Tuesday, September 30, 2014

SBPDL: Most Iconic Photo from the Black Insurrection in Ferguson: Yelling "who's streets?!" To #ferguson police...

View image on Twitter




In the animal kingdom, a display of these traits - to a predator - represent grounds for immediate, unrelenting attack. 

Easy prey. [In a Video, Police Chief of Ferguson Apologizes, New York Times, 9-25-14]:

Chief Thomas Jackson of the police force in Ferguson, Mo., issued a stark apology to the family of Michael Brown on Thursday, saying in a videotaped statement that he was sorry for the death of their son and for the four hours that the body of the unarmed 18-year-old lay in the street after he was fatally shot by a police officer. 
In the video, released by a public relations firm nearly seven weeks after the shooting, Chief Jackson spoke for about two and a half minutes, occasionally glancing down at notes in his hand. He was not in police uniform but rather a reddish-pink polo shirt. 
“I want to say this to the Brown family. No one who has not experienced the loss of a child can understand what you’re feeling,” he said, facing the camera and standing in front of an American flag. “I am truly sorry for the loss of your son. I’m also sorry that it took so long to remove Michael from the street. The time that it took involved very important work on the part of investigators who were trying to collect evidence and gain a true picture of what happened that day. But it was just too long, and I’m truly sorry for that.” 
He also extended his apology to African-Americans in Ferguson, who have accused the police department of racial profiling and mistreatment. 
“I’m also aware of the pain and the feeling of mistrust felt in some of the African-American community toward the police department,” Chief Jackson said. “The city belongs to all of us, and we’re all part of this community. It is clear that we have much work to do. As a community, a city and a nation, we have real problems to solve.”
Michael Brown's parents, the odd couple of Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden, were "unmoved" by this public display of cowardice and capitulation to the black mob.  They want Officer Darren Wilson "in handcuffs."

Read More at: http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/09/most-iconic-photo-from-black.html

When Patrimony Trumps Political Preference By Joel Kotkin

Jews, despite their above-average affluence and their entrepreneurial bent, have long been among the most loyal constituencies of the Democratic Party. Half of American Jews earn more than $100,000 annually, three times the national average and far more than typical members of mainline Protestant churches. The only real competition, economically, comes from another outsider group: Hindus.
In 2008, President Obama received roughly 80 percent of the Jewish vote and, four years later, his percentage remained just under 70 percent, even though the alternative candidate was clearly more pro-Israel and enjoyed the support of some Jewish billionaires.
Some Republicans point out that Mitt Romney’s show of support among Jews was the strongest since Ronald Reagan ran against Walter Mondale in 1984. They suggest that Jews may finally be shifting toward the center and even to the Right.
Change on the left
Changes in attitudes toward Israel, and Jews, could hasten this process. After all, it is painfully obvious that opposition to Israel has now shifted from the traditionally anti-Semitic Right to the multicultural Left, and its various offshoots in the media and on campuses. The growing disconnect between left-leaning Jews, such as Peter Beinart, Jon Stewart, Max Blumenthal and Ezra Klein, and Israel makes such a shift easier.
This reflects a growing change in the nature of opposition to Israel, and anti-Semitism, in the West, from the old Right to the liberal-dominated media and the academy. Universities, for example, serve as ground zero for powerful boycott and divestment campaigns against Israel. The campaigns’ purpose is not only to hurt Israel’s economy, or protest its sometimes-unwise policies (such as expanding settlements), but also to cast her as a pariah state.
This is intriguing, indeed, since there seems to be no academic campaign to rein in such huge human-rights abusers – whether against Christians, females, gays or other minorities – as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Egypt. Only crimes by the Jewish state seem to qualify.
This clear inconsistency appears not to have slowed the divestment campaigns which, if not openly anti-Semitic, justify prejudice as a natural result of Israeli policies. Indeed, a Stanford professor writing in Salon placed responsibility for rising anti-Semitism on “the actions of the state of Israel in staging a brutal, prolonged attack on the Palestinian people.” This was echoed by another pro-divestment professor who suggested that “Zionists” were “transforming ‘anti-Semitism’ from something horrible into something honorable since 1948.”
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with opposing specific Israeli policies, as we both do. But you also cannot ignore the fact that anti-Zionism often morphs into eliminationist anti-Semitism.

Read More at: http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00972-when-patrimony-trumps-political-preference


The Tumblr GooBing Detroit shows the utterly jaw-dropping deterioration of neighborhoods in Detroit using Google Street View and Bing Street View. What’s shocking is how rapidly the decline happened! A lot of these examples only span five years!

Read More at: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_rapid_deterioration_of_detroit_according_to_google_street_view

Obama Stokes the Ferguson Fires By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

fixedgear / cc

In his UN address, President Obama listed a parade of horrors afflicting our world: “Russian aggression in Europe,” “terrorism in Syria and Iraq,” rapes and beheadings by ISIL, al-Qaida, Boko Haram. And, of course, the Ferguson Police Department.
That’s right. The president could not speak of war, terrorism, and genocide without dragging in the incident in a St. Louis suburb where a white cop shot and killed a black teenager:
In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri—where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.
What, other than its racial aspect, can explain why Obama is so hung up on Ferguson? At the Congressional Black Caucus dinner Saturday, he was back stoking the embers. ”Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black or driving while black—judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”
Obama is here implying that Michael Brown was profiled, judged “guilty of walking while black,” when shot and killed. But that is false, and Barack Obama knows it is false.
Brown had just knocked over a convenience store after collaring the clerk and was walking in the middle of the main street in Ferguson, blocking traffic, when officer Darren Wilson confronted him. Did Wilson shoot Brown in a racist rage? Or did Wilson, face battered and eye socket smashed in a fight with the 290-pound, 6’4″ Brown, empty his gun in self-defense?
We do not know. And neither does Barack Obama.
For weeks, a grand jury in St. Louis County has been hearing testimony, trying to sort it out. But by implying the shooting was done for racial reasons, that Brown may have been “targeted” for “walking while black,” Obama is stoking the fires of racial resentment. Why is he parroting a party line about America that he knows is more myth than truth? White cops are not the great lurking danger, nor the leading cause of violent death, of black teenagers and men.
That role is fulfilled by other black teenagers and other black men. And the statistics on the ugliest forms of racial violence in America—interracial assaults, rapes, murders—reveal that such crimes are overwhelmingly black-on-white.
Read More at: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/obama-stokes-the-ferguson-fires/

Israeli couples are swinging to survive. One intrepid reporter ventures into the world of group sex, which, its adherents insist, is a way of preserving marital harmony. By Gil Korotki

Coming out swinging: No one is a super model, but it doesn't matter.

In the puritan suburb in which I grew up, no one talks about sex. It's taboo. I'm not totally convinced that they even have sex there. Children there may come into this world the good old-fashioned way – the stork-delivery method. The operating system is a simple one: You get married, you live with the same partner for 50 years, you have sex only with him/her, and then you die. I knew vaguely that there are couples who live differently, and that there is indeed a different kind of sex – people who sometimes swap partners, just for a bit of variety, to add a little spice to the dish of wedlock. And that's just fine.
Sapir College researcher Gali Avidov, who examined the various practicalities of swinging in the context of modern monogamy, argues that contrary to the standard claim that swinging constitutes a threat to love, to the institution of marriage and to the family as a whole, we need to take a new and fresh and sober look at the option of couple swapping.

Instead of viewing it as destructive, she writes in her research paper, perhaps we should see it as a model that could actually save monogamy from total collapse, an adaptive model that responds to the new reality of the 21st century and offers a combined solution, part of which accepts a monogamous partnership, and part of which undermines the generally accepted concept of erotic exclusivity – and all for the sake of preserving and strengthening the love and happiness of the partnership and family set-up.

But does this surprising theory stand up to the test of real life? Well, to examine this question from all angles, and positions, I recruited a free-spirited friend (just between us, would any man pass up on the offer?) and went to a swingers party to check things out for myself. Do I have what it takes to be a real swinger?

Zero sex appeal

The location of the party is kept under wraps. You won't find it on any Facebook group. The only way to participate in the experience is to send a message to a mysterious man and request the precise time and place. By now, I was already suspicious, but I held my tongue. After all, these are normative folk – monogamous in spirit, polygamous in body – who wish to preserve their privacy, who have no wish to publicize their choice of intimate entertainment, the kind at which our society raises an eyebrow and turns up its nose.

The entrance to the location fails to give off an air of eroticism or seduction. To the contrary, the industrial area in which the loft is located, with the fast-food stand on the right and the garage on the left, leaves my mojo somewhat depleted. And in contrast to the super-naughty and mega-cool feeling with which I arrived, the guard at the door didn't appear particularly moved by our presence, and didn't even bother to stop feverishly eating his sunflower seeds, more in keeping with a fan at a soccer match and less so with my definition of sexy.

Read More at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4576078,00.html

Monday, September 29, 2014

The Shock of the New - Ep 1 - The Mechanical Paradise

Werner Herzog on America and His Lifelong NASA Dream by Maria Popova

“The country has always had a capacity to rejuvenate itself, pull itself out of defeat and look to the future. There has always been space there to create real change.”

“America,” young Italo Calvino wrote upon his first visit to the United States“is the land of the richness of life, of the fullness of every hour in the day, the country which gives you the sense of carrying out a huge amount of activity, even though in fact you achieve very little, the country where solitude is impossible.” But for a land this vast, full of this many people of such enormous diversity, what is “America,” really, if not an abstraction onto which each person projects his or her narrow slice of experience? The landmarks, icons, and stereotypes that have come to signify “America” as a kind of shorthand certainly don’t even begin to capture the full dimension of that abstraction, for the measure of any country — as that of any person — lives between the lines of such shorthand, in the richness of the ordinary and the of the aliveness of the mundane.

Read More at: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/09/29/werner-herzog-america-nasa-paul-cronin/

Israel’s Cost To America. And What Happens When We Are Of No Use To Israel?

Let’s begin with 1910-1913. The Rothschilds had several prominent business partners in America. Amongst them were John D Rockefeller, J P Morgan, the Warburg brothers and Jacob Schiff.  There was  a gathering of their agents on a private railcar across the river from Manhattan on November 22, 1910. They went from there to Jekyll Island Georgia to draft the legislation that would become the Federal Reserve Act. Also in 1913 the IRS was created. The Federal Reserve Act gave Bankers the right to charge us interest on money they created out of nothing. The IRS was needed to pay the interest on the money that was created out of thin air.
1917. The Jewish Bankers of London and New York had decided to sell America’s entry into WW I in exchange for the Balfour Declaration written in the form of a letter to Lord Rothschild. Wealthy Jewish families financed the Soviet revolution.
1920-1933. Prohibition made Jewish mobsters like the Purple Gang, the Bronfmans and other fantastically wealthy. When alcohol prohibition was over, drug prohibition began with the banning of certain drugs and marijuana.
1929-1939. The Great Depression. Millions of Americans starved to death. A Leftist radio priest had millions of followers. But no reform was  allowed for the monetary system. The Federal Reserve made rich people richer and poor people poorer. Rich people do not die in famines.
1939-1945. The US was maneuvered into World War II. This took some doing. Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary, had told the Germans that His Majesty’s Jewish government wanted them to gather the Germans together and to protect Christian Europe from the Soviets who had killed tens of millions of Gentiles and had threatened to kill more in Europe. The Rothschild owned Bank of  England had loaned Hitler £350 million to buy guns and to reorganize Farben.  The Polish Jewish Communists began a campaign to kill German civilians. And the Polish government was encouraged to use their military forces to fire at an unarmed German planes carrying mail to Danzig. That did force Hitler to invade. Then the Rothschild owned governments of Britain and France declared war.
Read More at: http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/israels-cost-to-america-and-what-happens-when-we-are-of-no-use-to-israel/

Bleeding Kansas. Republicans are scrambling to save a seat that they thought was in the bag.

Republican chances to win control of the Senate in the 2014 midterms, requiring a pickup of six seats, have taken a blow. Kansas, a state no one considered anything other than a safe hold for the party a few months ago, now appears to be slipping away.
After a contentious primary resulting in a victory for the 78-year incumbent Pat Roberts over tea party challenger Milton Wolf, things have gone steadily south for Roberts. Wolf refused to close ranks and endorse Roberts. A self-funded independent, 45-year-old Greg Orman, has now opened up a solid lead over Roberts after Chad Taylor, the Democrat,  withdrew from the race, trailing badly in third place. As expected, polls that had shown Roberts narrowly ahead in a three-man race, transformed into a 5-10-point Orman  lead with Taylor no longer part of the polling survey .
The Kansas secretary of State attempted to prevent Taylor’s name from being removed from the ballot,  since the law allows for this only when the candidate dies or has a  physical disability preventing him from running, and Taylor fits neither profile. But this maneuver was challenged by Democrats and lost in court. Republicans are now trying to force Democrats to replace Taylor on the ballot, but that gesture  will probably also prove unsuccessful, and worse, smacks of a  near complete lack of confidence in Roberts’ chances to win straight up.
Roberts has come under attack for many of the same things as Mary Landrieu in Louisiana — for effectively  becoming a Washington, D. C., senator, and not a senator of the state. There have been questions about Roberts’ legal residence and time spent in the state, just as with Landrieu. These issues, plus his age and long tenure in  Congress  (16 years in the House, and now 18 in the Senate), as well as  accusations of being a big spending, go-along senator, were primary reasons why Roberts faced his first serious primary challenge in years.
Now the plot has thickened. Orman, who has largely escaped serious scrutiny so far, is feeling the first pushback from national Republicans, desperate to preserve the seat in the GOP column. His business relationship with a jailed Goldman Sachs banker and former board member, Rajat Gupta, is the first hit.  Roberts went on offense in similar fashion against Wolf in the primary fight, accusing his radiologist opponent of being dishonest and unethical.
The bitterness of the primary contest, combined with Roberts’ declining approval in the state, is the reason why many Republicans have so far not come back into the fold and appear to prefer the independent Orman. Mississippi had a similarly bitter Republican Senate primary this year, but the race there remains Republican versus Democrat,without a significant independent in the November field. In  Mississippi, whites tend to vote Republican, and the state’s sizable black population always votes Democratic in even greater percentage numbers. With the current white/black split in the state, Republicans win.
Read More at: http://pjmedia.com/blog/bleeding-kansas/?singlepage=true

Swiss Voters Reject Shift To State-Run Health Insurance by JONATHAN FOWLER

Campaign posters promoting a single public health insurance system are seen on September 21, 2014 in Geneva
Campaign posters promoting a single public health insurance system are seen on September 21, 2014 in Geneva
Geneva (AFP) - Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a plan to ditch the country's all-private health insurance system and create a state-run scheme, exit polls showed.
Some 64 percent of the electorate shot down a plan pushed by left-leaning parties who say the current system is busting the budgets of ordinary residents, figures from polling agency gfs.bern showed.
Going public would have been a seismic shift for a country whose health system is often hailed abroad as a model of efficiency, but is a growing source of frustration at home because of soaring costs.
"Over the past 20 years in Switzerland, health costs have grown 80 percent and insurance premiums 125 percent," ophthalmologist Michel Matter told AFP.
"This is not possible anymore. It has to change," said Matter, who heads the Geneva Physicians Association, which backs calls to scrap the current system.
Campaigners who championed the push for a state-held insurance scheme have said it is the only way to rein in rising premiums and guarantee they are used efficiently and transparently.
Sunday's referendum came after reformers mustered more than the 100,000 signatures required to hold a popular vote, a regular feature of Switzerland's direct democracy.
Read More at: http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-swiss-voters-reject-shift-to-state-run-health-insurance-2014-9

An American Defense Worker Asks: If Affirmative Action Black Cops Were Meant To Prevent Riots…

Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson  “leading protesters on a march through Ferguson”. The protesters are masked, and wear the colors of the Bloods.[August 15, 2014]
From: An American Defense Worker [Email Him] There is something important to mention about the Ferguson riots and their relationship to affirmative action appointments such as Eric Holderand Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ronald Johnson.
Both men are black and it isn’t much of a stretch to say that their appointments to government posts, and the appointments of others like them were the result of Affirmative Action put in place partially to appease blacks after the Long Hot Summer Riots of 1967.
Read More at: http://www.vdare.com/letters/an-american-defense-worker-asks-if-affirmative-action-black-cops-were-meant-to-prevent-riots

Saturday, September 27, 2014

1860 Henry Rifle


That comic opera political website The Daily Stormer has just launched another of its trademark frothing-at-the-mouth attacks, this time on noted nationalist vlogger RamZPaul

The reason? Because Paul had called attention to the senate campaign of Robert Ransdell in Kentucky, a candidate who strikes macho poses and makes emotive speeches reminiscent of old newsreels of Hitler, with constant references to “Black savages” and “the Jews.” The two positions in this case, that of RamZPaul and Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer, are of course well known to those of us on the alternative right.

Paul believes that the declared policies and rhetoric of Ransdell is a way of stigmatizing White nationalism and isolating it from the mainstream, in a sense “ghettoizing” it. Anglin thinks that Paul’s approach is soft and effeminate, and that what is needed is straight-talking and “men of action” like Ransdell – and presumably a Mussolini-style march on Rome. He is also not too keen on catching up with his reading:

“...the boys of American Renaissance and their comrades at Counter-Currents could go on talking and talking about all of the lovely intellectual reasons for White Nationalism for a million years, and the average person would still not care. They would never, in that million years, ever achieve the amount of publicity that Robert Ransdell has achieved in a week and a half.”
Behind this split is the idea of whether White nationalism is or should be an extremist ideology. Paul’s outlook and indeed his persona suggests that, essentially, it is not extremist, despite its current marginalization; and that it definitely should not be.

Anglin’s track record – using the crudest racist imagery and boldly associating his message with the most demonized members of the most demonized regime in the modern age (without even a hint of irony) – suggests that he thinks that it is and that it should be. 

This contrast alone should tell you who is on the side of the White Race, RamZPaul or Andrew Anglin; he who sees White racial interests as the concern of Whites in general or he who sees it as the concern of a small, bitter, Jew-obsessed minority. 

But, while I generally side with RamZPaul here, there is a little to be said in favour of Anglin’s approach. 

Read More at: http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/09/andrew-anglins-inverted-ghetto.html

Reflections on Hilaire Belloc’s “The Jews” (1922) [Part One of Three] by Andrew Joyce

Of all the fallacies that one confronts when engaging with the theme of relations between Jews and Europeans, one of the most easily disproven is the idea that antagonism towards Jews is constantly changing. In the ‘mainstream’ reading of the history of European-Jewish interactions, the friction that exists between Jews and other elements of the society is argued to be linked solely to a Christianity-induced communal psychosis on the part of Europeans. This psychosis is said to undergo almost ceaseless metamorphoses.
The idea is so deep-rooted among organized Jewry that, even today, we are forced to listen to endless bleating about the emergence of a “new anti-Semitism”? This redundant cry resounds almost weekly even though, to the informed observer, it is clear that there isn’t, and has never been, any real change in the essence of the friction between Jews and Europeans. The ‘Jewish Problem,’ if one wishes to employ that archaic terminology, is seemingly as timeless and unchanging as the Jews themselves.
In my examination of Robert Wistrich’s Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, I pointed to that author’s typically contorted argument that a “virus” existed in Europe,  in which “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” Needless to say Wistrich’s phantasm, and similar poorly-fabricated ‘theories,’ are prejudiced at a very early stage by the employment of that fundamentally meaningless term: ‘anti-Semitism.’ By its very nature the term places the Jew or the ‘Semitism’ immediately in the passive position, thereby avoiding confrontation with the true essence of the problem — that there is a mutual friction between two essentially different entities, with divergent group interests and goals.

Concurrent with such prejudices, in mainstream ‘histories’ one finds a wholesale condemnation of many historical writers and their work on the subject of ‘the Jews.’ The gravest sin of these authors was their emphasis on the causes and nature of the inter-ethnic friction, rather than on the ‘martyr-ology’ which today passes for Jewish ‘history.’ Too much analysis, and not enough sympathy. The efforts of these authors were intended to point out the differences, transgressions, and secrecy which together combined to ensure a periodic, and often chaotic, resurgence of Gentile exasperation. I am thinking in particular of specific works produced by Voltaire, Wagner, Bauer, and von Treitschke.
Read More at: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/reflections-on-hilaire-bellocs-the-jews-1922-part-one-of-three/

Ukraine: What Putin Has Won by Tim Judah


Inside Ukraine, driving north from the Sea of Azov, an appendage of the Black Sea, along rutted country roads that snake parallel to the Russian border, we saw abandoned Ukrainian military encampments and the twisted remains of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other vehicles. The Ukrainian cell phone signal died and our phones picked up the Russian one. Wherever we met rebel soldiers, they joked and chatted. They were relaxed. A cease-fire had been agreed on the day before, on September 5, and along the border there was no reason not to be relaxed. Ukrainian forces had been driven out of here, just as they had in other parts of eastern Ukraine.
When the conflict began this April, the Ukrainians rapidly lost territory to rebel anti-Kiev, pro-Russian forces. In the summer, better organized and reinforced with dozens of battalions of highly motivated volunteers, Ukrainian forces began to take back territory. Their most significant victory was on July 5 when the rebels retreated from their stronghold of Sloviansk. Then the Ukrainians began shelling the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk in an effort to drive the rebels out. But their shelling was so inaccurate that hundreds of civilians died, embittering huge numbers of ordinary people. If they were undecided before, many now decided that they hated the government in Kiev.
For the rebels the situation looked dire. And then as August turned to September everything changed again. The Ukrainians claimed that large numbers of regular Russian troops had been ordered to cross the border and help the rebels—over and above small Russian units, which they said had been here before, and volunteers. Reports of casualties began appearing in the Russian press but the Russian government vehemently denied that any of its regular soldiers had entered Ukraine or that artillery in Russia had shelled Ukraine.
I spoke with Sergei Baryshnikov, a pro-rebel political scientist in Donetsk. He is a member of the “parliament” of the Donetsk People’s Republic, or DNR as it is known, using its Russian acronym. The DNR, along with the neighboring Luhansk People’s Republic, which was also proclaimed in April, now make up what the rebels are calling Novorossiya (“New Russia”), which they say is a new state carved out of what Baryshnikov calls “the former Ukraine.” The name “New Russia” is meant to refer to the fact that this is what these lands were called in the eighteenth century when they were acquired by Russia.
Baryshnikov is one of the local ideologues of Novorossiya. When I asked him if there were Russian soldiers here, he replied enthusiastically, “Yes, thousands!” Then, presumably remembering that he should be on message, he said that none of them were regular soldiers. When I asked him, however, if there were regular Russian soldiers who had “volunteered” to come, he said that this was the case.
These troops, who arrived in the second half of August, completely changed the military situation. The Ukrainians were driven out of the border areas of both the Luhansk and Donetsk regions and also of areas on the Sea of Azov. The most crushing and symbolic of defeats came at Ilovaysk, where Ukrainian volunteer battalions were also driven out. They thought that they had made a deal to evacuate but in fact they and other retreating Ukrainian fighters were ambushed in several places. Along a sixteen-mile stretch of road from Ilovaysk to Novokaterinivka I counted sixty-eight military and other vehicles that had been destroyed. In Novokaterinivka the body of a Ukrainian soldier blasted from his tank hung on high-voltage electric cables.

Read More at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/09/ukraine-what-putin-has-won/?insrc=toc

Hillary Clinton's Hollywood Backers Mobilize for Expected Presidential Run

She likely will announce a second bid after the November midterms as Howard Gordon and Dana Walden begin to rally: "People have been very 'Let's wait and see' until now. People are starting to get excited," says Gordon

It's back to the future for Hollywood's Democratic activists, many of whom are convinced that former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will run again for president and are lining up to show support.
As Clinton, 66, was in New York on Sept. 21 for the annual Clinton Global Initiative gathering, the leading pro-Clinton super PAC held an event for more than 70 supporters at the Pacific Palisades home of producer Howard Gordon and wife Cambria. The event was organized by the Ready for Hillary super PAC, which bills itself as a group "encouraging" Clinton to run while laying the financial "groundwork" for a campaign. Several of those at the gathering, co-hosted by producer Ryan Murphy and husbandDavid Miller, told THR that they believe Clinton likely willdeclare her candidacy soon after the November midterm elections.
Murphy, a key Barack Obama fundraiser, says he wasn't hesitant to join "Team Hillary" this time. "It's very important to get a woman in the White House," he says. "That's why I'm supporting her. I've been inspired by her tenacity. I've been inspired by her grace under pressure."
Clinton was blindsided in the 2008 race when prominent Hollywood Democrats — including David Geffen, who had backed her husband, Bill — sided with Obama. Gordon, who supported Hillary in 2008, says he believed showbiz would rally around Hillary this time but was surprised by the strong turnout for the super PAC event. "People have been very 'Let's wait and see' until now," says Gordon. "People are starting to get excited."
Read More at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clintons-hollywood-backers-mobilize-735273

Cowboys and Kalashnikovs: Comparing the Mexican-American War to the Conflict in Ukraine

Porfirio Diaz, who dominated Mexico at the turn of the twentieth century, once famously diagnosed the dual source of his country’s misfortunes. "Poor Mexico,” he lamented, “so far from God, so close to the United States."
Diaz knew of what he spoke. The nineteenth century was a particularly unhappy one for U.S.-Mexican relations. By 1848, Mexico had been impelled to cede—by force of arms or its implied threat—what is now thestate of Texas, and subsequently the entire southwestern United States. For Mexico, this period involved a disastrous loss of fertile, if sparsely populated, territory. For the United States, it was an unsurpassed geostrategic bonanza, and was arguably the single most important event in transforming the country into a transcontinental great power. A messianic, national-chauvinist, white-supremacist fervor—the animating concept of which, “Manifest Destiny,” was first popularized in 1845—drove the United States to annex Texas that same year, and to fight its great expansionary war of 1846-1848.
Indeed, Texas was the catalyst for the whole affair. In the early 1820s, the Mexican government invited Americans to settle the Mexican state ofCoahuila y Tejas, as long as they agreed to certain stipulations (such as conversion to Catholicism and the banning of slavery). The settlers often refused, leading to tensions with Mexican officials. In 1830, further American immigration to Tejas was forbidden. A few years later, federal officials in Mexico City began to attempt to concentrate power in the capital, disturbing regional autonomy. Incensed, “Texians,” as they were then known, waged a secessionist campaign against the Mexican government, winning independence in 1836.
The final status of Texas was never assured: some Americans wanted a friendly but independent buffer state, while others favored direct incorporation into the union. Others still—especially abolitionists, since an independent Texas or American Texas would both presumably be ardent slave states—thought poorly of the whole affair, and would very likely have been satisfied with continued Mexican suzerainty over the whole southwest. (Henry David Thoreau spent his famous night in jail because of his refusal to pay taxes to an unjust U.S. government—that is, one fighting what he considered an immoral war in Mexico.)
It was the question of slavery that kept Texas out of the union for nearly a decade, but once admitted—under President James Polk, a slyly belligerent nationalist—westward expansion took on an inexorable cast. In April 1846, Polk had U.S. troops cross the previously agreed-upon Mexico-Texas border, the Nueces River, and journey much farther west, to the Rio Grande. When Mexican troops then attacked, Polk used this as pretext for war (claiming that the American soldiers were assaulted on domestic soil). By September 1847, victorious U.S. troops were occupying Mexico City. Negotiations there between the belligerents led to the aforementioned transfer (for a price) of California and the rest of the desert southwest.
Read More at: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/cowboys-kalashnikovs-comparing-the-mexican-american-war-the-11345

The Shock of the New - Ep 1 - The Mechanical Paradise

Friday, September 26, 2014

What makes art valuable? - BBC Documentary HD

World's Largest Hog : Documentary on Giant Wild Hogs in Georgia

Can Republicans Win in a Post-Family America? by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

For the first time in American statistical history, the majority of American adults are single. 124 million or 50.2% of Americans are single. Some will get married, but increasing numbers never will.
Demographically a population of single adults means the death of the Republican Party. It eliminates the possibility of libertarian and fiscally conservative policies. It leads inevitably to the welfare state.
Single people are less likely to have a support system that keeps them from becoming a public charge. Children born to single parents perform poorly in school and are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A nation of single people will inevitably become a welfare state and a police state.
The statistics have always been known and the conclusions to be drawn from them are inescapable.
A lot of attention is being paid to the political consequences of the nation’s changing racial demographics, but it’s not a coincidence that the racial group that Republicans perform worst with is also the least likely to be married. While there are other factors in the mix, Republicans do better with married than unmarried black people.
The same is true of most other racial groups.
The latest Reuters poll shows that 36% of married Hispanics are planning to vote for a Democratic candidate in the upcoming midterm election and 28% are planning to vote for a Republican candidate. Among unmarried Hispanics, those numbers change to 42% Democratic and %15 Republican.
If Republicans want to start getting serious about the Hispanic vote, they might want to spend less time muttering about amnesty and more time thinking about where their strength with married voters lies.
Married white voters lean toward a Republican candidate by 43% to 24%. Among single white voters, Democrats lead 34% to 26%.
There are other factors that affect these numbers such as age, race, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. Growing minority demographics have certainly helped make single Americans a statistical majority, but it’s dangerous to ignore the bigger picture of the post-family demographic trend.
If Republicans insist on running against the nanny state, they will have to replace it with something. That something was traditionally the family. Take away the family and something else has to fill its place.
Read More at: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/can-republicans-win-in-a-post-family-america/

America is way too big to be a real democracy. But bigness appears to be embedded in our bones. By Michael Brendan Dougherty

"From sea to shining sea" is an awful long way.
America is way too big for its own good. And you may be sick of it.
After all, Reuters found in a recent poll that nearly one quarter of all Americans are open to the idea of secession. These numbers cut across partisan lines and different regions. It's not about the North versus the South, but about a different kind of breaking up. George Kennan, the architect of the U.S.'s containment policy during the Cold War, wondered whether it would be better if the United States were "decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment." A dozen seems hardly enough.
You can make a lot of hay out of a survey like this. But talking to a pollster is very different from actually pledging your fealty to an emerging nation-state, particularly if it costs anything. We're a long way off from amicable divorce papers. So where does this dissatisfaction point us?
The expositors of our national ideal have never come to terms with just how wrong James Madison was about the nature of an extended republic. He believed that by enlarging a republic, you could achieve the enlightened representational ideal of classical republicanism but without the debilitating influence of factions. Unfortunately, Madison was wrong.
The factions that Madison believed to be "actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest adversed to the rights of other citizens" have found it relatively easy to organize themselves across our continent-wide nation. They are so deeply institutionalized a feature of our governance that K Street deserves the appellation of "fourth estate" more than the media. Madison might have even looked at our national, ideologically separated parties as factionalism writ large.
But Madison believed bigger was better. In Federalist No. 10, he wrote:
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.
This hasn't panned out. At some point, Madison concedes that legislative districts could become so large that the connection between representatives and the represented is effectively severed. No kidding.
Read More at: http://theweek.com/article/index/268664/america-is-way-too-big-to-be-a-real-democracy

Scholar Behind Viral 'Oligarchy' Study Tells You What It Means BySAHIL KAPUR

You published an advance copy of your study on April 9th, and in just the last few days there's been an explosion of coverage and interest. Are you pleased, shocked, overwhelmed, all of the above?
I'm delighted to be able to contribute to a terribly important public discussion. And I'm thrilled that there's so much interest and concern about the issues. It takes on a life of its own. I'm sure you've noticed, this notion of America being an oligarchy seems to be a dominant meme in the discussion of our work. It's not a term that we used in the paper. It's just a dramatic sort of overstatement of our findings. So it's been interesting for me. Typically my work is read by a few dozen political scientists and I don't get this kind of response.
Let's talk about the study. If you had 30 seconds to sum up the main conclusion of your study for the average person, how would you do so?
I'd say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups -- of economic elites and of organized interests.
You say the United States is more like a system of "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" as opposed to a majoritarian democracy. What do those terms mean? Is that not just a scholarly way of saying it's closer to oligarchy than democracy if not literally an oligarchy?
People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.
Would you say the government is most responsive to income earners at the top 10 percent, the top 1 percent or the top 0.1 percent?
This is a great question and it's not one we can answer with the data that we used in the study. Because we really don't have good info about what the top 1 percent or 10 percent want or what issues they're engaged with. As you can imagine, this is not really a group that's eager to talk with researchers.
Read More at: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview

Less Puritanical Than Ever by Peter Lawler

Thanks to Carl Eric Scott for calling attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the moral, political, scientific, and theological views of Marilynne Robinson (perhaps our best living novelist) by highlighting Paul Seaton’s balanced and smart review of her latest book of essays.
Ms. Robinson’s thought really is neo-Puritanical. Mr. Seaton and Mr. Scott, knowing, as they do, the work of Carey McWilliams (the other great contemporary political neo-Puritan), appreciate almost better than anyone what that means. And even when Ms. Robinson’s political opinions are at their most annoyingly intrusive and judgmental, they can laugh and say, “There that Puritan goes again.” Mr. McWilliams and Ms. Robinson don’t always agree, but they both have the rare merit of staying in character.
Now we postmodern conservatives do fault Ms. Robinson (and Mr. McWilliams—who was nicer about it) for being a naive political liberal. But we are, in many ways, liberals too. It’s hard to say whether we are conservative liberals or liberal conservatives. Our friend Dan Mahoney has written about “the conservative foundations of liberal order,” but, for myself, I tend to think we go wrong when we stop thinking of “liberal order” as anything other than conservative foundations for the somewhat illiberal (because) relational institutions that make life worth living.
Today I’m thinking about our “foundations” as a prelude to thinking about our James Ceaser’s unrivaled accounts of American foundationalism and anti-foundationalism. There is going be a panel honoring the work of our James W. Ceaser at the American Political Science Association meeting a week from today. Mr. Ceaser, I sometimes think, slights the Puritanical/Calvinist dimension of even our Declaration of Independence and the way it has informed our political history. I could be wrong, but I’m going to begin by using Ms. Robinson to think I’m right. Mr. Ceaser and I certainly agree that “nonfoundationalism” is a pervasive and demoralizing project, one that replaces the aggressive anti-Americanism of, say, Heidegger with, as Mr. Scott has shown us, the imagination of a kind of post-Americanism. More next time on the exact time and place of the panel.
Read More at: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/09/less-puritanical-than-ever.html

Paolo Di Canio is right — Italian Fascism was not racist by Nicholas Farrell

Mad, bad, dangerous - but racist? Benito Mussolini. Photo: Getty Images.

The truth is that the new Sunderland manager Paolo Di Canio is right: Italian Fascism was not racist — at least not until its fatal alliance with German National Socialism. In truth, there is nothing necessarily racist about Fascism.

That many football hooligans and the entire Liberal Left disagree is irrelevant — irrelevant, that is, to the truth. Racism in the context of Fascism essentially means hatred of Jews rather than, say, of blacks. But here’s the funny thing: Fascism, unlike National Socialism, was not anti-Semitic.
True, the words ‘Fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ are interchangeable these days, and often synonymous with the word ‘racist’. But Benito Mussolini, who founded Fascism, was not anti-Semitic. Indeed, many top Italian Fascists were Jews. The idea that the Duce wanted to exterminate Jews is inconceivable. Margherita Sarfatti, Mussolini’s main mistress and muse until the 1930s, was Jewish. Question: would it be possible for a man who wants to exterminate Jews because they are Jews to fall in love with a Jewish woman and conduct an affair with her that lasts 20 years? Could a Jewish woman fall in love and remain with such a man for so long?
On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning someone called Piara Power, of something called Fare Network Football Against Racism in Europe, said:  ‘A fundamental pillar of Fascism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.’
No. That might be said of National Socialism, or Nazism. But the fundamental pillars of Fascism which has far more in common with Communism than either does with Democracy, were the State and the Nation. Mussolini, a revolutionary socialist, founded Fascism in 1919 as an alternative revolutionary movement of the Left: The First World War had made him, and many other European Socialists, realise an essential truth: People are more loyal to their country than their class.
Read More at: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/di-canio-is-right-italian-fascism-was-not-racist/