Hillary's Sidney Blumenthal Memos Demand Criminal Investigation

A great piece, from the editors at WSJ, "Who Is Sidney Blumenthal?":

Mrs. Clinton emerged from a month of silence Tuesday to declare that “I want those emails out,” though she’s helpless because “they’re not mine. They belong to the State Department.” Yet even the details we know offer broader lessons about the Clinton political method.

***
They reinforce, for starters, that the Clinton Foundation is not and never has been a charity. Bill and Hillary created it in 2001 as a vehicle to assist their continuing political ambitions, in particular Mrs. Clinton’s run for the White House. Any good the foundation does is incidental to its bigger role as a fund-raising network and a jobs program for Clinton political operatives.

The Times reports that Mr. Blumenthal was paid to do “research, ‘message guidance,’ and the planning of commemorative events.” Was he also paid by the Clinton Foundation—which is funded in part by foreign governments—to write memos for the Secretary of State?

We are also learning more about other appendages of the Clinton campaign machine, including so-called progressive “watchdog” groups. The Times reports that Mr. Blumenthal was also cashing paychecks from Media Matters and the liberal Super Pac American Bridge, both of which happen to be founded by Blumenthal protégé and professional Clinton hit man David Brock.
American Bridge describes itself as a “communications organization committed to holding Republicans accountable,” which is another way of saying it works—under Mr. Blumenthal’s tutelage—as Mrs. Clinton’s attack machine. Media Matters is a propaganda operation that got its start with help from the Center for American Progress, which was founded by John Podesta, who is now chairing Hillary’s presidential campaign.

The Blumenthal Files are the latest reminder that Mrs. Clinton’s email deletions deserve a criminal investigation. Recall that Mr. Blumenthal was barred by the Obama Administration from working at the State Department, despite Mrs. Clinton’s request to hire her old pal. We now know she worked with him anyway, potentially in violation of State rules, and that both used private email addresses.

The only reason we know this, however, is because a Romanian hacker a few years back infiltrated Mr. Blumenthal’s email and posted some correspondence with Mrs. Clinton online. Mrs. Clinton has now turned over (some of) her Blumenthal correspondence to the State Department. How many other private emails, which weren’t exposed through a hack, did Mrs. Clinton delete?

The Blumenthal memos also deserve Justice Department scrutiny. Team Clinton wants the world to think Mr. Blumenthal was simply offering his old friend some helpful intelligence gleaned in the course of his Libya work. A less charitable view is that Mr. Blumenthal was funneling information to the nation’s top diplomat in hopes that it would trigger actions to benefit his business interests.

The Times reports that in one memo Mr. Blumenthal provided Mrs. Clinton the name of what he viewed to be one of the “most influential” advisers to the new Libyan government. It happens this was also the adviser the Blumenthal business group was hoping would provide it with financing. Even as Mr. Blumenthal was whispering in Mrs. Clinton’s ear, one of his business associates reached out to a senior Clinton aide to “introduce the venture” and seek a meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Libya.

Meanwhile, among the details in the hacked Blumenthal emails is that he passed along a memo to Mrs. Clinton from an adviser to Georgia billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili—then running for prime minister, opposed by President Mikheil Saakashvili—asking the State Department to give support to his candidate. Mr. Blumenthal warned in his memo that Georgia could be “a potential hot spot a month before the [2012] US elections,” leaving the impression he thought she should take the plea seriously.

This is highly dubious behavior. In early April a conservative-leaning ethics group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Mr. Blumenthal had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This is the law requiring that anyone lobbying—defined broadly—for a foreign government must register with the Attorney General. Justice brushed off the request, as it always has during this Administration, but the query ought to be renewed in light of Mr. Blumenthal’s work regarding Libya.

***
House investigators now intend to interview Mr. Blumenthal, and let’s hope they can uncover more about this pal of Hillary’s job as unofficial political and foreign-policy adviser to a Secretary of State.

The broader point is that this is how the Clintons operate—on the edge of the law, mixing business and politics, the personal with the official, in a way designed to help the Clintons and their friends profit from both.

Kimberly Guilfoyle Has a New Book Coming Out

The publisher's sending me a copy. It's out on May 26th.

Pre-order at Amazon, Making the Case: How to Be Your Own Best Advocate.

Also, Father's Day Gifts in Tools.

More blogging tonight!

Sidney Blumenthal Emails to Hillary Clinton at State Department

If this is the beginning of some genuine reporting at the New York Times --- genuine and hopefully sustained investigative reporting --- the Clinton campaign's in for a whole lotta hurt. Don't hold your breath, obviously. Gawker's been running reports on the Blumenthal emails for years. But should disgust at the Clinton cash corruption finally shake loose the blinders among the journalist-cadres at the Old Gray Lady, all hell could break out across the Democrat-Media-Complex.

See, "Clinton Friend’s Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business," and "What Sidney Blumenthal's Memos to Hillary Clinton Said, and How They Were Handled." There's a motherload of damaging information here, but just to pick out one nugget:

In May 2011, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo reporting that affiliates of Al Qaeda in Libya were plotting attacks in revenge for the United States’ killing of Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton forwarded the email to Mr. Sullivan, saying that it was “disturbing, if true.” [Clinton aide] Mr. [Jake] Sullivan questioned its accuracy, but said he would share with others. (Pages 4-5)

Mindboggling, really.

Sid Blumenthal & the Clintons--Is this a Rerun? @nickconfessore & @MichaelSSchmidt get to the bottom of it. In Libya. http://t.co/sjReVTgowW

— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) May 18, 2015

It's easy to see why Hillary wanted to deep six all her private email communications. They're the smoking guns of a Watergate-scale scandal.

More at Hot Air, "NYT: Banned from State Dep’t, Clinton Foundation crony advised Hillary on Libya anyway — while pursuing business there; Update: Another e-mail lie."

And at Politico, "State Department won't release Hillary Clinton's emails until January 2016." (At Memeorandum.) The timing's not so great on that, actually. January's when the primaries kick off. And if Bernie Sanders catches some fire, he could cause bloody havoc for the Clintons --- and he'd be tickled pink doing it.

Read some of these emails at NYT, "Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account."

'This is the second time in a week that I have answered, point-by-point, a lengthy exercise in character assassination against Pamela Geller and me written by Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and a longtime apologist for jihad terror...'

From Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "Cathy Young is a terrible poster child for journalism."

Irish Voters Set for Referendum on Homosexual Marriage

At WaPo, "Ireland could be first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote":

This is not a vote on gays, on their status or how they are esteemed. Emotional blackmail plays with the lives of vulnerable people.

— Paddy Manning ن (@PaddyJManning) May 18, 2015

DUBLIN — Catholic and deeply conservative, Ireland was long known as one of the toughest places in the Western world to be gay. Homosexuality was decriminalized here only in 1993, after years of pressure from European authorities.

But now Ireland may be preparing for its coming-out party, with a referendum on Friday that could make it the world’s first country to approve same-sex marriage in a popular vote.

That such a momentous event in the gay rights struggle could happen here, of all places, reflects the breathtaking social change that has swept Ireland in recent years — and the weakening hold of the scandal-scarred Catholic Church.

The church has come down firmly against the referendum. But in a country where priests once held unquestioned sway and where 85 percent of the nation still identifies as Catholic, a large majority of Ireland appears ready to defy church teachings and vote to give same-sex partners the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

“It’s a different era,” said Pat Carey, a former government minister who came out as gay in February, at age 67, and is campaigning for a yes vote. “There’s a whole new demographic out there that has a vision of an Ireland that’s kinder, more inclusive and more tolerant.”

The change to Ireland’s constitution could reverberate well beyond this island nation’s borders as other countries, the United States among them, are wrestling with the issue in legislation and in the courts.

Unlike in the United States, where nine Supreme Court justices will soon give their ruling, Ireland has placed the choice in the hands of its 4.5 million people — leading to a passionate and colorful campaign that has made a once-taboo subject the focus of a national debate.

Supporters say a yes vote could inspire popular movements in other countries where same-sex rights had once seemed inconceivable.

“It will show that if this society can change in that way — so quickly, so radically — then other places, places that seem very conservative at the moment, that they can also change,” said Colm Toibin, one of Ireland’s foremost writers, who left the country as a young man in part because of rampant homophobia. “It would be an example to the world.”

But to referendum opponents, a yes vote would be a deeply unsettling symbol of a society transformed beyond recognition. Abortion is still prohibited in Ireland. But same-sex marriage is seen by traditionalists as perhaps the ultimate concession to cultural relativism in a country where divorce was illegal and the sale of condoms was tightly regulated until the mid-1990s.

“We’re no longer Catholic ­Ireland,” said Evana Boyle, an organizer of Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group campaigning for a no vote. “We’re changing the ­essence of an institution that has been known as one man and one woman since the beginning of time.”

Boyle’s group has plastered this city, and much of the country, with posters showing opposite-sex parents kissing a cherub-faced baby along with the words “Don’t deny a child the right to a mother & a father. Vote No.”

Boyle, a lawyer and a mother of four, said her side is counting on a backlash to a new era in which homosexuality has become “normalized.” When even Catholic schools plan lessons around LGBT Awareness Week, she said, she needs to be on guard against attempts to indoctrinate her own children. “The idea of having two dads, they just go, ‘Eww, that’s not right,’ ” she said.

But the no side’s message that defeat would be beneficial for kids is undermined by the near-unanimity of child welfare organizations in supporting the referendum’s passage. Beyond the Catholic Church, there is little opposition to the measure within the Irish establishment...

More.

Forget 2003. Jeb Bush Should Focus on Today's Iraq

Well that's for sure.

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post:

Jeb Bush’s fumbled answer on Iraq is so troubling because the controversy is so unnecessary. The only people in the United States obsessed with re-litigating the 2003 decision to invade Iraq are on the left. Most Americans are far more concerned about what the next president is going to do about Iraq today.

And — news flash — the vast majority want to send ground forces to Iraq right now.

In March, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 62 percent of Americans support sending ground forces to Iraq to fight the Islamic State, while only 30 percent are opposed. Even a 53 percent majority of Democrats support sending ground troops to Iraq, along with 60 percent of independents. Among Republicans, support for boots on the ground is even higher, with 73 percent in favor and 18 percent opposed.

So let’s be clear: There is no groundswell among GOP primary voters for Bush or any of the Republican presidential candidates to disavow the 2003 invasion. What voters do want to hear from the presidential contenders is how they are going to deal with the terrorist threat from Iraq in the here and now. Just this weekend, the Islamic State captured Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, putting the terrorists just 80 miles from Baghdad. Despite months of U.S. airstrikes, the terrorists are on the offensive, gaining ground. President Obama’s strategy is failing, and his policy of retreat and withdrawal from Iraq is a disaster...

Well, yeah.

The only lying sacks are on the left. They're hateful lying scumbags.

Keep reading.

Democrats Sic Identity Politics on Their Own

It's come to this.

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, "The left has handicapped its ability to debate policy, even among themselves":

They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, we'd have a condescending president who looked down on his female critics as "little ladies" who didn't understand how the world works. And they were right! I voted for Romney, and, well, keep reading.

Sure, we wound up with President Obama, not with Mitt. But that didn't change how things turned out. Just ask National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill. Right before Obama's trade bill cratered in the Senate last week, Obama complained that its chief Senate critic, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., didn't understand the real world. O'Neill then chalked Obama's attitude up to sexism.

O'Neill told The Hill she took issue with Obama calling Warren by her first name during an interview with Yahoo News published May 9.

"Yes, I think it is sexist," O'Neill said. "I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Sen. Warren's concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way."

O'Neill said Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about."

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, joined the chorus, also suggesting Obama's remarks were sexist, and then refused to apologize. Now some are tittering over Obama's supposed "seven-year history of sexism." This caused Twitter humorist David Burge to joke: "NAACP president: NOW president's critique of Obama's critique of Elizabeth Warren is racist."

Well, that's fair. The worst aspect of Obama's presidency has been the willingness of some defenders to characterize any and all criticisms of his policy or style as racist. With Warren (despite her denials) revving up for a potential 2016 presidential campaign — and already with Hillary Clinton's effort — we're seeing a new line of argument: That any criticism of a female politician is sexist. Apparently, the only kind of politician you can criticize on the merits in America nowadays is a white male.

The Democrats' tendency to argue identity politics over policy is more awkward when it's aimed at other Democrats. As The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin comments: "Is the 'war on women' being waged by the White House, or have Democrats become so accustomed to demonizing their opponents that they can't engage in civil debates even among themselves? It does not speak well of the Democrats' ability to persuade and lead. But it does portend a non-stop stream of gender bias claims in the 2016 presidential election."

Ugh. I'm dreading it!

Keep reading.

'If George Bush Had Done This, He Would Have Been Hitler...'

Kirsten Powers talks to the Daily Signal, "Kirsten Powers: ‘If George Bush Had Done This, He Would Have Been Hitler’."

Kirsten Powers doesn’t mince words when discussing what she calls the “illiberal silencing tactics” of the left, including those employed by the Obama administration.

“It goes without saying that if George Bush had done this, he would have been Hitler,” she said of the Obama administration’s attempt to “delegitimize” Fox News.

The concept of “delegitimizing” individuals or organizations like Fox News is a main theme in her new book, “The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech.”

More.

And get Ms. Powers' book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

After Racist Fiasco, Democrat Loretta Sanchez Won't Rule Out Running for Reelection to House

Well, this has gotta be the shortest Senate campaign in the history if congressional elections. She didn't even make it one week, as far as I'm concerned.

If she won't rule out a bid for reelection to her House seat, she's clearly worried about her chances. Sad too. She could have been the first Latina ever elected to the U.S. Senate.

At the Los Angeles Times, "After 'war cry' fiasco, Loretta Sanchez doesn't rule out another run for Congress":

With her U.S. Senate campaign off to a bumpy start, Loretta Sanchez refused Sunday to rule out the possibility of running instead for reelection to the House of Representatives.

At a brief question-and-answer session with reporters, Sanchez (D-Santa Ana) first declined to elaborate on her apology to state Democratic convention delegates Sunday morning for making a stereotypical Native American “war cry” gesture in remarks to a crowd the day before.

“I think I’ve said everything I’m going to say on that subject,” Sanchez said.

Asked then whether there was any chance she’d opt to seek reelection to the House next year if her Senate campaign appeared to be in trouble, the Santa Ana lawmaker responded, “Let me be very clear: I am running for the United States Senate. Thank you.”

Asked to specify whether she was ruling out a run for reelection, Sanchez said: “I am running for the United States Senate, and we’re running full bore to talk to people up and down California, and we think that by the time we finish, and [the June 2016 primary] rolls around, we’re going to be moving into the general election.”

Sanchez entered the Senate race Thursday and faces an uphill fight against another Democrat, state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, who launched her campaign in January.

By the end of March, Harris had banked more than $2.2 million for the campaign, more than quadruple the nearly $540,000 in campaign money that Sanchez had on hand, according to their most recent campaign finance reports...

She can't run for both seats simultaneously. My money's on her running for her old seat in a desperate bid to hold on to power.

A desperate racist Democrat. Aren't they all.

2-Year-Old Girl Dies After Being Struck by Falling Brick on Upper West Side

She was just a baby.

Sad.

At CBS News New York, "Police: Child Struck By Debris On Upper West Side Is Dead."

Also at NYDN, "Greta Greene, 2, dies day after hit by falling bricks in Upper West Side; parents will donate her organs."

Leftists Attack 'Racist' Duke University Political Scientist Jerry Hough!

"Microagressions = micro-nooses."

Man, it's getting hard out there for a prog --- an "old, white" prog who voted for Barack!

At the Charlotte Observer, "Duke professor responds to criticism about his comments on African Americans":

In online comments, Duke professor #JerryHough negatively compared black people to Asians. http://t.co/XMgAqcvjnd pic.twitter.com/gFzT528xhV

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) May 18, 2015

Stop trying to pit Asians against African-Americans, you racist, idiotic, old white man. We're not taking the bait.http://t.co/zlMe8dX5Eg

— J. Mijin Cha (@jmijincha) May 18, 2015

A Duke University professor faced sharp criticism for online comments he made on The New York Times website, where he compared “the blacks” and “the Asians,” writing that Asians “didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.”

In a six-paragraph comment on the Times website, political science professor Jerry Hough wrote: “The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves.”

Hough did not agree to be interviewed, but late Friday he said in an email that his comments were misunderstood. He had been prompted to write about a May 9 editorial in the New York Times on the Baltimore riots and underlying factors of segregation and poverty. He said the editorial should have called for the mayor of Baltimore to resign, instead of blaming white racism.

“I don’t know if you will find anyone to agree with me,” he said in an email to The News & Observer. “Anyone who says anything is a racist and ignorant as I was called by a colleague. The question is whether you want to get involved in the harassment and few do. I am 80 and figure I can speak the truth as I see it. Ignorant I am not.”

In his New York Times comment, Hough praised Asians. “Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration,” his online comment said. “Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration. The amount of Asian-white dating is enormous and so surely will be the intermarriage. Black-white dating is almost non-existent because of the ostracism by blacks of anyone who dates a white.”

The comment concluded: “It was appropriate that a Chinese design won the competition for the Martin Luther King state (sic). King helped them overcome. The blacks followed Malcolm X.”

Hough was swiftly blasted on Twitter and other social media sites. Duke officials decried the professor’s comments while defending his right to make them.

Mark Anthony Neal, a Duke professor of African and African American Studies, responded on his blog by pasting a screen shot of the comment, with this: “In the words of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, microagressions = micro-nooses--Mark Anthony Neal.” Bonilla-Silva is a Duke sociology professor.

In an email, Hough said he was a disciple of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s and voted for President Barack Obama. He pointed out that the first book he assigned to students in 1961 was “Black Like Me.” He further stated that one of the best students he ever taught was African American, and he had encouraged her to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship, but she pursued a career in athletics.

He said he’s working on a book on the 1960s social revolutions and that “I am very disappointed in the lack of progress” for African Americans.

“The point I was raising was why the Asians who were oppressed did so well and are integrating so well, and the blacks are not doing as well,” his email said. “The comments have convinced me to write a book which will add the Asians to all the research I did on blacks.”

He also admitted his comment in the New York Times was not expressed as well as he had intended: “There were typos in my outrage towards [the editorial] and I could have been more careful (though hard in the space limits).”

Of course, the university has "condemned" the professor's "insensitivity."

Mt. St. Helens Eruption 35 Years Ago Today

I wasn't reading the newspapers too much back in 1980, but I remember when National Geographic came out with its cover story on the eruption. I was absolutely fascinated. I've never forgotten the pictures from that edition and whenever I visit friends with a National Geographic collection, I always go and find that issue. (See, "Mountain With a Death Wish.")

USA Today had a great graphic report over the weekend, "Mount St. Helens: Facts about deadliest U.S. volcanic event 35 years later."

I was watching a bunch of videos of the eruption on YouTube last night, at the U.S. Geological Survey page in particular. Check it out on Google.

Bristol Palin, Dakota Meyer Wedding Called Off, Says Sarah Palin

Well, it's from Sarah Palin Herself, via Twitter:

Bristol and Dakota couldn’t be more thankful for the love and support of family and friends over the past months... http://t.co/gpu7xgwXNy

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) May 18, 2015

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Bristol Palin's Saturday wedding CALLED OFF with just five days to go: Sarah Palin announces cancelled nuptials in Facebook post days after ex-Marine groom's 'secret ex-wife was revealed'."

Black Leftist Saida Grundy, Boston University Sociology Professor, Attacks White Rape Victim in Vicious Facebook Posts

Oh boy this is ugly.

Pretty typical for leftists though. You can see why these people are seen as toxic hulks of radioactivity to be avoided at all costs.

At iOWNTHEWORLD Report, "“Self-important and condescending academics are nothing unusual, but mocking a traumatized rape victim crosses a line”." Following the links takes us to Fox News, "Boston University prof in racist tweet flap accused of trolling white rape victim."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "'Go cry somewhere': Hateful words of black Boston University professor to a white rape survivor written on Facebook three months before she claimed white men are 'THE problem for America's colleges'."

"Hateful words" alright.

The left is full of hate. Hate, hate, hate. Hate all the time. Ghouls.




RELATED: At College Insurrection, "Newly Hired Boston University Prof Bashes Whites and Men on Twitter," and "Boston University Responds to Prof’s Racist Tweets Aimed at White Men."

Ceding Civilization to Barbarism

A thought-provoking entry from Bob Belvedere, at the Camp of the Saints, "The Budding Flower of Savagery [UPDATED]."

Running With the Predators

From Heather Mac Donald, at City Journal, "Liberal elites continue to condemn law enforcement and excuse inner-city crime":

Starting in late summer 2014, a protest movement known as Black Lives Matter convulsed the country. Triggered by the fatal police shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, the movement claimed that blacks are still oppressed by widespread racism, especially within law enforcement. The police subject black communities to a gratuitous regime of stops and arrests, resulting in the frequent use of lethal force against black men, according to the activists and their media and academic allies. Indeed, America’s police are the greatest threat facing young black men today, the protesters charged. New York’s mayor Bill de Blasio announced in December that he worries “every night” about the “dangers” his biracial son may face from “officers who are paid to protect him.” Less than three weeks later, a thug from Brooklyn, inspired by the nationwide anti-cop agitation, assassinated two New York police officers.

The protest movement’s indictment of law enforcement took place without any notice of the actual facts regarding policing and crime. One could easily have concluded from the agitation that black and white crime rates are identical. Why the police focus on certain neighborhoods and what the conditions are on the ground were questions left unasked.

The year 2014 also saw the publication of a book that addressed precisely the questions that the Black Lives Matter movement ignored. Alice Goffman, daughter of the influential sociologist Erving Goffman, lived in an inner-city Philadelphia neighborhood from 2002 to 2008, integrating herself into the lives of a group of young crack dealers. Her resulting book, On the Run, offers a detailed and startling ethnography of a world usually kept far from public awareness and discourse. It has been widely acclaimed; a film or TV adaptation may be on the way. But On the Run is an equally startling—if unintentional—portrait of the liberal elite mind-set. Goffman draws a devastating picture of cultural breakdown within the black underclass, but she is incapable of acknowledging the truth in front of her eyes, instead deeming her subjects the helpless pawns of a criminal-justice system run amok.

At the center of On the Run are three half-brothers and their slightly older friend Mike, all of whom live in a five-block area of Philadelphia that Goffman names Sixth Street. Sixth Street, we are told, isn’t viewed as a particularly high-crime area, which can only leave the reader wondering what an actual high-crime area would look like. In her six years living there, Goffman attended nine funerals of her young associates and mentions several others, including one for “three kids” paid for by local drug dealers, eager to cement their support in the community.

Goffman contends that it is the legal system itself that is creating crime and dysfunction in poor black communities. Young men get saddled with a host of allegedly petty warrants for having missed court dates, violated their parole and probation conditions, and ducked the administrative fees levied on their criminal cases. Fearful of being rounded up under these senseless procedural warrants, they adopt a lifestyle of subterfuge and evasion, constantly in flight from an increasingly efficient and technology-enhanced police force. “Once a man fears that he will be taken by the police, it is precisely a stable and public daily routine of work and family life . . . that allows the police to locate him,” Goffman writes. “A man in legal jeopardy finds that his efforts to stay out of prison are aligned not with upstanding, respectable action but with being a shady and distrustful character.”

Goffman’s own material demolishes this thesis. On the Run documents a world of predation and law-of-the-jungle mores, riven with violence and betrayal. Far from being the hapless victims of random “legal entanglements”—Goffman’s euphemism for the foreseeable consequences of lawless behavior—her subjects create their own predicaments through deliberate involvement in crime...

Keep reading.

Anthropology 101 — 'Cultural Diversity' — Replaces American History Requirement at Sacramento State

No joke.

Students at Sacramento State can satisfy their U.S. history requirement by taking Anthropology 101 — "Cultural Diversity."

At Blazing Cat Fur, "California State University Approves U.S. “History” Course That Teaches No History."

The Triple Crown: We Want Answers

I really think American Pharoah's the one. I really do.

At WSJ, "A roundtable discussion about American Pharoah’s chances at the Belmont Stakes; will Charlie Brown finally kick the ball?"



Also at NYT, "American Pharoah Will Run Against History at Belmont."

Democrat Loretta Sanchez Apologizes for Racist Native American 'War Cry'

Definitely the thing to do. You want to apologize and move on after a racist Democrat slur like that.

At the O.C. Register, "Loretta Sanchez apologizes for remark many criticized":

U.S. Senate candidate Loretta Sanchez apologized Sunday after a videotape surfaced showing her making a whooping cry in reference to Native Americans that brought her a cascade of reprimands from fellow Democrats to posts on Twitter.

Speaking to party activists at a state Democratic convention Sunday, Sanchez described herself as a longtime champion of civil and human rights who has Native American blood in her mother's family. She said she had a hectic day of speeches and handshaking at the convention Saturday and was not the type of politician routinely managed or sheltered by "handlers."

"It's hard to put yourself out there and to do what leaders need to do — day in and day out — and yes, sooner or later we make mistakes," she told the delegates. "In this crazy and exciting rush of meetings yesterday, I said something offensive and for that I sincerely apologize."

More.

And hey, a Kamala Harris operative caught the racist gaffe on video. Well played Kamala Harris. Well played.

PREVIOUSLY: "Democrat Loretta Sanchez Makes Racist Native American 'War Cry' at State Party Convention (VIDEO)."

Stanford Band Banned from Road Games Next Year for Alchohol Abuse, Sexual Harassment

At the San Francisco Chronicle, "Behaviorally challenged Stanford band gets in jam again."

And watch, at CBS News San Francisco, "Stanford Band Banned From Road Trips Next Season For Alcohol Abuse, Hazing And Sexual Harassment."