Rachel Maddow on Breitbart and Fox News

David Letterman and Rachel Maddow demonstrate beautifully how galaxies separate left and right:

RELATED: "The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod."

Newsweek: Don’t Give Readers What They Want

A fabulous essay at Commentary, by Andrew Ferguson:

In early May, on the evening of the day his magazine got shot out from under him, the editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, seeking fellowship, commiseration, and a platform from which he might discourse upon the larger significance of the day’s developments. Discoursing upon larger significances is one of Meacham’s particular gifts. No one was surprised then that he would seek to apply it to the unexpected news that the owner of Newsweek, Donald Graham of the Washington Post Co., was putting the magazine up for sale, with the implication that the place would be shuttered for good unless a buyer was found, and soon.

As Stewart listened, rapt and unusually smirkless, Meacham noted the explosion of journalism now available for free on the Internet. The moral that Meacham drew from this new competition, together with Graham’s announcement, was this: “If you’re not gonna pay for news, then you’re gonna get a different kind of news.” (I’m transcribing his pronunciation of “going to” in honor of his Tennessee twang, which gets folksier as his words get more portentous.)

It was an odd thing for Meacham to say, given his efforts to reposition his magazine in the media universe—to offer, that is, his own kind of “a different kind of news.” His efforts peaked last year, when he unveiled a new business and editorial plan with three main elements. He raised the magazine’s price per issue, to a whopping $6 on newsstands. He cut costs by laying off staff and by letting half his subscribers drop off the rolls. And he recast the magazine’s content for those readers who were stubborn enough to hang on. His newsweekly, he said, would no longer even pretend to offer the traditional summary of the previous week’s events, as it had been doing, with dwindling enthusiasm, for nearly 80 years. Instead, readers would find “argued essays” and “reported narrative ... grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact.” It would become a “provocative (but not partisan)” magazine of opinion—a liberal magazine written by liberals who didn’t want to admit they were liberals.

This final reinvention of Newsweek left Meacham’s customers with a choice. They could turn to the Web and get “a different kind of news” for free, or they could go to Newsweek and get “a different kind of news” for $6 a week. He seemed startled that so many of them turned out to be skinflints.

To Jon Stewart—still rapt, still unsmirking—Meacham went on to cast Newsweek’s unhappy fate as an “existential crisis,” confusing the consequences of his own terrible business sense with a calamity afflicting the whole country. “Let me say this,” he said, portentousness rising. “I don’t think we’re the only catcher in the rye between democracy and ignorance, but I think we’re one of them, and I don’t think there are that many standing on the edge of that cliff.” Indeed, Newsweek was one of the few “common denominators left in a fragmented world.” And it’s not his fault that the denominator business isn’t what it used to be.

RTWT.

Immigration, Gay Marriage Could Define Elena Kagan's Early Tenure

From David Savage, at Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Washington — This summer, as Elena Kagan quietly moved toward confirmation to the Supreme Court, three major legal disputes took shape that could define her early years.

The justices soon will be called upon to decide whether states like Arizona can enforce immigration laws, whether same-sex couples have a right to marry and whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance. Kagan's record strongly suggests she will vote in favor of federal regulation of immigration and health insurance and vote to oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians.

What is less clear is whether she will be voting with a center-left majority that includes Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, or as liberal dissenter on a court whose five Republican appointees outvote the four Democratic appointees.

Kagan, 50, is the fourth new justice in five years. And for the first time, the high court has three women. But the ideological divide is unlikely to change much.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. form a solid conservative bloc. The liberal bloc includes Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, with Kagan now set to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired at age 90.

In the major cases that divide the court, however, the outcome almost always depends on Kennedy, 74.

Interesting piece. More at the link.

Legalizing Cocaine?

JBW's jonesin' for some kind of debate --- any debate, I guess --- but frankly it seems useless trying to respond to some effete leftist "libertarian" who at most can string together "NANNY STATE", "NANNY STATE", NANNY STATE" until you've had just about enough of that faux intellectualism to last a lifetime. Not only that, JBW's calling for the decriminalization of cocaine, which I can't see how that's going to improve society much. But hey, JBW thinks he knows everything, and apparently that includes all the things I've seen and experienced in my few decades on this Great Green Earth.

That said, just read Sandy Banks' essay at LAT, "The crack epidemic's toxic legacy." Perhaps reducing some of the harsher criminal sentencing guidelines will ease historical racial disparities (putting aside the causes), but Banks isn't going in for full-blown decriminalization, not by a long shot:

As a reporter, I spent more than 20 years covering South Los Angeles, and the impact of drug addiction was a reality I encountered with painful regularity.

Crack's reach was made plain in big, public ways: exploding foster care rolls, rising crime, overloaded emergency rooms, skid row's growing underclass.

But it hurt most to hear the individual stories that documented the drug's societal toll:

From the police officer who took a 9-year-old into custody for stealing food from a liquor store and then found that the boy was trying to feed his three young siblings. Their mom had been out on a drug binge for days.

The teacher who told me about a bright student who dropped out of Jordan High because he was tired of being teased by classmates who bragged that his mother had offered them sex for drugs.

And a social worker who had rescued a 12-year-old girl from a crack house, where she had been traded by her father for a $20 rock.

Those memories came flooding back last month when I visited the street where the accused murderer in the Grim Sleeper cases lived, and then again this week as I read Chris Goffard's skid row series and another story in The Times about the serial killers who stalked South L.A. decades ago.

More than 100 women were killed during a period, 1984-1994, in which at least five serial killers — including Grim Sleeper suspect Lonnie David Franklin Jr. — stalked the streets of South Los Angeles, according to our front page story. An addiction to crack cocaine was a common ingredient.

Franklin's elderly neighbor William Harris remembers when the crack epidemic was raging three decades ago and dealers and gangbangers descended on his quiet block along 51st Street near Western Avenue.

Drug buys took place on his front lawn, murders at the apartment building on the corner. You couldn't let your children play outside, he said, or open your windows, even in the heat.

His street looks peaceful now, but the era's collateral damage remains: homes with iron gates and window bars, a converted garage where crack smokers still gather and a void in many homes left by family members — Harris' two grown sons included — who are missing and still lost to drugs.

And there is a new status quo, made evident by the glass crack pipes that are for sale and on display next to the condoms at gas stations and liquor stores.

"It's a cold attitude now, like anything goes," Harris told me. The crime and mayhem have diminished, but what bothers him most is the casual acceptance of petty crime and disrespectful treatment of "young ladies" that the epidemic spawned. "It's changed the way we feel about each other."

And that's a problem that can't be resolved by tweaking jail terms and sending inmates home.

***

Statistics suggest the epidemic has passed. Crime rates, hospital admissions, foster care rolls have all declined. The crack smokers are getting old, winding down or dying. The open-air drug markets are gone, and the rituals have moved inside.

Now, the dealer is less likely to be the gangbanger calling out from the street corner than the young, jobless neighbor who grew up watching his mother cooking crack on the kitchen stove and learned how to hustle to survive.

Crack addiction has proved to be notoriously difficult to dislodge. "There are so many triggers for relapse," said former addict and drug counselor Don Hashima. And there are so few clear paths to redemption for people hurled by addiction to society's margins.

The sentencing changes are a good first step. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the new guidelines should save $42 million over the next five years by reducing the prison population.

Some of that money should go into creating drug abuse programs tailored to the special challenges posed by crack addiction.

But more ought to go into ameliorating the social problems — damaged children, fractured families, overwhelmed schools and social institutions — that will outlast the epidemic and the addicts.

The wave may have crested and passed. Now it's time to take a look at what the tide brought in.

Be sure to check the Times' skid row series as well.

No doubt Mr. "Libertarian" JBW's down with that kind extreme pain, dislocation, and hopelessness as well.

Bill Ayers, Unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, Announces Retirement From University of Illinois at Chicago

The Hot Joints has it, and also Chicago Tribune, "Ayers set to retire from UIC":

For leaders at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the planned retirement from teaching of former Vietnam War-era radical William Ayers will be a great loss.

Never mind that, in hopes of quelling a political storm two years ago, UIC was compelled to release more than 1,000 files detailing the activities of an education reform group that brought together Ayers and then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Or that the university was inundated with questions in 2001 after the release of Ayers' memoir, "Fugitive Days," where he wrote about helping with bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and other government sites.

While controversial and even hated by some, Ayers, who has served as an education professor at UIC since 1987, is celebrated on campus for his academic contributions, particularly in the area of school reforms, said UIC education Dean Vicki Chou.

Ayers was unavailable for comment Thursday. But Chou confirmed Thursday that he will retire at the end of the summer.

RTWT.

Also at Founding Bloggers.

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947

An update to my post yesterday on the decision to drop the bomb on Japan. Glenn Reynolds' reader Josh Fagan writes:

I read Giangreco’s Hell to Pay recently. I believe it was you who linked to it a while back that made me aware of this book; and what a good book it is. It thoroughly details what it would have taken to invade the jap home islands, and left me wondering whether we could have actually ever forced them to surrender without the additional shock to their regime of using the few atom bombs we had in our arsenal against them.

Maybe give it another plug. This book certainly counters the pervasive anti-American narrative under which we exist.

And that anti-American narrative is powerful, as I've experienced with my students. It gets quite emotional even, I think from the extreme frustration some have in resisting a rational explanation to why we dropped the bomb. In any case, I hadn't heard of the book and I'm putting on my list for birthday presents.

Rule 5 Update

Hat tip to Theo Spark on the bikini babes. It looks like Linkmaster Smith's got some reserve requirements coming up this weekend, so the rest of us have to pick up the slack:

Check out Say Anything Blog for some non-hotness linkage. (Added: Proof Positive cross-posts to Say Anything.)

But as always, look for some wonderful posting at MAinfo. (Today's entry, "My Memories of Marilyn.) And, at The Point of a Gun, "Republican Scandal That's Shocking! Marcela Hoeven Bikini Scandal That Is Scandalous! And Shocking!"

**********

And be sure to visit some of other friends of American Power:

* Another Black Conservative.

* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).

* Blazing Cat Fur.

* Bob Belvedere.

* Cold Fury.

* Classical Liberal.

* Daley Gator.

* Left Coast Rebel.

* Mind Numbed Robot.

* Not a Sheep.

* Paco Enterprises.

* Panhandle Perspective.

* Political Byline.

* POWIP.

* Proof Positive.

* The Other McCain.

* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).

* Right Klik (Honorary).

* Saberpoint (Honorary).

* Serr8d (Honorary).

* Snooper's Report (Honorary).

* Stormbringer.

* Theo Spark.

* TrogloPundit.

* Washington Rebel.

* WyBlog.

BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.

And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly roundups!

Who's Telling the Truth?

Andrew Breitbart on citizens' journalism (via Voting Female):

Single and Looking? Head Over to Post-Prop 8 West Hollywood

Bryan Safi's a riot!

California's Proposition 25 Would Have 'Majority Rule' on Budgets

I just finished up an essay for Pajamas Media on the top-ticket campaigns in California 2010. The piece should go live tomorrow or Monday, and I'll post it at that time. Meanwhile, I'm intrigued by Proposition 25, which would lower the legislative threshold for state budgets to a simple majority vote. The Howard Jarvis folks are squawking that the measure contains built-in hidden tax increases, and I agree that's not good. But we need some change around here. California's government sucks. I doubt either Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman will make things any better. I'm interested to see how thing develop at the grassroots. We need structural reforms, so this initiative might be a place to start.

In any case, at Stateline.org:

SACRAMENTO — California’s Democratic and Republican parties both held mock bake sales last month at the Capitol to protest each other’s “half-baked” budget ideas for plugging a $19 billion deficit for the year that began July 1 without a new plan.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has installed a clock outside his office ticking off the days without a budget and the growing size of the deficit, suggested last week he might leave office in January without signing a budget at all.

While this year’s stalemate has provided colorful political theater, late budgets are practically the norm in California. Since 1980, the Legislature has met the June 15 constitutional deadline for sending a budget to the governor only five times. Only ten times has the brokering been done by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

Many people in Sacramento have come to believe that California’s restrictive budget rules are a big part of the problem. California is one of only three states that requires a supermajority vote of the Legislature to pass a state budget (Arkansas and Rhode Island are the others). In November, voters will weigh in on Proposition 25, a ballot measure that would lower the vote threshold down from two-thirds, so that lawmakers could pass budgets with a simple majority.

Supporters say the change would help California to wrap up its budget process on time and reduce the strain on state workers and contractors who this time of year get to wondering whether they’ll continue to be paid. The current system has “strangled democracy and put the minority party in control of major decisions to manage the system,” says Dennis Smith, secretary-treasurer of the California Federation of Teachers, one of several unions responsible for getting the measure on the ballot. The League of Women Voters of California also endorses Proposition 25.

In addition to changing the budget vote threshold, the measure would dock lawmakers’ pay and daily living allowance for each day the budget is not approved. Supporters insist that the measure would not change California’s constitutional requirement that any new taxes or tax increases pass both houses of the Legislature with a two-thirds vote. But business groups and other opponents say that’s not the case.

A coalition of taxpayers and employers called Stop Hidden Taxes, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers’ Association, says Proposition 25 includes “hidden” ways to allow legislators to raise taxes as part of a budget bill with a simple majority vote. “It should come as no surprise that the special interests behind this measure would try to sneak a measure by voters that makes it easier for the state Legislature to raise taxes on Californians,” says Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers’ Association.

More at the link.

Schwarzenegger: 'Let My People Go'

Arnold delivers teh gays from slavery, at the Sacremento Bee, "Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges" (via Memeorandum):

In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Christopher Hitchens Talks About Cancer

And God too (and he's not religious), on "Anderson Cooper 360":

Left/Islamist Alliance

Via STOP OBAMA 2012:

What Mosque 'Inside' the Pentagon?

For some reason leftists think they've pwned conservative opponents to the Ground Zero Mega Mosque. The title of Think Progress' post is misleading: "Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon" (via Memeorandum):

In opposing the planned Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City, conservative stalwarts have picked up on right-wing extremists’ paranoid hysteria over the initiative.

Read the whole thing. Think Progress argues that there's a mosque "inside" the Pentagon and cites a Salon essay by Justin Elliot as the source, a post titled, "Why did no one object to the 'Pentagon mosque'?" The only problem is that there is no "mosque" at the Pentagon. Elliot cites Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena Saifulislam in an attempt to smear conservatives as unhinged hypocrites, and then Elliot got picked up by Daily Kos and then finally back over to Think Progress. Elliot's essay at Salon is also illustrated with imagery designed to ridicule some kind of irrational conservative "fears" of Islam:

This at minimum caricatures the views of Ground Zero Mosque opponents, and I'd be too generous to say Think Progress et al. are mostly just dishonest. Elliot links to an article at the Washington Times from 2007, "Pentagon observes Muslim holy month." Notice the key difference in language: The Pentagon "observes" Muslim holy month, which is Ramadan. Thus the context is the Defense Department policy of allowing sectarian services for Muslims at the Pentagon building. And that is a far cry from building a "conquest mosque" at the site where 184 people died on September 11th. The left's false analogy decontextualizes the concerns of those who perished at WTC, those who view the development of a new Islamic center as a victory monument to Islam. Such opposition is strengthened by the fact that Ground Zero Imam Abdul Rauf has ties to the Gaza flotilla and is an ideological spokesman for modern Islamic jihad.

On top of that, it's not like conservatives HAVEN'T objected to the actual construction of Muslim facilities at military installations. Imam Saifulislam, who as far as I can tell is the only Muslim cleric being cited by Salon and Think Progress, was at the center of controversy in 2006 when an "Islamic Prayer Center" was being established at the United States Marine Corps training center at Quantico, Virgina. See, "Taxpayers fund Islamic center: Prayer building on Marine base not really mosque, officials say." And note the key information at the passage:

An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a "bad signal," one critic has concluded.

The Marines announced earlier this summer that one of the buildings on the base had been repainted so that Muslims would have a place to pray and hold religious services

The new "Islamic Prayer Center" is the first of its kind on a Marine base, and "serves to express the Marine Corps' recognition of diversity among service members and the commitment to provide continued support to all Marines regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender," the base announcement said.

However, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer said he wonders why the Marines do not seem concerned such facilities might to used to generate anti-American sympathies.

"It's going to go up as part of a testament to American multiculturalism and so on without any indication of the possibility that this could be a source of what we're fighting against," he said. "It just sends a bad signal."

At the dedication ceremony, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England praised the estimated 4,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. Joining him were leaders of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

CAIR describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group and boasts 32 offices, chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission, it says, is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

However, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

"It is sadly ironic and lost on most that the plan to dedicate the prayer center and build a new mosque was approved by military leaders occupying a building that was attacked on 9/11 – the Pentagon – where more than 100 of its occupants were killed on that day," was the conclusion of those at Homelandsecurityus.com, a private security organization.

Justin Elliot and Think Progress might want to revise their posts. Robert Spencer (along with Pamela Geller) is among the leading opponents of the New York Mega Mosque. Thus, not only is there not a "mosque" at the Pentagon, but an earlier initiative to establish a fully designated "Islamic Prayer Center" met with the same kind of opposition that we're now seeing with the Cordoba Center. I'd add as well that the same folks who protest the erection of Islamic victory mosques have stressed repeatedly their respect for freedom of religion. Imam Saifulislam's Pentagon prayer services allow Muslim service-members to worship their faith as fully protected members of America's pluralist religious order. The U.S. did not prohibit Islam after 9/11. And our armies in the field are working with Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world to defeat militant jihadis who kill indiscriminately, regardless of faith.

Mega Mosque opponents are asking Muslim religious leaders to exercise their rights responsibly. No one is attempting to take away those rights.

The essays at Salon, Daily Kos, and Think Progress are simply additional examples of the anti-intellectual smear tactics disguised as "debate" that are found routinely on the left. Just watch. More people will die from this kind of conservative-bashing. Talk about political opportunism. It's pretty sick.

RELATED: At America.gov, "Bangladeshi American Is First Muslim Chaplain in Marine Corps: Abuhena Saifulislam counsels troops from all backgrounds and faiths."

Added: Linked at JustOneMinute, "Geez, It's Almost As If 'The Right' Is Not Reflexively Anti-Muslim."

The Lady Gaga/Katy Perry Boobular Arms Race

From Luke Lewis, "Does Katy Perry really have to strip off to get on the cover of Rolling Stone?"

Lewis says no but I say yes, that is, if Katy Perry wants to compete in the strategic arms race with Lady Gaga. Nudity is mainstream nowadays. The latest cover of Vanity Fair features Gaga nude. Katy Perry was recently featured semi-nude on the cover of Esquire. The first conclusion of course is that this sells magazines — with the prominence of virtually no-holds-barred web publishing, dead-tree magazines are going nuclear to keep up. As for Gaga and Perry, it's a strategic (boobular) arms race, and there's a theory for that:

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War. During the Cold War, in addition to the American and Soviet nuclear stockpiles, other countries also developed nuclear weapons, though none engaged in warhead production on nearly the same scale as the two superpowers.

In the boobular arms race neither side has developed a strategy of deterrence, since the threat of mutual assured destruction has yet to appear inevitable at the top-tier of celebrity competition. But as this is an existential superpower rivalry between Gaga and Perry, second-tier stars are hoping for an arms (boobs) reduction treaty to bring the world back from the brink of boobular annihilation.

The superpowers have eschewed strategic restraint (see, "Katy Perry Strips Down for Rolling Stone: Photos From Her Sexy Cover Shoot"), and the danger of a boobular holocaust has forced the issue to the heights of transnational cooperative efforts for reductions in force and norms against boobular violence (see, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women" and "Pornography Is a Civil Rights Issue".)

A Brief History of the Bikini

Via Diana Adams.

Which gives me a chance to post a Katy Perry bikini shot:

Hat Tip: R.S. McCain.

Churchill Ordered UFO Cover-Up?

At Astute Bloggers, "EISENHOWER AND CHURCHILL COVERED UP PHENOMENAL UFO SIGHTING DURING WW2." The link's to the BBC, "Churchill ordered UFO cover-up, National Archives show":

Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFO sightings for the MoD, said: "The interesting thing is that most of the UFO files from that period have been destroyed.

"But what happened is that a scientist whose grandfather was one of his [Churchill's] bodyguards, said look, Churchill and Eisenhower got together to cover up this phenomenal UFO sighting, that was witnessed by an RAF crew on their way back from a bombing raid.

"The reason apparently was because Churchill believed it would cause mass panic and it would shatter people's religious views."

Reports of sightings of UFOs peaked in 1996 in the UK - when science fiction drama The X Files was popular.

I was trying to think of a hefty wisecrack here, but see Brain Fung at Foreign Policy, "Either the tin hats were right all along, or Churchill was as crazy as the rest of 'em." (Via Memeorandum.)

'Green Lantern'

Green Lantern is scheduled for release in June 2011.

Blake Lively stars as Carol Ferris. No doubt she'll heat up the screen (as an aerospace executive at that):

Hat Tip: Tom Cruise.

65 Years After Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima

At Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, "65 years later, survivor of first atomic bomb still has vivid memories":

UPLAND - Sumi Umemoto has no memory of the destruction that descended on her hometown of Hiroshima 65 years ago today. She was just 4 months old, a baby girl born at the dawn of the nuclear age.

Although she never saw the mushroom cloud, she definitely heard about it when she was old enough to understand.

"It was a different kind of bombing," Umemoto said. "That mushroom cloud was something different, and everybody was so scared."

The nightmare lasted long after World War II ended, and Umemoto remembers the aftermath - her blood-stained walls, the post-war hunger and countless checkups by doctors studying the effects of radiation.

Umemoto, now an Upland resident, grew up in a home more than a mile from ground zero. But on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, she was at her grandmother's house, about 20 miles away. Her father and cousin were home and both miraculously survived.
That day, Umemoto and her family became hibakushas, or survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place three days later on Aug. 9.

Hibakushas are entitled to government compensation and health care in Japan. To this day, Umemoto meets with visiting Japanese doctors in Los Angeles' Little Tokyo for physicals on an occasional basis. Her cousin, who suffered severe burns after the bomb, was worried over the stigma of radiation exposure and never applied for hibakusha status.

World leaders, including the U.S. ambassador to Japan, will mark the anniversary in the port city where the American plane dropped a 9,700-pound bomb 65 years ago. The event, claiming some 140,000 lives in the months following the Hiroshima bombing and some 80,000 more after the Nagasaki bombing, led to the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, thus ending the deadliest war in history. It forever changed Japan, bringing a pacifist identity to national discourse and its constitution.

More at the link.

Readers might recall my discussion last weekend of the case study method. (I had shown the opening scenes of "The Paper Chase" during summer school, including the part where Professor Kingsfield discusses the Socratic method). Well, for a time I organized my World Politics classes around case study analysis, and I used Carolyn Rhodes', Pivotal Decisions: Select Cases In Twentieth Century International Politics. One of the best chapters is "The Decision to Drop the Bomb on Japan." A lot of students were overwhelmed by the case studies, and I imagine that's because Rhodes' cases were extremely in-depth and rigorous, and thus required more advanced training than many entry-level students possessed. That said, there were some beefy discussions. I can remember at least one student --- and a couple of others to a lesser degree --- who basically broke down during the discussion of whether the U.S. should have used nuclear weapons to end the war. I mean, really, the discussions were almost traumatizing for some. So while the article above notes that the Japanese are perhaps the world's most pacifist people, especially with regards to nuclear weapons, some the post-'60s cohorts of neo-socialist youth have internalized tremendously strong feelings about this as well. Of course, I don't think such ideological sentiment leads to rigorous thinking, but at least those views are deeply held.

More on this at NYT (FWIW), Kenzaburo Oe, "Hiroshima and the Art of Outrage."

Mary Hart Leaving 'Entertainment Tonight' After 29 Seasons

I write about 1980s pop music quite a bit ... so, how about a television flashback as well?" Mary Hart's leaving "ET" after 29 seasons. (I used to be a fan):

After nearly three decades as host of "Entertainment Tonight," Mary Hart is calling it quits.

Hart announced Thursday that she plans to leave the show after the upcoming season, which launches Sept. 13. Her exact departure date has not yet been revealed.

Hart joined the syndicated showbiz newsmagazine in 1982.

“I've reached a point when I clearly realize it's time for a change," Hart said in a statement. "There are many things I want to do in my life and I'd better get on with them. It will certainly be with mixed sentiments that I say 'goodbye' at the end of the season, but it will definitely be with a sense of celebration…30 years of Entertainment Tonight, are you kidding me? That's an accomplishment and something I'm very proud of!”

Lara Spencer, Hart's lovely replacement at "ET", will be 70 years-old if she too does 29 seasons: "Exclusive: 'Insider's' Lara Spencer Will Replace Mary Hart on 'ET'."