Tax Measures Failing in California Special Election! - UPDATED!!

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

As expected, five of six budget-related ballot measures on Tuesday's special election that would help reduce California's projected $21.3 billion deficit were failing, early returns showed.

The defeat of the measures would put the state that's already in financial abyss into a deeper hole, but the voter rejection would further confirm Californians' disapproval of the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are handling the state's fiscal crisis.

With nearly 14 percent of the precincts reporting results, Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E were failing while the only measure voters were approving was Prop. 1F, which would freeze salaries of top state officials including lawmakers and the governor.

I'll try to post a final entry later, when enough precincts report their tallies ...

**********

UPDATE: Okay, here's the headline at 10:15 at the Los Angeles Times: "Package of Budget Measures Heads to Defeat." And here's the San Francisco Chronicle's headline: "Californians Just Say No To Budget Measures":

California voters on Tuesday soundly rejected a package of ballot measures that would have reduced the state's projected budget deficit of $21.3 billion to something slightly less overwhelming: $15.4 billion.

The defeat of the measures means that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature will have to consider deeper cuts to education, public safety, and health and human services, officials have said.

Propositions 1A through 1E - which would have changed the state's budgeting system, ensured money to schools in future years and generated billions of dollars of revenue for the state's general fund - fell well behind in early returns and never recovered.

The only measure that voters approved was Proposition 1F, which will freeze salaries of top state officials including lawmakers and the governor during tough budget years.In a written statement Tuesday night, Schwarzenegger said that he believes Californians are simply frustrated with the state's dysfunctional budget system.

"Now we must move forward from this point to begin to address our fiscal crisis with constructive solutions," the governor said.

Here's the table from the Fresno Bee, with 32.9% of precincts reporting:

Prop 1A (spending caps, taxes)	Yes	36.6%
	No	63.4%
Prop 1B (payments to schools)	Yes	40.1%
	No	59.9%
Prop 1C (lottery borrowing)	Yes	38.3%
	No	61.7%
Prop 1D (diverting child development funds)	Yes	37.6%
	No	62.4%
Prop 1E (reallocating mental health funds)	Yes	37.1%
	No	62.9%
Prop 1F (elected official pay)	Yes	76.4%
	No	23.6%

I'll review all the final results and analysis tomorrow ...

Schwarzenegger's Election Day Junket to Washington!

I'm just waiting for the polls to close. I'm hoping to get a post up on the defeat of the Schwarzenegger tax initiatives. I just found this Photoshop, via W.C. Varones and Michelle Malkin, so I thought I'd share in the meantime:

Voters just aren't in the mood, in any case, and neither is The Taxinator!

Here's a few stories until I post some election results:

* "Schwarzenegger has tough time selling ballot props."

* "California polling stations see light turnout."

* "Schwarzenegger heads to D.C. for Election Day."

* "Schwarzenegger defends trip to Washington on election day."

Check back a little later ...

David Herbert Donald, 88, Was Renowned Lincoln Biographer

David Herbert Donald, a historian and renowned biographer of Abraham Lincoln, has died. He was 88. The New York Times has the obituary.

Donald's classic one-volume work, Lincoln, was considered the finest biography of the 16th president in a generation. The book came out in 1996. I was in graduate school at the time and I held off on buying a copy. Lincoln scholarship was outside my specialty and it wasn't like I was hurting for things to read! But when I traveled to Washington, D.C., in 2007 I picked up a copy in the giftshop at the Lincoln Memorial. I read parts of the volume that summer.

Donald's Lincoln page at Amazon boast a number of reviews, as well as the following passage from the book. My thoughts and prayers go out to Professor Donald's family:

On the day after the Quincy debate, both Lincoln and Douglas got aboard the City, of Louisiana and sailed down the Mississippi River to Alton, for the final encounter of the campaign. Looking haggard with fatigue, Douglas opened the debate on October 15 in a voice so hoarse that in the early part of the speech he could scarcely be heard. After briefly reviewing the standard arguments over which he and Lincoln had differed since the beginning of the campaign, he made the peculiar decision to devote most of his speech to a detailed defense of his course on Lecompton. He concluded with a rabble-rousing attack on the racial views he attributed to Republicans and an announcement "that the signers of the Declaration of Independence...did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fejee islanders, nor any other barbarous race," when they issued that document.

In his reply Lincoln said he was happy to ignore Douglas's long account of his feud with the Buchanan administration; he felt like the put-upon wife in an old jestbook, who stood by as her husband struggled with a bear, saying, "Go it, husband!-Go it bear!" Once again he went through his standard answers to Douglas's charges against him and the Republican party. Recognizing that at Alton he was addressing "an audience, having strong sympathies southward by relationship, place of birth, and so on," he tried explain why it was so important to keep slavery out of Kansas and other national territories. This was land needed "for an outlet for our surplus., population"; this was land where "white men may find a home"; this was "an outlet for free white people every where, the world over-in which Hans, and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better conditions in their lives.

And that brought him again to what he perceived as "the real issue in this controversy," which once more he defined as a conflict "on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong." Rising to the oratorical high point in the entire series of debates, he told the Alton audience: "That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. it is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings."

With a brief rejoinder by Douglas, the debates were ended. After that both candidates made a few more speeches to local rallies, but everybody realized that the campaign was over, and the decision now lay with the voters.

The Death of Newsweek

I've been a longtime Newsweek subscriber. It's been off and on, but I've had the magazine delivered since the late 1980s. Why Newsweek? I don't know, really. I honestly thought Newsweek was just so authoritative. Cool too! I've had subscriptions to Time and U.S. News as well, but there was something about Newsweek that seemed "just right." ("My Turn" was always a favorite, as was the "Periscope" and "quotes of the week" sections.)

I looked forward to reading it every Monday, from cover to cover.

I know, I know: It's a liberal rag! Well, I'm a a neocon, don't forget! I've not only been mugged by reality, I've been robbed at gunpoint for real!

Anyway, my subscription's expiring. I keep getting those notices in the mail, but since the magazine announced it was going to a "journal of opionion" format, I've balked. If I'm going to subscribe to journals of opinion, I'll get Commentary or Weekly Standard. There's a few others I like after that (Policy Review is scholarly and opinionated, and I like City Journal too), but most everything's available online nowadays anyway, so we'll see.

As for Newsweek, the change is a bummer in some sense. Basically, beyond the liberal or conservative debate, I'm still clinging to the "old media" model. I blame it partly on my teaching. As much as I love my outstanding textbook, the chapter on the mass media still doesn't quite capture the incredible dynamism of the online media world. The history of the press is so fabulous that I guess uncertainty is unsettling, even for me, a blogger! Not only that, surprisingly, not that many students are hip with the blogosphere, or at least very few tell me so. Some of it's plain old nostalgia. I've been a news junkie for 25 years. I blame the Los Angeles Times for my decision to become a political scientist! The crashing of traditional media is more personal for me in that sense, whereas others are relishing the sight of print journalism circling the drain.

All of this is a roundabout way of getting to John Podhoretz's critique, at Contentions, of the "new" Newsweek (via Memeorandum).

Newsweek's shift to a new model was known last December (see, "Newsweek to Cut Staff, Reporting in Magazine Makeover"). Editor Jon Meacham made the decision to basically eliminate traditional news reporting and shift to commentary and analysis on the hot button issues of the day. As doubtful a tack as that might be (Podhoretz says it's a surefire disaster), failiure was almost guaranteed by the embarrassing initial cover stories the magazine ran showcasing the new format. Particulary bad was Newsweek's article on gay marriage, "The Religious Case For Gay Marriage." Also terrible was "We Are All Socialists Now." These articles were just plain trash. And as a preview of things to come, frankly it's only be a matter of time before the magazine goes belly up.

Podhoretz thinks so too, and he hammers Meacham for claiming that Newsweek will remain "non-partisan." Read the whole thing, in any case. Podhoretz's discussion of the "flush" days when he was a young journalist working at Time is gold:

Twenty-seven years ago, I began my professional career at Time Magazine as a reporter-researcher in the World section, which was devoted to international news. Generally speaking, the World section ran 12 pages in the magazine. Nation, devoted to news within our borders, ran about the same or a page shorter. Think of that—an American publication, marketed to millions, that devoted slightly more of its attention, and vastly more of its budget, to news about events outside the United States.

Time Inc., the parent company of Time, was flush then. Very, very, very flush. So flush that the first week I was there, the World section had a farewell lunch for a writer who was being sent to Paris to serve as bureau chief…at Lutece, the most expensive restaurant in Manhattan, for 50 people.So flush that if you stayed past 8, you could take a limousine home…and take it anywhere, including to the Hamptons if you had weekend plans there. So flush that if a writer who lived, say, in suburban Connecticut, stayed late writing his article that week, he could stay in town at a hotel of his choice. So flush that, when I turned in an expense account covering my first month with a $32 charge on it for two books I’d bought for research purposes, my boss closed her office door and told me never to submit a report asking for less than $300 back, because it would make everybody else look bad. So flush when its editor-in-chief, the late Henry Grunwald, went to visit the facilities of a new publication called TV Cable Week that was based in White Plains, a 40 minute drive from the Time Life Building, he arrived by helicopter—and when he grew bored by the tour, he said to his aide, “Get me my helicopter.”

Those were, as they say, the days. No one in journalism will ever see their like again.

What Did Speaker Pelosi Know?

Here's the new video from the House Republican Conference, "What Did Speaker Pelosi Know?":

Also, check out House Minority Leader John Boehner's comment at U.S. News, "Pelosi Should Retract Her CIA Accusations and Apologize":

It is no accident that our nation has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. Our intelligence professionals have done a marvelous job keeping us safe. Faced with threats never before seen in our history, they have provided our troops critical information they need to fight our enemies abroad and protect our citizens here at home. They deserve our gratitude because, as Central Intelligence Director Leon Panetta said of the agency's work in a letter to its employees last Friday, "our national security depends on it."

Indeed, good intelligence equals good national security, and we should be doing everything we can to support the work of our intelligence professionals. That is why I was so alarmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusations last week that CIA officials lied to Congress about its terrorist interrogation program. When asked by a reporter last Thursday whether she was accusing the CIA of lying to her at the Sept. 4, 2002 briefing she participated in with then Rep. Porter Goss, a Florida Republican, she said "yes." She then dug the hole deeper by saying "they mislead us all the time."

Accusing our intelligence professionals of lying to Congress is a very serious charge. If true, the speaker should produce evidence supporting her claim and turn it over to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. If she is unwilling to do so, then she should retract her statement and apologize to the men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation. It is as simple as that, and as of this writing, the ball remains squarely in the speaker's court.

At the same press conference last Thursday, the speaker echoed Republicans' long-standing call for the CIA to release detailed briefing notes that would provide a fuller picture of who was briefed about the techniques, when the briefings occurred, and what those who received the briefings did in response. If she is serious, the speaker should publicly call on the CIA director to release those briefing notes so the American people can judge for themselves.

Read the entire essay at the link.

Plus, more at Memeorandum. See also, William Jacobson, "Nancy Pelosi Is The Central Issue."

Obama's Stunning Failure on Gays in the Military

Readers know where I stand on legalizing gay marriage. I've spoken less about gays in the military, however. My sense is that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is flawed policy, and some research indicates that existing rationales for the policy are not compelling. Moreover, some of the milbloggers I read don't seem bothered by openly gay service. Uncle Jimbo wrote a couple of years ago that:

If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don't care if the medic coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there.

And:

I will say that given the current strain on the military after 5 years of wartime operations, and the likelihood of a surge in Iraq, now is probably not the best time to implement a full scale policy change. But if I read about one more Arabic linguist bounced for off duty behavior that hurt no one, I'll be pissed.

Since then Blackfive has offered some of the most intelligent discussion on open gay service. See, for example, "Lively Discussion on Gays in the Military." And last week at Blackfive, Uber Pig wrote on President Obama's dismissal of gay inguist Dan Choi. The piece was a response to Aaron Belkin's Huffington Post essay, "Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist."

Belkin urged President Obama to sign an executive order ending investigations into servicemembers' sexual orientation. In response, Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette disputed Belkin on the facts, but then stated his position on gay service for the record:

I'll answer any question regarding my opinion on don't ask/don't tell truthfully and as straightforwardly as I can: Don't care.

All of this is in the news today. In fact, we're seeing a growing controversy over Obama's spineless approach to gays in the military. As the Wall Street Journal reports this morning, "Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military." According to the article, "As a candidate, Mr. Obama said he would seek to repeal the ban on gays in the military. But since he has taken office, administration officials have been less clear about the matter and its timing."

However, check also the discussion at last night's Anderson Coooper 360. Tony Perkins, who served in the Marines, argues that open service is "harmful to combat effectiveness." See also the trailer below for the documentary, Ask Not. In testimony before the Congress (1990s), Colin Powell argues that homosexuality and military service are "incompatible."

What's most interesting to me is President Obama's stunning failure to lead on this issue: "Worst. President. Ever."

See also, Marc Ambinder, "The Administration's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Strategy."

Partisan Identification and Prospects for the Democratic Majority

The buzz is building already over Gallup's new report documenting the steady but substantial shift in partisan identification away from the Republican Party. As noted at the introduction:

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup.

Folks are jumping for joy across the Democratic Party's secular collectivist base. Newshoggers captures the glee with its post, "Continuing Republican Death Watch." Faux conservatives are even dancing atop the bier.

Some of Gallup's graphs are indeed dramatic. But none of this is really new. The scale of the GOP defeat was evident on election night, and party ID had been trending Democratic since the 2004 presidential election. Not only that, Republican support is now concentrated in the party's traditional base of religious voters, social conservatives, and elderly voters. As Gallup notes, the hemmorhaging has stopped, since the GOP "does not appear to have lost any more support since Obama took office." A recent Pew survey found similiar results: "... the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years. But these Republican losses have not translated into substantial Democratic gains."

The Republican Party, basically, has been reduced to its historic core. As Chris Cillizza argues: "Toss-up demographic groups eight years ago have moved en masse in Democrats' favor, leaving the GOP with only its base still on its side."

And Franky, this could be the best thing to happen to the party since Barry Goldwater in 1964 (folklore has it the Lyndon Johnson's landslide marked the high-point of Democratic power, and the the party held the White House just twice more in the 40 years before the election of Barack Obama in 2008).

And note something else: Political scientist Gary Jacobson has published a major analysis of the 2008 election. His research indicates that the Democrats have a tenuous hold on power. See, "The 2008 Presidential and Congressional Elections: Anti-Bush Referendum and Prospects for the Democratic Majority."

In Jacobson's analysis we see "Bush fatigue" as the primary causal factor in the recent Democratic gains in party ID:

The 2008 election extended the national trend that had given control of Congress to the Democrats in the 2006 midterm two years earlier. The election was again essentially a referendum on the George W. Bush administration, but this time the referendum also encompassed a presidential election.

Jacobson then shows in detail the partisan and demographic bases for the election of Democratic candidate Barack Obama. That the GOP found itself so competitive was surprising:

Against the backdrop of Bushʼs unpopularity, the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the economy and the direction of the country, and the Republican Partyʼs tattered image, the mystery is not Barack Obamaʼs victory but John McCainʼs ability to remain competitive.

But Jacobson's concluding section holds the silver lining for the GOP. He looks at the congressional election results and suggests that Republican Party ideological cohesion has forced moderation on the Democratic congressional caucus. The analysis suggests that Democrats have won essentially all the districts trending GOP in recent years. It's worth quoting at length:

The durability of the Democratsʼ gains in mass partisanship remains in question, and the answer will go far in determining whether Democrats can hold on to their congressional majorities in 2010. Going into the 2008 House elections, Democrats already held almost all of the districts whose underlying partisanship was clearly Democratic. Just as in 2006, their pickups in 2008 were concentrated in districts that had in the past leaned Republican ....

Democrats added 16 seats in the balanced districts in 2006 and 2008, with their share of these districts rising from 44 percent in 2004 to 76 percent in 2008. But even if Democrats had won all of the Democratic-leaning districts and all of the balanced districts, they would still have fallen short of a majority. They needed to win Republican-leaning districts as well, because Republicans hold a significant structural advantage in the competition for House seats: regular Republican voters are distributed more efficiently (from the Partyʼs perspective) across states and districts than are Democratic voters ... Of the net additional Democratic House seats, 34 came from districts where Bush won more than 53 percent of the 2004 vote, and these districts now comprise a quarter of their total holdings. This circumstance will have the effect of moderating the Democratic caucus, because Democrats representing such districts are, of political necessity, considerably more moderate than other Democrats.47 Similarly, more than half of the Democratic senators who replaced Republicans in 2006 and 2008 are from states in the South or the Mountain West, and they, too, will have to compile moderate records or risk defeat. These circumstances make a sharp lurch to the left unlikely in the 111th Congress. If Obamaʼs inclination is to govern from near left of center, he will have allies, and if his liberal supporters object, he can point to the real constraints imposed by the configuration of the Democratic House and Senate coalitions.

The same electoral processes that moderate the Democratic caucus in the House make the Republican caucus more conservative. The last two elections have been hard on (relatively) moderate Republicans because they typically represent the kind of district a moderate Democrat can win, at least under favorable circumstances. And of course, circumstances were very favorable to Democrats in the two most recent elections. Even 11-term Connecticut representative Christopher Shays, with the most moderate voting record of any Republican in the House, could not survive the Democratic tide in 2008 ....

Because the election moved both congressional parties to the right, the influx of moderate Democrats does not necessarily portend a reduction in party polarization. Democrats representing Republican-leaning districts may have to compile moderate records to win reelection, but few Republicans, at least in the House, are under any pressure to do the same; their unanimous opposition to Obamaʼs economic stimulus package is thus not surprising. Moderation, although essential, may not be enough to maintain the large Democratic majorities in future elections. Democrats have had the wind at their backs in two successive elections, but now that their Party bears full responsibility for the governmentʼs performance under the most difficult circumstances faced by any incoming president and Congress since the 1930s, they cannot expect political conditions to favor them a third time running; the contrary is much more likely. Their fates will depend heavily on whether the economy improves sufficiently and on the publicʼs broader evaluation of Obamaʼs job performance, for 2010 will offer voters a fresh opportunity to engage in a referendum on an administration. Democratic prospects will also depend on the durability of the Partyʼs recent gains in mass partisanship; their best hope in this regard is that the youngest cohort of voters, who responded to the Bush era by moving in droves to the Democratsʼ ranks, will continue to bear the imprint of that political initiation.

The bottom line is this: As the party in power, the Democrats have quite likely reached the peak of their congressional majority. The winnowing of GOP moderates is having the counterintuitive effect of shifting the entire Congress more firmly to the ideological right.

Most importantly, the Obama administration will now bear the burden of governing responsibility in upcoming elections. While the GOP has little chance of regaining the majority in either chamber of Congress for the next couple of cycles, partisan trends favoring the Democrats have pretty much topped out. If leftists are ecstatic today at the GOP's decline - as measured by Gallup's findings above - the danger for them is that the victory tide might now begin rolling back out to sea.

All of this is especially important for conservatives to keep in mind, considering all the attention the Meghan McCain Republicans have been getting. As you will remember, the "Republicans did not lose the 2008 election because they were out of step ideologically with average Americans."

The Democrats are the nation's current majority party. But it's their winning coalition to lose.

See also Robert Stacy McCain, "RINO-ism and the Demographics of Defeat."

Cracked and Bruised Ribs, Bloody Mouth...

Except for perhaps Courtney, Discharge probably isn't the cup of tea for most of my readers. But since I've been writing about my punk experiences, here goes. Check out "State Violence, State Control":

Kept in line with truncheons
rifle butts and truncheons
This is state control, this is state control

State control, state control
This is state control

Beaten up behind closed doors
Cracked and bruised ribs, bloody mouth
Cracked and bruised skull, bloody mouth

The second YouTube hosts the audio from the 45, "State Violence State Control." Be sure to listen to it, especially the guitar solo. I loved it!

The Wikipedia entry for Discharge describes the band's music as "a heavy, distorted, and grinding guitar-driven sound and rawly shouted vocals, with lyrics on anarchist and pacifist themes."

I'd put the emphasis on "raw."

I saw Discharge in concert in Los Angeles in 1982 or '83. Cal (I think), the lead singer, had a six-inch spiked Mohawk at the time. They band was all black leather, fast, and mean.

More later ...

Multicultural Homogenization

Robert Stacy McCain's got a great post up, right down my alley, "'Diversity Through Homogenization' and the Cowardice of the Elite.

The thesis is that mulitculturalism isn't "multi" at all. Leftists promote abject conformity, and they'll eliminate dissenters. Read the whole post (I like the notion of "mindless multiculturalism"). This passage on Larry Summers' moral cowardice is especially good:

The experience of Larry Summers at Harvard is the quintessential example of how the Left wins through intimidation. Summers was a liberal in good standing when he made the mistake of mildly questioning feminist dogma. Feminists believe with religious fervor that "underrepresentation" of women in any field can only be the product of sexist discrimination. This is merely the gynocentric variation of the basic argument of the Left that inequality always equals injustice, a transparent myth of the sort that inspired George Orwell to remark, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." Summers' error was to challenge dogma half-heartedly, then to cower defensively when the fanatics howled in rage, rather than speaking with the bold determination of a man convinced of truth. Final score: Feminists 1, Summers 0.

Well, now that we're on Summers. Here's a flashback to Ruth Wisse's excellent piece, "Gender Fender-Bender: Feminist Complainers, not Larry Summers, Owe Women An Apology."

**********

UPDATE: I just found this older essay at Protein Wisdom, "On Cultural Materialism, Language, and the Progressive Gambit." Worth a look ...

Obama Soaks the Rich

From Greg Burns at the Chicago Tribune, "Rich to Pay a Price for Obama Policies: As President Obama Tries to Close Gap Between Rich and Poor, Wealthy Could Foot the Bill":

It's not easy being rich these days.

Just ask the rich.

In a survey released this month, Fidelity Investments asked more than 1,000 customers with investment accounts of at least $1 million how they were feeling about their money.

The predictable answer? Not so good.

Nearly half of this group said they don't "feel wealthy," despite average incomes of $300,000 and nest eggs averaging $3 million-plus. That's double the number who answered the same way a year ago.

Well, millionaires, President Barack Obama won't be throwing any pity parties for you.

In fact, as the costs mount for the economic rescue plan, it's becoming increasingly clear who will be paying a greater share as a result. From reining in executive pay to taxing the foreign profits of U.S. companies, the Obama administration is taking aim at the wealthiest segments of society.

This year could turn out to be an inflection point akin to the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, which kicked off a long run of disproportionate gains at the very top of the economic food chain.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Related: Glenn Reynolds, "Tax Audits Are No Laughing Matter." And Roy Edroso's response, "More Obama Inappropriate Laughism!." (Both, via Memeorandum).

Image Credit: Westside Republicans.

Tax-and-Spend Hits Brick Wall in California

Gay Patriot's got a report from yesterday's Westwood Tea Party protest:

Turnout was light, similar to Pasadena's May Day 1st Tea Party "anti-socialism" rally.

No matter, the anti-tax message is resonating with the people. The Los Angeles Times reports that Governor Schwarzenegger made a last-ditch effort yesterday to build support for Tuesday's slate of tax-initiatives. The ballot measures are expected to fail:

The sheer complexity of the ballot measures was only one of the reasons that polls showed most of them lagging among voters likely to cast ballots. With employment and savings plummeting, voters forced to tighten their own belts were responding angrily to a demand from state officials for more money. And many voters appear to be throwing up their hands at the constant call to the polls.

We'll see the real action in what happens on Wednesday.

Schwarzenegger has warned of a $21 billion state deficit and massive cuts in programs. The lead editorial at this morning's Wall Street Journal has an analysis, "California Reckoning: Tax and Spend Governance May Finally Hit the Wall."

California politicians have operated for years as if the purpose of government is not to provide reliable public services at low cost, but to feed public employee unions. Sacramento also needs to rethink its highly progressive antigrowth tax code, where the tax rates are the highest outside of New York City. The Golden State now ranks worst or second worst on most ratings of state business climate. This drives away entrepreneurs and high-income taxpayers, which in turn leads to lower revenues.

If the voters do reject these false fixes, there will be wails of despair in Sacramento. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who never saw a spending or tax increase she didn't like, says "California, frankly, is going to be in a world of hurt." Mr. Schwarzenegger says he will be forced to release 30,000 criminals from jail, and to lay off teachers, troopers and firefighters. Look for the state to ask Washington for another bailout "stimulus."

But voter rejection may be precisely the jolt of reality that California needs to inspire real reform.

California's a national trendsetter. So, look out Washington!

Related: Robert Stacy McCain, "9/12 Tea Party: 3,467 and Growing!"

Ezra Klein at the Washington Post

Ezra Klein begins his new gig as a Washington Post blogger today. He has published an "Introduction" this morning. Now, if you'll notice the slogan next to his picture, he describes his blog as covering "Economic and Domestic Policy, Lots of It." And at the post he says:

Our topic will be the politics and policy of the economy. But that doesn't limit us to the latest unemployment numbers or the wreckage of a freshly collapsed bank. Those are economic outcomes. We'll be focusing at least as much on economic inputs. The forces that decide what tomorrow's economy will look like.

Okay. There's more (Klein says he'll blog on "Anything else that comes up"), but let's focus on "economic inputs" for a moment, since Klein is often feted at an expert on these things.

One of the historic "forces" shaping the economy is the American political culture. About a month ago Klein wrote a post at the American Prospect arguing against our culture of individualism: "The Argument Over Inequality: The Myth of Individual Exceptionalism May Undermine Society On the Whole." Klein, unfortunately, pitches his analysis to the "going Galt" phenomenon, which provides a strawman set-up for his socialist advocacy:

The argument over inequality is, in general, an argument between two camps: One group -- call them the Galtists -- believes that the top percentile is making so much money because they are immensely skilled and tremendously productive. Bill Gates might have an obscene amount of money, they argue, but he gave the world Microsoft Vista (sorry, bad example). We live in a world in which great achievements ensure great rewards, and so much as possible, we don't want to muck with that feedback structure.

The Galtists tend to end up in long arguments with their opposites: the Rawlsian liberals who believe life is luck, and so too with the bulk of achievement. Impressive as a corporate titan may appear, his success is truly testament to a thousand variables far outside his control. Good genes and attentive parents and a smart peer group and a legacy admission to Yale and perfect timing and much else. We live in a world, in other words, where great luck ensures great rewards, and it is the job of public policy to smooth out the jagged edges of fate.

I wouldn't quibble with this so much had not Klein directed his fire at the level of culture rather than a debate between Randians and leftist economists. But no, Klein questions the entire historical understanding of America as an unforgiving frontier society in which personal strength and boot-strapping perseverence meant the difference between success or starvation.

There's no doubt that governmental institutions affect the success of Americans today. But success is not all publically driven. I had loving parents who stressed education, and who modeled hard work and personal initiative. I had the public schools and universities too, the latter made affordable through financial aid. But my own success was more than public support and a little "luck." Indeed, my family faced hardships so many times in life, without public assistance, I tend to think of the best social institutions as those bolstering the individual ethos of personal responsibility embedded in our culture. Hence, I tend to think that the family-level aspects of my own career belie Klein's repudiation of individualism.

The American political culture of individualism precedes Ayn Rand, of course, which is why Klein's analysis is so flawed. I teach this every semester. Individualism is a core concept in introductory American government. For example, here's Thomas Patterson in his text, The American Democracy:

Individualism is a commitment to personal initiative, self-sufficiency, and material accumulation. It is related to the idea of liberty, which makes the individual the founation of society, and is buttressed by the idea of equality, which holds that everyone should be given a fair chance to succeed. Individualism stems from the belief that people who are free to pursue their own path and not unfairly burdened can attain their fullest potential. Individualism has roots in the country's origins as a wilderness society. The early Americans developed a pride in their "rugged individualism," and from this governance grew with the idea that people ought to try to make it on their own.

You can see why Klein conflates extreme wealth and inequality with the "myth of individual exceptionalism." For Klein, the fact of growing income inquality in society necessarily invalidates the concept of personal initiative and self-sufficiency. Klien, in other words, argues the sytem is rigged, and we need redistributive policies to set level the playing field. As he notes at the American Prospect post:

The story of history ... is often told through the achievements of individuals. And to some degree, there is value in that. Society is a collection of individuals. If there were no rewards for innovation, we might find spontaneous invention giving way to its opposite. But we are far from that world. Instead, we have set up a system that lavishly rewards individuals and impoverishes society.

So keep all of this mind when you read Ezra Klein at the Washington Post.

Klein's a socialist and atheist. He's been known to attack people with outrageous charges of anti-Semitism. He was recently in the news as the ringleader of JournoList.

For what it's worth, I have it on good faith from TigerHawk that Klein's a good guy.

But see James Joyner's earlier take on Klein's move to the Post. See also Memeorandum.

Miracle of Life: The Action-Packed Days of Unborn Babies

The abortion debate is picking up again today. It turns out that John Sides is spreading the same half-truths on public opinion and abortion that I debunked previously (see, "Majority of Americans Identify as 'Pro-Life'").

At issue are the recent polls by Pew and Gallup finding a majority of Americans as pro-life. As I pointed out earlier, the recent data confirm a decade-old decline among those who identify as pro-choice. The findings are bothersome to the lefties, especially "scholarly" Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money. Lemieux has dismissed the results as "outliers," despite the fact that Gallup has been asking the same question since 1995, and the data clearly indicate a decreasing proportion of Americans supporting abortion over time. Pew's data do so as well as indicated by the questionnaire page.

Also at issue is question wording, which is alleged to be "vague." Sides touches on that angle in particular. After a long review of the data he concludes:

Simply put, the Pew and Gallup findings obscure far more than they reveal ... both Pew and Gallup employ vague questions that do not easily map onto actual policy debates. Once more precise data are employed, it becomes clear that opinion strongly depends on the circumstances under which the abortion would occur.

In fact, however, the surveys are quite specific, as I noted previously.

Perhaps Lemieux and Sides want pollsters to ask, say, "do you support abortion in the case of a promiscuous 17 year-old mother of two?" Or, "do you support abortion in the case of a 19 year-old college student with three previous abortions but who now claims rape to garner more sympathy for her irresponsibility"? Don't laugh. These are by no means outlandish circumstances. Indeed, pro-abortion extremism is on the rise: Recall that Planned Parenthood has refused to report statutory rape during abortion consultations for minors, and the Texas legislature has moved to decriminalize infanticide.

Poll respondents are not dumb, in any case. When Gallup asks, should abortion be legal under any circumstances; legal under certain circumtances; or illegal under all circumstances, respondents have no difficulty thinking through the implications of the questions.

But if the leftists insist that both Pew and Gallup are methodologically flawed, that's their play. I mean, sure, it's true that a bare majority of 53 percent supports Roe v. Wade in the Gallup poll. Yet, that's hardly robust given the fact that Americans are considered less supportive of the pro-choice position since Barack Obama assumed the presidency. Leftists, frankly, are simply in denial about the public's growing skepticism of the abortion-on-demand agenda.

In a related note, the New York Times reports that President Obama called for dialogue on abortion in his commencement address at Notre Dame. And the Washington Post has the text of Obama's speech.

I'll simply close with a reminder on the bottom line on abortion: It kills. Leftists continue to spin slanderous tales about how conservatives are determined to suppress the rights of women. But what they rarely discuss are questions of sanctity of life - and that's because it's an argument they just can't win.

I just read an astonishing essay at Psychology Today on the science of fetal development in the earliest stages of pregnancy.

The title of the article is indicative: "A Fateful First Act: The Action-Packed Days a Baby Spends in Utero Influence Her Emotional and Physical Makeup for Years to Come."

The essay recounts the science showing that even within the first 40 days of pregnancy, the development of a fetus is powerfully influenced by environmental factors like environmental noise and the mother's oxygen levels. Difficulties in a fetus' brain development could later have consequences for cognitive impairment and susceptibility to disease. What is most interesting about the story is how scientists conceive of a fetus not just as a living organism, but as a developing person; and thus such a consensus makes even more grisly the arguments suggesting that fetuses are "brain dead" or other such nihilism we hear routinely among abortion-rights absolutists (for example, right here).

Note this passage from the Psychology Today piece:

Until recently, doctors believed that the journey from fertilized egg to baby followed unwavering genetic instructions. But a flood of new studies reveals that fetal development is a complicated duet between the baby's genes and the messages it receives from its mother. Based on those signals, the fetus chooses one path over another, often resulting in long-term changes—to the structure of its kidneys, say, or how sensitive its brain will be to the chemical dopamine, which plays a role in mood, motivation, and reward.

This new science of fetal programming, which investigates how in utero influences cause physiological changes that can linger into later life, is producing clues to mysterious disorders such as autism and schizophrenia, as well as evidence of the very early effects of stress and toxins. Scientists still don't know all the hows and whys of these fetal cues, but the when is very clear: earlier than we ever thought.

A Delicate Project

Our first nine months resonate for the next 70 or 80 years because the fetal enterprise is so enormously ambitious. In just 270 days, a single cell becomes trillions of diverse and specialized cells—that's more cells than there are galaxies in the universe. As in any construction project, events unfold in a highly coordinated sequence. Each cell not only has its own job to do, it spurs other cells to action—sending out chemical signals that tell its neighbors to divide like crazy or to self-destruct. So when something goes wrong it can set off a domino effect. Cells might not travel to their intended destination, or they might stop multiplying too soon, or, in the case of brain cells, they might fail to establish the right interconnections.

"We pass more biological milestones before we're born than at any other time in our lives," says Peter Nathanielsz, director of the Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Research at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. "If we do not pass them correctly, there is a price to pay."

Well, we can't pass those biological milestones if the little lives of these human miracles are destroyed. And thus the obliteration of the moral soul is the ultimate "price to pay" among pro-choice extremists.

From conception to term, abortion is murder. Our goodness as a society rests on how we protect the unborn.

Obama Won't Rule Out Military Move to Secure Pakistani Nukes

I'm trying to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on his Afghan policy (see, "Obama's Neoconservative Pragmatism"). It's hard, considering his lame national security appointments, such as Rosa Brooks as a top Defense Department advisor. But it's becoming increasingly clear that realpolitik has imposed caution on this president, and you get a feel for it in Jon Meacham's interview with the president at Newsweek.

Obama offers the obligatory handwringing on the decision to authorize a surge of troops in Afghanistan, but in an especially crucial admission, Obama confirms that he will not rule out the use of force to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal in the event of political instablility in that country:

Moving to Pakistan, would you be willing to keep the option alive to have American troops secure those nuclear weapons if the country gets less stable?

I don't want to engage in hypotheticals around Pakistan, other than to say we have confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe; that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from taking over those arsenals. As commander in chief, I have to consider all options, but I think that Pakistan's sovereignty has to be respected. We are trying to strengthen them as a partner, and one of the encouraging things is, over the last several weeks we've seen a decided shift in the Pakistan Army's recognition that the threat from extremism is a much more immediate and serious one than the threat from India that they've traditionally focused on.

Read the entire interview at the link, via Memeorandum.

Not One Red Cent for NRSC

I wanted to give readers the heads up on Robert Stacy McCain's new blog, "Not One Red Cent."

Stacy's launching a boycott of the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC). Last week Senator John Cornyn, chair of the NRSC, endorsed Florida Governor Charlie Crist for the GOP primary in the Sunshine State. The problem is that, as moderate Reihan Salam confessed, "Crist is not a conservative." And as I noted earlier, the Florida primary is emerging as a key test for the future of the GOP."

Here's Stacy's sidebar anouncement at Not One Red Cent:

On May 12, 2009, The National Republican Senatorial Committee betrayed its mission, betrayed Republican voters, and betrayed the Reagan legacy.

The NRSC sided with an establishment candidate, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, in a Senate primary against young conservative leader, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.

Republicans across the country were outraged by this action, which is only the latest betrayal of grassroots conservatives by the out-of-touch GOP elite in Washington.

The word went forth among conservative activists: Do not give money to the NRSC. The current chairman, Sen. John Cornyn, must resign. His replacement must pledge to keep the committee neutral in contested primaries. Let Republican voters -- not party elites -- choose Republican candidates.

This is where the conservative grassroots rebellion begins. When the NRSC asks you for money, tell 'em:

NOT ONE RED CENT!

See also, John Brodigan, "Marco Rubio and My Jihad Against the NSRC."

Obama on Detention and Interrogation

Be sure to read Karen Greenberg's, "Detention Nation." This is outstanding essay on the continuity on detentions and interrogations from the administrations of President George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Greenberg details what most people would find as grisly treatment of captured enemy combatants. What's interesting is how Barack Obama, for all his "moral" bluster," is perfectly fine with his predecessor's policies:

IT CANNOT be denied that, on some crucial points, the Obama administration stands where its predecessor did. There is no language to define the detainees, no established court procedure by which to try them, no signs of plans to proceed with trials in Article III courts—i.e., the federal-court system. The overt signs that this new population of detainees will be treated any differently from the detainees that came before them are yet to come, though there is the assumption that this Justice Department intends to act within the law. Importantly, however, there is no real sense that the rationale for detention (which purposefully keeps prisoners outside of the court system) will come under reconsideration.

It is no surprise then that former–Bush administration officials continue to predict that the president won’t find it so easy to repudiate and replace the detainee policies of the Bush years. In an interview with the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, former–Attorney General John Ashcroft held that “President Obama’s approach to handling terror suspects would closely mirror his own.” In Ashcroft’s words, “How will he be different? The main difference is going to be that he spells his name ‘O-B-A-M-A,’ not ‘B-U-S-H.’” Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy under Bush, voiced a similar sentiment recently when he described President Obama’s allowance of one year for the closing of Guantánamo as “effectively endorsing a large part of what the Bush administration did.” While the intentions of the Obama administration seem to be aeons away from those of its predecessor, the defenders of the Bush team take the delay in visible changes as a validation of their own policies.

Moreover, if you scratch the surface, it becomes clear that there is a great continuity of personnel. With Secretary of Defense Gates as a holdover from the Bush era, it is no wonder that his Pentagon would produce a report defending conditions at Guantánamo. Nor that the presiding judge in one Guantánamo military-commission case would defy President Obama’s edict that the commissions be halted.

This continuity is not just a matter of delay due to the confirmation process. The president seems intent on—or reconciled to—preserving some continuity between the Bush administration and his own. All three special task forces that followed the executive orders of January 22 will be led by government lawyers who served in the Bush administration—Matthew Olsen for closing Guantánamo, Brad Wiegmann (along with a yet-to-be-named DOD representative) for detention policy, and J. Douglas Wilson for interrogation and transfer policies.

We too may see continuity in our treatment of prisoners. The U.S. military—deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan—still faces a military guard culled mostly from reservists whose primary training has been focused on strategic rather than operational missions. “These are infantry troops, artillery men and tank drivers, not guard forces—and only on the eve of deployment has supposedly relevant ‘just-in-time’ training been provided to them,” according to Charles Tucker, a recently retired U.S. National Guard major general. In February, Tucker witnessed the deployment of the army’s 32nd Infantry Brigade—about 3,500 troops from the Wisconsin Army National Guard—to Iraq, all destined not for the sort of strategic-reserve duties they had primarily been trained to perform, but instead called up for more tactically oriented detention operations.

Like it or not, the Bush administration’s war on terror succeeded in moving the conversation—and the policy—about detention to a point from which it cannot be easily or fully pulled back.

Our prisoners in the war on terror still do not have an acceptable legal denomination. And though all indications are that the status the Obama administration gives them will not be one we used prior to 9/11, this is less about change than about acceptance. Even human-rights advocates and international-law experts have suggested that, in fact, the Geneva Conventions may need to be amended to grant some legally recognizable status to transnational nonstate actors engaged in armed conflict with nation-states. As Professor David Golove of the NYU School of Law notes, “The existing Geneva Convention regime did not contemplate this new kind of armed conflict and does not provide adequate agreed-upon standards to guide government in this difficult area.” If Geneva is amended, then the premise that the Bush administration embraced at the beginning—that the laws as we knew them were insufficient for the threat at hand—will come to define the new policy as well.

It is not only international law that is at stake. In the matter of setting a precedent, the applicability of domestic law is at issue as well. No one has yet gone on record with a viable solution regarding what to do with those individuals who seem to pose a danger so formidable and imminent as to preclude their release and who cannot be tried either for lack of evidence or because the evidence cannot be admitted in a court, having been extracted by torture.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Greenberg is the author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days. And given the evenhandedness of her analysis, the book looks worthwhile.

Related: Compare Greenberg's treatment to that of the hysterical Frank Rich, "Obama Can’t Turn the Page on Bush," via Memeorandum.

California: The Broken State

The Economist has the best analysis I've read on California's governing crisis, "California: The Ungovernable State":

ON MAY 19th Californians will go to the polls to vote on six ballot measures that are as important as they are confusing. If these measures fail, America’s biggest state will enter a full-blown financial crisis that will require excruciating cuts in public services. If the measures succeed, the crisis will be only a little less acute. Recent polls suggest that voters are planning to vote most of them down.

The occasion has thus become an ugly summary of all that is wrong with California’s governance, and that list is long. This special election, the sixth in 36 years, came about because the state’s elected politicians once again—for the system virtually assures as much—could not agree on a budget in time and had to cobble together a compromise in February to fill a $42 billion gap between revenue and spending. But that compromise required extending some temporary taxes, shifting spending around and borrowing against future lottery profits. These are among the steps that voters must now approve, thanks to California’s brand of direct democracy, which is unique in extent, complexity and misuse.

A good outcome is no longer possible. California now has the worst bond rating among the 50 states. Income-tax receipts are coming in far below expectations. On May 11th Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor, sent a letter to the legislature warning it that, by his latest estimates, the state will face a budget gap of $15.4 billion if the ballot measures pass, $21.3 billion if they fail. Prisoners will have to be released, firefighters fired, and other services cut or eliminated. One way or the other, on May 20th Californians will have to begin discussing how to fix their broken state.

Spend a few minutes reading the entire article. With the exception of the discussion of Democratic and Republican officeholders as "extremists," this is a much better overview than you'll find in day-to-day reporting at the Los Angeles Times or elsewhere. This chart was also handy:

I had lunch with the president of my college, Eloy Oakley, on Thursday. The meeting was an informal brown-bag luncheon with interested faculty. Perhaps forty professors were there. Eloy spoke for about 20 minutes. Things don't look good for community colleges. Eloy just wants to make it through 2011 without too much pain, i.e., layoffs. After that, economic projections suggest an economic turnaround and perhaps growth in the state's revenue picture.

I'm not torn about this at all. I'll vote against all the ballot measures except 1F, which will freeze legislative salaries. We have a budget "crisis" in California every year. I'm tired of "ballot-box budgeting" because it's so irresponsible, and for all the benefits of direct legislation and citizens' activism, the initative process in California helps to destroy republican government. Actually, the initiatives exacerbate the constitutional dysfunction, especially the 2/3 requirement for both tax increases and budget approval. The Economist suggests that Calfornia needs a consitutional convention to deal with these structual issues. I'm all for it. The essay makes clear the potential for interest groups and hyper-partisans to hijack a convention. The idea is thus to require only budget issues to be addressed (keeping hot-button social issues away from the body).

Whatever happens, the article made me a little upset to think that the state that literally blazed the trail to progressive government in the United States, roughly 100 years ago, now has the most ungovernable political system in the union.

More later ...

Image Credits: The Economist.

I Bring You Everything That Floats Into Your Mind...

I spent the day chauffeuring my kids to their activities. This, of course, includes listening to my oldest son's radio station. So, while some youngsters might like Pitbull's "I Know You Want Me," I think I'll hold off one that one for now. (Although Pitbull's hotties might qualify for some "Rule 5" action!).

Instead, please enjoy one of Sheryl Crow's all-time best recordings, "Anything But Down" (the song begins shortly, after the advertisement):

The song appeared on Crow's 1998 CD, The Globe Sessions.

I remember when I bought the disc. It was a Saturday. I was with my oldest - and at that time only - son. I couldn't remember the name of the song, and I remembered hearing "Anything But Down" only vaguely. But I knew I really liked it. So, I popped in the disc in the changer, and started going down the tunes. My son kept shaking his head no until the it started (the song's #7 on the CD). He doesn't remember, but it's one of those "daddy" moments I'll never forget.

(Side Tech Note: The lyrics to The Globe Sessions were included on video at the CD, and thus were available when played on a PC. This was 11 years ago, and pretty cool at the time ...)

Sheryl Crow has a few other excellent songs ("The First Cut is the Deepest"), but some of her stuff became way too commercial ("Soak Up the Sun"). On balance, though, Crow would be on the top of my list to get a backstage pass to one of her concerts.

More later ...

Hateful Intolerance at LGM? Shocked, Shocked!

You've just got to love the nihilist lefties sometimes!

It turns out that Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money (a.k.a., Lesbians, Gays, and Marriage) is shocked - shocked! - to find hated-filled intolerance in his comments section.

Farley, apparently, just returned from Seattle. While gone he had Professor Charli Carpenter write a guest essay. Professor Carpenter's an expert on gender and humanitarian intervention in international politics. She also a co-blogger at Duck of Minerva.

Well, she took a hit from Farley's regular commentocracy at her guest essay, "Careless Warfare or Lawfare? A Pointless Debate." Farley then wrote a chivalrous post to defend her. He writes:

I'm a bit befuddled by the apparent influx of an army of trolls in my absence ... I was extremely disappointed by this comment thread, and in particular that one of my favorite regular commenters saw fit to mount his high horse and dismiss Charli as "a technician of empire" for making a set of entirely reasonable claims about airstrikes in Afghanistan ... Regular commenters incur some responsibility for civility, but more importantly they have a responsibility to behave as if the bloggers and the other regular commenters are acting in good faith. This means that you can't simply denounce a blogger as "a technician of empire," and thus unworthy of engagement, after a single post. At LGM we ban people because of arbitrary drunken whim; no one is safe. That said, consistenly treating the bloggers and other commenters as idiots who act in bad faith (and to be sure, I don't think that the commenter in question has established such a pattern of behavior; far from it) is, in the fullness of time, likely to get you banned.

Oh poor Robbie! The faux outrage is exquisite! And boy, how about that determination and resolve: "No one is safe!" My God, what would life be like without posting privileges at LGM! A poor soul's life would be ruined to meet such a fate!

"Be not so long to speak. I long to die"!

Seriously, that's offensive? Suggesting that Professor Carpenter is "a technician of empire" raises old Robbie's hackles? Actually, that's nothing compared to the regular bile the spills off that page.

No doubt too that Professor Carpenter's a big girl and she likely can handle the abuse, or she wouldn't be blogging. No, what's funny is that if you cruise through some of the other comments at the post you'll feel as though you were at an organizing meeting for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.

Check it out:

Somehow we need to reestablish the principle that the only time using military force abroad is justified is in response to an immediate, direct threat to your own country -- which in the case of the United States means pretty much never. The alternative, which we've got now, is simply imperialism.

Ahh, let me think ... "an immediate, direct threat" to our country is "pretty much never"?

Never say never, as they say:

And how about this one:

Invading Afghanistan was a monumentally stupid idea. Remaining there remains stupid.

Yep, invading Afghanistan was such a "monumentally stupid idea" that 98 U.S. Senators and 420 U.S. Representatives authorized the President of the United States "to use all 'necessary and appropriate force' against those whom he determined 'planned, authorized, committed or aided' the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

But hey, we want Charli Carpenter to feel welcomed!

Wouldn't want to lose the one professor at LGM who actually has a shred of scholarly credibility.

Remember, Robert Farley is the professor who bagged $1000 to write a book review while simultaneously twiddling his Johnson and sipping a few whiskey sours!