Sunday, May 24, 2015

Americans Move Left Ideologically, and So Does Flip-Flopping Hillary Clinton

Whatever it takes to get elected. Not a bone of conviction in this woman's body.

At LAT, "Hillary Clinton has shifted left, but so have Americans":
Amid discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton's move to the left in her presidential campaign, a new Gallup poll provides an important piece of context: The nation has shifted left, as well.

In recent weeks, Clinton has called for reforming the nation's criminal justice system to reduce the number of people in prison. The policies she backed tacitly repudiated some of the tough-on-crime moves of her husband's administration which helped boost incarceration rates.

She has advocated an immigration policy that would go further than President Obama to shield some illegal immigrants from deportation. Earlier, like many other Democratic political figures, she embraced same-sex marriage rights that she had not previously supported.

Politically, those moves -- and others on economic policy that are likely to come this summer -- have the benefit of fending off challenges in the Democratic primaries from politicians to Clinton's left, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who announced his candidacy earlier this month, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is expected to join the fray in a couple of weeks.

But as Clinton advisors say -- and as Gallup's figures show -- something else is happening as well. Compared with 2008, when Clinton last sought the presidency, the country, and the Democratic Party, in particular, have become more liberal on social issues. On economic matters, the country is less conservative and more moderate.

In 2008, slightly more than 1 in 3 Americans described their views on social issues as conservative or very conservative in Gallup's surveys, while just over 1 in 4 called their views liberal or very liberal.

Since then, the number of self-described liberals on social policy has gone up, and the number of conservatives has declined. For the first time since Gallup began asking the question, in 1999, the two groups are at parity, with 31% on either side.

The move is particularly striking among Democrats. In 2008, about 4 in 10 Democrats called themselves liberal on social issues, now 53% do, compared with 31% who say they are social moderates and 14% who say they are conservative.

As the number of Democrats calling themselves liberals has risen, the number of Republicans who call themselves social conservatives has dropped, Gallup found. From a high of 67% in 2009, the share has now dropped to 53%, the lowest since 1999. About 1 in 3 Republicans now call themselves moderate on social issues, up from 1 in 4 in 2009.

A similar, but gentler, shift has taken place on economic issues.
More.

And see Gallup, "On Social Ideology, the Left Catches Up to the Right."

Legends of Skateboarding Finals 2015

From last weekend at the Vans Skatepark in Orange.

At Thrasher, "Vans Pool Party 2015: Blog."

I skated with the "legends" bros back in the day.



More video, "VANS Pool Party 2015 Legends of Skateboarding + Pedro Barros Hip Transfer," and "Bowl Skateboarding Legends Final - Vans Pool Party California 2015."

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Branco Cartoon photo Iraq-Legacy-600-LI_zpstryqeoyf.jpg

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's SUNDAY FUNNIES," and Theo Spark's, "Cartoon Roundup..."

Sill more at Randy's Roundtable, "Friday Nite Funnies."

Cartoon Credit: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – With All We Know Now."

Jaime Edmondson Rule 5

Wombat-socho, at the Other McCain, has the Rule 5 roundup, "Rule 5 Sunday: The Road to Sin City."

Also at Playboy, "Jaime Faith Edmondson Playboy Playmate of the Month January 2010."

Video: "Jaime Edmondson Sexy NFL Jersey Photo Shoot."

More here.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Clinton Campaigning in a Bubble, Largely Isolated from Real People

At McClatchy:

CEDAR FALLS, IOWA — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed for her visit. She spoke to four small business owners chosen by her staff in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few questions from the media following weeks of silence.

And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.

Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her, oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.

“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather be in there engaging with her.”

Welcome to Hillary Clinton 2.0. Mindful of her defeat by Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton has embraced a new strategy – one that so far does not include town-hall meetings and campaign rallies, media interviews, even public events.

Instead, she holds small controlled events with a handful of potential voters in homes, businesses and schools. She repeats many of the same lines (“I want to be your champion” is a favorite), participants are handpicked by her staff or the event host, and topics are dictated by her campaign.

Brent Johnson, 35, the owner of Bike Tech, said Clinton campaign staffers walked into the shop a week earlier and asked him if he’d be interested in hosting an event. He and the three roundtable participants were on a conference call with the campaign the day before to hear Clinton’s “basic talking points” about helping small businesses. A campaign aide says they found guests through the small business community.

Clinton’s approach – made possible by her lack of strong competition for the Democratic nomination – comes as she works to relate to working American families after years of being criticized as an out-of-touch Washington insider garnering hefty paychecks for her speeches and books.

But the campaign to show the world that she’s never forgotten her middle-class, Middle America sensibilities can be a tough sell from inside a bubble of armored cars, Secret Service agents and wary aides.

“It’s going to come back and haunt her,” said Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno. “I think it will backfire.”
She can't talk about her record. She's a walking radioactive meltdown of scandal baggage and political corruption.

More.

Hillary's Failed War of Choice in Libya

Cut through all the partisan crap and what's now happening with the Benghazi attack is the ultimate clusterfuck which proves conservatives right all along back in 2012.

At Instapundit, "HILLARY’S FAILED WAR OF CHOICE IN LIBYA: Email calls Clinton ‘public face of US effort in Libya’":
This is a modified limited hangout. Everything you get is sanitized, and none of the worst stuff is being released. And given that this stuff is actually fairly bad, that may provide a sense of what they’re holding back.
Click through to read the whole thing.

Dani Mathers — Playboy's 2015 Playmate of the Year

Nice.

Watch: "2015 Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers Turns it Way Up."

Angels Hammer Red Sox 12-5, Scoring 9 Runs in Fifth Inning

Finally, my Angels turn on the offense.

Mike Trout was called out at third base after a wild "Matrix-like" slide, but had the call reversed after the manager's challenge. The Angels ended up scoring 9 runs in 39 minutes during the fifth inning. It was incredible.

At the Boston Herald, "Rick Porcello implodes as Red Sox routed by Angels":


For the first time in a while, the Red Sox moribund offense wasn’t the main concern last night at Fenway Park.

Instead the starting pitching took the top spot on the list of worries, as righty Rick Porcello couldn’t make it out of the fifth inning in a 12-5 loss to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the Sox’ third straight loss and fourth in their past five games.

The Angels offense entered the game ranked 14th in the American League, worse than the 12th-ranked Sox. But Los Angeles scored nine runs in the fifth inning after Porcello walked the first two batters and the Angels ran away from there.

“I just walked those two guys in the fifth. That hurt. … Those two walks and then not being able to get out of that was the difference,” Porcello said. “So I take full responsibility for the loss today. That was completely on me and I’ve got to be better.”
Also at Halo Heaven, "BOSTON BLITZED: Angels and Mike Trout crush Red Sox 12-5":
Albert Pujols got the Angels on the board in the fourth with a laser beam solo homerun, and Marc Krauss was able to drive in a run a few batters later with a fielder’s choice. Those are both amazing things, but we don’t need to talk about that right now. We need to talk about that fifth. That 37 minute long, NINE runs scored fifth inning...just to put a point on it. We’ve seen their pitiful run differential numbers this past week, and this game will hopefully serve as a harbinger of a 180 degree turn about to happen; an antidote to the one run nailbiter disease they’ve been infected with in the month of May. There was everything you could possibly want out of an Angels baseball game. You got the rare Chris Iannetta moonshot homer. You got to point and laugh as recent Cuban call-up Rusney Castillo dropped a routine fly ball, allowing a run. You got to see Erick Aybar hit a dinger of his own, and then you watched as he circled the bases, smiling ear to ear as Albert Pujols went crazy in the dugout. You saw Mike Trout, Kole Calhoun and David Freese all drive in runs. You even saw Matt Joyce have a good game! It was heaven on Earth. But above all that, you saw something that you still don’t believe happened. Mike Trout, attempting to steal third base, was basically gunned down; 100% dead to rights. Mike Trout, seeing the tag coming from Brock Holt, entered into Matrix bullet-time mode, did a swim move OVER the tag, twisted his torso a bit, completely and inexplicably avoiding the tag all while keeping his foot on the bag. Unreal. All told, the fifth inning saw the Angels put up nine runs, six hits, two walks and a dumptruck full of Schadenfreude.

That was easily the best inning of baseball we’ve watched all year, and it came against a dream punching bag opponent. The Angels did let the Red Sox into the game a tad, as Richards ended up allowing 5 runs over six innings and had to be pulled for Jose Alvarez. So perhaps this game wont help the run differntial bottom line all that much in the end, but that’s not enough to sour the sweet taste of those Red Sox Nation tears. I don’t know if this game is a sign of things to come, but right now, I don’t care. The Angels came into Fenway, laid a monster beating on Boston, and Mike Trout bent space and time to the deliver the thrills that pay the bills. That’s all that matters right now.

Santa Barbara Refugio Oil Spill is Bleak Reminder of 1969 Environmental Disaster

I'll never forget, back in 1992, when my wife and I moved to Santa Barbara, after a day at the beach your feet would be covered in black tar. It was never like that in Orange County growing up as a kid, spending summers at the beach. Santa Barbara had the catastrophic oil spill in 1969 and the oil was still stuck deep into the sand. You had to scrape the tar off.

So this week's oil spill at Refugio State Beach is bringing back bitter reminders of the dangers of oil extraction along the coast. As the Los Angeles Times reports, "Santa Barbara oil pipeline leak rekindles memories of 1969 disaster":

It was a scene that generations of people on the Santa Barbara coast have dreaded: Cleanup workers in white protective suits combing tar-splattered beaches, hoping to contain the damage from a crude oil spill.

Nearly 50 years ago, a blowout on an offshore oil platform spewed more than 3 million gallons of oil into the Santa Barbara Channel and devastated the coastline, killing thousands of seabirds and galvanizing the U.S. environmental movement.

The spill that occurred Tuesday when a pipeline ruptured near U.S. 101 was far smaller — up to 105,000 gallons. But the incident gave rise to similar anger and frustration on the part of residents and environmentalists who have long feared a repeat of the 1969 disaster along the same sensitive coastline.

Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal, standing above a pile of blackened, oil-covered rocks at Refugio State Beach, said that the spill "reminds us of the perils this industry has."

On Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard deployed half a dozen vessels to skim oil from the water and contain it with booms as crews of cleanup workers removed tar and oil from sand and rocks on the shoreline and shoveled mud into clear plastic bags.

Federal authorities said the 24-inch pipeline leaked for several hours after it ruptured near Refugio State Beach. Crews stopped the leak by 3 p.m., Coast Guard Petty Officer Andrea Anderson said.

The oil flowed down a culvert and into the ocean, and by Wednesday morning had formed two slicks totaling a combined nine miles in length.

Authorities estimated that it could take at least three days to clean up the spill.

The rupture occurred on an 11-mile pipe owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline that carries crude from a storage tank in Las Flores to a facility in Gaviota. The pipeline is part of a larger oil transport network that is centered in Kern County and carries oil to refineries throughout California.

The pipeline was designed to carry about 150,000 barrels of oil per day, according to company officials.

The company said its estimate of 105,000 gallons spilled is a worst-case scenario based on the line's elevation and flow rate, which averages about 50,400 gallons an hour. Of that, about 21,000 gallons reached the ocean, but both figures are under investigation, according to a statement from the company and state and federal officials. Investigators won't find a cause for the rupture until they excavate the line, which was installed in 1987. An employee noticed problems and shut the line down about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, the statement said.

That pipeline had not ruptured before, the company said. An inspection of the line using an internal tool was completed a few weeks ago but results hadn't come back before Tuesday's incident, the company said.

Michelle Rogow, a site manager with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said the pipeline had been regulated by the State Fire Marshal until two years ago, when jurisdiction was transferred to the Department of Transportation.

Below the spill site, just west of Refugio State Beach, a wide, black path stained the landscape of eucalyptus trees and shrubs. The oil apparently flowed through a storm drain that runs under U.S. 101 and train tracks, and into the ocean.

Officials were investigating reports of dead and live birds covered in oil, but the state Department of Fish and Wildlife did not have an official count of the animals affected. The agency deployed teams on shore — and one in a boat — to look for birds, marine mammals and other wildlife harmed by the spill.

But some of the victims of the spill were becoming apparent...
More.

Lots more at the "oil spill" search link.

We Were Right to Fight in Iraq

From William Kristol, at USA Today:
We were right to invade Iraq in 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein, and to complete the job we should have finished in 1991.

Even with the absence of caches of weapons of mass destruction, and the mistakes we made in failing to send enough troops at first and to provide security from the beginning for the Iraqi people, we were right to persevere through several difficult years. We were able to bring the war to a reasonably successful conclusion in 2008.

When President Obama took office, Iraq was calm, al-Qaeda was weakened and ISIS did not exist. Iran, meanwhile, was under pressure from abroad (due to sanctions) and at home (due to popular discontent, manifested by the Green uprising in the summer of 2009).

The Obama administration threw it all away...
Keep reading.

Roger Daltrey Threatened to Walk Off Stage If Fan Smoking Marijuana Didn't Put It Out

We live in interesting times.

You can't even smoke a fat one at a Who concert nowadays, man.

At LAT:



Friday, May 22, 2015

Be Afraid of Marco Rubio, Democrats. Be Very Afraid

I love this.

As I've said before, Marco Rubio's a formidable candidate who could siphon Hispanics from the Democrat coalition. And now it turns out that the prospect has depraved Democrats shitting bricks.

At the New York Times, "Prospect of Hillary Clinton-Marco Rubio Matchup Unnerves Democrats" (via Memeorandum):

Marco Rubio photo Marco_Rubio_by_Gage_Skidmore_2_zpsqfxfh1gp.jpg
WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.

An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”

What is so unnerving to them at this early phase of the 2016 presidential campaign still seems, at worst, a distant danger: the prospect of a head-to-head general-election contest between Mr. Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yet the worriers include some on Mrs. Clinton’s team. And even former President Bill Clinton is said to worry that Mr. Rubio could become the Republican nominee, whittle away at Mrs. Clinton’s support from Hispanics and jeopardize her chances of carrying Florida’s vital 29 electoral votes.

Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 before the election.

As her supporters recall, Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the 2008 elections after drawing similar contrasts himself.

Patti Solis Doyle, who ran Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for most of the 2008 contest, said Mr. Rubio “could have the ability to nip away at the numbers for the Democrats.”

Ms. Doyle, the first Hispanic woman to manage a presidential campaign, added that Mr. Rubio could allow Republicans to regain a “reasonable percentage” of the Hispanic vote. In 2012, just 27 percent of Hispanics voted for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney.

Mr. Rubio “is a powerful speaker,” Ms. Doyle added. “He is young. He is very motivational. He has a powerful story.”

Recognizing how essential it is to win Hispanic support, Mrs. Clinton has gone further in laying out an immigration policy than she has on almost any other issue, saying that she would extend greater protections to halt deportations of people in the United States illegally. She has also hired a former undocumented immigrant to lead her Latino outreach efforts.

Her own strategists, their allies in the “super PACs” working on her behalf and the Democratic Party all say they see plenty of vulnerabilities in Mr. Rubio’s record and his views. And they are trying to shape the perception people have of him while polls show that he is still relatively unknown: Yes, the Democratic National Committee said in a recent memo, Mr. Rubio was a fresh face, but one “peddling a tired playbook of policies that endanger our country, hurt the middle class, and stifle the American dream.”

So far, Democrats who have combed over Mr. Rubio’s voting record in the Senate have seized on his opposition to legislation raising the minimum wage and to expanding college loan refinancing, trying to cast him as no different from other Republicans.

The subtext: He may be Hispanic, but he is not on the side of Hispanics when it comes to the issues they care about.

Democrats will try to use Mr. Rubio’s youth and four-year career in national politics against him, depicting him as green or naïve — a liability at a time when unrest abroad is a top concern. “A Dan Quayle without the experience,” suggested Christopher Lehane, a veteran strategist who has worked for the Clintons.

Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is of Mexican heritage, said Democrats would also make an issue of Mr. Rubio’s mixed record on how to overhaul the immigration system: He initially supported a Senate bill to grant people in the United States illegally a path to citizenship, but he later backed down.

Mr. Richardson said that would poison his chances with Hispanic voters. “His own Hispanic potential would defeat him,” he said.
Well, if anyone knows how to "poison" a presidential race it's Bill Richardson.

More at Power Line, "DEMOCRATS SAY: WE FEAR MARCO!"

Photo Credit: Wikipedia.

Islamic State Bombs Saudi Arabia Mosque, Targeting Shiite Muslims

It's a Shiite mosque.

It's an Islamic civil war fanning across the region, and the Obama administration's inaction fans the flames.

At the New York Times, "ISIS Claims Responsibility for Bombing at Saudi Mosque." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at the Washington Post, "Islamic State claims responsibility for Shiite mosque blast in Saudi Arabia":
CAIRO — The Islamic State said Friday that it was behind a blast that killed or wounded scores of worshipers at a Shiite mosque in Saudi Arabia, marking the first time the militant group has claimed an attack in the oil-rich kingdom and raising fears of an expanding sectarian conflict in the region.

There was no immediate comment from Saudi authorities on the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility, which was carried in both written and audio statements distributed by accounts linked with the Islamic State on Twitter.

The Islamic State communique said that a “martyrdom-seeking brother” set off an explosive belt during a gathering of “impure” Shiites, according to the SITE Intelligence group, which monitors militant postings on social media and elsewhere.

The Sunni extremist group views Shiites as Muslim heretics and opposes the Saudi leadership’s ties with the West. The same statement called the attack a “unique operation” and referred to the group’s newly formed “Najd Province,” which encompasses central Saudi Arabia and includes the Saudi capital, Riyadh. The Saudi monarchy presides over Islam’s two holiest sites, making the kingdom a hugely symbolic target for Islamist militants.

In a statement also posted Friday on Twitter, the Saudi Health Ministry said 21 people were killed and 123 wounded in the blast.

The suicide bomber targeted worshipers at a mosque in the village of Qadeeh in the province of Qatif, part of a mostly Shiite enclave about 240 miles northeast of the capital.

An activist, Naseema al-Sada, told the Associated Press that a suicide bomber detonated explosives as worshipers marked the birth of the 7th century Shiite saint, Imam Hussein. The official Saudi News Agency reported an explosion at the mosque but had no further details. The report said authorities launched an investigation into the attack.

Saudi Arabia’s eastern region, which is the heartland of the kingdom’s Shiite minority, has been the scene of sporadic unrest and violence for years. Shiites, who account for an estimated 12 percent of the Saudi population, say they face widespread discrimination from the kingdom’s Sunni leaders. And Shiite protesters have clashed with Saudi security forces during demonstrations for greater rights in the past...
More.

Also at Euronews, "ISIL to blame for Saudi Arabia Shi'ite mosque suicide attack."

And at Reuters, "Suicide bomber strikes Saudi Shi'ite mosque," and Russia Today, "Dozens dead after suicide bomber strikes Shiite mosque in Saudi Arabia."

Rachel Farrokh, 40-Pound Woman Dying from Anorexia, Makes Desperate Plea for Medical Help

It's hard to watch.

WPIX-TV New York, "Woman weighing just 40 pounds pleading for help funding anorexia treatment."

The video's here: "Rachel's Road to Recovery."

How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9/11

With Obama's capitulation to Islamic State in Iraq, this book is more relevant than ever.

From David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, Party of Defeat.

 photo 11050209_10207076412331711_644740990200402157_n_zpskeiizugv.jpg

Rand Paul 'believes the U.S. should shy away from confronting forces of evil rather than standing up to them...'

A penetrating essay, from Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Rand’s Sad Tale of Two Filibusters."

'Do You Think John Boehner Should Resign for His Role in Deflategate?'

Heh, this is the best.

Via iOWNTHEWORLD Report, "Can We Just Cut the Crap About Millennials Being the Most Educated Generation Ever?!?"


Fall of Ramadi is Military Humiliation and Humanitarian Disaster

A blistering editorial, at the Wall Street Journal, "Losing in Iraq Again":
No matter how much the Pentagon and White House downplay it, the fall of Ramadi to Islamic State on Sunday shows that President Obama’s strategy is failing. The question now is whether Mr. Obama has the political courage to change or watch Iraq descend into more chaos and perhaps a Sunni-Shiite civil war.

For now U.S. officials prefer the sunny days school of military analysis. “Regrettable but not uncommon in warfare,” says Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of State John Kerry added that “I am absolutely confident in the days ahead that [Ramadi’s fall] will be reversed.” This recalls the generals who said in 2006 that Iraq was making progress even as hundreds turned up in the morgues each night.

In reality, the fall of Ramadi is a military humiliation and humanitarian disaster with large political consequences. The city is the provincial capital of Anbar province, Iraq’s Sunni heartland. U.S. forces waged a block-by-block battle to reclaim Ramadi from insurgents during the 2007 surge because it is crucial to the sectarian geography of Iraq. Winning there proved that the U.S. could prevail anywhere, and it provided the psychological momentum to swing the Sunnis to America’s side.

So much for that. The Obama Administration strategy has rested on a plan to arm Sunni tribesmen friendly to the government in Baghdad to fight ISIS. That’s a good idea in theory, since the Iraqi army has proved mostly ineffective against ISIS while Iraq’s Shiite militias answer to Iran and are brutal and unwelcome in Anbar.

But wars aren’t waged in theory, and the effort to arm and train the tribes has foundered on Shiite resistance in Baghdad and America’s lack of commitment and urgency. A serious training program began only days ago and Mr. Obama refused to deploy U.S. combat troops to bolster vulnerable Iraqi positions. In Ramadi, ISIS took advantage of a sandstorm that prevented the U.S. from supporting the Iraqis with air strikes. But that only underscores the limitations of relying on air power alone.

The larger problem is that Mr. Obama wants to wage a de minimis campaign against an enemy with maximalist ambitions. The Administration often insists that Iraqis must defend their own country, which is true. But after making the ouster of then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a condition of U.S. support, the least the U.S. can do is provide meaningful support to his successor, Haider al-Abadi.

That hasn’t happened. “Until now our feeling is that the international support is not convincing,” Selim al-Jabouri, the speaker of Iraq’s parliament, told Reuters in January. Mr. Obama promised Mr. Abadi no new weapons when they met last month in Washington. The number of air sorties flown by the U.S. and its coalition partners—about 3,800 in all since September—averages about 14 a day. The U.S. flew some 47,000 sorties in the first month of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

The White House and its military commanders have also grossly underestimated the resilience of Islamic State. “The enemy is now in a defensive crouch and is unable to conduct major operations,” U.S. Centcom Commander Lloyd Austin told Congress in March, sounding like White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

U.S. attempts to stand up a dependable Sunni fighting force have been seriously damaged. Ramadi’s fall has humiliated Mr. Abadi and discredited his strategy of trusting the U.S. Mr. Maliki and his Iranian backers are angling to return to power—and unleash Shiite militias armed and trained by Iran. The danger is that on present trend the country will soon be divided into a Shiite east dominated by Iran and a Sunni west controlled by Islamic State.

All of this matters far beyond Iraq, or even the Middle East. ISIS is a global threat, attracting more than 22,000 foreign fighters, including 3,700 from the West. A recent recording from ISIS leader Abu-Bakr Baghdadi, released in English, Russian, Turkish, German and French, called on Muslims to “migrate to the Islamic State or fight in his land.” Nearly all of the “lone wolf” terrorists in the West—including the May 3 attack in Garland, Texas—were inspired by ISIS.

The best way to diminish Islamic’s State appeal is to drive it as quickly as possible from the territory it holds...
Pathetic. The fruits of Democrat Party foreign policy. A disaster all around. And all the left can do is blame the evil BOOOSSHHH!

More.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Father's Day Gift Ideas

At Amazon, Camera, Photo & Video - Father's Day Gift Ideas.

Hey, and thanks to all the readers who've been shopping through my Amazon links. I don't blog for the money --- I don't, for example, do fundraisers or rattle a tip jar --- but I like Amazon sales a lot, especially the books. So thanks again.

$15 Minimum Wage Will Hurt Workers

You think?

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg":
So Los Angeles is raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, and then indexes the wage to inflation, so that it will never fall below this level in real terms. The politicians who have passed this law are understandably very excited that many low-wage workers -- perhaps almost half of the city's labor force -- will be getting raises, some from the current minimum of $9. I'm sure the workers themselves are pretty excited about having more money in their pockets. What's less clear is what happens next.

As I've written before, the existence of studies that seem to show minimal economic impact from minimum wage increases has caused many policy advocates to act as if we can assume that very high increases, like this one, can transfer money from the pockets of the affluent into the pockets of the poor without causing big disruptions. This is wildly beyond what that evidence shows, or could show. The studies in question covered small increases in the minimum wage, over short time frames. They cannot tell us what will happen with big increases over longer time frames (and neither can flat international comparisons, which get influenced by local economic conditions--for example Australia, frequently cited by proponents of the minimum wage, has been having a decades-long commodity boom that is now ending). This matters. It is over longer periods that a minimum wage hike is likely to be most disruptive.

When the minimum wage goes up, owners do not en masse shut down their restaurants or lay off their staff. What is more likely to happen is that prices will rise, sales will fall off somewhat, and owner profits will be somewhat reduced. People who were looking at opening a fast food or retail or low-wage manufacturing concern will run the numbers and decide that the potential profits can't justify the risk of some operations. Some folks who have been in the business for a while will conclude that with reduced profits, it's no longer worth putting their hours into the business, so they'll close the business and retire or do something else. Businesses that were not very profitable with the earlier minimum wage will slip into the red, and they will miss their franchise payments or loan installments and be forced out of business. Many owners who stay in business will look to invest in labor saving technology that can reduce their headcount, like touch-screen ordering or soda stations that let you fill your own drinks. These sorts of decisions take a while to make. They still add up, in the end, to deadweight loss -- that is, along with a net transfer of money from owners and customers to employees, there will also simply be fewer employees in some businesses. The workers who are dropped have effectively gone from $9 an hour to $0 an hour. This hardly benefits those employees. Or the employee's landlord, grocer, etc.
More.

Leftists are idiots. Los Angeles has already had businesses move out of town with the threats of higher costs.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Set the Stage for Civil War

At the Smithsonian Magazine, from 2004, "The Law that Ripped America in Two" (via RealClearHistory):
Abolitionist John Brown—failed businessman, sometime farmer and fulltime agent, he believed, of a God more disposed to retribution than mercy— rode into the Pottawatomie Valley in the new territory of Kansas on May 24, 1856, intent on imposing “a restraining fear” on his proslavery neighbors. With him were seven men, including four of his sons. An hour before midnight, Brown came to the cabin of a Tennessee emigrant named James Doyle, took him prisoner despite the pleadings of Doyle’s desperate wife, and shot him dead. After butchering Doyle and two of his sons with broadswords, the party moved on to kill two other men, leaving one with his skull crushed, a hand severed and his body in Pottawatomie Creek.

In a sense, the five proslavery settlers were casualties not merely of Brown’s bloody-mindedness but also of a law described by historians William and Bruce Catton as possibly “the most fateful single piece of legislation in American history.” Ironically, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by Congress 150 years ago this month (100 years to the week before the landmark Supreme Court decision—Brown v. Board of Education—barring school segregation), was meant to quiet the furious national argument over slavery by letting the new Western territories decide whether to accept the practice, without the intrusion of the federal government. Yet by repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had outlawed slavery everywhere in the Louisiana Purchase north of Missouri’s southern border (except for Missouri itself), the new law inflamed the emotions it was intended to calm and wrenched the country apart.

As a result of the legislation’s passage, resentments became bloody hostilities, the Democratic Party lay shattered, a new Republican Party was created and an Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln embarked on the road to the presidency. Had the law made civil war unavoidable? “I’d put it this way,” says historian George B. Forgie of the University of Texas. “Whatever the chances of avoiding disunion before Kansas-Nebraska, they fell dramatically as a result of it.”
Continue reading.

Crane Fights Tigers at Fuyang Wildlife Park in China

Wild.

At London's Daily Mail, "Don't mess with a crane! Fearless bird fight off pair of attacking tigers after accidentally landing in their enclosure at wildlife park."



ISIS Fighters Seize Control of Syrian City of Palmyra, and Ancient Ruins

At the New York Times.

Plus, video at Telegraph UK, "Airstrikes as Islamic State advances on Palmyra."

And from Peter Wehner, at Commentary, "Obama’s Orwellian World."

Smokin' Jennifer Lopez Cutout Bathing Suit for Us Weekly Cover Photo

Nice!



How One World Trade Center is Bringing New Energy to Lower Manhattan

I can't wait to get to New York again to visit the 9/11 Memorial Museum, and of course the One World Trade Center tower, with its new observatory open to the public May 29th.

CBS This Morning, my favorite morning news show, broadcast from the top of the tower yesterday.

More: "'CBS This Morning' makes history with first broadcast from One World Observatory"; "Take a tour of new One World Observatory"; "Bird's-eye views of NYC under your feet at One World Trade Observatory"; and "Take an interactive, guided tour of New York City with One World Observatory's City Pulse."



FHM Girlfriend Natalia on How Not to Blow the Morning After

"It's the morning after. You've woken up next to a beautiful woman. You wish every morning was like this and don't want to put a foot wrong. Luckily, our FHM Girlfriend is kindly on hand to offer you some very useful advice..."



Taylor Swift Named Number One in Maxim's Hot 100

At Maxim, "Taylor Swift Tops the 2015 Maxim Hot 100."



Baseball is Losing Children

At Instapundit, "NATION’S PASTIME IS PAST ITS TIME: Why children are abandoning baseball. Sadness. I think it’s just too slow paced for the multi-tasking, frenetic, technology-obsessed generation."

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Surprise Rolling Stones Concert in Hollywood

The Stones did a surprise gig in L.A. a couple of years ago. And they did it again tonight.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Rolling Stones to Play ‘Secret’ LA Show – But You’re Probably Not Going."

And at KTLA 5 Los Angeles, "Lucky Fans Line Up for Surprise Rolling Stones Concert in Hollywood."



The intimate performance was a celebration of the June 9th re-issue of the Sticky Fingers album, one of the most revered albums in the band’s storied catalog, the 1971 classic features timeless tracks such as ‘Brown Sugar,’ ‘Wild Horses,’ ‘Bitch,’ ‘Sister Morphine’ and ‘Dead Flowers’. The Stones will kick off their 15-city North American ZIP CODE Tour at Petco Park in San Diego on Sunday, May 24.

Jackie Johnson's Got Your Weekend Weather

Not enough moisture for more rain this weekend, but it's definitely typical overcast weather (with some partial clearing) for the end of May.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Jackie Johnson's Weather Forecast (May 20)."

#MattressGirl Fake Rape: 'Pretty Little Liar' Posters Protest Columbia Student Emma Sulkowicz

Heh.

Interesting day in bogus rape culture.

First, check Ian Tuttle, at National Review, "‘Mattress Girl’ Is a Perfect Icon for the Feminist Left" (via Instapundit).

And then check "Fake Rape" on Twitter, campaigners who launched the "Pretty Little Liars" protest today in New York:



Rachel Hilbert

Some long-delayed Rule 5 action.

At Egotastic!, "Rachel Hilbert Plays Pool, Happy Balls in Corner Pocket."

And at Sports Illustrated, "RACHEL HILBERT: LOVELY LADY OF THE DAY."

Hillary's Sidney Blumenthal Memos Demand Criminal Investigation

A great piece, from the editors at WSJ, "Who Is Sidney Blumenthal?":
Mrs. Clinton emerged from a month of silence Tuesday to declare that “I want those emails out,” though she’s helpless because “they’re not mine. They belong to the State Department.” Yet even the details we know offer broader lessons about the Clinton political method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Kimberly Guilfoyle Has a New Book Coming Out

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

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

Also, Father's Day Gifts in Tools.

More blogging tonight!

Sidney Blumenthal Emails to Hillary Clinton at State Department

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

See, "Clinton Friend’s Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business," and "What Sidney Blumenthal's Memos to Hillary Clinton Said, and How They Were Handled." There's a motherload of damaging information here, but just to pick out one nugget:
In May 2011, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo reporting that affiliates of Al Qaeda in Libya were plotting attacks in revenge for the United States’ killing of Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton forwarded the email to Mr. Sullivan, saying that it was “disturbing, if true.” [Clinton aide] Mr. [Jake] Sullivan questioned its accuracy, but said he would share with others. (Pages 4-5)
Mindboggling, really.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Voters Set for Referendum on Homosexual Marriage

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading.

Democrats Sic Identity Politics on Their Own

It's come to this.

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, "The left has handicapped its ability to debate policy, even among themselves":
They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, we'd have a condescending president who looked down on his female critics as "little ladies" who didn't understand how the world works. And they were right! I voted for Romney, and, well, keep reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the Los Angeles Times, "After 'war cry' fiasco, Loretta Sanchez doesn't rule out another run for Congress":
With her U.S. Senate campaign off to a bumpy start, Loretta Sanchez refused Sunday to rule out the possibility of running instead for reelection to the House of Representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

By the end of March, Harris had banked more than $2.2 million for the campaign, more than quadruple the nearly $540,000 in campaign money that Sanchez had on hand, according to their most recent campaign finance reports...
She can't run for both seats simultaneously. My money's on her running for her old seat in a desperate bid to hold on to power.

A desperate racist Democrat. Aren't they all.

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

She was just a baby.

Sad.

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

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

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

"Microagressions = micro-nooses."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 18, 2015

Mt. St. Helens Eruption 35 Years Ago Today

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Oh boy this is ugly.

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

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

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

"Hateful words" alright.

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


Saida Grundy Vicious Attack on White Rape Victim photo 28D671D500000578-3086976-image-a-1_1431987948680_zpsryfiqiae.jpg

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

Ceding Civilization to Barbarism

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

Running With the Predators

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

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

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

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

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

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