RFK Comment: Last Straw for Hillary?

Michael Goodwin suggests that Hillary Clinton's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination while campaigning against Barack Obama could be the last straw for her campaign.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post suggests that Hillary's comments were "unspeakable."

If I had to choose, I'd vote Hillary in the Democratic primaries, but having said that, I'm inclined to go along with this argument from Neocon Express:

I really do want to give Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt here...people utter things in the heat of a campaign that may be true but are better left unsaid. But I sense that this comment came from deep down somewhere in the darkest corners of her mind. Nobody just blurts out this kind of thing in public. She had been thinking about it... hopefully not hoping for such a horrible tragedy, but one cannot help but wonder if her ceaseless ambition, her devastating sense of disappointment, hasn't finally driven her to the brink of madness. And this at a moment when Bobby Kennedy's brother Ted is diagnosed with brain cancer.

See also, "So, Hillary Would Do Anything to Win. Oh Really?"

How Many Gaffes Can Obama Get Away With?

Here's this, from Jammie Wearing Fools:

How many gaffes can a politician get away with?

Obviously none if you're a Republican.

But Barack Obama can pretty much say anything and the media brushes it off.

Aren't double standards wonderful?

More here:

And more:

Perhaps all the sunshine here in the Sunshine State is getting to Barack Obama. On his third day of campaigning in the state, Obama notably flubbed the name of the city where his campaign rally was taking place. “I am so glad to be in Florida, and I am so glad to be in Sunshine,” Obama said at the top of his remarks. Unfortunately, the name of the city is “Sunrise.”

At four different points during the speech, Obama referred to the town as “Sunshine,” as opposed to “Sunrise.” Amazingly, the crowd of 16,000 played along and no one corrected him. Sunrise is a city in Broward County, possibly best known for its role in 2000 presidential election.

Obama said he regrets not having campaigned in Florida, and said he will make up for “some lost time.” He also assured the voters that Florida delegates will be seated at the Democratic Convention in August. “They will be participating, your voices will be heard and most importantly we will work together to make sure that Florida goes Democrat in November and so does the rest of the country,” Obama said.

Communists for Obama?

Let me direct readers to Nice Deb's post, "Reds Who Support Obama":

Well, it looks like the Obama campaign is steamrolling ahead, with the whole Reverend Wright affair just a minor bump in the road, as far as Democrats are concerned.

So this is as good a time as any to present my companion piece to Radicals, Terrorists, and Tyrants of the World Root for Obama. This time, I thought we’d take a look at all of the known communists/Socialists/Marxists who have supported, endorsed, or influenced Obama. Some communists can be found on the Radicals, Terrorists, and Tyrants list, as well, because let’s face it, radicals and tyrants tend to be commies, (Fidel Castro for instance), but in the interest of keeping this post down to a manageable size, I’m going to try to avoid duplications.

What some might call, “guilt by association” I call Obama’s ‘calling card’.

Read the whole thing.

I especially like her link to "Socialists for Obama."

For more on Barack Obama's radical support, see "No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama."

Pot Calls Kettle! Look Out for Those Opportunistic Nihilists!

Firedoglake's probably the last place you'd expect bloggers to throw around epithets like "nilhilist," but that's exactly the case here:

George Packer's New Yorker article asking if conservatives have "run out of ideas" caused quite the stir in the Right Blogosphere this past week. And right bloggers proved Packer wrong: as it turns out, they didn't have any "ideas" to start with. They have obsessions and vindictiveness in plenty, but ideas? Not really.

To me, the response to Packer's piece is far more illuminating than the actual article, which is rather banal. If "movement conservatism" has failed, as I sincerely hope it has, I'd argue that this is because too many of its proponents believed their own press and became persuaded that "movement conservatism" was ever an intellectual movement at all, as opposed to an essentially nihilist politics of vicious opportunism, where the entire goal is power for its own sake.

Packer is of course discussing the GOP's rather bleak electoral prospects this year, especially in the House and Senate. (He pretends to believe that McCain is a new kind of "post-partisan" candidate, a common form of elite journalist wishful thinking that ignores, for openers, Hagee and Parsley.) He speaks to a number of conservative writers, like David Brooks, Ross Douthat, David Frum, and Pat Buchanan. The Brooks part has gotten the most attention, perhaps because of Brooks' admission that "You go to Capitol Hill—Republican senators know they’re fucked," which is of course hugely entertaining. But the overall thesis is that the period of GOP dominance just may be over, because the Nixonian "Southern Strategy" as well as other mechanisms for splitting the old FDR coalition may just have finally run out of steam.

First, I think Packer's late to the party. Karen Tumulty made the case for the ideological decline of the GOP over a year ago, and at that time the thesis wasn't all that novel.

But for FDL to attack GOP partisans for the "nihilist politics of vicious opportunism" is like the pot calling the kettle black.

What's nihilism, in any case? I routinely deploy the term to identify hard-left terror-backing defeatists, many of whom are the main supporters of the Democratic Party.

I generally refer to my politcal opponents as "nihilist" in this sense:

An approach to philosophy that holds that human life is meaningless and that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are thoroughly empty and false. The term is from the Latin nihil, meaning “nothing.”

Nihilist political philosophy's also identified with postmodern ideological movements, which privilege the notion that there exists no objective morality.

Postmodern nihilists on the left include those who've joined together in an anti-American alliance of socialism and Islam to destroy alleged American neo-imperialism worldwide. These are the same folks on the American left who call for the murder of American military service personnel as a putatively legitimate form of antiwar protest. Today's nihilists include the overwhelming majority of congressional Democrats who voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002, and within three months of the toppling of Saddam Hussein turned around to denounce the Bush administration for launching a "provocative and unnecessary" war.

That's opportunistic nihilism!

I also include Firedoglake as fundamentally, radically nihilist, root and branch, in its program of demonization, anti-Semitism, bereft of any shred of true traditionalism and essential value.

As always, I'll have more.

Until then, see Dr. Sanity, "The Children of Postmodern Nihilism."

Obama: It's Not Preconditions, Just Preliminary Extensive Diplomatic Work!

Hat's off to the Daily Howler and its post on Barack Obama's folly of "no preconditions" for talks with America's enemies:

Last July, Obama said he “would be willing to meet” with unfriendly foreign leaders “without preconditions,” in his first year (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/21/08). Has Obama changed his position? You can decide that for yourself, after reading this part of Rick Klein’s report for ABC:

RICK KLEIN (5/20/08): Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate—and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

Man! It sure is easy once Daschle explains it! According to his bone-simple limning, Obama will still be meeting “without preconditions;” he just won’t be meeting “unconditionally!” Indeed, when Obama said he’d be willing to meet “without preconditions,” he really meant that he “wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us.” And of course, none of that alters a basic fact; “there are conditions that we would involve in preparation for the diplomacy.”

But these clarifications surely don’t mean that anything Obama said has changed! (Careful! John Judis might “recoil” if you said that.) A few grafs later, Klein explained Obama’s own thinking, as explained to Jake Tapper:

RICK KLEIN: "I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything," Obama said. "They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

Preconditions and preparations are different! What an outrage, that McCain has been out there distorting these simple adumbrations!

I like this section:

...Obama has said—specifically, by name—that he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad. There’s nothing automatically wrong with that, of course—especially after adding all the qualifiers, buzzers, gadgets and doodads which have now been employed to “clarify” Obama’s position (without “walking anything back,” of course—unless you want to “distort” things). But Klein was sure that Obama hadn’t said such a thing. (He doesn’t seem to know that “the crack Time Magazine research department” isn’t real good at crack research.) Using Nexis, it took us roughly a very few minutes to find the event last September where Obama was asked about this matter—and answered. In real time, Beth Fouhy reported it for the AP. And uh-oh! On Thursday, Robert Novak ran transcript:

NOVAK (5/22/08): Time columnist Joe Klein turned up in Savannah, Ga., on Monday for McCain's news conference, declaring that McCain had misrepresented Obama as proposing unconditional talks with the Iranian president. After asserting that "I've done some research" and "also checked with the Obama campaign," Klein said that Obama "never mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders."

In fact, Obama has repeatedly been questioned specifically about Ahmadinejad. At a news conference in New York last September, Obama was asked whether he would still meet with Ahmadinejad. He replied: "Yeah...I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious....But we should never fear to negotiate.” On NBC’s Meet the Press in November, he defended "a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad."

Obama to Russert, last November: “Look, part of the reason it's important for us to talk to countries we don't like and leaders we don't like—it's not that I think that in a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad that I am going to somehow change his mind on everything. But what we do is we send a signal to other leadership in Iran, to the Iranian people, and to the world community that we are listening, and that we are willing to try to resolve conflicts peacefully.” But Joe Klein simply knew in his soul that Obama couldn’t have said such things. (Apparently, Time’s crack research staff hasn’t heard about Meet the Press yet.)

Can we talk? Joe Klein played the fool in that post—and when he badgered McCain in Savannah. But that’s the way the world starts to look when major journos start taking your side. They’ve run these games against your hopefuls for years—but now, they’re tired of the GOP War Machine. Result? More and more, excited scriveners are playing dumb games on your side.

We’d like reporters to do their jobs. It seems that just isn’t an option.

Final point: Something else happens when hacks take your side—Josh Marshall rushes to praise their hackistry. And omigod! The bamboozlement spreads! This time, he even hoodwinked Greg Sargent!

Obama's website notes that "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

So while all the quibbling's a riot, the more play this issue gets the more unqualified Obama appears for the Oval Office.

The Will to Blog?

Is there a "will to blog?"

Emily Gould, a former pro-blogger at Gawker, makes the case at the New York Times:

The will to blog is a complicated thing, somewhere between inspiration and compulsion. It can feel almost like a biological impulse. You see something, or an idea occurs to you, and you have to share it with the Internet as soon as possible. What I didn’t realize was that those ideas and that urgency — and the sense of self-importance that made me think anyone would be interested in hearing what went on in my head — could just disappear.

Read the whole thing for context (and really read it, if you're thinking about professional blogging!).

Gould's blogging career's been mired in controversy (she believes she has the "right" to blog about anything, no matter how personal, damn the consequences), see here and here. Perhaps it's a pathology of the 20-somethings! The MySpace generation?

I do like this idea of the "will to blog" though - I can feel it!

It's kind of like the "will to power" (or fame?)

GOP Worries About McCain's "Lack of Progress"

The New York Times reports that Republican Party operatives are worried about the slow pace of organizational development in John McCain's presidential campaign:

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans said.

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and whether the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: presenting himself as a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

“The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington — and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question,” said Terry Nelson, who was Mr. McCain’s campaign manager until he was forced out last year. “If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign.”

The ousters of some of the staff members came after Mr. McCain imposed a new policy that active lobbyists would not be allowed to hold paying jobs in the campaign.

Some state party leaders said they were apprehensive about the unusual organization Mr. McCain had set up: the campaign has been broken into 10 semi-autonomous regions, with each having power over things like television advertising and the candidate’s schedule, decisions normally left to headquarters.

More than that, they said, Mr. McCain organizationally still seems far behind where President Bush was in 2004. Several Republican Party leaders said they were worried the campaign was losing an opportunity as they waited for approval to open offices and set up telephone banks.

We heard similar arguments last summer, when McCain's bid for the nomination was on the ropes. Was the "maverick" about to drop out of the race? Nope. Who would have believed he'd be the last man standing at the end of the primary process?

We have a long way to go yet. McCain's been in politics a long time, and this is his second run for the White House. The GOP will pull together, and this election will be closely fought all the way to the finish line.

See the other opinions at Memeorandum.

Oh, the Misogyny! An Update

This entry follows-up my previous post, "Oh, the Misogyny!," where I made light of the sexism controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

How serious is Hillary's misogyny problem? What does it mean for the U.S.? This piece from Britain's New Statesman takes a look:

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

The notion that sexism "is now openly acceptable" is not supported by generic survey data. An overwhelming majority of Americans see women as equally qualified for the White House, as shown in a Washington Post poll from last year, "Race, Gender Less Relevant in '08."

To the extent that we have substantial remnants of mysogyny, we may simply be witnessing the combination of highly-visible cases of unacceptable political demagoguery coming at a time of intense media coverage of the campaign.

The Randi Rhodes' and the "iron my shirt" idiots have been revealed as just that. Hillary Clinton's problem this year's not so much sexism as ego: She campaigned as an annointed nominee, not taking her top challenger seriously until it was perhaps too late; her campaign spent extravagantly, illustrating a "drunken-sailor" style of campaign management that's elitist and entitlement-mined.

For all the gender-bashing, Hillary's paved the way for the next woman presidential candidate. These things take time, but the fact that the overwhelming bulk of people reject sexist extremism is one of the most important developments of campaign '08.

Questions of Honesty, Integrity Will Haunt Obama

Michael Barone has found deep liabilities for Barack Obama in the voting data from the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries.

It turns out that half of the voters in those states question Obama's honesty and integrity:

It's a little dangerous in interpreting polls to assume that voters' thinking proceeds along logical lines. People who aren't professionally involved in politics, whose knowledge comes from bits and snippets of news, can hold beliefs that are contradictory or in tension with each other. They don't feel obliged to resolve contradictions. But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic primary voters were saying that Obama lied about not knowing what Wright has been preaching and that he agrees with him a lot more than he has let on.

Now West Virginia and Kentucky are not typical primary states. They, together with Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton was first lady for 12 years, were Obama's weakest states in this year's primaries. And some percentage of registered Democrats in these states have been voting Republican in recent presidential elections. Nevertheless, the negative verdict these voters render on Obama's honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.

I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, "When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one 'key defining moment' of this campaign."

Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them -- or disbelieve him when he says he doesn't.

Though most in the press won't admit it, that's a problem -- for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic Party once it nominates him.

There are a few other questionable relationships out there as well, about which Obama's not been completely forthcoming.

Today's the 10th anniversary of Obama's dinner with Professor Edward Said. See, Gateway Pundit, "10 Years Ago Today... Obama's Dined With Israel-Haters." Perhaps Obama can answer why he's had ties to groups intent on the elimination of the Jewish state?

See also, "Palestinians See Obama as Close Ally."

Obama Would Take California in General Election, Poll Finds

The Los Angeles Times reports that Barack Obama would win California's general election if voting were held today:

Less than four months after losing the California primary, Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain in projected November general election matchups, a new Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

Obama, the Illinois senator who has inched close to his party's nomination, would defeat McCain by seven points if the election were held today. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose fortunes have faltered since her Feb. 5 drubbing of Obama in California, would eke out only a three-point victory, the poll found.

The poll appeared to illustrate that Democrats, at least in California, are gravitating toward the candidate who is broadly expected to eventually seize the party's mantle. Obama now runs better against the Arizona senator than does Clinton among many of the groups that powered her victory in the state, among them Latinos, Catholics and those without college degrees.

Although exit polls in recent primaries elsewhere have shown Clinton supporters reluctant to embrace Obama as the nominee, there was little of that sentiment evident in the California poll. But the survey could not measure whether time had eased partisan passions or whether Californians were predisposed to embrace either Democrat.

Overall, Obama led McCain 47% to 40% among registered voters, while Clinton led McCain 43% to 40%.

McCain has insisted that he will compete to win California in the fall. But California has gone to the Democrat in each of the last four presidential elections. Most of the state's political professionals consider it to be reliably Democratic -- and too expensive to prompt a full-throated effort by a Republican candidate who could amass electoral votes more cheaply elsewhere.

McCain's standing against Obama -- coming after months of good news for the Republican and a brutal and continuing Democratic primary battle -- offered the presumptive GOP nominee little solace. One bright spot was support among Latinos. McCain won 38% of Latinos against Obama and 41% against Clinton; both figures are substantially higher than the proportion won by George W. Bush in his two presidential campaigns.

The survey notes some additional liabilites for McCain in the Golden State, but the significance of this poll is how well McCain holds up against the Democrats on the Left Coast.

Bill Clinton beat G.H.W. Bush in 1992 by 14 points, and that's after Ross Perot took 20 percent in the state, likely drawing some disaffected "Reagan Democrats" away from the GOP's 1980s' coalition.

McCain's running very strong among California's Latino's, holding a statistical tie with Obama in the survey.

Plus, the Arizona Senator does better with traditional married couples nationally, and the hot-button initiative campaign surrounding the same-sex marriage controversy may swing a few ideological fence-sitters into the GOP's column. This last variable may be a key to the race, as just a third of the state's electorate is Republican.

See, for example, "Gay Marriage Ruling Helps McCain, Hurts Obama."

Anti-Semitism and the Left

TRex responded to my post yesterday, "Resisting Anti-Neocon Fervor: The Stakes in Election '08":

And for god's sake, being anti-NeoCon is in no way to be anti-Israel or anti-semitic.

I'd be the first to agree, except that this is coming from someone who backs Barack Oback with attacks on Hillary Clinton like this:

Senator Obama has rightfully called her out on this kind of bellicose, Bush-Doctrine posturing, but it’s hardly surprising to me that now Fox News is sighing and following her around like a particularly slow-witted schoolboy who’s hot for teacher, and those human foreskins at the Weekly Standard are writing her mash-notes.

The "human foreskin" in question? William Kristol.

According to Jewish religious doctrine, to be uncircumcised is to be "unclean":

According to the Hebrew Bible, it was "a reproach" for an Israelite to be uncircumcised (Joshua 5:9.) The name arelim ("uncircumcised" [plural]) is used opprobriously, denoting the Philistines and other non-Israelites (I Samuel 14:6, 31:4; II Samuel 1:20) and used synonymously with tameh (unclean) for heathen (Isaiah 52:1).

Further:

Circumcision is commanded in Genesis 17:10-14 as an outward sign of a man's participation in Israel's covenant with God, as well as a sign that the Jewish people will perpetuate through him. The commandment is incumbent upon both father and child - fathers must see that their sons are circumcised, and uncircumcised grown men are obligated to perform the rite.

Those who are not circumcised suffer the penalty of kareit, no matter how otherwise observant they may be. Perhaps in part for this reason, circumcision is the mitzvah most likely to be observed by otherwise non-observant Jews.

Of course, not all neocons are Jewish, but there's an evil attention to Jewish neocons in TRex's blogging program (pogrom). Here's TRex on Charles Krauthammer as well:

This shouldn't be surprising. Although the Bush administration is the most diverse in history, and some of the most influential cabinet members in the Bush years, like Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, were not Jewish, the left has paid particular attention to the alleged Jewish roots of the Bush doctrine. Many far-left writers attacked Jewish influence in American foreign policy. In a 2002 article, the Nation wrote:

On no issue is the [Jewish neocon] hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.

To be clear, my point is not to demonize legitimate disagreements with Bush administration policies (true, a rare thing on the left). Nor am I pleading any kind of squeamish victimology. My objective is simply to reveal the utter depravity of those who ridiculously claim some superior morality to those who have "ass-f#$*!d" the country.

Here's this from FrontPageMag:

Contemporary empirical realities demonstrate one undeniable fact: anti-Semitism is no longer associated prominently with the Right. Instead, the primary source of the hatred of Jews now emanates from the Left. In fact, anti-Semitism has evolved into a cultural code and even a rallying cry for progressive radicals throughout the world. This reality is perfectly illustrated by contemporary efforts to pressure Western universities and institutions to divest from financial holdings in Israel.

It's also illustrated in the hard-left blogging at Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and TRex.

These folks are "beyond the pale."

Related: Little Green Footballs, "Daily Kos Joe Lieberman Two-Minute Hate."

The Political Economy of $4 Gasoline

I'm visiting family in Fresno this weekend, and I filled up my Honda Odyssey for close to $60 this morning. I thought about how the economy's still chugging along as well as it has been, despite the opportunity costs accompanying rising fuel prices. Why is that?

The New York Times has a little more on this:

Hating every minute of it, Americans are slowly learning to live with high gasoline prices. For a nation accustomed to cheap fuel, big vehicles and sprawling suburbs, the adjustments are wrenching.

Cory Asmus of Temecula, Calif., just bought a $4,800 motorcycle for his 20-mile drive to work so he could cut his gas bill to $8 a week, from $110.

Florian Bialas, a retiree who lives near Chicago, sold his Pontiac Sunfire for $3,000 and plans to give up his license when it expires in September. “I can walk to most places where I need to go,” he said.

And Debbie Gloyd of Cleveland has parked her Chrysler Concorde and started taking the bus to work. “I can’t afford these gas prices,” she said. “They’re insane.”

With the nationwide average price for regular gasoline closing rapidly on $4 a gallon, people are bracing for a summer of expensive driving.

As the Memorial Day holiday starts the summer driving season, record prices are provoking dread and upsetting vacation plans. A recent survey by AAA, the automobile club, found a rare year-on-year decline, of 1 percent, in the number of people planning to travel this summer.

Interviews with more than 70 people across the country suggested that the adjustments they were making, mental and otherwise, would last well beyond the summer. Americans have started trading their gas guzzlers for smaller cars, making fewer trips to the mall and, wherever possible, riding public transportation to work.

For years, it was not clear whether rising prices would ever cause Americans to use less gas. But a combination of record prices, the slowing economy and a tight credit market has beaten consumers down.

Gasoline demand has fallen sharply since the beginning of the year and is headed for the first annual drop in 17 years, according to government estimates.

The Transportation Department reported Friday that in March, Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles than in March 2007, a decline of 4.3 percent. It is the first time since 1979 that traffic has dropped from one March to the next, and the month-on-month percentage decline is the largest since record keeping began in 1942.

High gasoline prices, plastered on 20-foot signs from coast to coast, are turning into a barometer of the country’s mood.

“The psychology has changed,” said Sara Johnson, an economist at Global Insight. “People have recognized that prices are not going down and are adapting to higher energy costs. It’s a capitulation.”

Typically, gasoline sales rise before Memorial Day weekend. But gasoline sales dropped nearly 7 percent last week compared with the same week in 2007, according to an estimate by MasterCard.

Gasoline prices almost always rise in the summer, as demand increases. On Friday, gasoline prices reached yet another record, a nationwide average of nearly $3.88 a gallon. That figure was up 4 cents in one day and is 65 cents higher than this time last year, according to AAA. Diesel hit $4.65 a gallon on Friday, up $1.73 a gallon in a year.

The force behind high gasoline prices is the high price of oil, which is being driven up by soaring worldwide demand. Oil reached a record above $133 a barrel this week, nearly five times as expensive as it was five years ago.

All this has led to a vast transfer of wealth from American drivers to domestic and foreign oil producers. Every one-cent increase in gasoline prices means Americans pay $1.42 billion more a year for gas, according to Stephen P. Brown, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Nearly two-thirds of that goes to foreign producers.

In the first four months of the year, Americans spent $158 billion on gasoline. In 2003, just as oil prices started to take off, they spent $88 billion over the same four-month period, according to Michael McNamara, vice president for MasterCard’s Spending Pulse, an indicator of weekly gasoline sales.

Whether today’s high costs will translate into a permanent change in behavior remains to be seen, of course. The Energy Department expects gasoline sales to fall by 0.6 percent this year, the first drop since 1991, but it expects consumption to rebound in 2009 as the economy strengthens.

Still, analysts said that the hardship induced by today’s prices is getting close to the level reached during the oil shock of the early 1980s.

Yes, the prices are getting high, but note one more time, it's because of skyrocketing global demand, not the supply shocks associated with the Carter administration's appeasement of Iran, or with the opportunistic Arab petrodollar recycling following the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

I hope everyone has a great holiday weekend!

Photo Credit: "On Friday, gasoline prices hit a nationwide average of nearly $3.88 a gallon. The average price of diesel reached $4.65 a gallon. A sign at a gas station in La Jolla, Calif., reflects why many drivers are cutting back," New York Times

Barack Obama and America's Enemies

Israel Matzav offers a quick overview to Charles Krauthammer's essay on Barack Obama's foreign policy:

In Friday's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer shows how Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama is all wrong about meeting with enemies. He explains why what Obama is proposing is completely different from Nixon going to China. He points out that Obama has misread history if he thinks that Roosevelt or Truman met with enemies at Yalta or Potsdam - Stalin was an ally at the time. And he points out that Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna - the only meeting that might compare with Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad - was a pointed disaster.

Read the whole thing.

See also, Scott at Powerline, "A Lesson for Obama."

The Standard World-View of the American Left

I just deleted a few neo-confederate hate comments attacking this morning's post, "Resisting Anti-Neocon Fervor: The Stakes in Election '08."

It's actually amazing: I get more tin-hats over here slurring the neocons than I do the nihilist lefties to which I direct my posts!

I'm not saying I don't get any hard-left denial masters slinking around ... I get plenty!

I guess I'm doing my job!

In any case, I'm certainly not the only one who's noticed the appeasment, demonic denialism, and self-hatred of the postmodern left - and thank goodness!

Note Slightly Loony's take on Senator Joseph Biden's essay today, where the Senator argues - in the classic Democratic partisan mode - that the world's more dangerous because of GOP policies:

This is the standard world-view of the American Left, and no matter how many times I hear it or read it, it still staggers me. It boils down to two articles of faith:

1. The terrorists attacking our nation are not a serious, much less existential, threat; they are most appropriately dealt with by police forces, not the military.
   
   
2. The world is more dangerous today than it was eight years ago, because of our aggressive war on terror.

It's very difficult for me to believe that any informed person would believe the first article – there is simply too much hard, verified evidence to the contrary. I'm reminded of the many stories about the Jews who refused to leave Hitler's Germany, simply not believing that the Nazi's intended them great harm. But at least those Jews had the excuse that solid information was hard to come by. This is not the case today...

The left's second article of faith could simply be shameless electoral pandering, but based on a number of conversations I've had with true believers, I think that many of them actually believe this. They seem to think that because they're saying over and over again that the world is now a more dangerous place, that it really is more dangerous now. Never mind those huge arrays of pesky facts to the contrary (especially the one that's most important to me: we have not had any successful terrorist attacks on U.S. territory since 9/11). That's all ignorable in the face of their relentless repetition of what they apparently want to believe: that fighting back against the evil of terrorism makes the world worse.

It's depressing to read things like Biden's bilious bullshit, and realize that something like half of my fellow countrymen would agree with it...

I particularly like Slightly Loony's analogical reasoning! More history!!

See also, Dr. Sanity, "Deep Denial."

Barack Obama's Racial Challenge

Newsweek's new poll indicates that Barack Obama badly lags behind John McCain in support from white voters:

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, also trails McCain among white voters but by a smaller margin, 44 percent to 48 percent. (For the complete results, click here).

Among voters overall, however, Obama fares better, tying McCain 46 percent to 46 percent in a hypothetical match-up. (That's down slightly, within the margin of error, from the last NEWSWEEK Poll, conducted in late April, in which Obama led McCain 47 percent to 44 percent). In that contest, he is boosted by a strong showing among nonwhites, leading McCain 68 percent to 25 percent (Clinton leads McCain 65 percent to 25 percent among nonwhites). But even this result shows some of the electoral challenges facing Obama in a year when Democrats generally appear to hold an electoral advantage--boasting a 15 point advantage in generic party identification over Republicans, 53 percent to 38 percent. Clinton fares slightly better against McCain: 48 percent to 44 percent (within the margin of error). She enjoys this slight edge even though Obama leads Clinton 50 percent to 42 percent as the choice of registered Democrats for the party's nomination. Clinton's white support is unusually high: at a comparable point in the 2004 election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received the support of 36 percent of white voters, compared to George W. Bush's 48 percent, and in June of 2000, Bush led Al Gore 48 percent to 39 percent.

Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a "Racial Resentment Index." Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton's margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.

Confusion over Obama's religious background may also be hindering his ability to attract white support. Asked to name Obama's faith, 58 percent of participants said Christian (the correct answer), compared with 11 percent who answered Muslim, 22 percent who did not know and 9 percent who said something else. Obama's name could be contributing to the confusion; 18 percent of white Democratic voters say they judge the Illinois senator less favorably because of his name, compared to only 4 percent of white Democrats who say it makes them judge Obama more favorably.

While the NEWSWEEK Poll clearly suggests a lurking racial bias in the American electorate, the role of race in presidential politics may be diminishing. In 2000, only 37 percent of voters thought the country was ready for a black president. Now, 70 percent of voters think a black candidate like Obama could win the White House.

I've written quite a bit on the thesis of racial resentment. See, for example, "Barack Obama and the Political Psychology of Race."

Anti-Maternalist Ideology: Costs and Consequences of Radical Feminism

I joke a lot about feminism, frankly, because the movement seems overly serious, especially when we consider that the recent hot gender debate is the "boy crisis."

But this piece by Rebecca Walker, the daughter of activist and novelist Alice Walker, should turn a few heads on what militant feminism really all about, "How My mother's Fanatical Views Tore Us Apart":

The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. 'Mummy, Mummy, let me help,' he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: 'Mummy, Mummy.'

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven't seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son - her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world - goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

I teach a couple of segments on gender equality in my American politics course, and while radical feminism's sort of a side hobby in my readings, Rebecca Walker's piece is one of the most important essays a professor could pass along to his introductory students.

Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez

Resisting Anti-Neocon Fervor: The Stakes in Election '08

In my previous post, I jcalled for conservatives to reconsider the immigration controversy and to unite decisively behind a broad victory coalition for November.

As readers know, I've made the case that biggest threat to the United States is the hard-left alliance of socialism and Islam, a movement that's seeking an American surrender in Iraq and the deligitimization of Israel. The left has long mounted a demonization campaign against the Bush administration's foreign policy, and especially the neoconservative foundations of America's forward policy of democracy promotion and free markets in the developing world.

These are the stakes for the election, and TRex reminds us one more time what we're up against:

TRex add this:

The criminal cartel that has ass-f#$*!d our country (and thereby the world) with a running chain-saw for the last seven years is having some problems with “their brand”.

He then points to Memeorandum's reference to the media attention on last week's GOP losses at the polls.

TRex evinces a classic psychotic preoccupation with Jewish neoconservatives. Rooted in BDS, this extremism represents the most hardened nihilism on the radical left, tendencies on display recently in outbursts of far-left anti-Semitism.

TRex blogged previously at Firedoglake, a blog which last week announced a pogrom whose goal was to "flush these neocons out of our political system, once and for all."

The political demonization of the "evil" neocons - accompanied here by totalitarian calls to "render them harmless" - is not new. As Jamie Kirchick wrote recently:

Today, no other political label gets thrown around as frequently, or with as much reckless abandon, as “neocon.” The most popular liberal blogs name and shame neocons, real or imagined, on a daily basis. The term is used in a fashion similar to the way “communist” was during the 1950s—an all-encompassing indictment—this time indicating an imperialistic and “warmongering,” even an “insane,” worldview. The anti-neocon fervor has reached truly McCarthyite proportions: just a few months ago, Steve Clemons of the left-wing New America Foundation argued in favor of “Purging the Neocons from the American Soul.”

Readers should take this talk of "flushing" the evil neocons, who have "ass-f#$*!d" the country, for what it is: A revolutionary call for the social reengineering of society, complete with a reign of national pacification.

TRex is apparently a big fan of Barack Obama, and he's even willing to give faux-conservatives a hearing in hatching his plans for neocon eradication.

Don't believe it? TRex describes the presumptive GOP nominee as a "pencil-dicked old pus-stain." The 20th-century saw ideological movements using similar terminology.

This is the nature of the "no enemies on the left" coalition I've identified previously.

Please distribute this post widely. Conservatives need to be clear - and get it together, okay - on the true evil facing the country.

See also, "If You Truly Want Hope and Change for the World, Try Neoconservatism."

McCain Derangement Rides Again

John Hawkins, after reexamining John McCain's position on immigration reform, has announced he will not support the Arizona Senator in November:

John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.

Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.

Moreover, I genuinely regret having to do this because I do still believe the country would be better off with John McCain as President as opposed to Obama or Clinton. However, I just cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who has told this big of a lie, for this long, about this important of an issue.

That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I'm not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That's their decision.

Furthermore, I will defend John McCain when I think he deserves to be defended, excoriate Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton at every opportunity, and I will continue to stand behind the sort of Republican candidates who actually deserve conservative support. But, what I will not do is vote for John McCain in November.

What happened? Well, Hawkins says McCain's betrayed his trust on immigration, and offers the two following quotes for some context, from April:

As president, I will honor that pledge by securing the border, thus strengthening our national security. I will also require that, among other things, border-state governors certify that the border is secure before proceeding to other reform measures. However, I also believe that our immigration system must recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism. Once we achieve border security, we must ensure that we approach our remaining immigration challenges with constructive dialogue and solutions that reflect a compassionate approach and the needs of our economy.

And from yesterday:

After several of the business leaders complained about the difficulty in obtaining temporary H1B visas for scientists and engineers, something the Senate immigration bill was supposed to address, Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.

“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”

He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”

Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.

Hawkins ommitted this last section from the article he cited above:

Later, Mr. McCain took up the topic again, saying the problem of what to do with illegal immigrants already here needs to be solved, saying “they are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion,” which drew applause from his audience.

I think the key word in that last passage is "compassion."

Have conservatives lost a sense of proportion, to say nothing of fairness (to McCain in this case, but also to those in government who're truly concerned about immigration)? If you ask me, Hawkins deploys emotion over reason. "Border enforcement" and "comprehensive" reform are by no means mutually exclusive, and I don't think the quotes Hawkins provides demonstrate that McCain's a liar. Note how Tamar Jacoby put the issue of controlling the border in the context of overall immigration reform:

Reformers understand the need to retake control, both on the border and in the workplace. Restrictionist opponents maintain that the way to do this is simply to crack down harder, enforcing the laws already on the books. The problem is that the United States has already tried that, tripling the size of the Border Patrol and quintupling its budget over the past decade, to virtually no avail: roughly the same number of immigrants still manage to enter the country each year, albeit by different methods and in different locations. Reinforced efforts and new, more creative tools, particularly in the workplace, can have some effect ... But the cost would be the creation of a virtual police state, with an electric fence and armed guards on the border, roadblocks on every highway, regular raids on all U.S. businesses, a Big Brother-like national tracking system, and extensive use of ethnic profiling. Short of such drastic measures, which still might not succeed in stemming supply and demand, it makes more sense to revise the law to make it more realistic and then use modest enforcement means to ensure it holds.

This is the paradox at the heart of the comprehensive consensus. The best way to regain control is not to crack down but to liberalize -- to expand quotas, with a guest-worker program or some other method, until they line up with labor needs. The analogy is Prohibition: an unrealistic ban on alcohol was all but impossible to enforce. Realistic limits, in contrast, are relatively easy to implement.

Not only is such reform the only way to restore the rule of law; it is also one of the best ways to improve border security. As one veteran Border Patrol agent in Arizona put it, "What if another 9/11 happens, and it happens on my watch? What if the bastards come across here in Arizona and I don't catch them because I'm so busy chasing your next busboy or my next gardener that I don't have time to do my real job -- catching terrorists?" The government needs to take the busboys and the gardeners out of the equation by giving them a legal way to enter the country, so that the Border Patrol can focus on the smugglers and the terrorists who pose a genuine threat.

I'm not happy with the currnet immigration crisis, particulary with the widely recognized and growing threat to traditional American national identity and values from slowing patterns of the historical process of assimilation.

However, I don't like the idea of conservatives advocating a "police state" to control out of control immigration. A rational solution to the immigration by definition must be comprehensive, and thus to hear attacks on McCain as a liar from top conservatives bloggers gets us back to where we were in the primaries, when many conservatives wanted Fred Thompson, and when he jellied-out, Mitt Romney. But note how Roger Simon explains opposition to McCain with reference to Romney:

I have no particular dislike of Romney, other than I find him bland (a very personal reaction, which is not that important.) I followed his career as governor of Massachusetts and thought he did a pretty good job. But, to me, he seemed pretty much of a conventional liberal then, in fact vastly more liberal than I ever regarded John McCain, who I saw and see as more or less of a centrist. I recall Romney running to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights (an issue on which I am to the left of both).

Romney claims to have changed and "seen the light" on many issues. I have no idea whether this is true, but I am amazed by all these conservatives who totally and almost slavishly believe this is the real Romney yet equally assuredly distrust McCain when he repeatedly says he would build a security fence. It reminds me of that old shrink's thing about the "need to be right," how it always trips us up. I have seen it happen to me a lot. Anyway, I'm not sure McCain Derangement Syndrome has a cure. People love their anger. It's a security blanket.

To be fair, Hawkins' first pick for the GOP nomination was Duncan Hunter.

But now that we're this far into the race, at a point when Americans have tremendous evidence of the kind of Democratic administration we'll see under a Barack Obama presidency, attacks on McCain as a liar go beyond "political irrationality." Such slurs amount to a reactionary stab in the back.

So, I'm renewing my call, first announced during the primaries: It's time to unify around the GOP nominee so as to unify under a broad conservative coalition on the right: "Conservatives Must Back McCain."

See more analysis at Memorandum.

Community College Professors Fund Scholarships for Low-Income Students

Faculty members at Santa Ana College are making voluntary out-of-pocket contributions to fund a scholarship program for students with severe economic need, the Los Angeles Times reports:

Chemistry professor Jeff McMillan is sick of seeing otherwise capable students drop his courses because it costs too much to go to school.

So much so that he is opening his wallet.

McMillan and about a dozen other faculty and staff members at Santa Ana College have started a scholarship fund that they hope will make it easier for low-income students to afford their classes.Starting this fall, each will fund a student's course fees for a year -- about $600 for a full-time schedule. Professors say the donation comes with the satisfaction of knowing the student their money is helping.

"I won't be just some mysterious person writing a check," said McMillan, who is sharing sponsorship of a student with another professor.

The Opportunity Scholarship will be awarded to students with extreme financial need. Instructors will recommend students who have great potential but are struggling to pay for school. Each student will be paired with one of the faculty sponsors, who will serve as an informal mentor.

"Imagine one of your professors feeling so strongly about you that they're willing to fund your college education," said Sara Lundquist, the college's vice president of student services.

Most likely to benefit will be students who are not citizens and thus are not eligible for federal student aid or a state program that waives fees for low-income community college students.

At the campus -- in the densely populated, impoverished core of Santa Ana -- more than 60% of students receive financial aid. But for the 5% of students whom the college says are immigrants or out-of-state residents, the only way to subsidize their education is with highly competitive, private scholarships.

"Six hundred dollars to most people may not seem like a lot, but for a student who doesn't have any extra income to spend, this may be the difference between going to school or not," said Kalman Chany, president of Campus Consultants Inc., a New York company that helps students find need-based aid from colleges and the government.

Chany said he had not heard of any college having a program like Santa Ana's.

Maximina Guzman, student government president and a former student of McMillan, plans to apply for the scholarship.

Because she is not a citizen -- she and her parents came to the United States illegally when she was 3 -- she is not eligible for financial aid. The biology student has paid her own way, working full time at a hotel gift shop and moonlighting as a telemarketer.

Guzman said her grades have suffered because she had to balance homework, two jobs and family obligations. She usually finds time to study only between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m.

If she is awarded a scholarship, she could cut down on weekend work hours, she said.

"It's frustrating to know that I could get better grades if I didn't have to work all the time," she said.

Such competing priorities affect many low-income students, especially Latinos -- about half of the 25,000 students at Santa Ana College. Many of their parents did not go to college, and the pressure to work rather than go to school is strong, students said.

I applaud the professors for these efforts. School and work conflicts are one of the biggest complaints I hear among my students, especially when they're having academic difficulties.

Californians Reject Gay Marriage

A new Los Angeles Times poll finds a slight majority of Californians rejecting same-sex marriage:

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

That is a slim majority opposed, although California gets some heavy-duty advertising campaigns, and the liberal bastions of the state don't always win out. It will, of course, but a huge indicate of California's complete consolidation of left-wing hegemony if the measure fails.

See also, Benjamin Wittes, "State of The Unions," who makes an argument similar to one I shared last week:

The California justices declared the right to marry a person of one's own gender a fundamental right, and they declared as well that it violates state equal protection doctrine for California to treat gay and straight couples differently for purposes of marriage. California has a domestic partnership law, which grants same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and obligations of marriage, making the current dispute one of nomenclature over the use of the word "marriage," not about the substance of marriage rights. But as their colleagues in Massachusetts did a few years ago, the California justices treated this accommodation as a kind of "separate but equal" institution--which is to say, not an equal one at all.

"[Affording] access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples," the court wrote. Those challenging the law "persuasively invoke by analogy the decisions of the United States Supreme Court finding inadequate a state's creation of a separate law school for Black students rather than granting such students access to the University of Texas Law School."

The equation of gays rights to the black American freedom struggle is problematic, analytically and morally. But Wittes goes on, noting how Barack Obama's an advocate of civil unions, not the nomenclature-specific notion of "gay marriage":

In all but a small handful of states, such a compromise would represent a giant step forward for same-sex couples. Yet according to the Massachusetts and California supreme courts, that doesn't matter.

Their states, these courts have held, are constitutionally obliged to afford gay relationships all of the recognition given to heterosexual marriage. And the desire of Obama and millions of like-minded Americans to give gay couples everything but the name "marriage" somehow warrants comparison with the building of parallel African American institutions by way of keeping blacks out of white ones.

The court was not the most strident advocate of this view. The San Francisco Chronicle exulted in response to the ruling that the justices had "strode past the bigotry, fear and blind adherence to tradition that have stood in the way of marriage equality." But what blind, fearful bigots are the Chronicle talking about here? Not just Californians who oppose gay rights entirely, but apparently also those who, like Obama, support civil unions of the type the court rejected.

Something is wrong with this picture. Somehow, we've confused progress on marriage equality with some of the most opprobrious episodes of our legal, cultural, and moral history. For having the guts to move forward while other states were passing nasty constitutional amendments depriving gays of any marital benefits, Californians stand condemned in their own courts for discrimination and in their own newspapers for bigotry.

Few people, of course, really believe this. When we listen to Obama touting civil unions, we hear the progress that he urges, not some appeal to segregation. But it can't be progress when Obama suggests civil unions, and also progress when a court strikes them down as unconstitutionally discriminatory. And there are costs to asking courts to so far outflank our political system that we would admire politicians for advocating things we would simultaneously want judges to toss out.

One of those costs is that venerable phrases like "equal protection" become so twisted that you can get whiplash watching someone like Obama go from progressive to discrimination advocate.

Read that carefully.

For Obama to favor the California decision would put him on the wrong side of civil rights progress.