North Carolina Amendment One Same-Sex Marriage

Once again the progs are going bathsh*t crazy, this time amid the controversy over North Carolina's Amendment 1.

Some pastor is now rightly disavowing his stupid remarks about beating up your gay kids. See: "Berean Baptist pastor disavows advice to punch gay kids as a joke." (At Memeorandum.)

And that story gives gay radical extremist Pam Spaulding an opening, "This is the ‘Christian love’ we are up against: NC Baptist preacher calls for beating the gay out of kids."

Meanwhile, despite the circus antics on both sides, a large majority of the state's voters favor the amendment. See PPP, "Amendment One still up 14 points in N.C.":

Raleigh, N.C. – There has been no movement on North Carolina’s proposed marriage amendment since PPP last released a poll a week ago.  Likely primary voters are still planning to vote for the amendment by a 14-point margin, this time 55-41, rather than 54-40.

Opposition is rising slightly with Republicans, independents, and African Americans, from 17% to 21% with the GOP, from 43% to 46% with independents, and from 39% to 43% with black voters.  Democrats on the whole are opposed by a 54-42 spread.  Reports of strong youth turnout in parts of the state could be a good sign for opponents; voters under the age of 30 oppose the amendment by 26 points, while the elder age brackets all support it by spreads of nine to 24 points—though that is down from margins of 16 to 32 points last week.

The good news for the amendment’s opponents is that more voters are now aware of the amendment’s consequences, and if all voters were informed of those consequences, the amendment would fail by a 38-46 margin, the same as last week.  A 40% plurality now knows that the amendment would ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions, versus 36% in the previous survey.  Those who know what the amendment would do are against it by 22 points, but they are outweighed by the strong support from the uneducated.

That's a tough amendment, but it's up to the voters. I think civil unions are fine personally. But we'll see. I think North Carolina wants to put up a big, burly firewall against the radical left's gay rights extremism, and that's probably the way to go, considering everything else these days.

From the Heritage Foundation: 'America at Risk'

See, "America at Risk: Military Went to War in Iraq With Unarmored SUVs."

President Obama's Speech from Bagram Air Base

The New York Times has an analysis, "A Visit Well Timed to Future Uncertainties in Afghanistan":

KABUL, Afghanistan — The moment that President Obama chose to visit Afghanistan for the first time in 17 months was a rare chance for him to make the most of a brief window when relations between the two governments are improving after months of crisis, and when the likely fallout of the coming NATO withdrawal is still months away.

In the background, however, lurk a host of concerns about how things could go once the bulk of American troops leave and the pipeline of foreign aid slows to a trickle, which is expected to happen by the end of 2014. Both will increase the country’s already deep sense of precariousness. And there is concern, too, about whether what once were cornerstone American goals in Afghanistan — establishing reliable security forces, hobbling the insurgency, curbing endemic corruption, securing enduring rights for women and minorities — are now unrealistic given the looming deadline.

“None of the tensions between the United States and the Karzai government have gone away,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a strategic analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, in an essay published Tuesday on the center’s Web site. “The broader problems with Afghan governance and corruption are not diminishing. Progress in creating effective Afghan forces is increasingly questionable, the insurgents are clearly committed to going on with the fight, and relations with Pakistan seem to take two steps backward for every apparent step forward.”

Mr. Cordesman continued, “As for American domestic politics, there seems to be growing, tacit, bipartisan agreement to drift toward an exit strategy without really admitting it.”

RELATED: From Michael Cohen, at Foreign Policy, "Hi, I Killed Osama bin Laden and I Approve This Message."

And from Allahpundit, at Hot Air, "Football spiked: Obama to address nation on Bin Laden anniversary live from Afghanistan."

Heroes Don't Spike the Football

Video c/o The Astute Bloggers:

And see Michael Mukasey, "Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights." Also, at Betsy's Page, "Obama's spiked football."

Richard Grenell Resigns as Romney's National Security Spokesman — Policy Positions, Not Anti-Gay 'Hounding', Explain the Departure

See the report at the Washington Post, "Richard Grenell, Mitt Romney spokesman, resigns."

And Jennifer Rubin really went to town on the right for allegedly "hounding" Grenell out of the Romney campaign, "EXCLUSIVE: Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives" (via Memeorandum).

But actually, there's not a lot of evidence that hard-right conservatives "hounded" Grenell from the campaign. (Allahpundit has a huge roundup, "Openly gay foreign-policy spokesman for Romney campaign resigns; Update: “He wasn’t under wraps”.")

Sure, there was some pushback, but it was pretty localized around a few figures on the religious right, Bryan Fischer, for example ("Re: Richard Grenell: Romney has some splaining to do"), and Tony Perkins, "Conservatives Engage in Some Hire Learning":

Most conservatives have been anxious to see how the Romney campaign would react now that the strongest social conservative, Sen. Rick Santorum, is out of the race. Would the Governor try to fill the void left on values issues or would he stick to his more moderate approach? Some people believe that question was answered last week with the selection of Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman. Grenell, who served in President Bush's administration, specialized in the U.N., but the areas where he disagreed with his old boss are what concern conservatives most.

Grenell, who has been very open about his homosexual lifestyle, publicly condemned the Bush administration (shortly after leaving it) for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality. While Bush (like nearly two thirds of the U.N. member states) refused to endorse the measure endorsing homosexuality, President Obama signed it shortly after taking office. Since then, his State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, has tossed aside the cultural and religious beliefs of other countries to promote homosexuality as a basic human right, while downgrading the importance of religious liberty. Clearly, the strategy is for the State Department to force these policies (which most U.S. states reject) on the international stage and then build pressure on the U.S. to adopt measures like Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and same-sex "marriage."

In a recent column for the Washington Blade, Grenell hinted at where he falls on the marriage issue when he criticized gay and lesbian Democrats for supporting President Obama despite the fact that he hasn't done enough to redefine marriage. Still others point to Grenell's long-time partner and his desire to tie the knot, "It's not an option for us... but hopefully someday soon it will be." While past performance is not a guarantee of future results, there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby for foreign policy more in line with the current administration than the last Republican one.

And see the comments from Gary Bauer as well, "Unforced Error, Governor":

While Governor Mitt Romney is clearly enjoying a bounce in the polls and a boost in momentum, his campaign still has some work to do when it comes to reassuring the conservative base and values voters. That's why his appointment of Richard Grenell, who worked in the Bush Administration, to be his spokesman on national security issues was a disappointment to many conservatives.

I share their disappointment not because Grenell is gay. He is not weak on defense. In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton is defending Grenell today. Conservative pro-family leaders are disappointed because Grenell has been an outspoken advocate of redefining normal marriage. For the overwhelmingly majority of folks who support Governor Romney that issue is starkly clear -- marriage is the union of one and one woman. But Grenell once caused a controversy by trying to have his partner listed as his spouse when he worked at the U.N.

Thankfully, Grenell is not going to be making policy on domestic issues. But his appointment was disappointing because it comes at a time when the Romney campaign should be reaching out to the conservative base. Instead, this appointment seems like a slap at the base.

Moreover, Grenell is known for having an acerbic personality, and critics have described his comments in social media as being "catty." He may be competent, but he is creating controversies on multiple fronts where the Romney campaign can least afford them.

That said, we should not exaggerate this. Homosexuals were part of the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administrations. Our concern is policy. One of the ways Governor Romney can reassure values voters is to make more statements in his speeches that speak to their concerns about the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage and the importance of faith and family.

Pointing this out does not hurt Mitt Romney. I am making this observation precisely because it is so important that he defeat Barack Obama. There is no path to victory for a Republican presidential candidate that does not involve massive turnout by pro-family voters. The only way Mitt Romney will end up with a majority on Election Day -- and I will do everything I can to make sure that happens -- is to unite economic, defense and social conservatives behind his candidacy.

And with reference to Grenell's "catty" comments via social media, Politico's got that: "Twitter-happy Romney flack Grenell resigns."

And see Matthew J. Franck, "Who Is Richard Grenell Anyway?"

Finally, here's this from BuzzFeed, "In Romney's Gay Rights Mess, Silence Wasn't An Option: The candidate stayed mum while his gay aide was being blasted by the right. Now gay rights groups blame Romney, whose aides say it was never about sexuality."

It's clear from a look at Memeorandum that Grenell's departure is another chance for the left to frame the narrative that Republicans are "homophobic bigots." Unfortunately, there's a lot more folks like Jennifer Rubin willing to give the left a hand. The bottom line is that pro-gay marriage advocacy is a far left-wing position. If Republicans attempt to add gay marriage to their platform the voters will find them wanting. If voters are going to base their votes on progressive policy positions, they'll go with the real thing: the radical extremist gay-rights agenda of the Democratic Party. The GOP can try to co-opt the left's position on gay rights, but no matter what they do they'll still be branded as "haters" and anti-gay "bigots." Besides, a majority of Republicans continue to favor the traditional definition of marriage. Bauer is right: The GOP needs to unite economic, defense, and social conservatives around Romney's candidacy. It's not about sexuality. It's about policy.

May Day Protests Planned Across the U.S.

The Washington Post reports, "Occupy movement prepares for nationwide general strike," and at Bloomberg, "Occupy Wall Street Plans Global Protests in May Day Resurgence."

And see The Lonely Conservative, "Commie May Day Protests and Occupations Going Global."

She's not kidding!

Here's Teresa Gutierrez of the Workers World Party: "VIVA MAY DAY! - OWS Unites With Immigrants and Working Class."

PREVIOUSLY: "Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn."

MI6 Spy Gareth Williams Most Likely Died from Poisoning, Suffocation or Strangulation

At Telegraph UK, "MI6 spy Gareth Williams 'probably died from poisoning or asphyxiation'."

And earlier at the New York Times, "Death of Spy, Zipped Into Bag, Spawns Theories and Inquest."

Perhaps Trying to Politicize the Anniversary of Osama bin Laden's Killing Might Have Been a Mistake

The video's via Politico, "Arianna Huffington: Obama ad ‘despicable’."

And see Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Maybe Running on Bin Laden Won’t Work":

As Alana noted earlier, the fact that some influential liberal pundits are backing away from the Obama campaign’s claim that a President Romney would have let bin Laden live, illustrates the contempt that this shameless slur has generated. If Arianna Huffington thinks it’s a bad idea, imagine how the rest of the country thinks?

Elizabeth Warren May Be Able to Claim 1/32 Native American Ancestry

The Boston Globe reports, "Geneologist says Warren may be able to claim Cherokee heritage...":

A record unearthed Monday shows that Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.

The latest shred of evidence could validate her claim that she has Native American ancestry, making her 1/32 American Indian, but may not put an end to the questions swirling around the subject.

Intense focus in Warren’s heritage comes as the Democratic candidate has faced several days of scrutiny about whether she has represented herself as a minority in her academic career.

The Boston Herald reported Friday that Harvard University Law School had promoted Warren as a minority hire when the school was under fire for a lack of diversity in its faculty.

Warren said on Friday that she did not know the school had done so and that she did not recall using her Indian ancestry to advance her career.

But the Globe and other outlets reported Sunday that Warren had listed herself as a minority professor between 1986 and 1995 in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, a major reference for legal professors.

A Harvard Law School spokeswoman, Sarah Marston, said Monday that the school would not comment on Warren or why it chose to promote her heritage. The Warren campaign last night sent statements from deans and faculty at four universities where Warren taught, attesting that her ancestry never came up in the hiring process.

And wouldn't you know it, the New York Times is all too happy to play up that angle, "Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry Irrelevant in Hiring, Law School Says."

Wow! That's a huge surprise that Warren and the law school establishment would look to deny any significance to the claims of Native American ancestry. Given that Warren's about as lily white as you can be, this whole thing blows up the left's diversity scam in education and hiring. What a total farce.

And see earlier, from Instapundit, "MORE ON ELIZABETH WARREN’S CLAIM OF “MINORITY” STATUS...", and "Plus, I, for one, salute Harvard Law School for having the courage to hire Professor Dances-With-Occupiers."

Plus, at Althouse, "James Taranto theorizes that Elizabeth Warren 'downplayed her alleged Indian roots after coming to Harvard to avoid the stigma of 'affirmative action''."

Also, from Legal Insurrection, "Confirmed – Elizabeth Warren knowingly self-identified as Native American on law association forms," and David Bernstein at Volokh, "Elizabeth Warren Update" (via Memeorandum).

BONUS: From Howie Carr, at the New York Post, "Harvard’s ‘Populist’- Liz Warren’s Pathetic Pose."

'Forward' — The Obama Campaign's New Web Ad

The Weekly Standard has the conventional take, "Obama Campaign Takes on Tea Party."

But you gotta love this, from Big Government, "Comrades! Obama's New Slogan: Forward!":

The communist themes of the "forward" slogan are not the first time a member of the Obama team has expressed admiration for Chairman Mao. Former White House communications director Anita Dunn--who has continued to advise the White House after she left in 2009--famously listed Mao as one of her "favorite philosophers."

Perhaps President Obama would have done better to take campaign advice from his friend and White House guest, Paul McCartney: as the Beatles once said: "But when you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao/You aint' gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

See also Lonely Conservative, "Figures! Obama’s New Campaign Slogan Has Long Communist History" (via Memeorandum).

Progressives Are the New Reactionaries

An awesome essay, from Victor Davis Hanson, "The New Reactionaries" (via Instapundit):

Barack Obama is trying to turn back the way of politics to the era of the pre-reform Chicago machine. He was the first presidential candidate to renounce campaign-financing funds since the law was enacted. He opposes any effort to clamp down on voting fraud. Even his compliant media worries that the president’s current jetting from one campaign stop to another in the key swing states is a poorly disguised way to politick on the federal government’s dime. Bundlers are, as was the ancient custom, given plum honorific posts abroad. Obama has held twice as many fundraisers as the much reviled George Bush had at a similar point in his administration. Obama supporters now target large Romney givers and post their names with negative bios on websites, as if we are back to Nixon’s enemies of the people.

Workers at Non-UAW Plants Paid the Price in Obama/Big Labor Engineered U.S. Auto Industry Recovery

Michelle reported previously on the Obama-orchestrated attacks on non-union auto workers: "The Autoworkers Obama Left Behind."

And now here's this, at the Wall Street Journal, "UAW Freezes Rival Out of Rebound" (via Google):

MORAINE, Ohio—So robust is the recovery in the U.S. auto industry that virtually all the union workers who were laid off by Detroit auto makers during the crisis years can have their jobs back, if they want them.

Even General Motors Co.'s Lordstown, Ohio, complex, long known for its money-losing small cars and its bad labor climate, is running 24 hours a day, with more than 4,000 workers churning out hot-selling Chevy Cruze compacts.

But here in Moraine, the GM assembly plant closed for good. Despite being one of GM's most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company's 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM's bankruptcy two years later, Moraine's 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry's rebound.

The trouble with Moraine: Its workers weren't in the UAW.

"We did everything we could to keep that plant open and keep our jobs," said Mitchell Wood, a 44-year-old father of two who used to attach tailgates onto sport-utility vehicles at Moraine. "But in the end, we didn't have a chance, not being in the UAW."

The plight of Moraine workers highlights the extraordinary role played by the UAW during the near-collapses and bankruptcy reorganizations of GM and Chrysler Group LLC. That role remains a political flash point today. Democrats have cast President Barack Obama and the UAW as saviors of America's auto industry. Republicans call the help a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the president's union allies.

What is clear is that the United Auto Workers—though weakened by decades of attrition and the rise of a nonunion auto workforce—was still powerful enough to play a big role in picking winners and losers and in shaping the industry that emerged from that critical period.

That is true for the thousands of UAW members who have been able to return to work at auto factories, from Lordstown to San Antonio, since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy. And it is true for people like Mr. Wood and his non-UAW co-workers at Moraine, who had little voice in the reorganization and no hope of recovering their old jobs.

Moraine workers could apply for a job at another GM plant, but would be treated as new hires, receiving half the wages of their old jobs and getting at the end of the line behind applications recommended by the UAW.

In the end, "we had to take care of our own members," says Cal Rapson, the former UAW vice president leading negotiations with GM. "It was unfortunate what happened to the others. But there wasn't enough to go around."

Continue reading.

Damned mofo union thugs.

Stand your ground conservatives. This is classic left-wing thug politics. Get in on the right side of the progressive power structure or you're screwed. Then the left blames the right as "anti-worker."

Screw 'em.

In the Mail: The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

I started reading it last night, as did Glenn Reynolds, who links to John Nolte's review, at Big Government, "With 'Tyranny of Clichés,' Jonah Goldberg Delivers a Second Triumph."

Buy the book at Amazon.

It's good.

'That's Why God Made The Radio'

Via Darleen at Protein Wisdom:

Environmental Indoctrination

Via Pirate's Cove, "Brainwashed Kid Thinks It’d Be Better Off If Humans Were All Dead."

1 World Trade Center Will Soon Overtake Empire State Building as New York City's Tallest Building.

Well, this story's close to my heart.

At New York Times, "With a Steel Column, a Tower Will Reclaim the Manhattan Sky."

And check the photo of the skyline.

FLASHBACK: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

California Lottery Edits 'Luck Has a New Look' Ad After Radical Feminist Groups Complain Against 'Glamorizing Violence'

I've been meaning to post on this for a couple of weeks. I was getting a kick out of the Lottery's "Luck Has a New Look" campaign, but then all of a sudden "Lady Luck" stopped slapping the dude at the bowling alley --- she blows him a kiss in the revised ad, which totally destroys the kinda film noir styling of the original clip.

I just saw the lame "blowing a kiss" version again and decided to check around, so here's this at the Los Angeles Times, "New lottery ad glamorizes violence, California legislators complain":

The leaders of the California Legislative Women's Caucus called for removal of a state lottery television ad that shows a woman slapping a man across the face, saying it sanctions violence.

"It is inappropriate for any entity, especially a state-funded Commission, to promote its products through the use of violence," state Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), the caucus chairwoman, and Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), the caucus co-chair, wrote to the head of the Lottery Commission.

The California Lottery's "Luck has a new look" ad shows a mysterious woman in black -- Lady Luck -- who walks up to a man playing a new scratcher lottery card in a bowling alley and then slaps him in the face, after which the guy yells "I won." Lady Luck walks away smiling.

The lawmakers note that the Legislature has taken a position against violence against women, but that they believe violence by women against men is also a serious problem.

"This commercial glamorizes violence under the auspice of "lady luck" and we find it offensive and counterproductive to society at large," they wrote, asking the lottery to better scrutinize the content of future adds to prevent "harmful messages that are paid for with public dollars."

Lame.

But typical from the utterly neutered world of political correctness, brought to you by the Democrat Party --- the party of nanny statism and abject hostility to independent thought and speech.

Drop the I-Word Campaign

Sometimes you have to shake your head at the left's complete and utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Here's the description of this campaign:

Drop the I-Word is a public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur "illegals" from everyday use and public discourse. The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration. No human being is "illegal."

But see Daley Gator for the smack down, "Oh, so it is the I-word now?":

Apparently the Left has decided, for all of us, since they are so, you know, intellectual, that the word illegal is now forbidden. I would have said illegal, but that would be, say it with me, RAAAAACIST! As I wrote last night, the Left wants to control the dialogue. And, in order to do that, they want to eliminate debate, and eliminating certain words, like illegal, makes it easier for them to obfuscate. When Liberals cannot argue, they try to intimidate, or censor, or change the conversation, this campaign against the I-word is all about that.

Exactly.

Also at Theo's, "Video - An activist on Bill O'Reilly tries to defend the Left's "Drop the I-Word" campaign where I = illegal!"

VIDEO: Rick Santorum Aborts Presidential Campaign

See Robert Stacy McCain, "Ashley Judd Makes Cruel and Tasteless Jokes About Abortion in Political Video."

And see Jill Stanek, "Stanek weekend question: Which pro-choice stars do you boycott, if any?"

Wisconsin Vote Is First Shot in Wider Union War

Yeah, a war on decency, a war on taxpayers, a war on women, a war on ...

Well, you get the picture.

At the New York Times, "Recall Election Tests Strategies for November":

The combination of the squeeze on state budgets, high rates of unemployment and the conservative movement’s revived energy provided an opening for Republican efforts, often business-backed, to promote tough-on-labor legislation in key states. Those efforts have succeeded in rolling back gains made by unions over decades, prompting vows from labor to fight back with newly engaged members shaken from self-described complacency.

“The steelworkers will be working harder this year than in 2008, because we can see what can happen,” Michael Bolton, the director of the United Steelworkers unit representing 48,000 workers in Wisconsin and Michigan — including many hundreds in Koch facilities — said in an interview last week at his office in Menasha, Wis.

The steelworkers will be part of a broader effort that national union strategists say will fill the streets in battleground states with hundreds of thousands of their members, who will go door to door telling union colleagues — and, for the first time, nonunion households — why they should vote for Mr. Obama. The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political director, Mike Podhorzer, said his organization, which reached 25 million voters in 2008, would easily exceed that this year.

Officials for the steelworkers say it has been awkward at times to wage partisan battles against the family that owns the factories that employ them.

The union’s leaders recently agreed on a contract with Georgia Pacific that they considered fair. When liberal groups called for a boycott of Koch products late last year, a Steelworkers vice president, Jon Geenen, said it would harm “the wrong people,” writing of a “dilemma and a paradox,” namely, “While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.”

But, Mr. Bolton said, that has not stopped the union from telling workers at those companies what it believes to be the goal of the Kochs and their allies. “They want ineffective, weak unions,” he said, adding, “A lot of these bills didn’t directly affect our private sector members, but we realize that we would be the next.”

In an interview, Mr. Walker called that a “bogus argument,” saying he has no plans to pursue right-to-work legislation, as private sector unions have feared. Such legislation lets employees at unionized workplaces opt out of paying union fees.

“Private sector unions are my partners,” he said. Mr. Walker said that in restricting collective bargaining rights for government workers, save those in public safety, he was confronting a reality facing virtually all state governments with aging, unionized work forces: “We can’t sustain our budgets unless we make some reasonable changes.”

Mr. Walker said charges that he is doing the bidding of wealthy supporters like the Kochs are “the biggest joke out there.”

IMAGE CREDIT: Grandpa John's.

UPDATE: Walter Russell Mead has more: "Walker Gains in Wisconsin: NYT Shields Readers From Distressing News."

Apple's Tax Strategy Aims at Low-Tax States and Nations, Avoids Billions in Taxes Annually

Two things of note: (1) It's completely rational for Apple to establish accounting units outside of California, despite having its main headquarters in the state; and (2) there's a supreme irony in how the most hip of progressive companies operates no differently (if not more rationally) than the most "evil" of the Wall Street leverage kings or the hated Koch-style conservative business concerns.

Taxes destroy businesses and prosperity and if firms want to survive they have to do what it takes to avoid them. You'd think governments would understand this. But progressives just keep killing the geese that lay the eggs.

At the New York Times, "How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes" (via Memeorandum):

RENO, Nev. — Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones here. It doesn’t run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn’t manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby.

Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states.

Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains.

California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero.

Setting up an office in Reno is just one of many legal methods Apple uses to reduce its worldwide tax bill by billions of dollars each year. As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.

Almost every major corporation tries to minimize its taxes, of course. For Apple, the savings are especially alluring because the company’s profits are so high. Wall Street analysts predict Apple could earn up to $45.6 billion in its current fiscal year — which would be a record for any American business.

Apple serves as a window on how technology giants have taken advantage of tax codes written for an industrial age and ill suited to today’s digital economy. Some profits at companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft derive not from physical goods but from royalties on intellectual property, like the patents on software that makes devices work. Other times, the products themselves are digital, like downloaded songs. It is much easier for businesses with royalties and digital products to move profits to low-tax countries than it is, say, for grocery stores or automakers. A downloaded application, unlike a car, can be sold from anywhere.

The growing digital economy presents a conundrum for lawmakers overseeing corporate taxation: although technology is now one of the nation’s largest and most valued industries, many tech companies are among the least taxed, according to government and corporate data. Over the last two years, the 71 technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — including Apple, Google, Yahoo and Dell — reported paying worldwide cash taxes at a rate that, on average, was a third less than other S.& P. companies’. (Cash taxes may include payments for multiple years.)

Even among tech companies, Apple’s rates are low. And while the company has remade industries, ignited economic growth and delighted customers, it has also devised corporate strategies that take advantage of gaps in the tax code, according to former executives who helped create those strategies.

Apple, for instance, was among the first tech companies to designate overseas salespeople in high-tax countries in a manner that allowed them to sell on behalf of low-tax subsidiaries on other continents, sidestepping income taxes, according to former executives. Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.

Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent. (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.)

By comparison, Wal-Mart last year paid worldwide cash taxes of $5.9 billion on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a tax rate of 24 percent, which is about average for non-tech companies.

And which company is more reviled on the progressive left, Apple or Walmart? Amazing how things turn out for radical left-wing ideology sometimes. Everything's upside down with progressives. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even being reported by the New York Times. It goes against the paper's statist agenda.

White House Correspondents Dinner

Well, so much for the "correspondents." It's mostly celebrities.

See London's Daily Mail, "The night LiLo and Kim met Barack and Michelle: Wise-cracking President hosts star-studded White House Correspondents' Dinner."

And see the New York Times, "Much Fodder for Obama at White House Journalists’ Event." (Class-warfare hypocrites.)

Plus, at Twitchy, "Groan: When Meggie met Fluke-y." God, I'd take Sandra Fluke over that whale of Meghan McCain. Gross.

BONUS: Thank goodness for the lovely Erin Andrews, who tweeted from the event.

UPDATE: More from London's Daily Mail, some surprisingly good pictures of Lindsay Lohan, "What a difference a day makes! Lindsay Lohan makes up for missed flight and airport tumble as she glams up for White House bash in striking black gown," Plus, "Covered up for the president: Kim Kardashian plays it demure in high-necked green gown for star-studded White House Correspondents' Dinner."

Fighter Pilot

Via Maggie's Farm:

Also at Theo's: "Grab a beer, turn down the lights, turn off your cell phone, shut the door and watch full screen & High Definition and sound!"

Black Bear Tranquilized at University of Colorado Returned to the Wild

At USA Today, "Tree-falling bear has been returned to the wild."

And see Telegraph UK, "Black bear falls from tree after being sedated."

Employment Picture in South Los Angeles Worse Now Than During the 1992 Riots

So, I guess we're just waiting for the spark to set off the powder keg, or something.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Blacks in South L.A. have a bleaker jobs picture than in 1992":

Two decades after the L.A. riots brought pledges of help to rebuild South Los Angeles, the area is worse off in many ways than it was in 1992.

Median income, when adjusted for inflation, is lower. Many middle-class blacks have fled in search of safer neighborhoods and better schools.

And the unemployment rate, which was bad at the time of the riots, has reached even more dire levels. In two areas of South Los Angeles — Florence Graham and Westmont — unemployment is almost 24%. Back in 1992, it was 21% in Florence Graham and 17% in Westmont.

Last summer, thousands of South Los Angeles residents showed up to a job fair that brought out almost 200 employers at Crenshaw Christian Center on Vermont Avenue. The event, organized by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), was seen by some as grandstanding.

"People were really skeptical," said Kokayi Kwa Jitahidi, a community organizer with the nonprofit Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. "People thought, 'Another job fair?'"

There have been training and other job programs — both privately and government-funded — in the roughly 51-square-mile area in the last two decades. A post-riots report said the area needed an investment of about $6 billion and the creation of 75,000 to 94,000 jobs.

The federal and state governments spent as much as $768 million, according to a 1994 estimate, but the main aim of Rebuild L.A. — the group leading the revitalization effort — was to steer the private sector to create jobs in the area.

Toyota, Pioneer Electronics and IBM were among the corporations that held seminars and classes.

The training center started by Toyota, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Urban League, was one of the few that succeeded in the decade after the riots. It's now closed, but it produced about 1,000 graduates trained in entry-level automotive skills.

Most of the private-sector programs, however, had little effect.

"There are many things the private sector does well, but investment in depressed areas is not often one of them," said Chris Tilly, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. "The nature of private-sector investors is to look where the payoff is. If you've got large swaths of the city where there are bad schools, poor people and crime, that's not where private investment will go."

The funny thing is, just the other day the New York Times was touting how the changed demographics of South Los Angeles signaled a rising level of prosperity for the area's blacks, who moved out to the suburbs to buy homes and so forth. The Los Angeles Times piece, on the other hand, makes this out to be a bad thing. Not enough black consumers for black-owned businesses, or something. Or blacks are "stigmatized" for living in the area. That's just horrible. Sheesh. I guess the authors want the federal government to kick in more money for "community development," "urban renewal," or whatever folks call these tax-funded programs nowadays, programs that have failed over and over to lift the nation's poor. Indeed, one of the scholars interviewed at the report says what's needed is a "muscular public investment" in education. That's either pure stupidity or a bald-faced lie. We spend more money today on public education than we did in the 1960s, when educational outcomes were much better.

Al Armendariz, EPA Official, Apologizes for Call to 'Crucify' Oil Companies

The Daily Caller has the video, which was pulled, naturally: "YouTube pulls Armendariz ‘crucify them’ video."

And Ed Morrissey has the apology, at Hot Air, "EPA: Hey, sorry about that whole “crucify” thing, we’re all about being ethical."

BONUS: From Dan Collins, at Protein Wisdom, "EPA’s Crucifixion Maven Has Already Given It a Try."

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "If Only the Romans Had the EPA to Crucify the Dissenters."

UPDATE: I forgot about Michelle's column from yesterday, "“Crucify them:” It’s the Obama Way."

Kelly Brook Tumblr Rule 5

It's all Craig Ramsay's fault.

He tweeted me Kelly Brook's Tumblr page, and of course I can't resist posting some Rule 5.

She's lovely. Lots more pics on Tumblr.

And here's an encore from Maggie's Notebook: "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Kelly Brook."

I'll hold off on another big Rule 5 roundup for now. Here's last week's: "Big Old Saturday Rule 5."

Plus, Bob Belvedere has more: "Rule 5 News: 27 April 2012 A.D."

And since I've unforgivably neglected him, don't miss Dana Pico, "Rule 5 Blogging: This One’s for Mom," and "Rule 5 Blogging: This One’s for Hoagie Edition."

BONUS: At Pirate's Cove, "If all You See…is a dog which requires huge amounts of Gaia’s resources, you might just be a Warmist."

Dan Savage, Gay Rights Extremist, Calls Bible 'Bullsh*t' During 'Anti-Bullying' Speech

When I first saw the headlines it never occurred to me that this guy was the gay freak Dan Savage, but it was a pure "Aha!" when I saw it was him.

What a freakin' douchebag.

Robert Stacy McCain reports, "Students Walk Out After Anti-Bullying Speaker Dan Savage Calls Bible ‘Bulls–t’."

Plus, see Darleen at Protein Wisdom, "Irony Alert: Gay activist Dan Savage gives anti-bullying speech – bullies Christians and calls objecting students “pansies”."

And previously on Dan Savage, "Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists."

The New Politics of Hostage Taking? Actually, Republicans Are Not the Problem

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have a new book due out next Tuesday, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.

The title of this post is taken from their first chapter, "The New Politics of Hostage Taking." I'm not sure if I'm all that interested in reading the book. Sure, Mann and Ornstein are highly respected political scientists, and they're not especially prone to partisan hackery (or they haven't been previously), but when your main thesis is that the Republicans are the problem --- that Republicans are extremist --- then, well, I doubt you can claim scholarly objectivity. And frankly, the authors confess as much in their commentary at the Washington Post, "Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem." An excerpt:

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters’ choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties?

In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.

Oh brother.

Talk about giving up any pretense of fairness or analytical detachment. Mann and Ornstein want the GOP to fail. They've got a book coming out demonizing the party as a gang of hostage takers and they've put out the directive to the press to get with the program. Never mind the fact that other political science research puts current trends in political gridlock into longer-term context, for example, Alan Abramowitz's, The Polarized Public. The authors have their meme and they're sticking with it --- or else!

And hey, don't miss Victor Davis Hanson, "Obama shouldn’t preach about civility":

President Obama has repeatedly derided the sort of Republican partisanship that led the current minority party in the Senate to filibuster some of his appointments – most prominently his nomination of Goodwin Liu to the federal bench. But Sen. Obama not long ago strongly advocated such partisan obstructionism when, out of power, he praised the filibuster as much as he now deplores it while in power.

Indeed, he joined a filibuster to deny votes on the nominations of both Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and John Bolton to the U.N. ambassadorship....

We are now engaged in a continuing debate about debt, taxes and spending. Both sides have vastly different ideas about how to solve our financial problems, and they will continue to embrace tough talk to win over public opinion to their respective sides. We hope for the best argumentation but expect the worst – democratic politics being what it is. And President Obama, the past master of bare-fisted partisan invective, knows that better than anyone.

So spare us any more of the bottled piety, Mr. President. Instead, just make the argument to the public that borrowing $4 billion a day is still necessary and sustainable – and explain how it came to be that this post-recession recovery on your watch is the weakest since World War II.

Well now, I think that's just a tad bit closer to the truth.

Lack of Civility at Long Beach City College

Actually, it's the LBCC Board of Trustees that lacks civility, according to Michael Smith of Long Beach, in a letter at the Los Angeles Daily News, "Trustees Lack Civility":

Never have I been so ashamed of elected officials as when I attended the Long Beach City College Board of Trustees meeting on April 24.

Issues being discussed were the mass layoffs of necessary and important classified staff and how it would affect students' classes and the community. So many eloquent people spoke clearly and directly on the issues and presented their cases to the elected Board of Trustees, from international students, to ESL students, from faculty to classified staff. But time after time Board President Doug Otto rudely interrupted them and told them their stories weren't relevant. He scolded them to wrap it up, even though they were under the five minutes allowed. Then he told the community they were being rude and they couldn't continue. Shame on the trustees. Our community elected them, and now they are stifling free speech and telling a concerned community their stories don't matter.

-- Michael Smith, Long Beach

Video of the meeting is here.

I mentioned the tension on campus previously: "LBCC Announces 55 Layoffs — Tensions High as Faculty Union Prepares Jobs Actions and Protests."

Suicide Bomber Hits Syrian Capital of Damascus

At Telegraph UK, "Syria: suicide bomber hits Damascus mosque."

And also at the New York Times, "Suicide Attack Kills 9 Near Damascus as Cease-Fire Erodes."

RELATED: "U.N. Observers Prove Little Deterrent to Syrian Attacks."

House Speaker John Boehner Slams Obama for 'Fake Fight' Over Student Loans and Women's Health

You gotta love Speaker Boehner.

At Newsmax, "Boehner: Obama Creating ‘Fake Fight’ Over Student Loan Rates." And from Yahoo, "Boehner Asks Angrily, 'Do We Have to Fight About Everything?'"

And progressive hack Joan Walsh takes umbrage: "John Boehner’s Blues."

Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph

Prager discusses his new book on Fox & Friends:

And you can pick up a copy at Amazon: Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.

I'm reading it now and can't recommend it enough. The book probably has the best discussion of leftist ideology in print. A fantastic read.

More on this later...

What 'Gutsy Call'? Obama Didn't Make 'Operational Decision' to Kill Osama bin Laden

The Obama campaign is out with this new ad below attacking Mitt Romney, claiming that the presumptive GOP nominee wouldn't have been "gutsy" enough to make the call on killing bin Laden.

But perhaps Obama's "decision" to get bin Laden wasn't so "gutsy" after all.

See Ben Shapiro, at Big Peace, "What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission" (via Memeorandum). Read it all at the link. In question is the language of the CIA memo obtained by Time Magazine. See, "The Last Days of Osama bin Laden":

MEMO FOR THE RECORD Apr. 29, 2011, 10:35 a.m.

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

Here's Shapiro's take:

...the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

And note something else here: Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post is apparently a grade school friend of Admiral McRaven, and she basically made the same argument last year shortly after the Abottabad raid: "Adm. William McRaven: The terrorist hunter on whose shoulders Osama bin Laden raid rested:"

As leader of the military’s highly secretive Joint Special Operations Command, McRaven has overseen a rapid escalation of manhunts for Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda figures around the world. Although he’s a three-star admiral, the muscular 55-year-old still sometimes accompanies his teams on snatch-and-grab missions.

On Friday, McRaven received the green light from Panetta to launch the raid at the earliest opportunity. Later that day, he met with a six-member congressional delegation that was coincidentally visiting Afghanistan. He gave the lawmakers a tour of the Bagram operations center that — unbeknownst to them — was gearing up for the critical mission.

“Little did we know he had already given the order to take out Osama bin Laden,” said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who led the delegation.

So, indeed it was Admiral McRaven who ultimately made the "gutsy call" to kill bin Laden ---  and if anything went wrong it would have been McRaven's head on a block, not the un-gutsy members of this epic clusterf-k Democrat administration.

Is Barack Obama Cool?

John Hawkins has commentary on the new ad out from American Crossroads, at Right Wing News: "American Crossroads Gives Obama Way Too Much Credit. He’s Actually Not Cool."

First Quarter GDP Growth Slows to 2.2 Percent, Dampening Democrat Reelection Prospects

It's downbeat economic news today.

The government's report is here: "National Income and Product Accounts Gross Domestic Product, 1st quarter 2012 (advance estimate)" (via Memeorandum).

And see the New York Times, "U.S. Economic Growth Slows to 2.2% Rate, Report Says," and MarketWatch, "Mediocre GDP report even worse in the details: Commentary: Final sales up less than 2% for 4th quarter in last 5":

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — It should not be a surprise to anyone that the U.S. economy continues to struggle. The evidence is all around us, but the hawks on the Federal Reserve are clinging to false hopes.

The economy grew at a 2.2% annual rate in the first quarter of the year, down from a 3% growth rate in the last three months of 2011, the government estimated Friday. Read our full news coverage of the slowdown in U.S. growth.

Growth of 2.2% is mediocre, but it’s worse than that once you peel away a few layers — about a fourth of the growth in gross domestic product was accounted for by a buildup in inventories, and half of it came from the building and selling of motor vehicles.

Strip away the inventory growth, and final sales in the economy increased 1.6%, the fourth quarter in the past five that was below 2%. Although all the headlines report on the GDP numbers, the number to watch is final sales, because that gauges demand for our products, not merely how much we made.

Consumers continue to outperform. Consumer spending rose at a 2.9% annual pace, the best in more than a year. Yet disposable incomes increased just 0.4%, the seventh quarter in a row in which spending growth outpaced income growth.

You don’t need a Ph.D. from MIT — as Fed Chair Ben Bernanke in fact possesses — to know that’s not sustainable.

Plus, from James Pethokoukis, "Weak GDP report clouds Obama’s reelection chances":

With six months to go until Election Day, time just ran out for Team Obama to run any sort of plausible “Morning in America” reelection campaign. And it’s not just that the U.S. economy grew at a subpar 2.2% annual rate in the first quarter, according to the Commerce Department.

It’s that this may be about as good as it gets for the economy this year. Most analysts have been looking for the second quarter to be no better—if not worse—than the first. So we could end up having a first half of the election year with GDP growth near 2% or below. As Citigroup puts it: “… 1Q GDP data should limit remaining optimism that U.S. economic growth will accelerate significantly this year.” And IHS Global Insight says it’s “looking for second-quarter growth to be similar to the first—around 2%”....

Even if growth perks up a bit from here, it seems unlikely that it will be enough to dent the unemployment rate or boost incomes.

President Obama could still win, of course. But given the current economic trajectory, he will be defying historical precedent if he does.

Exactly.

Obama can only win by changing the subject and demonizing the opposition. That's all he's got, and the progressive thugs will be protesting all year against "economic inequality" and the "corporate rich." And of course the professional left will continue to blame Republicans for the economic disaster, like far-left dullard Steve Benen at Maddow's blog, "More underwhelming economic growth" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: At IBD, "Hiring Pace Halved: Just 120,000 Jobs Added In March."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Obama Campaign's Reelection Death Rattle."

The Romney Opportunity

At the Wall Street Journal, "Running on biography and the economy won't be enough":

With Newt Gingrich finally leaving the GOP Presidential race, Mitt Romney is now closer to realizing the ambition he has so long pursued: He has an even-money chance to become America's 45th President. He's more likely to fulfill that ambition if he overcomes his cautious nature and runs a campaign that is equal to America's current political moment.

***
This will not be the instinct of Mr. Romney or his close-knit group of advisers. Looking at the polls, they see a nearly even race, with President Obama below 50% despite the beating Mr. Romney took in the primaries.

The temptation will be to assume the public has decided to fire the incumbent and so run a campaign to become the safe alternative. Take no policy risk, stress Mr. Romney's biography, his attractive family and the seven habits of highly effective businessmen, and then hammer away on the economy.

It's possible, if job creation sputters again or Europe goes into bond-market arrest, that this kind of campaign will be enough to win. It's also possible—more likely in our view—that this will play into Mr. Obama's strengths of personal likability and Oval Office experience, especially if the economy keeps chugging on its current slow-growth path. Mr. Romney will have to make a case not merely against Mr. Obama's failings but also for why he has the better plan to restore prosperity.

On the economy in particular, such a larger argument would fit the country's current mood. The public's anxiety isn't merely about the failures of the last three years, as important as it is for Mr. Romney to score this Administration for its failed stimulus, crony capitalism, hyperregulation, soaring debt and ObamaCare.

Americans are more deeply worried than at any time since the 1970s about their country's long-term prospects. Why aren't middle-class incomes rising? Why are nonmilitary public institutions failing—from K-12 education to entitlements?

Mr. Obama understands these anxieties, even if he has no new answer for them. So his diversionary re-election strategy will be a combination of class warfare, more government subsidies (free student loans!), and personal attacks on Mr. Romney for being wealthy. Mr. Romney will need allies who can rebut these attacks.

But he'll find it easier to defeat Mr. Obama's argument—even to transcend it—if he offers his own economic narrative that reaches back to the mistakes of the Bush Administration to explain how we got here and how he can get us out. Politically, this will help shield Mr. Romney from Mr. Obama's inevitable attempt to link the Republican to the Bush era. Such a critique also has the advantage of being true.

Continue reading.

Romney's got to hammer away on the Obama debt explosion, for one thing. Dennis Prager was making a similar argument on Hannity's, which I posted previously: "Mitt Romney Sweeps 5 Northeast States, Effectively Clinching GOP Nomination."

Stand Your Ground Conservatives!

Just read Michelle's report: "Conservative consumers: Stand your ground."

She writes: "Silence is complicity. Speak now or surrender your ground."

Michael Yon Slams ''Drunken Monkeys', 'Milkooks', and More

This one is like, "Whoa man, WTF!"

See Michael Yon's post, "Drunken Monkeys, Milkooks, Military, and the Media" (via Glenn Reynolds).

Grab a cup of coffee.

Woman Fired After Donating Kidney to Her Boss

My wife mentioned this story to me the other day and then I saw this clip on CNN.

Truly unbelievable.

See the New Jersey Star-Ledger, "Risky business? Woman alleges she was fired after donating kidney to boss."

And I didn't know you can take back an organ donation, but here's this, at London's Daily Mail, "Give it back! Mom 'who was fired after donating kidney to ailing boss' now demands the organ is returned."

It's an awful story, but Debbie Stevens, the organ donor, screwed up if you ask me. Giving your kidney to save your boss is a conflict of interest --- and in this case the conflict was that Stevens was in an inferior power position. She was vulnerable. Her altruism overtook her rationality. I doubt she would ever be so generous with a life-saving organ again, if she even had another to give --- or at least, never in a situation in which the recipient had that much power to really harm her life chances.

Supreme Court May Uphold Arizona's SB 1070

Actually, the Court may be willing to uphold a part of the law.

William Jacobson reports: "Oral argument reports: Supreme Court appears poised to uphold key part of Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070)."

And see CSM, "Arizona immigration law: Another setback for Obama at Supreme Court?"

Walter Williams: The Power of Profit

Walter Williams at Prager University, via Small Dead Animals:

And buy Dennis Prager's new book: Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.

Relatives of Ousted Chinese Leader Bo Xilai Ensnared in Scandal

I haven't been following this one as much as I'd like, but things are getting even more interesting than usual.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Scandal Ensnares Relatives of Fallen Chinese Leader":

The scandal surrounding fallen Chinese leader Bo Xilai spread to his wider family as his elder brother resigned as a deputy chairman of a Hong Kong-listed company, shortly after Mr. Bo's son issued a statement to counter allegations he lived an extravagant lifestyle.

The moves represented the first public acknowledgments of the crisis by members of the elite Bo family. Mr. Bo's father, Bo Yibo, was one of the revered "Eight Immortals," leaders who helped build prosperity for China after the political upheavals that followed the Communist revolution in 1949. The Bo scandal has highlighted the business interests and lavish lifestyles of offspring of such party aristocracy, often called "princelings."

Bo Xilai was suspended from the powerful Politburo this month and placed under investigation for "serious discipline violations." His wife, Gu Kailai, is a murder suspect in the death of British businessman Neil Heywood.

Their son, Bo Guagua, a postgraduate student at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, has been implicated loosely in the scandal through a government statement that said he and his mother had been close to Mr. Heywood, but that the relationship had soured over a business dispute.

Bo Xilai's elder brother, Bo Xiyong, resigned on Wednesday as deputy chairman at China Everbright International Ltd., a state-controlled energy and environmental company, "for the best interest of the company and its shareholders," according to a company statement. It added that Bo Xiyong had no disagreement with the board.

Bo Xiyong had been on the board since 2003. He is also a deputy general manager with its state-owned parent, China Everbright Group, which he joined in 1998. It wasn't immediately clear whether he also stepped down from that position. Since joining the board, Bo Xiyong has been paid cash compensation some years as high as $346,000, a total over his tenure of $1.8 million. In 2010 and 2011, Bo Xiyong exercised stock options worth $5.2 million, according to data service S&P Capital IQ. He continues to hold options worth $3.2 million.

Continue reading.

And see The Other McCain, "International Intrigue Surrounds Harvard University Graduate Student Bo Guagua."

Why America is Coming Apart Along Class Lines

From Reason.tv (via Theo Spark):

And buy Murray's book: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

Revisiting the L.A. Riots

The Los Angeles Times has been running some articles on the 20th anniversary of the riots, but I've not posted any of them so far, since the paper's lionizing Rodney King, who deserves none of that, in my opinion. Neon Tommy has some related coverage, "L.A. Riots: Rodney King Reflects On 20th Anniversary." And check the photos at the Times, "Photo sliders: Revisiting flashpoints from L.A. riots, 1992 and 2012."

And see the New York Times, "In Years Since the Riots, a Changed Complexion in South Central":

LOS ANGELES — When racially charged riots blazed here two decades ago, South Central became a national symbol of rage in a poor black neighborhood.

But the population of the area has changed significantly in the time since the acquittal of white police officers in the Rodney King beating inflamed racial tensions across this city.

Today, immigrants from Mexico and Central America live on blocks that generations ago were the only places African-Americans could live. In the former center of black culture in Los Angeles, Spanish is often the only language heard on the streets.

Now, signs for “You buy, we fry” fish markets catering to Southern palates have been replaced by Mexican mariscos and Salvadoran pupuserias. In the historic jazz corridor, where music legends once stayed when they were barred from wealthy white neighborhoods in the city, botanicas sell folk and herbal remedies from Latin America.

In the 1990s, black residents made up roughly half the population in South Central. Today, Latinos account for about two-thirds of the residents in what is now called South Los Angeles — “Central” was officially scrubbed from the neighborhood’s name by the City Council in 2003. In the 20-some square miles that make up the area, stretching southwest of downtown from the Santa Monica Freeway to the Century Freeway and as far west as Inglewood, there are 80,000 fewer blacks than there were in 1990.

“This is a huge, pivotal shift, as important as any other population change or migration we’ve had in the city,” said Raphael J. Sonenshein, the executive director at the Pat Brown Institute at California State University, Los Angeles, who has studied racial politics in Los Angeles for decades. “It affects the African-American community’s sense of self as it sees a geographic core that really matters to people erode. It changes the whole sense of the neighborhood.”

Continue reading.

'Steynamite' Reactions

At Blazing Cat Fur, "An evening of jovial bigotry...much of it actionable under both provincial and federal law."

We had a wonderful time at Steynamite. Steyn, Coren, Krista Erickson & Jonathan Kay all shone brightly. Several jurisdictions worth of human rights code lay in tatters by evening's end, and we loved it.

Passenger Jets Fight to Land in Wind-Whipped Bilbao, Spain

This is pretty amazing.

A couple of those planes slam down pretty hard too. It'd be interesting to hear the reports from passengers.

Smokin' Katherine Jenkins on #DWTS

I haven't been watching Dancing With the Stars this season, but my wife has.

I sat down and watched on Monday night and was blown away by Katherine Jenkins, who was dancing up a storm and looking like a million bucks while at it.

No surprise then she's featured at London's Daily Mail, "Golden girl! Katherine Jenkins sports a beehive and tiny metallic dress as her sexy samba tops the DWTS leaderboard."

Wow, what a number!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Blames GOP for Blocking President Obama's Budget

At Washington Free Beacon, "DEBBIE DOES DISTORTION."

Pamela Geller Speaks Despite Fascist Attempt to Silence 'Islamic Apartheid'

At Atlas Shrugs, "VIDEO: Pamela Geller Speaks at 'Islamic Apartheid' Conference at Temple University, Shoutdown."

Mitt Romney Sweeps 5 Northeast States, Effectively Clinching GOP Nomination

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Mitt Romney claims GOP presidential nomination by sweeping 5 Northeast states":

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Sweeping five contests in Northeastern primary states, Mitt Romney claimed the mantle of Republican presidential nominee — though he has not officially clinched the race — and turned his focus to a general election showdown with President Obama.

Romney easily notched wins Tuesday night in Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and New York — contests whose outcomes seemed all but assured once his chief rival, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, suspended his campaign two weeks ago.

In remarks in New Hampshire, where his campaign began almost a year ago, Romney thanked his supporters for "a great honor and solemn responsibility."

In an echo of Ronald Reagan's question during his 1980 presidential campaign — "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" — Romney asked Americans to consider Obama's "sweeping promises of hope and change."

"After the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama? .... We have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership," Romney said at his election-night party in downtown Manchester. "To all of the thousands of good and decent Americans I've met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance … hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight."

The president's campaign immediately sought to tie Romney to what it called the "failed" policies of former President George W. Bush and to paint him as a far-right conservative who is out of step with much of the country.

More at the link.

And at the video, Hannity's All-American Panel evaluates Romney's victory speech last night.

More later...

Lakers' Metta World Peace Suspended 7 Games for Elbow to Oklahoma City's James Harden

At the Los Angeles Times, "Verdict on Lakers' Metta World Peace is in: Seven-game suspension."

That sounds about right to me. Some were saying he'd be out the season.

More from Bill Plaschke, "Lakers lucky Metta World Peace's penalty isn't longer."

Plus some commentary from Piers Morgan:

LBCC Announces 55 Layoffs — Tensions High as Faculty Union Prepares Jobs Actions and Protests

There's considerable turmoil on campus.

The faculty union is also in the middle of acrimonious contract negotiations --- and job actions, including picketing, are being planned.

More on that later. Meanwhile, at the Long Beach Press Telegram, "Long Beach City College board votes to lay off 55":

LONG BEACH — In one of the largest reductions in Long Beach City College's recent history, its board on Tuesday unanimously approved a plan to lay off 55 employees and reduce contracts for 96 positions for a savings of $5.1 million.

More than 200 students, faculty and staff attended the Board of Trustees meeting to protest the college's latest plan for budget cuts.

Holding signs that read "stop the war on education," students voiced their concerns about staff layoffs, tuition hikes and reductions to summer courses.

"These faculty and staff have been critical in helping students achieve," said student Patrick Harper. "We don't want to see any more layoffs. It's hard enough to get classes."

The latest layoffs will largely affect the college's classified staff.

Classified staff are employees who aren't required to hold teaching credentials, such as secretaries, custodians, maintenance workers and instructional aids.

The cuts include eliminating 43 classified positions and reducing an additional 96 positions from 12-month contracts to 11- or 10-month contracts. Many of the 96 positions include instructional aides, whose contracts will be scaled back due to cuts in the number of courses offered in the summer and winter sessions.

Management will lose 12 positions.

More later...

'Now That's Justice for Trayvon' — White Man Beaten By Mob in Critical Condition, No Arrests, Tensions High

The story's at Jammie Wearing Fool, "White Man Beaten by Mob in Critical Condition: “Now that’s justice for Trayvon”."

And the update from WKRG News, "No Arrests In Matthew Owens Beating, Tensions High."

And the commentary:

* Jim Treacher, "And now it's time to play: How Deep Did They Bury the Lede?" (via Memeorandum):

Well done, Spike Lee. Nice job, NBC. Keep up the good work, ABC. And to everyone else who’s been using a shooting in Florida to foment hate and divide people by the color of their skin, kudos. Don’t let this attack, and similar attacks across America, bother you. If you had a conscience, we never would’ve heard of you in the first place.

* AoSHQ, "20 Blacks Beat White Interloper With Makeshift Bludgeons; Victim In Critical Condition; One Attacker Said, 'Now That's Justice For Trayvon'."

* Power Line, "If You Don't Look Like Obama's Son, No One Cares."

* Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom, "Raw Story: A Profile in Leftist Media Mattering D-Baggery."

And the progressives at Memeorandum are dissing the reaction on the right. Check No More Mr. Nice Blog, for example, "SO DOES THIS MEAN THE RIGHT PLANS TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR TIM McVEIGH?"

You can't make that sh*t up.

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and The Decline of Racism and Violence in America

Here's Kennedy from Reason.tv, via Instapundit: