Florida Parking Garage Collapse

At the Palm Beach Post, "‘The whole place shook’: Garage collapses, killing 2."

Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Major New Affirmative Action Case

Althouse reports on the coverage from SCOTUS blog, "Justice Breyer directly asked whether Grutter — the case approving of a type of affirmative action admissions — should be overruled?"

And then going straight to SCOTUS blog, see the roundup, "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin." And especially, Lyle Denniston, "Argument recap: Will Grutter be reshaped? (FINAL UPDATE)":

Affirmative action is alive but ailing, the idea of “critical mass” to measure racial diversity is in very critical condition, and a nine-year-old precedent may have to be reshaped in order to survive. Those were the dominant impressions at the close of a one-hour, nineteen-minute argument in the Supreme Court Wednesday. There is almost no doubt that the University of Texas’s affirmative action plan for admitting its freshman classes is in trouble with four Justices, but has at least qualified support from three others. The one most in doubt among the eight taking part: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He wanted to be convinced that the program does not use race at all costs, and it appeared that he was not.

Continue reading.

Plus, Jess Bravin at the Wall Street Journal, "Justices Clash on Affirmative Action." And from David Savage, at the Los Angeles Times, "Ruling out race in college admissions: How far will high court go?"

And from earlier at the Times, from Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., "Do race preferences help students?" And a rebuttal from Rachel Godsil, FWIW, "Affirmative action and the unprepared minority myth."

But see Elizabeth Price Foley at Instapundit, "A LIBERAL CRITIQUE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Richard Kahlenberg has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, evaluating the insanity of today’s affirmative action efforts by universities and colleges..."

Long Beach Press-Telegram: Yes on 32

I'm glad to see it.

"Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 32 -- Unions have inordinate amount of power in state politics":

To understand the need for Proposition 32, all a voter has to do is look at the the vast sums of cash pouring into the campaign against it. A total of more than $50 million has been donated to the "yes" and "no" campaigns. Of that, the vast majority has gone to fund advertising for the "no" side. And of that, most has come from unions representing California teachers and other public employees.

This is an example of the financial power that gives unions outsized political influence everywhere from election campaigns to the halls of the state Legislature and local city halls, too often resulting in laws that benefit union members over the interests of all Californians.

Now California voters have a chance to rein in that power. They should not miss the opportunity on Nov. 6. The editorial board urges passage of Proposition 32.

The measure would do three things: It would ban donations to state and local candidates by unions and corporations. It would ban the political use of money deducted from paychecks by unions or corporations. And it would ban government contractors from contributing to the campaigns of public officials who control the awarding of those contracts.

The measure's well-funded opponents complain that it would affect labor interests more than business interests -- because businesses don't use payroll deductions in the same way as unions, and because companies that aren't corporations are exempt from the proposition.

But the proponents don't pretend they're aiming for balance in the proposal. They want to curb the influence of unions over the decisions of state lawmakers, which has been out of balance for years.

That is a cause that this page has supported for a long time. We endorsed 2005's Proposition 75 and 1998's Proposition 226, which would have required unions to get individual members' permission before spending dues money on politics. (Those propositions lost by 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively.)

The arguments then are no less valid now.

Recent examples of Big Labor's influence in Sacramento include the power it has exerted over pension reform and prison issues. Another egregious example that arose this summer was a bill considered by the Assembly Education Committee to make it easier for school districts to fire teachers accused of terrible crimes involving sex, violence or drugs.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Pacoima had introduced the bill in the wake of several child sex-abuse cases in Los Angeles schools. The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It had popular support.

But the California Teachers Association bused in members to confront the key Assembly committee, underscoring its arguments for protecting the job security of teachers with a not-so-subtle reminder of the union's 800-pound-gorilla influence. Enough committee members voted against the bill to kill it.

They bused in thugs. That's what they always do.

More at the link.

Mark Rothko Mural Defaced in Tate Modern gallery

Rothko's my favorite.

I saw this story the other day at Althouse.

Sean Hannity Interviews Jim Lehrer

This was very interesting, from Monday night:

Labor Union Conflict-of-Interest Allegations Against Blue Shield of California

More union corruption, the freakin' commie thugs.

At LAT, "Blue Shield's union ties raise concerns about conflicts":

At a time when public-sector unions across the country are fighting to hold on to generous retirement and health benefits, one of the loudest voices standing up for their rights is Dave Low.

A longtime labor activist, Low carries considerable clout as executive director of the California School Employees Assn., a 215,000-member union that represents bus drivers, custodians and other school workers. He also leads a broader group of 1.5 million government employees, including firefighters, police and teachers, called Californians for Health Care and Retirement Security.

But Low had another job as well until recently. He was a consultant for Blue Shield of California, which has secured lucrative health insurance contracts that cover many of the same public workers that Low represents. His contract shows he was to be paid up to $125,000 a year for his work, which went from 2004 until Aug. 31.

Low isn't the only person with union ties pulling double duty for Blue Shield. One of the insurance company's senior executives also works as a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union, which represents nearly 300,000 government workers statewide.

Experts say those close ties between Blue Shield and key labor unions may give the nonprofit company undue influence over multimillion-dollar insurance contracts for public employees. It's common in California for a joint panel of labor and management officials to pick the winning insurance bidders and set many of the terms.

"This raises red flags about conflicts of interest and self-dealing," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption. "It really starts to feel offensive when the public money at stake is so huge."

A spokesman for the school union said it had approved of Low's contract with Blue Shield, and Low said he always put the interests of the union ahead of the insurer.

Blue Shield and Low said there was nothing inappropriate about their relationship and that they've done nothing illegal or unethical. After The Times began asking questions about their relationship, the company ended Low's contract Aug. 31.

Public employee benefits are coming under increasing scrutiny as municipalities, school districts and state governments face severe fiscal pressures and debates over what they can afford to offer rank-and-file workers. Health insurers compete vigorously for public-sector contracts because governments still provide some of the richest benefits among employers.

One of the biggest prizes for any company is a contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the country's third-largest healthcare buyer after the federal government and General Motors Co. It spends $7 billion annually on medical care for active and retired state and local government workers.

CalPERS is a crucial customer for Blue Shield, which serves about 400,000 of CalPERS' 1.3 million members. Overall, the San Francisco company has about 3.3 million customers and nearly $10 billion in annual revenue.

In August, CalPERS began the process for choosing new healthcare companies, and it plans to award three-year contracts next year that take effect in 2014. Many of the industry's biggest players — UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. — are competing with Blue Shield.

Blue Shield's contracts with Low, obtained by The Times, show that it was paying him for information and advice about dealing with CalPERS' board members and agency staff. Low was hired to "advise and assist Blue Shield in gaining CalPERS board and constituent support for key initiatives and proposals" and to "assist Blue Shield in its efforts to expand interactions with key decision makers and influencers of other non-CalPERS contracting public agencies."

In an interview, Low described his duties differently. Low, 55, said his primary role with Blue Shield was to monitor its service to union members and to alert the company about any problems CalPERS board members shared with him. He said he wasn't privy to any inside information about healthcare contracts and that it wasn't his job "to sell their product."

"I will challenge anybody to come up with a single instance in which I acted in an unethical manner," he said. "I've never had inappropriate conversations or contacts with Blue Shield or CalPERS."

Tom Epstein, vice president of public affairs for Blue Shield, said the company employed Low to provide "strategic political consulting." Epstein declined to comment further on Low's work or his recent departure.

Yeah, the dude declined to comment alright. He'll be taking the fifth in no time.

More at the link.

RawMuscleGlutes: 'If you want cheering up, go read Kos...'

Andrew Sullivan's AIDS-related meltdown continues, "Obama's Implosion Update":

If you want cheering up, go read Kos. He has some swing state polling that shows that the Obama free-fall may have stalled for a bit. I only note that in the poll of polls, Obama has now thrown away his leads in Florida and Virginia (Romney's now ahead), and is now only clinging on in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Colorado. Obama basically threw away six months of hard and smart campaigning in an interminable hour and a half. I've never seen a candidate do that before in my lifetime.

And if a fast-backfiring Sesame Street ad was the Obama campaign's response to the implosion of last week, I'm not reassured. Seriously: after your entire agenda has been stolen from you by one of the most shameless con-men in politics on live TV, you decide that the way to come back is by playing the Big Bird card? That's why I'm worried.

More at the link.

And speaking of Daily Kos, the commie freaks have entered into a severe dissonance phase. Here's their own commissioned PPP survey, "Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation poll: Romney takes the lead in post-debate period." And then here's Markos Buttfreak himself, "Romney campaign: We're still losing."

Right.

More of the "shove reality down their throats" spin, I guess.

IMAGE CREDIT: Reaganite.

Romney Up 47-45 in Latest IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll

At IBD, "Romney Takes 2-Point Lead In IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll."

IBD's polling was the most accurate during the 2008 election. It's clear by now that the Romney debate bounce is real and spectacular. And I'm getting the feeling his gains won't be ephemeral. The race has more than just tightened. It's now completely upended.

R.S. McCain has more, "Expect the Unexpected: Why Liberals Suddenly Melted Down After the Debate."

And linked there is AoSHQ just destroying little boy Nate Silver, especially on Twitter, "Nate Silver’s model predicts only 25% chance of Romney victory; Twitter predicts 100% chance of mockery."

Check back for more ...

Oops! She Does it Again! Smokin' Jennifer Nicole Lee Bikini Malfunction in Las Vegas

This lady does it for the cameras whenever the paparazzi are around.

Here she is back in July, "That's a near miss! Jennifer Nicole Lee just manages to cover her ample assets as her bikini slips off during ocean dip."

And here she is today, at London's Daily Mail, "Almost TOO revealing! Jennifer Nicole Lee grabs hold of bikini bottoms after they come undone in Las Vegas."

Nice.

New Sarah Palin Pictures Draw Controversy

Her face does look thin.

At London's Daily Mail, "'I'm writing a fitness book!' Sarah Palin hits back as the row grows over her shocking new skinny figure":

Controversial Sarah Palin has been forced to hit back after being caught up in a furore over her new scarily skinny figure.

Mrs Palin, 48, debuted her new look as she strolled through California's Studio City, dressed in an outfit that appeared to have been plundered from one of her young daughter's wardrobes.

Dressed in tight black jeans, a crop top that looked like it had been stolen off the set of Flashdance, and high wedges, the former vice presidential hopeful looked a million miles away from the campaign trail.

But the look was greeted in less than flattering terms by many - prompting Mrs Palin to claim she is, in fact, now writing a fitness book.

Read it all, plus photos, at the link.

Doctors Prescribe Attention Deficit Drugs to Treat Poor Academic Performance, Not A.D.H.D.

Some doctors, that is, according to the New York Times, "Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School":

CANTON, Ga. — When Dr. Michael Anderson hears about his low-income patients struggling in elementary school, he usually gives them a taste of some powerful medicine: Adderall.

The pills boost focus and impulse control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although A.D.H.D is the diagnosis Dr. Anderson makes, he calls the disorder “made up” and “an excuse” to prescribe the pills to treat what he considers the children’s true ill — poor academic performance in inadequate schools.

“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining interest among some physicians. They are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money — not to treat A.D.H.D., necessarily, but to boost their academic performance.

It is not yet clear whether Dr. Anderson is representative of a widening trend. But some experts note that as wealthy students abuse stimulants to raise already-good grades in colleges and high schools, the medications are being used on low-income elementary school children with faltering grades and parents eager to see them succeed.

“We as a society have been unwilling to invest in very effective nonpharmaceutical interventions for these children and their families,” said Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, a child mental-health services researcher at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert in prescription drug use among low-income children. “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal, which is psychotropic medications.”

Call it the drug abuse spiral model. Affluent kids take drugs and pull ahead that much farther in academic performance, and then, already behind, poor kids, most likely minorities, get hopped up on prescription drugs to catch up. What could go wrong?

More at the link.

And really read it all. Medicaid is paying for it. State-subsidized drug abuse. Man, isn't that something else. It's supposed to be all about "social justice" as well. Progressivism has just f-ked people up by this point. Sad.

Obama's Big Bird Backlash

I saw the ad early this morning at National Journal: "Big Bird Featured in New Obama Ad."

By the time I was going to lunch the Big Bird outcry was so big that even Sesame Street was demanding that the ad be pulled: "Sesame Workshop Response to Campaign Ads" (at Memeorandum):

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and, as is our general practice, have requested that both campaigns remove Sesame Street characters and trademarks from their campaign materials.

And check the Weekly Standard's commentary on Obama's Bird Bird blitz:

This is a moderately clever ad produced by moderately clever people. The moderately clever liberals who govern us think it's just farcical that someone should propose, in an era of $1 trillion deficits, that non-essential activities of the federal government should be cut. Limiting government is so dreadfully old fashioned; living within one's means is so awfully earnest.

But the ad doesn't just ridicule Romney as too un-cool for Obama-era school. It gets serious. Because there are real enemies that we do have to worry about. One such enemy? Wall Street.

Now, THE WEEKLY STANDARD would be the first to acknowledge that there's much wrong with Wall Street. Indeed, THE WEEKLY STANDARD is proud to take its place in the let's-not-automatically-defend-Wall-Street, let's-worry-about-Main-Street wing of contemporary conservatism.

Still, there's something deeply revealing about Obama's blithe willingness to portray Wall Street as an enemy. Wall Street is key to American prosperity—even to American greatness. Lots of important and impressive Americans have had careers on Wall Street. What Wall Street does is important. Wall Street matters.

I hate to tell the liberals this, but Sesame Street doesn't. It would be nice if life were "a magic carpet ride/Every door will open wide." It would be nice if happiness could be achieved by government telling us, "how to get/How to get to Sesame Street." It would be nice (maybe) if the world of Sesame Street were real.

But it's not. It's fictional. It's childish. It's as fictional and childish as the make-believe world of Obama's liberalism—a liberalism that scorns Wall Street, and disdains Main Street … but embraces Sesame Street.

More at Memeorandum.

And see Lonely Con, "Romney: What’s With Obama’s Big Bird Obsession."

Community College Crisis Slows Student Progress

From the letters to the editor, at the Los Angeles Times, "A college degree, one class at a time":

Budget cuts are forcing community colleges to eliminate courses. Yet they are still offering boxing and personal growth and development classes. Does anyone see a problem with this picture?

Jack Berens
Alta Loma

More letters at that top link, and see the Times' earlier report, "Faded Dreams: Community colleges' crisis slows students' progress to a crawl."

PREVIOUSLY: "Harsh Reality Hits California's Community Colleges."

Constitution Day: Long Beach City College

Here's the announcement: "Constitution Day Panel Discussion."

Constitution Day is September 17th, but the college scheduled the panel for the 20th (for scheduling convenience, one assumes). I was a reluctant participant. Also on the panel was my highly esteemed colleague, Dr. Julian Delgaudio. He's a communist. A nice fellow, actually, I just can't stand his arrogance, hypocrisy, and ideological bankruptcy. The original invitation asked presenters to prepare a two-minute introduction. That's my department chair Professor Gene Goss who introduces the panelists. Professor Delgaudio spoke first. I thought he was defending a dissertation or something. He was droning on and on about how terrible ---- terrible! ---- is the U.S. Constitution. Professor Goss had to ask him to wrap up his comments at least three times. Talk about a bloviator. I had a student who flagged me down on campus last week asking, "Who was that guy who spoke first?" And even one of the part-time faculty members had questions. He obviously left an impression, and it wasn't a great one. And frankly, Professor Delgaudio was not well versed in how the Constitution actually works. It wasn't designed to prevent wealth accumulation. Delgaudio conflates wealth with power, and thus the Constitution "failed" since enormous wealth has been concentrated at the top of the social hierarchy historically. Whatever. All the other panelists did a wonderful job. I just don't like communists, and I don't think people like this are doing LBCC students any favors.

Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama's Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole

From Katie Pavlich, at Townhall:

A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.

For the past eight months, GAI has been investigating the potential influence of foreign online campaign donations in House, Senate and presidential elections. The report was conducted using spidering software and found thousands of foreign sites linking to campaign donation pages. The investigation was conducted with the guidance of a former U.S. attorney. GAI is led by Peter Schweizer, who recently exposed congressional insider trading in his book Throw Them All Out.

“As FBI surveillance tapes have previously shown, foreign governments understand and are eager to exploit the weaknesses of American campaigns,” the report says. “This, combined with the Internet’s ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence.”

OFA seems to be taking advantage of a “foreign donor loophole” by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor’s address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.

Hmm...

Sounds familiar. I wonder where I've heard this story before?

Oh yeah: "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

Maybe the dead-tree press will do something about it this year? You know, like reporting it.

There's more from Pavlich at the link.

I'm not holding my breath. The FEC never goes after campaign finance fraud. The system's a joke.

Have Americans Finally Tired of the Obama Narrative?

Well, we'll find out on November 6th.

But see Jean Kaufman, a.k.a. Neo-Neocon, at PJ Media:

In the very best postmodern fashion, Obama and his supporters have relied on a narrative about Obama that has been carefully constructed. He’s brilliant, a great writer, a rare thinker, a moderate, a first-class temperament with neatly pressed pants, a uniter, a cool guy who’s unflappable.

The first debate last Wednesday threatened to make that narrative seem absurd. You might say that the narrative got mugged by reality, and an awful lot of people were watching while it happened.

But the next day there was a new narrative in place — or rather, several narratives: Romney cheated, the altitude was too high for Obama, he didn’t have time to practice because he was too busy with weighty matters, Romney lied, and look at those great unemployment numbers!

Those numbers themselves are another narrative, one that no one can quite figure out because there’s a disparity between one part of the stats and other parts. In a very real sense, the numbers don’t seem to add up. But they’re good for the Obama narrative, unless you think too deeply about them.

But one of the points of a narrative is not to think too deeply about it.

Now in a sense every candidate spins a narrative about him/herself, and the media spins a narrative of its own which is either in agreement or disagreement with that candidate’s preferred narrative. But Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate I can think of — be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, someone I have liked and supported or someone I have detested and opposed — who is nearly all about the narrative, and who seems so aware of it (“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views”)...

Continue reading.

Many Californians Angry at Surging Price of Gasoline

I got $24 yesterday, so I could make it to work this morning. It was $4.60 a gallon at ARCO. I'll be glad when prices drop.

Maybe soon, according to the Los Angeles Times, "California gas prices should fall soon, analysts say." Video at the link, and at the Associated Press as well.

Remember, a Month Ago Nate Silver Gave 4-to-1 Odds Against Romney

Read Robert Stacy McCain's post, "Liberals Beginning to Realize They’ve Overestimated Obama’s Popularity?"

It's now a 3-1 margin against Romney, but it's still early.

Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks

From Eli Lake, at The Daily Beast:

In the six months leading up to the assault on the United States consulate in Benghazi, the State Department reduced the number of trained Americans guarding U.S. facilities in Libya, according to a leading House Republican investigating the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks. The reduction in U.S. security personnel increased America’s reliance on local Libyan guards for the protection of its diplomats.

This is the latest charge from Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican leading a House investigation on the Benghazi attacks, regarding alleged security defects in Benghazi. Chaffetz said the information comes from whistleblowers who have approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The State Department on Wednesday didn’t respond to requests for comment. However, a senior State Department official said an independent review panel was examining the charge. This official said it was routine to reduce the number of U.S. personnel serving in new diplomatic posts such as Benghazi over time. When the U.S. established its official presence in Benghazi in 2011, it was the middle of a war, and even routine jobs such as drivers were handled by U.S. personnel, this official said.

The allegation from Chaffetz, who is the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that handles national security, is important in light of recent reports that some Libyans who provided security for U.S. missions were working with insurgents and, in one case, allegedly attacked the consulate in Benghazi in April with a homemade explosive.

On Tuesday, Chaffetz and the oversight committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), disclosed in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton details of an alleged April 6 bombing at the consulate. The letter detailed how in the run-up to the 9-11 assault there was an escalation of military-style attacks on Western targets in Libya’s second-largest city. The letter also said U.S. security personnel had requested, and were denied, additional security for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi.

Chaffetz went further Wednesday, saying in an interview that the number of American diplomatic security officers serving in Libya had been reduced in the six months prior to the attacks. "The fully trained Americans who can deal with a volatile situation were reduced in the six months leading up to the attacks," he said. "When you combine that with the lack of commitment to fortifying the physical facilities, you see a pattern.”

And at the Salt Lake Tribune, "Chaffetz visits Libya to investigage ambassador killing."

Also, more from The Daily Beast, "Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats." And at London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: Ambassador to Libya told officials of security worries on day he died in consulate raid as special forces chief says he asked for 'more not less' back-up month before attack."

The Idea of 'Collective' Success Is Deeply Offensive

An excellent essay from TigerHawk, "Building it: In which I explain why "you didn't build that" so offended business people."