbent Gray in D.C. mayoral primary":

Muriel E. Bowser, a low-key but politically canny District lawmaker, won the Democratic mayoral nomination Tuesday, emerging from a pack of challengers in a low-turnout primary to deny scandal-tarnished incumbent Vincent C. Gray a second term.

The 41-year-old D.C. Council member triumphed in the latest in a string of District elections to reveal a city unsettled over the shape of its future. Bowser’s win heralds many more months of uncertainty as she faces a substantial general-election challenger while a lame-duck Gray is left to steer the city amid the threat of federal indictment.

Bowser (D-Ward 4) moved deftly to capitalize on public doubts about Gray’s trustworthiness fueled by the still-unresolved federal corruption investigation into his 2010 campaign. Alone among seven Democratic challengers, she amassed a coalition that crossed demographic and geographic lines allowing her to outpoll Gray’s shrunken but steady base of African American voters.

The outcome of the race remained in doubt for four hours after the 8 p.m. closing of polling places as elections officials struggled with an unusually late and messy tabulation process.

For much of the evening, the campaigns and the public watched results trickle in and wondered what was going wrong at city elections headquarters downtown. Officials blamed the slow pace on poor training of election workers in the use of electronic voting machines. And the campaigns waited impatiently to know who had won.

Tamara Robinson, a spokeswoman for the city Board of Elections, said vote counters noticed inconsistent numbers reported in several precincts, so they stopped releasing tallies until they could examine them more closely. They found that five or six machines had not been shut down correctly by poll workers, who may have been overwhelmed by the larger number of electronic machines at precincts this year.

With 89 percent of precincts reporting shortly before midnight, Bowser led Gray 44 percent to 33 percent — prompting a concession speech from the incumbent.

Gray said he intended to keep working, and “by the way, we have nine more months.”

In her subsequent victory remarks, Bowser struck a conciliatory note, reaching out to her rivals’ supporters in an appeal for party unity during a seven-month general-election campaign to come.

“It’s our job to let them know that I’ll be their mayor, too,” she said. “We’re going to earn their support. We’re going to hear their vision, and we’re going to work with them.”

More.

And at Politico, "Muriel Bowser ousts Vincent Gray in D.C. primary."

Ebola Reaches Guinean Capital, Stirring Fears

Freakin' gnarly, at the New York Times:

DAKAR, Senegal — An outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in the West African nation of Guinea has reached the crowded capital, Conakry, prompting new fears about its spread, health officials said Tuesday.

Over the past month, the disease has traveled from Guinea’s remote forest regions near the Liberia and Sierra Leone borders and has already killed 83 people, including four in Conakry.

Now, with 13 cases in a densely populated capital of two million people, health officials say the challenge of containing the outbreak has become more acute. Ebola has killed hundreds in rural Central Africa over the past four decades, but it is unusual for it to reach urban centers.

Residents of Conakry said Tuesday that disquiet had set in, though markets were crowded and the capital’s monstrous traffic jams continued unabated. Some were carrying around small bottles of bleach, people were avoiding shaking hands, and pharmacies were selling out of hand sanitizer.

“In Conakry everybody is worried,” said Fodé Abass Bangoura, a lawyer with an office downtown. “People are really preoccupied about this. There is a sort of psychosis about this now. I’m avoiding physical contact with people, and I’m eating at home.”...

The Ebola virus is rare but deadly. Its point of origin is often the consumption of bush meat, including meat from apes or possibly bats, and it has a fatality rate of up to 90 percent. Human transmission occurs through contact with bodily fluids. Already, the Guinea outbreak is more serious than the most recent previous one, in Uganda in 2012, when fewer than 50 died. In that outbreak, cases were also recorded in the capital, Kampala. But in some previous outbreaks in Central and Eastern Africa, as many as 400 cases were recorded, health officials said.

More.

And from Laurie Garrett, at Foreign Policy, "Don't Kiss the Cadaver":

The Ebola hemorrhagic disease is terrifying, as the virus punches microscopic holes in the endothelial lining of blood veins, vessels, and capillaries, causing blood to leak from its normal pipelines coursing through the body. Within hours, the punctures enlarge, the leaking turns into a flood, and blood pours into the intestines, bowels, and respiratory channels. As the victims become feverish -- raging in pain and hallucinations -- their tears drip red with blood. The crimson liquid flows from their noses, ears, bowels, bladders, mouths, while old wounds reopen all over their bodies. The deterioration is swift, transpiring from infection to death typically within five days. And Ebola is spread, via the infected body fluids, to attendant family members, health-care workers, and funeral preparers.

It's like a freakin' Biblical plague. Damn.

The Big Picture on #ObamaCare's Politics

From Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard:

Unlike Medicare and Social Security, Obamacare creates clear winners and clear losers. Of course, people end up losing in the deals in Medicare and Social Security (e.g. a person who has worked his whole life but dies at the age of 59 and thus never collects), but such people are never actually aware of the loss. Obamacare losers know that they have been made worse off, just as its winners know that they have been made better off.

Losers in the schema include people whose new insurance is more expensive or otherwise less satisfactory because of the new regulations, seniors whose Medicare Advantage program will be peeled back (or whose local hospital stops taking them because of cuts to Part A), businesses who cannot afford the mandates, people who lose their employer insurance as a consequence of the new business mandates, young and health people who, and others. Importantly, the administration's delays speak to the potential coalition of the losers, as almost all of them have been designed to keep these groups from realizing the harm they are due to suffer before the 2014 midterm election.

Two inferences to be drawn from this, one moral and one political.

The moral inference: Shame on the Democrats and the left for setting up Obamacare this way. The people who are losers in this schema have long been protected by both sides in an unwritten political agreement, which vouches that the only people the government "takes" from are those with plenty to spare. The rule was: you do not redistribute money and security away from the middle class to accomplish some policy objective. The Democrats broke this rule, largely out of cowardice. They wanted to hide the trust costs of the legislation. Rather than put together a straightforward tax that hit everybody equally (like the Social Security tax), they created a convoluted system to fund the program, such that people whose premiums have gone up are paying an implicit tax, one that happens not to be collected by the government.

The president deserves particular criticism. The president is the one elected official who can claim to represent all the people and thus has long been the agent to vouchsafe this political bargain. Barack Obama broke the deal, and he lied about it, to boot, with, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

Next time you hear a liberal talking about radical conservatives breaking generations of tradition, remember that Obamacare is actually the break with the past. And a perverse one at that.

The political inference: The politics of this moving forward is a lot more complicated than people on both sides seem to think. This law cannot be repealed in a straightforward manner, nor is it securely in place. That is because there are winners and losers to be mobilized on both sides. The final fate of Obamacare depends upon (a) the relative size and strengths of both groups; (b) how well the two parties bid for their support.

This, then, is the goal for conservatives moving forward. The next week the Democrats and their water carriers in the media will cheer about how Obamacare is vindicated because of 6-7 million "enrollments." Nonsense. The real battle is going to be fought over the next few election cycles, as both sides mobilize their coalitions. Republicans must mobilize the losers and also present an appealing counter-offer to the winners. In any new program put forward by the GOP, people who are made better off under Obamacare must be left at least as well off. Not only that, but the program must be straightforward enough that Obamacare's winners will be able to understand clearly that in the GOP proposal their benefits will not disappear; after all, the Democrats and their friends in the media will do anything and everything to convince these people that they will be made worse off.

Importantly, this was the political landscape of Obamacare six days ago, six weeks ago, six months ago. The bill was bound to create winners and losers by its very design; indeed, a careful read of reports from CBO and CMS at the time of passage indicated that very clearly. The goal for the GOP is to build a coalition that combines the losers, and a critical mass of winners, to replace it with something that is better.

Oh, that oughta be a cakewalk!

White House Touts 7.1 Million Signups in #ObamaCare Victory Lap

Look, I'm not going to rain on the president's parade. The ultimate test of the White House victory lap will come in November, and so far nothing contradicts the conventional wisdom that the Democrats will be eviscerated at the polls. It's going to be a bloodbath.

Here's the MSM angle at the Los Angeles Times, "President Obama says Obamacare enrolled 7.1 million people."

And debunking Obama's bull, from John Hayward, at Red State, "ObamaCare is a success, if you just ignore everything wrong with it," and Bridget Johnson, at PJ Media, "Obama: ‘There are Still No Death Panels; Armageddon Has Not Arrived’."

More from Doug Ross, "LATEST OBAMACARE LIE SHREDDED: 7.1 million enrollment number is bogus; only 858,000 have paid premiums," and Hot Air, "Video: Gigantic boondoggle celebrated."

Palette cleanser, with Charles Krauthammer, "This is a phony number..."

Brittney Palmer UFC Hottie for Fitness Gurls Magazine

Via Bro Bible.



Also at Fitness Gurls, "BRITTNEY PALMER COVER MODEL."

#Democrats Scramble to Stave Off Midterm Disaster

It's gonna be a bloodbath.

From John Harwood, at NYT:

WASHINGTON — If it were only President Obama’s flagging poll numbers, the problem for Democrats of how to mobilize core supporters to vote this fall would be bad enough. Midterm elections for an unpopular president’s party are almost always bleak.

But it is not only that. The very structure of the 21st-century national Democratic coalition makes its November turnout predicament bad, perhaps historically so.

“There’s never been a worse coalition for the purpose of a midterm election,” said David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report. The ability of Democrats to counter the problem will help determine how politically difficult Mr. Obama’s last two years in the White House could become.

Turnout for American presidential elections (roughly six in 10 eligible voters in recent contests) is always higher than for midterm congressional elections (fewer than half). But the rate of falloff from one to the next varies for different groups of voters.

In 2012, exit polls showed, Mr. Obama won a second term by rolling up margins of 11 percentage points among women, 24 percentage points among voters ages 18 to 24, and 87 percentage points among blacks. Over the last four midterm elections, turnout by all three groups fell more from the previous presidential race than turnout by Republican-leaning men, whites and those over 65.

Young voters have abandoned the midterm electorate at more than twice the rate of seniors. Hispanics, who favored Mr. Obama by a margin of 44 percentage points, have voted at just two-thirds the rate of whites. Unmarried women, the source of the Democratic advantage with women, vote less often than their married counterparts.

“I’m worried this could be a disaster,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster...

Heh. Celinda Lake? She was in the news recently, at Scared Monkeys, "Leading Democratic Pollster Celinda Lake Says to Democrats, “Don’t Defend” Obamacare … Also Predicts “Huge Turnout Disadvantage” in 2014 for Dems."

They're going to be destroyed.

And back at NYT here.

'In all the talk of the 6 million* who have successfully* enrolled in #ObamaCare, do not forget the many lies,* stories,* made up from whole cloth*...'

From Mary Katharine Ham, at Hot Air, "ObamaCare's victims: The Supercut."

That "supercut" is a massive video mash up of #ObamaCare horror stories. Seriously epic. Even heartrending at times.

Hit that link and watch the whole thing. (And follow the many links* as well.)

Angels' Don Baylor Breaks Leg on Ceremonial First Pitch — #OpeningDay

Oh man, he looks messed up bad too.

At SB Nation, "Angels coach Don Baylor breaks leg during ceremonial first pitch (VIDEO)."

Also at LAT, "Angels' Don Baylor breaks leg in ceremonial first pitch mishap."

And via Twitter:

On Baylor's injury: "Most femoral shaft fractures take 4 to 6 months to completely heal," per American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) April 1, 2014

Don Baylor has fractured right femur, surgery tomorrow. #Angels

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) April 1, 2014

It usually takes a car crash or something similar to break a femur, the strongest bone in body, per AAOS. Get well soon, Don Baylor.

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) April 1, 2014

Don Baylor breaks leg while catching 1st pitch (The Associated Press) http://t.co/cagavE9Xay #MLB #Angels
— L.A. Angels Baseball (@LAAngelsBB) April 1, 2014

When your hitting coach breaks his leg catching the 1st pitch, your season could be doomed. SorryAngels and Don Baylor
— mahoneybill (@mahoneybill) April 1, 2014

Well, let's hope not. Baylor got a bad break, excuse the pun.

Baylor was diagnosed in '03 with Multiple Myeloma, a cancer that weakens the bones. Also afflicted Mel Stottlemyre, among many others.

— Tim Brown (@TBrownYahoo) April 1, 2014

#ObamaCare Website Failures Impede Signup Surge as Deadline Nears

You think?

At NYT:

WASHINGTON — A frenzied last-minute scramble to sign up for health insurance overloaded phone lines and temporarily overwhelmed the website of the federal marketplace on Monday, as hundreds of thousands of people around the country raced to beat the deadline to obtain coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Administration officials, stepping up the push for enrollment in the final hours, said they were confident that they would reach their original goal of having seven million people sign up for private health plans through federal and state exchanges. But the end of the open enrollment period, which began six months ago with the disastrous debut of the federal website, starts a new phase likely to be defined by the economics of health insurance as well as by politics.

Though HealthCare.gov, the federal website, performed markedly better on Monday than on the day it opened, many consumers still struggled to enroll. The site unexpectedly stopped taking applications for several hours early Monday because of a software problem discovered during scheduled maintenance overnight, said Aaron Albright, a spokesman at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency running the site. For at least an hour at midday, the site again thwarted people trying to create accounts so they could buy insurance online...

ClusterCare, from the day it opened for enrollment to the day of the so-called "final" deadline.

Keep reading.

And see the companion piece at WSJ, "New Technical Woes Hobble Health-Insurance Sign-Ups at Zero Hour: Problems Likely Mean More Americans Will Enroll After Deadline."

Insurers Already Calculating 2015 Premiums as #ObamaCare Kicks In

Because rates are going up, up, up!

At LAT, "Far more Californians than expected have bought plans through the state health insurance exchange. How sick they are will factor into next year's prices."