College Budget Update

From Ann-Marie Gabel, LBCC Vice President for Administrative Services:

And at Los Angeles Times, "With budget talks stuck, blame game begins," and "Gov. Brown warns of initiative war if bipartisan talks breakdown."

Also at Sacramento Bee, "Republicans now want election, but won't extend taxes on own." And San Jose Mercury News, "Questions abound over what's next at Capitol."

Obama Declares Afghanistan Victory Before It's Been Achieved

At WSJ, "Unplugging the Afghan Surge":

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background.

Not long ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about only a token drawdown this year, but he's now on his way out of the Pentagon. This time Mr. Obama overruled his military advisers and sided instead with Vice President Joe Biden and his political generals who have their eye on the mission of re-election. His real generals, the ones in the field, will now have to scramble to fulfill their counterinsurgency mission, if that is still possible.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. will start to remove troops next month, returning 10,000, or three or four brigades, by the end of the year. The entire 33,000-soldier Obama surge will be gone by next summer, and withdrawals will continue "at a steady pace" after that. So the full surge force will have been in Afghanistan for only a single fighting season, and even the remaining 68,000 troops are heading out. Mr. Obama reiterated NATO's previously agreed on date of 2014 for the full transfer of combat operations to Afghan forces, but that date now seems notional.

The President rightly pointed to the coalition progress against the Taliban in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, in building up an Afghan army and eliminating terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. But the military knows these gains are tentative, and it pressed the White House to keep all the fighting brigades in Afghanistan to press the advantage.

Still more at the top link.

It really is cut and run. And too bad too. Afghanistan was the one area I'd given Obama credit. I thought it weird for so long that folks like Pamela Geller and Diana West were calling for an American withdrawal. But they were right. The president's never been committed to strategic victory. It's all been political, depressingly so, considering so many people of good faith and morals who placed trust in this man, this president. He's betrayed a lot of people, and when Taliban and Al Qaeda violence escalates, the blood with be on his hands, and Joe Biden's. Losers.

Rolling Stone's Misogynistic Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann

Doug Ross has the story, "The new civility: Rolling Stone slanders Michele Bachmann as 'bats*** crazy', with 'testicles swinging under her skirt', a 'political psychopath'."

The Rolling Stone hit piece is here: "Michele Bachmann's Holy War." For example:

Michele Bachmann, when she turns her head toward the cameras and brandishes her pearls and her ageless, unblemished neckline and her perfect suburban orthodontics in an attempt to reassure the unbeliever of her non-threateningness, is one of the scariest sights in the entire American cultural tableau.

Colorfully misogynistic, but typically progressive.

And Tabbai's interviewed by Don Imus. He's a geek. A stupid, childish geek:

Inside the Anonymous Army of 'Hacktivist' Attackers

At WSJ:

HOOGEZAND-SAPPEMEER, Netherlands—In this sleepy Dutch town last December, police burst into the bedroom of 19-year-old Martijn Gonlag as he hurriedly pulled on jeans over his boxer shorts. He was hauled away on suspicion of taking part in cyber attacks by the online group calling itself Anonymous.

Mr. Gonlag admits taking part in several attacks on websites, but he recently had a change of heart as some hackers adopted increasingly aggressive tactics.

"People are starting to grow tired of" the hackers, he said in an interview. "People are also starting to realize that Anonymous is a loose cannon."
Now he appears to be a target himself. A chat room he hosts faces frequent hack attacks, he says.

Mr. Gonlag's role reversal provides a glimpse of the unruly hunt-or-be-hunted world underpinning a string of online attacks against major companies and government bodies—incidents that have sparked a digital manhunt by law-enforcement agencies in several countries.

What once was just righteous rabble-rousing by Anonymous in the name of Internet freedom has mutated into more menacing attacks, including by a splinter group of Anonymous called LulzSec, which is alleged to have moved beyond paralyzing websites to breaking in to steal data.

The tumult over online agitators like Anonymous comes at a time when the world's computers are under unprecedented attack. Governments suspect each other of mounting cyber espionage and attacks on power grids and other infrastructure. Criminal gangs using sophisticated viruses cull credit-card and other sensitive data to steal from bank accounts.

Now "hacktivists" who populate groups like Anonymous and LulzSec, mostly young males from their teens to early 30s, have also ignited increasing concern among computer experts over the security of corporate and government systems.

RTWT.

It was bound to happen. These are supposedly anarchists, but mostly they're a bunch of young leftist criminals with too much time on their hands. They'll get more menacing and deadly, their attacks more brazen and malicious, and ultimately these same people will be found allying increasingly with various terrorist groups. Some of the recent bombings, in Spain, for example, were the work of anarcho-communist cells. It's all of a piece, and no coincidence that people like this are championed on the progressive left.

'Starry Eyed'

At the recommendation of my oldest son, Ellie Goulding:

X Games 2011 Los Angeles Tickets on Sale Today

X Games 17 tickets on sale today, at Ticketmaster locations and the Staples Center box office.

I think my son would like to go, but not sure which event. There's so many!

The schedule: "X Games 17 Competition Schedule."

And video from last year:

Sacramento Mom Accused of Killing Baby in Microwave Oven

I flinched when I first saw this story, at the Los Angeles Times.

See also, Sacramento Bee, " Sacramento mother arrested on suspicion of killing baby in microwave":

In a case as rare as it is nightmarish, police arrested a North Sacramento woman Tuesday who they said killed her 6-week-old daughter in March by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
Ka Yang, 29, was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on suspicion of murder and assault that resulted in the death of a child. She is being held without bail.

"It's unthinkable," said Norm Leong, Sacramento Police Department spokesman. "Everyone was stunned at the cause of death. Even the detectives were shocked."

Mirabelle Thao-Lo was found dead March 17 by firefighters called to the home in the 800 block of Rood Avenue, in the city's Robla neighborhood.

People at the scene said an adult holding the baby had suffered a seizure and dropped her, Fire Department Battalion Chief Niko King said at the time.

Fire officials summoned police because of the child's traumatic injuries, King said.

Investigators spent three months trying to determine what caused the infant's severe and unusual burns, authorities said.

"She had some really deep tissue burns, fourth-degree burns. It was probably the worst case I've seen," said Sacramento County Coroner's Office spokesman Ed Smith.

Early on, detectives speculated that a household appliance, perhaps the microwave, caused the burns, Leong said. But the rarity of such cases made the investigation more difficult and time-consuming, he said.

More at that link, and also, "Mother accused of killing baby in microwave said she might have split personality." That makes sense, because it's inexplicable beyond mental infirmity. I can't understand it. Sad.

Gloria Molina, L.A. County Supervisor, Said She'd Like to 'Cut the Testicles Off' Agency Executive Under Her Authority

Los Angeles County government is a lot like the Cook County political machine. A bastion of Democrat Party power, top officials run government like fiefs, and they wield power in the style of the big city party bosses of yore.

In an article today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles County board of supervisors has sought to kneecap County Chief Executive William T. Fujioka. He is CEO for the County, in charge of managing a $23 billion budget and over 100,000 employees. Apparently Fujioka, whose grandparents were sent to internment camps during World War II, is a hard-knuckled administrator, having honed his political skins navigating the rough and tumble of L.A.'s east side gang scene growing up. On the job as County CEO since 2007, Fujioka initiated an administrative reorganization that worked to take power from the hands of the elected board:

The county plan to centralize authority was the brainchild of Fujioka's highly respected predecessor, David Janssen. The new chief executive was to have increased responsibility over the department heads who guide the delivery of services for 10 million constituents, ranging from housing the skid row homeless to defending exclusive hillside neighborhoods from mudslides.

Fujioka was given more staff, and his office's budget climbed 53% to $43 million in four years. Eventually, Fujioka was to have received greater power to hire and fire most agency chiefs.

Under the new structure, supervisors were to have taken a back seat in day-to-day operations. The structure presumed the high level of respect and openness Fujioka's predecessor enjoyed. But most supervisors and their staffs have served for decades and developed expertise and deep interests in certain issues, and the transfer of trust did not come naturally.

No doubt.

It turns out that board members Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, and Zev Yaroslavsky moved "to strip the Children and Family Services and Probation departments from Fujioka's control." There's more to the story at the link, including some ugly politics among members of the board, but this passage really caught my attention, and looks like an abuse of power:

While a majority of Fujioka's elected superiors may be critical, his subordinates praise him. County managers have complained about pointed attacks and contradictory direction from board offices in the past. "It's a very scary thing if you are a lowly department head," said Janice Fukai, the county's alternate public defender. "If you go in with the CEO, you feel a little more insulated and a little more protected."

Fujioka's backers say he has been particularly frustrated by some of the supervisors' interventions in the children's services agency, which has been grappling with child fatalities following errors in handling cases. It is one of the departments being taken away from Fujioka. Molina is especially hands-on, summoning top agency officials to her office to demand explanations. In one instance, she said she would like to cut the testicles off an executive because of problems in the agency, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

Gloria Molina's homepage is here. Clicking her page begins a photographic slide show of her service, beginning with a photo of Molina posing with President Barack Obama and ending with a shot of her posing with Former President Bill Clinton.

Her appearances with Democratic presidents form the bookends of a career in Los Angeles government spanning 20 years. In that time she's clearly developed an authoritarian style, which features crude and threatening accounts of her treatment of administrative subordinates. That Supervisor Molina refused to answer questions about the comment, as the Times indicates, is not surprising:

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

In a time of fiscal austerity, government officials at all levels have been coming under increased attention. But I think it's fair to say that it's especially inappropriate for an L.A. County Supervisor to announce she wants to "cut the testicles" off subordinate agency officials, and when asked about it to further denigrate them as "children."

Progressives would be all over this story if a Republican official has made comparable remarks. But this is the Los Angeles big city machine, and County elected officials obviously feel they can act with impunity.

UPDATE: From Russ, in the comments:

I think when she says "children", she is referring to the children under the protective services that have died while under their authority, NOT the supervisors she threatened with castration.

I also got an e-mail from someone objecting to my comment on Molina's reference to "the children." I won't be surprised if some ASFLs contact my college to complain. Democrats and progressives are evil like that. So let's be clear: "The outcomes" may clearly refer to a purposeful act in the active sense, as in the actions of the administrators who have taken power from the hands of the board. Of course Molina might be referring to "the outcomes" of the children in the passive sense, but then again, considering she's threatening administrative subordinates, maybe not. She's a Democrat. They talk down to people like that. Progressives are losers.

Also, linked at Instapundit, because, you know, no one pays attention to this blog, or something:

THREATS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM A DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER IN LOS ANGELES ...

I hope the Department Of Justice will investigate this egregious civil rights violation. For that matter, I suspect it’s a violation of California state civil rights law. Gloria Allred, call your office!

Word.

VIDEO: President Obama Speech on Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal, June 22, 2011

And the transcript is at ABC News, "Full Speech: Obama on Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal (Transcript)."

Also at New York Times, "Obama Orders Troop Cuts in Afghanistan." (At Memeorandum.) Also, at Los Angeles Times, "Obama announces drawdown of forces from Afghanistan, saying 'tide of war is receding'."

Michelle Malkin Right Online Interview at PJTV

She's an especially astute observer of politics, and she strikes a pragmatic tone toward the end of the interview. But she hammers on the need to avoid another John McCain-style candidate, and at her column today she pinpoints Jon Hunstman, mercilessly, "Jon Huntsman: McCain on Wheels":

Just like the failed 2008 GOP contender whose consultants are now fueling the Huntsman bid, McCain 2.0 is a big-spending accommodationist more in tune with the Democratic elite than with the conservative rank-and-file. In the shadow of the Statue of Liberty on Tuesday, Huntsman assailed the current economic crisis overseen by the Obama administration as “totally unacceptable” and “totally un-American.” Yet, Huntsman retains nothing but “respect” for his former boss in the White House and laments the loss of “civility” wrought by “corrosive” political debates.

More at the link, plus video of Huntsman being booed at at 2009 tea party. Ouch.

Germany's Far-Left Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism

Well, yeah.

And this is a surprise?

At Der Speigel, "A Map without Israel: Germany's Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism" (via Memorandum):

Swatiskas intertwined in the Star of David, a map of the Middle East with Israel missing, boycotts of Israeli products: Germany's far-left Left Party, many feel, has a growing anti-Semitism problem. The issue threatens to divide the party.

Germany's far-left Left Party has been struggling for months to have its voice heard on the national political stage. Falling membership numbers, shrinking support and a very public leadership battle this spring have all left the party struggling to find relevance.

Now, though, the party is facing yet another challenge. For years, the Left Party -- a partial outgrowth of the East German communists -- has been criticized for harboring anti-Semitism and being overtly critical of Israel. Just recently, Left Party floor leader Gregor Gysi pushed a resolution through the party's parliamentary faction stating: "In the future, the representatives of the Left Party faction will take action against any form of anti-Semitism in society."

The party, the resolution read, will no longer participate in boycotts of Israeli products, will refrain from demanding a single-state solution to the Middle East conflict and will not take part in this year's Gaza flotilla.

That resolution, however, did not sit well with the party's left wing. The group protested against being "muzzled," complaining that Gysi's declaration was "undemocratic" and "dangerous," as Left Party parliamentarian Annette Groth complained. And Gysi, formerly head of the party, gave in. This week, he plans to compose a further resolution on anti-Semitism.

He provided a hint at what it might contain in a recent interview with the leftist paper Neues Deutschland. "I don't see a problem with anti-Semitism in the Left Party," he said. "I am not a fan of the inflationary use of the term 'anti-Semitism.'" Gysi himself is from a family that has Jewish roots, several members of which were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Yet More Strife

More pragmatic members of the Left Party are up in arms. "A further resolution on the subject ... wouldn't solve a single problem, rather it would create new ones," said Raju Sharma, a Left Party parliamentarian who is also the party's treasurer. Michael Leutert, also a member of Germany's federal parliament, the Bundestag, is concerned that the issue could plunge the party into yet more strife.

Still, it seems unlikely that the Left Party will be able to quickly silence the debate. On Monday, Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote a guest commentary for the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung in which he accused Left Party members, particularly those from western Germany, of "downright pathalogical hatred of Israel." He also wrote that the "old anti-Zionist spirit from East Germany still stains the party."

There are many within the party who agree. Chief among them is Benjamin-Christopher Krüger, a founding member of a Left Party working group which aims at rooting all forms of anti-Semitism out of the party. "We have an anti-Semitism problem," he said.

A recent study by the University of Leipzig quoted in the daily Frankfurter Rundschau would seem to support Krüger's claim. The study said that positions hostile to both Israel and Jews are "increasingly dominant within the party" and critics of anti-Semitic positions are "increasingly isolated."

Several recent incidents bear witness to the problem. In April, the website of the district chapter of the Left Party in the western city of Duisburg featured a swastika entangled with a Star of David. The symbol linked to a pamphlet which called Israel a "rogue nation" and called for a boycott of Israeli products. The Duisburg Left Party chapter distanced itself from the pamphlet and claimed that the site had been illegally manipulated -- but the head of the Duisburg Left Party has long supported a boycott of Israeli products.

In May, Inge Höger, a member of the Bundestag from the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia, appeared at a Palestinians in Europe conference attended by numerous Hamas sympathizers. She was wearing a scarf printed with a map of the Middle East that did not include Israel. Höger claimed that she was handed the scarf and didn't want to be impolite.

More at the link and at Memeorandum.

At least the German Left Party is debating the issue, and looking to rid itself of the vile hatred.

Not so in the U.S.

The Democrats revile Israel, the Obama administration is working toward the destruction of the Jewish state, and longtime affiliates of Barack Obama continue to promote the cause of Israel's delegitimation. See, "PASTOR WRIGHT, OBAMA'S MENTOR OF OVER 20 YEARS, CALLS ISRAEL "ILLEGAL, GENOCIDAL," URGES BLACKS TO DISAVOW THEIR COUNTRY."

RELATED: From Mark Steyn, at National Review, "Hate Couture."

Britney Spears at Staples Center

A concert review, at Los Angeles Times:

And pics: "Britney Spears’ Femme Fatale Tour — Is Britney Having Fun Yet?"

Audrina Patridge Looks Fabulous on Cover of July Shape

Fox News reports, "Audrina Patridge says anyone can look good in a bikini."

Check that link for lots of pics and gossip.

Jon Huntsman Announces Presidential Campaign

I'm not familiar with Jon Huntsman, but he's announced his candidacy.

Left Coast Rebel is not impressed, "Jon Huntsman's Candidacy May Have Worked in Different Times..."

The one thing I have noticed is Huntsman's frankly weird presidential rollout. Candidates announced late this year, which surprised me, but Huntsman was laying the formal groundwork for a campaign while still serving as Ambassador to China. Sounds like what a Democrat would do, so I don't know.

We'll see, in any case.

More at New York Times, "Huntsman Finishes Opening Day with Big Money Haul" (via Memeorandum).

Yo, Janice Hahn 'Got Me Out'!

From Robert Stacy McCain, "CA-36: Democrats Threaten Legal Action Against Controversial Ad," and "Ladd’s Ad Gets Results." And from Turn Right USA, "Our Response to the LACDP Attorneys."

Democrats are sweating bullets and progressives are escalating allegations of racism.

They're freaking now that the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE is involved with a new webpage, "Hahn Got Me Out."

And somebody's making death threats, according to Da Tech Guy, "CA-36 Are apparent death threats more offensive than a viral video?"

And in the news, at L.A. Weekly, "Republicans Launch Fresh Attack On Janice Hahn Over Gang Workers."

Meanwhile, Fox 11 Los Angeles stands by its reporting.

Yo, Hahn got me out!

Added: Cool. Linked by AoSHQ, "Special Election in California District 36: Craig Huey Vs. Gangster Moll Janice Hahn." Thanks!

Breitbart Responds

On Twitter last night, when I tweeted him the news that Netroots Nation will hold its 2012 conference in Providence, RI., where organizers got a "no compete clause" from the convention center and hotels, which would prevent Right Online from holding a parallel meeting simultaneously. See Legal Insurrection, "Confirmed – Netroots Nation 2012 Chose Providence To Keep RightOnline Away."

And coincidentally, I finished Breitbart's book yesterday, Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World! I was almost through with it, and got busy with something else. And I'm also reading a bunch of other stuff, but I came back to finish Righteous Indignation after the Breitbart meetup, which was cool (remember, he'd just gotten back from the Weiner confessional press conference). Anyway, I'll have more to say on the book. If you're a conservative activist, it's almost of Biblical importance.

RELATED: From Joy McCann, at The Conservatory, "More on the Right Online-Netroots Nation Interactions."

NLRB Announces Proposed Changes to Speed Up Union Elections

At WSJ, "Plan to Ease Way for Unions":

The National Labor Relations Board Tuesday proposed the most sweeping changes to the federal rules governing union organizing elections since 1947, giving a boost to unions that have long called for the agency to give employers less time to fight representation votes.

The NLRB's proposals would likely compress the time between a formal call for a vote by workers on whether to join a union, and the election itself. It is the latest in a series of actions by the board and other agencies controlled by Obama administration appointees that respond to labor leaders' calls for more union friendly federal labor policies.

The rules governing organizing are the focus of a power struggle between unions and employers after decades of declining union membership. Only 6.9% of private sector workers belonged to unions in 2010, and just 11.9% of all U.S. workers, according to the Labor Department. In 1983, unions represented 20.1% of all workers.

"This is another not so cleverly disguised effort to restrict the ability of employers to express their views during an election campaign," said Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits.

Some companies say cutting the lead time before an election would make it harder for them to build a case for opposing a union, because union campaigns often begin months earlier without an employer's knowledge.

Unions praised the proposal, although Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, called the board's step a "modest" one that doesn't address "many of the fundamental problems with our labor laws."

Modest. Right. Trumka's a thug.

This will be an extremely significant change if approved. See Peter Kirsanow, "Major Changes to NLRB Rules Announced Today":

This is a very big deal. Union representation of the private-sector workforce has fallen from 35 percent 50 years ago to just 6.9 percent today. Implementation of the NLRB’s proposed rule changes would significantly increase the latter percentage. Here’s why:

The proposed rules would substantially shorten the time period between the filing of a petition for a union-representation election and the actual conduct of the election. Right now, initial elections normally are conducted within 38–40 days of the filing of a petition by the union. Since the typical employer is completely oblivious to the fact that a union has been organizing his workforce for the last 6–8 months, the filing of the representation petition is usually the first time the employer becomes aware of the unionization campaign. The employer then uses the 38–40 days between the filing of the petition and the election to make his case to his employees.

That’s not much time for the employer to get his message out. Indeed, in 2009 and 2010 unions won approximately 68 percent of elections (this does not include the number of petitions withdrawn by unions). Yet the “quickie election” rules proposed by the NLRB will shorten the time frame to a mere 10 –20 days. Make absolutely no mistake: That’s not enough time for even the largest and most sophisticated employers to counter what the union has been telling employees while organizing them for the last 6–8 months. The union win rate will far exceed 68 percent. In fact, it’s likely that many employers will choose to not even go through the expense of an election that he’s sure to lose, but will simply voluntarily recognize the union upon a showing of authorization cards.

These people suck. Freakin' commies.

'I can tell you there are not much worse feelings than waking up knowing you've been pounded and not remembering it...'

That's the comment from FreudianNips, at Althouse's interesting post on the homosexual left's response to Althouse's suggestion that Bristol Palin may have been raped: "'I've never understood the assumption that if a woman was drunk and doesn't remember giving consent that it must be rape'."

O.C. Grand Jury Questions Officials' Salaries in 3 Cities

At Los Angeles Times.

It's not as bad at the Bell scandal, but there's some big taxpayers money involved:

A first-of-its-kind report by the Orange County Grand Jury questioned whether top officials in three upscale cities — Laguna Hills, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach — are paid too much.

The report was commissioned in the wake of questions over city employee compensation fueled by last year's salary scandal in Bell, where top officials were earning salaries as high as $787,000.

The grand jury found no salaries in the 34 cities surveyed that the panel considered "abusive." The three cities were called out because they appeared to be paying out more than most Orange County cities.

In the case of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the grand jury questions what it said was a large number of employees earning $100,000 or more. Laguna Beach, with a population of about 25,000, had 22 such employees, and Newport Beach, with a population of about 86,000, had 60. The grand jury found that the two cities had more high-paid workers per capita that other cities.

Officials in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach disputed the findings. They said that although their cities' populations may be smaller than others, they are both full-service cities, meaning that they use city employees for services that other cities contract out. Both are also coastal cities with tens of thousands of tourists creating an added demand on city services.

"I think [the report's conclusions] were a bit misleading," said Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig. "To do an analysis like this without comparing the services is really an apples-to-oranges comparison."

More at the link. Laguna Hills City Manager Bruce Channing makes a total of $378,000 including benefits, which is considered "excessive" if not "abusive."

I wish I was making that kind of money. Sheesh.

NewsBusted: 'NY gallery opens photo gallery devoted to Obama'

Jodi Miller's on vacation, via Theo Spark: