Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Americans' views of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are not fundamentally changed after the passage of healthcare reform. Though more Americans now have an opinion of her, both her favorable and her unfavorable ratings are up from the last reading, to 36% and 54%, respectively.
The currently net-negative view of Pelosi from the March 26-28 USA Today/Gallup poll stands in stark contrast to opinions of her as she became speaker of the House in January 2007. At that time, twice as many Americans viewed her favorably (44%) as unfavorably (22%).
Opinions of Pelosi grew more negative over the course of her first two years as speaker, such that about as many Americans viewed her favorably as unfavorably. During the last year, Americans' views have become much more negative than positive.
... I plan to hold our new president's feet to the fire for the next four years; having defended him on many different levels and issues over the past few years I now fully expect him to follow through on his promise of trying to build a better tomorrow for the citizens of this country ...
Okay. Right.
JBW hypocrite fail:
JBW fail and Barack Obama fail. Separated at birth?
From April Fool's Day approval ratings at Rasmussen:
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove ...
The piece covers gossip blogs, but the career model is fairly generalizable to the new media environment. At least two of the blogs cited are political blogs. At New York Times, "The Rising Stars of Gossip Blogs":
IT had all the elements for the perfect tabloid gossip item — a clash between star financial journalists, big egos and a surprise ouster that had Wall Street buzzing: Henry Blodget, the well-known disgraced-analyst-turned-financial-pundit and co-founder of the much-read blog, The Business Insider, stunned the financial community last week by firing John Carney, the star managing editor of the site’s Clusterstock blog, reportedly because of philosophical differences over the site’s coverage.
The news, which was quickly picked up by the Reuters financial blogger Felix Salmon, who subsequently sparked an online spat of his own with Mr. Blodget, did not break in a gossip column like The New York Post’s Page Six or in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, which in a previous era might have owned this story. Rather, the scoop came from a 25-year-old Village Voice gossip blogger and University of Utah dropout named Foster Kamer.
Surfing the Web after business hours one evening, Mr. Kamer ran across speculation about Mr. Carney’s job status on a Twitter post by Gawker Media’s owner, Nick Denton. After 90 minutes of phone calls to sources within the financial journalism subculture, Mr. Kamer nailed down the item and posted it on the Voice site.
The lines between “reporter” and “blogger,” “gossip” and “news” have blurred almost beyond distinction. No longer is blogging something that marginalized editorial wannabes do from home, in a bathrobe, because they haven’t found a “real” job. Blogging now is a career path in its own right, offering visibility, influence and an actual paycheck. As more gossip action in a variety of fields moves online, young writers who might have hungrily chased an editorial assistant job at Condé Nast a few years ago now move to New York with the dream of making it as a blogger — either launching their own blog into the big time, à la Perez Hilton, or getting snapped up by a prominent blog network like Gawker Media or MediaBistro.
And although the better-known newspaper gossip columnists still churn along, among them Richard Johnson and Cindy Adams of The New York Post, and George Rush and Joanna Molloy of The New York Daily News, much of the action has moved online, with the up-and-coming players having little in common with legendary predecessors like Walter Winchell and Liz Smith. While Ms. Smith, 87 and still active, toiled in journalism for nearly 30 years before getting her own by-lined column (working first, among other things, as a typist, proofreader and radio producer), some of the newest notables in gossip are still in their 20s and only a few years removed from the days when they blogged from their college dorm rooms about fraternity hazing mishaps and the quality of the cafeteria food.
The following are profiles of nine emerging gossip bloggers, whose names came up in interviews with influential blog entrepreneurs, fellow bloggers and other journalists as potential future stars of the online world. The list, by no means exhaustive, represents a cross-section of New Yorkers covering varied beats — entertainment, fashion, real estate, finance —for a variety of prominent blog networks. Some, like Sara Polsky of Curbed and Lilit Marcus of The Gloss, are relatively new to the business, but recently installed in a position of prominence by Web star-makers like Lockhart Steele, who runs Curbed and Eater, or Elizabeth Spiers, a founder of Gawker in 2002 who has introduced a number of successful blogs since then. Others, like Fred Mwangaguhunga of MediaTakeOut.com, are popular niche players who are quickly crossing into the mainstream.
Check the link for the full list of industry-moving blogs.
Well, since the controversy's already building, I should mention that I'll be rallying at my local local Tax Day Protest, April 15, 2010, at the Santa Ana Civic Center. Jenny Erickson of Smart Girl Politics will be speaking, as well as a number of other friends I've met since April 15, 2009.
A handful of liberal groups — but only a few dozen protesters — marched on the Republican National Committee offices Thursday to denounce the threats against members of Congress during the health care vote.
But in an oddly Washington moment, the gathering of MoveOn.org, Color of Change and CREDO, was met by Jordan Marks, a 28-year old conservative activist who interrupted the event and held up signs accusing the group of race-ba-ting.
Marks, of Young Americans for Freedom, shouted that the protestors were “politicizing race,” as the progressive groups sought to deliver a petition to RNC Chairman Michael Steele asking him to denounce threats against lawmakers and incidents of vandalism.
Of course they're politicizing race. Everyone's a racist now since Obama came to office.
Conservatives tend to be up front about who they are and what they want to do. The thought of infiltrating a lefty organization to cause mischief has probably never crossed the minds of most conservatives. Lefties have proven that they will, and they are planning to do so. Be prepared for people to show up at the April 15th rallies trying to subvert what is happening. It wouldn't surprise me to see people show up and act like racists Obama haters. They may come with Hitler signs. They may come with signs that suggest violence. They will probably be plants. Don't let them con people into thinking that they are with us. On the other end of the spectrum, expect counter protests. Come with your cameras. Come with your camcorders. Just because you are law-abiding and peaceful, don't expect those on the left to act the same way. Kenneth Gladney found that out.
But of course, idiot slob JBW will be blathering, but, b... but ... "both sides do it"!
The Long Beach Press-Telegram has endorsed LBCC Trustee Jeff Kellogg for reelection to the board on April 13th. See, "LBCC Trustees Area 1: Jeff Kellogg Points Out Record of Fiscal Responsibility." I don't know him personally. He's got a reputation as a pretty boy of the city's old-money power establishment. Be that as it may, the college is facing the most severe budget crisis in my ten years. Reserves have run out and last week tensions were running high between faculty and administration over a cost-cutting proposal to cancel the 2010 summer session. When students at the college turned out in large numbers for a recent board meeting, administrators and board members saw some real emotion on display. Too bad Kellogg turned himself into a Class-A prick:
For generations, Long Beach City College has been synonymous with success in Long Beach. The college has produced many of this community's leaders, including former mayors and its current superintendent of schools.
Just last week, LBCC was joined by Long Beach Unified School District, California State University Long Beach and the community to celebrate the second anniversary of the Long Beach College Promise - the unique seamless partnership that has put the Long Beach education system in the national spotlight.
Through the Long Beach College Promise, the Pathways to Success Partnership with CSU Dominguez Hills and the Student Success Initiative, LBCC students have experienced measurable improvements in the successful completion of their education goals. LBCC is now the number one transfer college to CSULB and has nearly tripled its applications to CSUDH.
However, these and other student successes are now in jeopardy. Due to the state budget crisis, LBCC has experienced a significant reduction in revenue that has dramatically reduced the number of students it can serve. Coupled with a tremendous surge in enrollment resulting from large high school graduating classes, high unemployment and cuts to CSU and UC, the competition for classes at LBCC has left thousands of students without the classes and services needed to succeed. Despite the efforts of the Board of Trustees to set aside funds for a rainy day, the loss in revenue and costs to operate the college have nearly erased that reserve.
These pressures have become visible to the public. This academic year, LBCC has cut 12 percent of its course sections. Programs and services that serve the neediest students have been reduced even further. Layoffs have occurred and the management team has taken a 5 percent reduction in salary through a one-day-a-month furlough. Recently, discussions about scaling back summer classes brought out teary eyed students to a board meeting expressing their frustration and fears for their future. Despite the economic realities faced by the college our faculty leaders have protested the canceling of classes and union leaders have pointed fingers instead of offering realistic solutions.
While LBCC has decided to offer one summer session this year to further our students' progress, this does not change the fact that the state is not providing funding to meet our enrollment demands. Without additional funding, which is highly unlikely, this shortfall will force further reductions in course and service offerings unless other savings in fixed costs can be achieved.
LBCC now stands at a crossroads. In order to continue to serve the most fundamental needs of our students: career certificates, Associate Degree and transfer success, I have asked the college to do the following: to reduce or eliminate programs that do not serve the core mission of the college and to streamline or consolidate services while protecting the courses that students need to graduate or transfer.
Most importantly, I have asked that every employee group make reductions to its salary and benefits in an equitable way to ensure that our students continue to have the classes they need to succeed. This point is critical since nearly 90 percent of the college's operating budget consists of salaries and benefits for employees.
If our employee groups join with the administration and temporarily reduce their salaries, and agree to health benefit plan modifications to reduce overall health insurance costs, we can preserve access for over 1,000 full-time students next year alone. This task will not be easy but it is necessary for the college to continue its long tradition of academic excellence and student success.
I ask for this community's continued support as we work through these issues. I hope that you will support our efforts to preserve access for students and that you will communicate to our legislature and the governor that the education of our youth can no longer be compromised.
You have my commitment that Long Beach City College will remain steadfast in its commitment to student success for this and the generations to come.
Eloy Oakley is president of Long Beach City College.
Today is National Census Day. April 1st is the deadline to turn in the census form. I'm heading over to the post office in a few minutes to mail mine. It's been sitting on my kitchen table. I brought it to school today to discuss with my classes. Hispanics are asked to identify their "national origin" (in 2010 Hispanic background is not classified as race). The follow-up question asked respondents to identify themselves by race, and some folks are just saying "American."
I filled out the racial sections of the forms. Despite my concerns over partisan manipulation and abuse, the census is nevertheless an important document. That said, Abigail Thernstrom has more, "Answer the Race Question":
Many of us believe America is too preoccupied with race. The race question on the census reflects that preoccupation. Why answer it, when it just perpetuates race-think? Aside from the question of whether doing so is against the law, why not refuse to fill in the blank?
Race is an obsession, and we conceptualize the term in a peculiar way. We are an ethnically diverse society, and presumably that’s good. But, in defining the diversity of the nation, why focus on blacks and Hispanics and ignore, for instance, Jews? Like Hispanics, Jews are an ethnic group. In fact, if we are going to understand America as a pluralistic society, why not both expand the definition of ethnicity and add a religious question?
In addition, the race/ethnic categories are a mess. For instance, East Indians are classified as Asians, but only because East Indian spokesmen in the 1980s pressured to have the group treated as a protected minority group by the Small Business Administration in order to get below-market-rate loans — even though East Indians generally have incomes far above the national average. The census picked up the classification from the SBA. It’s an arbitrary classification — and not uniquely so.
Many legitimate arguments are being made for refusing to answer the race question on the census by dear and admired friends of mine. But I see two problems: One, if you don’t answer, census officials will just impute your race, most often on the basis of the color your neighbors. Refusing to answer is thus a no-win strategy.
More important, if we want accurate information on, say, black unemployment, would we rather rely on census data or on the NAACP, which is driven by a political agenda that is not necessarily in the national interest? Steve and I make much use of census numbers in writing about race and ethnicity in America; we like to think we are conveying an accurate picture, thanks to the Bureau of the Census.
I met Cynthia McKinney in March 2009. She was on something of a speaking tour to maximize her exposure following a confrontation with the Israeli navy. To simply say she's a consiracy nut is charitable. In any case, it turns out her successor is pretty far out there as well, Representative Hank Johnson:
It's time to make a personal and professional admission: I keep a copy of the Feb. 2007 issue of Playboy in a desk drawer in my Wall Street Journal office.
This is not the sort of thing I ever thought I'd publicly confess. But I'm prompted to do so now in response to a string of online rebuttals to my Tuesday column, "Lady Gaga Versus Mideast Peace," in which I argue that Western liberalism (in its old-fashioned sense) has done far more than Israel's settlements to provoke violent Muslim anti-Americanism.
In particular, I was taken to task by Andrew Exum—the "Abu Muqawama" blogger at the Center for a New American Security—for allegedly failing to watch my share of racy Arabic-language music videos, such as those by Lebanese beauty queen and pop star Haifa Wehbe. "With music videos like this one," writes Mr. Exum, "Stephens can hardly argue that Lady Gaga is the one importing sexual provocation into the Arabic-speaking world and stirring things up, can he?"
So let me tell you about that Playboy, and how I came to purchase it.
In the spring of 2007 I wrote a series of columns from Indonesia about the battle lines then emerging between religious radicals and moderates in the world's largest Muslim-majority country. I profiled Abdurrahman Wahid, then the former (now late) president of Indonesia and a champion of his country's tolerant religious traditions. I visited a remote Sumatran village that had expelled an itinerant Islamic preacher for his militant Wahhabi teachings. I interviewed Habib Rizieq, head of the Front for the Defense of Islam, a vigilante group known for violently suppressing "un-Islamic" behavior.
I also spent a delightful evening in the company of Inul Daratista, the Indonesian equivalent of Shakira, who had been accused by a council of Muslim clerics of committing pornoaksi—or "porno action"—for gyrating a little excessively in one of her music videos. A million Indonesians had taken to the streets to denounce the video, and legislation was introduced in Indonesia's parliament to ban pornoaksi, which could be defined as any female behavior that could arouse a sexual response in a man, such as the sight of a couple kissing in public or a woman wearing a backless dress.
One person I didn't manage to interview was Erwin Arnada, the editor of the Indonesian edition of Playboy. I did, however, get hold of a copy of the magazine (the one now in my office): It contains not a single picture of a naked woman. The Playmate in the centerfold is clad in the kind of lingerie that would seem a bit old-fashioned in a Victoria's Secret catalogue; a second photo essay in my magazine looks as if it belongs in a J. Crew ad.
Nevertheless, upon beginning publication in 2006 Mr. Arnada was almost immediately charged with violating Indonesia's indecency laws. (He was ultimately acquitted.) His Jakarta offices were violently attacked by Mr. Rizieq's goons, forcing the magazine to move to the predominantly Hindu island of Bali. "For Arnada," wrote New York Times reporter Jane Perlez, "all the fuss represents fears about the intrusion of Western culture. 'Why else do they keep shouting about Playboy?' he asked."
Mr. Arnada's comment gets at the crux of the argument I made in my column, which is that it is liberalism itself—liberalism as democracy, as human rights, as freedom of conscience and expression, as artistic license, as social tolerance, as a philosophy with universal application—to which the radical Muslim mind chiefly objects, and to which it so often violently reacts ...
My good friend Maj. Steven Givler, USAF, is now blogging again after completing the geographical logistics of his reassignment from Saudi Arabia to Portugal.
The home features a beautiful interior, and Steven writes:
After two weeks of looking, here's what we've chosen. There are lots of newer houses, but none had the room, central location, and uniqueness of this place. It's about 5 blocks from the ocean, and within easy bicycling distance of where I'll be working.
I'm thankful for Steven's service. Stop over and comment at blog.
It's Joplin's screaming, seriously. I mean she's bluesy, but the guttural emotion in those screams toward the end of "Piece of My Heart" is simply unmatched. I've been enjoying this song more recently since listening to Chrystal Bowersox sing it (posted here previously). And 100.3 The Sound played it during my drive time the other day. Enjoy:
From the comments at the second video, "This song is brilliant. Its a metaphor for intense love that you know is bad for you but you keep coming back for more."
If you're a GOP strategist looking for key primary votes, spend your valuable advertising money on PGA Tour events. If you're a Dem trying to win over your base, focus on advertising during NBA games.
So says a new study among hundreds of thousands of Americans examining the correlation between viewers' favorite sports and their voting habits. And, the survey shows, most dedicated sports watchers are much more likely to vote with the GOP than they are to vote with Dems.
Researchers at National Media Inc., a GOP firm, analyzed survey results from a total of 218K interviews between Aug. '08 and Sept. '09. The polling was conducted by Scarborough USA, a joint project of Nielsen and Arbitron, the 2 top ratings agencies in the country. The data helps TV and radio stations and the country's newspapers set ad rates by evaluating viewership habits.
GOPers are most likely to watch the PGA Tour, college football and NASCAR, according to the study. But if GOP ad buyers want to reach more frequent voters, they should focus on the PGA; golf fans told researchers they were much more likely to vote than NASCAR fans say they are. Meanwhile, Dems hold the largest advantages among basketball fans, both those who watch the NBA and the WNBA. And fans of World Wrestling Entertainment are also much more likely to favor Dems -- if they vote. Wrestling fans are less likely to cast ballots than any other sports fans.
Another signal, emerging independent of the Obama-media-industrial-complex, that leftists are not only outside the mainstream, but literally un-American according to key indices of popular culture. Sure, some Democrats are sports fans. But these data really should give pause to those on the left claiming to represent middle America. (And notice the elitists at Democratic Strategist trying to blow off the findings.)
Rarely have the e-mails flowed in as quickly as they did Monday as news spread of the RNC's profligacy and of its highly objectionable choice of entertainment venues. They are coming from individuals who, as recently as Friday, had at my urging sent money to the National Republican Congressional Committee to help in the effort to oust Nancy Pelosi. They are coming from people who are living on tight budgets in an era of economic uncertainty but who had sacrificed because the country cannot afford another two years of a Pelosi-Reid led Congress.
They are coming from very, very angry Republicans.
And they are right to be angry.
Whether or not RNC staffers share the very traditional beliefs on moral questions of the vast majority of their regular voters, the idea of partying at even "upscale" sex-themed nightclubs is quite obviously not only at the top of the stupid charts, it also reflects thorough-going contempt for the folks that sent them to work in the first place.
This latest scandal follows another one wherein the crackerjack staff at the RNC circulated a memo dripping in disdain for the conservative rank and file . The memo-flap soon passed as staff memos just aren't that interesting.
This scandal will not soon pass. It is a huge blow at a time of otherwise gathering momentum, and the GOP's elected leadership need to respond decisively, as do Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and Sarah Palin – the four Republicans most likely to seek the party's nomination in 2012 and to have a shot of gaining it.
This Rachel Maddow segment pretty much sums up the total journalistic amateurism at MSNBC. She's spends five minutes stretching to find some kind of connection between the Hutaree militia and the "right wing extremists" (read tea partiers) who've been marching in anti-ObamaCare protests in D.C. And to top it off, her "expert" is the completely asinine hack Dave Neiwert, who argues that Americans freaked out over a few men with "turbans" on September 11, while the "real threat" to the United States is "right wing domestic terrorism." These people are bad.
I'll be the first to condemn the militia movement's extremism. I want nothing to do with them, and I can't name a single conservative blogger or tea partier -- and that by now includes dozens, even hundreds, of leaders in the conservative movement today -- who would even deign to associate with potential domestic terrorists. Meanwhile, the Obama administration keeps close ties with Code Pink fanatics who're serving as a direct link to the Taliban insurgency. This White House refused to condemn the Fort Hood attacks as domestic jihad, and the "system worked" when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit. But hey, I better watch it: That's RAAACIST!!!
My guess is the fact that Congress' own Members didn't even read their healthcare monstrosity is lost on "Stupid Evil Bastard," although he nevertheless attacks citizen patriots as "dolts" for not being able to pinpoint what page "death panels" were found.
Actually, I did read the original 1000-page House bill last summer, and Page 429, Lines 10-12 was widely interpreted at the time as limiting coverage to control costs (rationing). But hey, when your whole schtick is attacking conservatives as "dolts," who's got time for facts and superior argumentation:
It never ceases to amaze me how many people can be so willing to work against their own self-interests because FOX “News” told them to. These people have nothing but Republican talking-points to spew out in response to the questions being asked. None of them has put any thought into it beyond what they’ve been told by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. None of them has made the effort to find out what the bill really has in it on their own. They freely admit that they watch FOX because it reinforces what they believe already. They’re protesting something they have only misinformation about.
The Democrat-media complex has been pushing the idea that patriotic nonviolent resistance and opposition to ObamaCare and President Obama’s drive to turn America into a full-blown socialist state somehow constitutes “hate.”
Leftists keep trying to invent new incidents supposedly showing how their political adversaries in the Tea Party movement are sinister racists.
They claim –in the absence of proof– that black Democratic lawmakers were called the N-word as they walked to the U.S. Capitol building to vote on ObamaCare. They claim –in the absence of proof– that an anti-gay epithet was hurled at Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), an openly gay lawmaker.
It is an indisputable fact that the violence America is beginning to see is almost exclusively on the left, whether it’s a deranged registered Democrat flying his plane into a federal building in Austin, Texas, or a progressive coward calling in a death threat against a Republican lawmaker.
It is all part of the left’s push to delegitimize opposition to the socialist takeover of America. If you oppose the murder-in-progress of the American republic you are smeared as a redneck, teabagging, racist obstacle to progress — and you deserve what’s coming to you.
So it’s not surprising that the street theater specialists at MoveOn.org are planning to host a propaganda event tomorrow intended to reinforce this false notion that Constitution-loving pro-limited government enthusiasts are eeeevil haters.
The leftist thugs at MoveOn plan to hold a rally outside Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. to urge the Republican Party to distance itself from the alleged “hate” caused by the passage of ObamaCare.
Of course, the left, and in particular the George Soros-led character assassins at Media Matters for America (I mean you, Jamison Foser, Eric Boehlert, and Terry Krepel) are largely responsible for the civil unrest that is growing across America. Anyone who supported ObamaCare is responsible for the tide of discontent that now threatens to tear the nation apart.
And take notice, MoveOn, Jamison, Eric, and Terry, that the American people will not silenced.
Here’s the call-to-arms email MoveOn just sent out ...
A really angry, frequently incoherent, rant for socialism, from the Harry Reid thug who threatened Andrew Breitbart last weekend. At Founding Bloggers, "Class Warfare All The Rage in Searchlight, Nevada":
Evan Coyne Maloney is the documentary filmmaker and proprietor of Brain Terminal. During the Bush administration, Evan was out in the field with his camera observing protests and interviewing protesters. He is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?
Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.
Here's another photo of the BUSH = NAZI ideological demonization from March 20, in Hollywood:
Recall that "SS" stands for "Schutzstaffel," Hitler's paramilitary security state within the state.
Plus, posted previously, "BOOSH," the racist Bush slur.:
Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.
It’s true!
But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.
Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence ....
Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?
One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.
When it comes to the Democrats, I'm ashamed for my country. But I'm not resigned. The tea parties are the salvation of democracy.
And since I know lefties will say "both sides do it." .... No, sorry, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- comparable to the secular demonization and violent rhetoric against the GOP during the Bush years, and it contiues today.
The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.
