WaPo's Ezra Klein Will Almost Certainly Retain the Title of World's Dumbest Blogger in 2013

An awesome report, from Doug Ross, "WORLD'S DUMBEST BLOGGER: My 'Facts' About Gun Control Aren't Political, As Far As You Know."

Gun Control Laws Seek to Punish 'the People Who Didn't Do It' — And Don't Work Anyway

See Glenn Reynolds' commentary at USA Today, "Gun-free zones provide false sense of security":

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law....

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days...

RTWT, via Memeorandum.

And see also The Astute Bloggers, "SAD, SICKENING NEWS OUT OF CONNECTICUT."

Gunman Kills 20 Schoolchildren in Connecticut

When I stepped out this morning, the facts were still coming in on the Newtown shooting, and by late evening on the East Coast, it's still far from a complete picture on what happened in Connecticut. I'll be writing on this story as I have on previous massacres, hoping to add, if possible, a little insight and analysis on events. Meanwhile, here's the report at the Los Angeles Times, "Gunman kills 20 kids, 6 adults at Connecticut elementary school":

NEWTOWN, Conn. — A gunman massacred 20 children and six adults at a suburban elementary school here Friday morning before killing himself in what appeared to be the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, authorities said.

Sources said Adam Lanza, 20, earlier killed his mother at home and then drove her Honda to Sandy Hook Elementary School equipped with firearms that were registered to one or both of his divorced parents.

Clad in military fatigues and carrying two semiautomatic pistols, he entered the school, argued with someone in the hallway and then opened fire on staff members and children around 9:30 a.m., a law enforcement source said. He focused his gunfire on two rooms. Children huddled in closets and corners as the carnage unfolded.

Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance said police searched "every nook and cranny" of the kindergarten-through-fourth-grade campus after receiving a 911 call. He said 18 children and seven adults were found dead at the school — including the shooter — and two other children died at the hospital. Victims' bodies remained inside the school into the evening as relatives were gathered at a nearby fire station.

Vance did not officially identify the shooter or any of the dead. He said another adult had been killed elsewhere in Newtown, but he did not say whether it was Lanza's mother. Police are questioning Lanza's 24-year-old brother, Ryan, of Hoboken, N.J., the Associated Press reported.

It was the deadliest school shooting since 32 were murdered in the 2007 Virginia Tech rampage.

"Evil visited this community today," Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Friday evening. "It's too early to speak of recovery."

Continue reading.

Also at the New York Times, "No Motive Known as Trail of 28 Dead Is Left in Connecticut." And at the Wall Street Journal, "Dozens Killed in Conn. School Shooting."

President Obama Wipes Away Tears While Describing 'Overwhelming Grief' of Newtown Massacre

It is overwhelming grief.

And perhaps a day like today would be a day to put aside politics and instead get closer to loved ones and God, but no, the left's mass-shooting exploitation chorus is kicking it into high gear.

Here's the take at The Right Scoop, "President gives emotional statement on mass shooting, hints at possible gun control legislation."

And at Twitchy, "In wake of Conn. school massacre, President Obama calls for ‘meaningful action’; Anti-gun zealots turn on White House for not politicizing shooting to their liking; Michael Bloomberg demands a plan."

And this curation's been updated, "Execrable ghoul David Frum mocks victims of Conn. school shooting; Update: Eric Boehlert, Piers Morgan join in; Update: Michael Moore swoops in; Update: Celebrity ghouls crawl out." Plus, "Anti-gun vulture Michael Moore swoops in, says NRA hates freedom, wants children dead."

Expect updates...

PREVIOUSLY: "Report: More Than Two Dozen Dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut."

Report: More Than Two Dozen Dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

The numbers are still unconfirmed, but CBS News Connecticut had this, "BREAKING NEWS: 27 Dead, Including 14 Children, In Elementary School Shooting."

Added: From Robert Stacy McCain, "CONNECTICUT SCHOOL SHOOTING."

More from the Hartford Courant, "AP: 27 Dead, Including 18 Children, At Sandy Hook School Shooting In Newtown."

And from Dana Loesch:

Awful. Some families have less babies to take home from school today. My heart is sick and sad.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 14, 2012

Well, this is totally unexpected:

Assault weapons ban "a commitment" of President Obama's, spokesman says. on.cnn.com/Zq1uF7
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) December 14, 2012

Now at Twitchy, "Execrable ghoul David Frum mocks victims of Conn. school shooting; Update: Eric Boehlert, Piers Morgan join in; Update: Michael Moore swoops in; Update: More celebrity ghouls crawl out."

10:55am Pacific: At PBS: "State Police Briefing on Newtown, Conn. Elementary School Shooting." And at CBS News, "Conn. school shooting: Student says teacher saved him."

11:12am Pacific: At Twitchy, "Disgusting: Lefty celebs crawl out to politicize Newtown, Conn., tragedy."

I'm stepping out for a few hours. More blogging later this afternoon.

Meanwhile, check Instapundit for updates.

Susan Rice Bemoans Partisanship in Whiney Withrawal as Secretary of State Nominee

It's all partisan politics with these people, all the time. And keep in mind it was moderate Senator Susan Collins who was the most implacable opponent to Rice's confirmation in the Senate. (And it was a chorus of leftist Democrats and journalists who've been leading the weeks-long opposition to Rice, but the White House never lets the truth get in the way of an epic smear against the right.)

And Rice took to the pages of the Washington Post to explain her withdrawal? She's a backbench bureaucrat. Nobody needs an op-ed to figure out what happened. Democrats are just horrible people. We watch it roll before out eyes every day. See: "Why I made the right call." (At Memeorandum.)

Hit by ObamaCare, Anthem Blue Cross to Hike Premiums 25 Percent for Individual Policy Holders

The Los Angeles Times reports on the price hikes by California insurance providers in response to ObamaCare, "Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes up to 20%."

I have Anthem Blue Cross, which is mentioned:

Health insurer Blue Shield of California wants to raise rates as much as 20% for some individual policyholders, prompting calls for the nonprofit to use some of its record-high reserve of $3.9 billion to hold down premiums.

In filings with state regulators, Blue Shield is seeking an average rate increase of 12% for more than 300,000 customers, effective in March, with a maximum increase of 20%.

Some consumer advocates and healthcare economists say Blue Shield shouldn't be raising rates that high when it has stockpiled so much cash. The company's surplus is nearly three times as much as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assn. requires its member insurers to hold to cover future claims.

"Blue Shield is sitting on a huge surplus that is beyond what is required or necessary," said Laurie Sobel, a senior attorney for Consumers Union in San Francisco. "It should be used to hold down rate increases when it hits these extraordinary levels."

California officials can take into account an insurer's amount of surplus, among many other factors, when determining whether they think a rate increase is reasonable. Both the California insurance commissioner and the state Department of Managed Health Care are reviewing the company's proposed premiums, but neither agency has the authority to reject changes in rates.

Some other states limit how much surplus can be held by nonprofit health plans. Other regulators press nonprofit insurers to return more money to consumers and the community overall since their stated mission is to serve the public good. Washington's insurance commissioner has said the two big nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans there hold enough surplus to allow a portion of it to be used to reduce rates.

At Blue Shield of California, based in San Francisco, reserves have jumped 77% since 2006 from $2.2 billion to $3.9 billion in September. That has outpaced the company's 19% growth in annual revenue since 2006.

Blue Shield said its reserves have nothing to do with rate increases, and that money has been put aside for the future benefit of its policyholders.

"Reserves are needed to ensure our members' claims can be paid no matter what," said Blue Shield spokeswoman Lindy Wagner. "We need them to protect against uncertainties like a pandemic or another crisis."

The company also expects higher costs from an influx of new customers under the federal healthcare law in 2014.

"It's a once-in-a-lifetime change in the healthcare market that will bring a lot of volatility, and we need higher reserves for that," Wagner said.

Even with these proposed rate increases, Blue Shield said, it expects to lose money in the individual insurance market in 2013.

The insurer said its medical costs for this segment of the business grew 10.6% and what it actually pays is rising 12.5% after adjusting for its portion after customer deductibles. The state's largest for-profit health insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, cited a similar jump in medical costs in seeking rate hikes as high as 25% for some individual policyholders, effective in February.

California regulators expect to finish their reviews of various company rate filings in the coming weeks.

Understand that the Democrats had not a single clue about what they were doing in 2009. They just rammed through this monstrosity greased with lies. WyBlog has more, "Remember when Obamacare was gonna save us thousands on our health insurance? Me neither..."

Steven Crowder's Family Under Police Protection

Crowder tweeted last night:

Right now I have a former police officer, heavily armed at my house protecting my wife. The threats are severe. Prayers appreciated.
— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) December 14, 2012

And at The Other McCain, "Left’s ‘Tent Truthers’ Claim Union Attack on AFP in Lansing Was an ‘Inside Job’."

Plus, from Dana Loesch, "Everything About This Article Is Idiotic."

Illiterate Rap Fans Flood Michelle Malkin's Timeline With Racist Misogyny

I was on Twitter when this was going down.

At Twitchy, "Rapper The Game and fans attack ‘racist,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘hoe’ Malkin and Fox News; clog Twitter with bad English, threats."

Are you threatening me, fool? NOTED. RT @therealgreeley @thegame @meekmill fuck this @michellemalkin bitch up
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) December 14, 2012

Background here: "‘Jesus Piece’: Have you seen the cover of The Game’s new album?," and "Fox News, Michelle Malkin brace for mass exodus of viewers as The Game urges boycott."

Marcy Wheeler's Pro-Union Thuggery — And a Raging Homosexual's Blast From the Past!

Robert Stacy McCain tweeted this entry yesterday at Patterico, "Rewriting History on the Attack on Steven Crowder and the Relevance of Kimberlin/Rauhauser Tactics." At issue is Marcy Wheeler's "tent trutherism," which I also covered here.

It turns out Patterico had a long Twitter exchange with Wheeler, seen here: "Sophistry? No, Lying," and he introduces the post with this:

Behold Marcy Wheeler, @emptywheel on Twitter, employing the usual leftist thuggery and sophistry.

Yes, behold the thuggery. Wheeler threatened to contact the Los Angeles District Attorney's office in response to Patterico's comments on Tuesday's union attacks on AFP and Steven Crowder:

@patterico Thanks though, for checking in. More to copy and send to your boss.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 13, 2012

It's always the same. Progressives, like cornered animals, revert to harassment and thuggery when called out on the issues. This afternoon, as I was getting ready to wrap things up for the semester, I was searching my work inbox for some recent emails on student learning outsomes that my colleagues had sent (my college is doing SLOs this semester). And while going through these I came across this four year-old email from an outraged Steve Clemons, now of The Atlantic, who complained that I hammered him as "leftist nut." I don't think I payed much attention to it at the time. And I don't even remember that Clemons cc'd his complaint to my school's student newspaper, "The Viking," and all five of my full-time political science colleagues (whose names have been redacted). I've been through this sort of thing more than a half a dozen times now. There isn't a more despicable left-wing tactic than to get an opponent's employer involved in an effort to silence dissent and shut down opposing views, but I'm a bit more keen nowadays to how these totalitarians operate:

From: Steven Clemons [mailto:clemons@xxxxxxxxxx.net]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:47 PM
To: Donald Douglas; Viking News
Cc: xxxxxxx; xxxxxxxxx; xxxxxxxxxx; xxxxxxxx; xxxxxxx
Subject: Your Comments about my position on Proposition 8 -- and your characterization of me as a "leftist nut"

Professor Douglas --

I'm surprised you would characterize my comment on my own marriage situation as I wrote about it on Thanksgiving at The Washington Note as a “rant” -- or that you would depict me as a "leftist nut."

For those I am copying on this note, here is my post:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/an_uncomfortabl/

Here is your post:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/gay-rights-and-postmodern-agenda.html

You are a professor of political science whom I have never encountered before, and on your blog, you state that you will engage in serious debate and state your views and positions vigorously.  I admire that and hope you encourage your students to adopt high intellectual standards in their own inquiry and debate.

But what I find odd is that you would engage in personal attacks or offer what is essentially slander of someone's positions and views rather than debating them on their merits.  Your attack against me was not based on an intellectual argument about the institution of marriage but more of a ridiculous assertion that I’m a “leftist nut spewing BDS across the blogosphere.”

I see right away from a logo on your site that you support Proposition 8.  Your side won the debate so far.  Those I favor did not.  But the debate is going to continue to stew for some time, and I hope that you set a better standard for your readers and your students than you do in your attack on my political position.

For the record, I have been far more engaged over the years helping the dissident Republican crowd who have problems with the current course of US foreign policy than I have been positioned with what you call the radical left.  In fact, if you were more familiar with my blog, you will see that I tend to criticize ideological zealotry by the left and the right.

You would also see that I helped produce the recently acclaimed book selected by the New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani as one of her Top 10 in 2008 by David Ignatius, Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Brent Scowcroft on US foreign policy.  That book which was a major effort of mine is not something that what you call the nihilist, post-modern left would subscribe to:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/michiko_kakutan/

I am all for serious debate, but I don’t think that your blog attack on me represents your best work — or at least I hope it doesn’t.  I hope you reconsider your statements.

I'll be sure to stop in next time I am at LBCC which I have visited in the past.  I am from Southern California and was the first Executive Director of the Nixon Center — affiliated with the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda — and no one involved in that institution would confuse my views as those from a radical left position.

Steve Clemons
Director, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation
Washington, DC

Amazing, isn't it?

And all that for what? Well, here's the post I'd written a few days after Prop. 8 passed in November 2008, "Gay Rights and the Postmodern Agenda." And from the introduction:

I did not know Steve Clemons was gay. In fact, the only thing I knew about Clemons, from reading his columns occassionally, was that he seemed like one more classic leftist nut spewing BDS across the blogosphere. The erudition of Clemons' essays did nothing to disguise his representation of the essential nihilism of today's postmodern left.

As one can tell, I'm making an argument from experience that Clemons' commentary on Israel differs little from the anti-Israel extremists in the BDS movement, and I suggested that he "seemed" like a "leftist nut." A normal person would most likely shrug their shoulders and move on. That's a pretty mild attack, and hardly anything exceptional considering the flame wars I've had with people over the years. Perhaps Clemons' could  have just rebutted the points on Israel in a blog post? And slander? That's a matter for civil court? But no, the guy gets his dander up and fires off an indignant response to my work contact email address, copying it to the school newspaper and almost my entire academic department. That's thuggery.

But what's especially hilarious is Clemons' childish reasoning and illogical argumentation. Getting all huffy, Clemons whines about me being a professor, etc., who welcomes serious debate, blah, blah. He then blows off my comments as "not based on an intellectual argument." Er, not quite. And had Clemons himself possessed a shred of intellectual integrity he would have rebutted the evident claim that his positions on the Middle East, etc., in fact diverged little from the BDS talking points that are the staple of progressive anti-Israel eliminationism. But all of that was actually a prelude to what Clemons was really mad about, which was that I'd criticized the Prop. 8 mobs and I called him out for using the same demonizing language that leftists were using to silence criticism of the radical homosexual marriage agenda. As I wrote at the post:

As for the rest of Clemons' rant, I'm a little surprised he's resorting to the same smears of intolerance and bigotry used by every other 9th tier leftist on the web.

The fact is, Clemons' couldn't rebut my comments. Instead, he thought he could bully me with workplace intimidation. And on top of that he pulled off the logical fallacy of argumentum verecundiam, the attempt to prevail in debate by appealing to authority.

Clemons is a self-important egotistical blowhard who couldn't argue his way of out a paper bag, although that didn't stop the dimwitted honchos at the Atlantic Group from making him "Washington editor at large for The Atlantic..."

In any case, here's the pathetic buttfreak's essay on homosexual marriage from 2008: "Uncomfortable Thanksgiving: Obama, Prop 8, and My Marriage." He's attacking traditional Americans as "intolerant bigots." That's pretty strong stuff, IMO, and if you're going to dish it out you ought to be able to take it. But progressive never can, so they resort to the only methods they have left: faux outrage, intimidation, harassment, and threats.

So remember, never cave to this idiots. Steve Clemons. Marcy Wheeler. They're all the same. They're frankly no different from the union goons rabbit-punching Steven Crowder. Expose them. This is who they are. This is what they do.

First Rule of Defeating Leftists: Don't Call Them 'Liberals'

I'm 41 posted an excellent entry the other day, "The Blogger’s Rules For Defeating Liberals."

However, I cringed with all the references to "liberals." These goons are not "liberal." They're progressive collectivists (as the most hardened of them self-identify) or, frankly, simply radical leftists.

Zilla has more:

I can’t stand to see them called “liberals” because there is nothing “liberal” about them. Words matter, as they say. Call ‘em what they really are: LEFTISTS. The edit to the [blog] title is from me, because I don’t want to see the freaks called by their preferred misnomer at any place that I have editorial control over.

When referring to "liberals," the proper meaning makes reference to those early thinkers evoking the ideology of individual liberty and limited government, most importantly John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith. The Democrat Party until roughly John F. Kennedy espoused a form of "modern liberalism" that by default drew on America's constitutional foundations in liberty but increasingly sought an expanded role for the state in promoting economic equality and social welfare. Yet, the left today is almost completely unrecognizable from the Cold War liberalism of Kennedy and Harry Truman. Today's left is a quasi-Marxist, state-collectivist ideological apparatus, intent to delegitimize private property and wealth accumulation and to elevate extreme ethnic tribalism as the blunt cudgel of radical redistributionist class warfare. President Obama is the chief class warrior and national divider in this mode, the perfect vessel of the vengeful fever swamp ghouls of the Democrat Party.

Zilla might not even be this charitable, although that's the pretty well-understood ideological bastardization of "liberalism" over the last couple of generations. Today's leftists are the Orwellian zombies who spout tolerance but practice extreme racism, anti-Semitism and viewpoint intolerance. These ghouls preach "peace" and "respect" as the highest principles but instead practice union thuggery and anti-speech bullying and lawfare as standard operating procedures. And more than ever, the left phantasmagorically operates under a false consciousness of objective lies as progressive truth. The "tent trutherism" coming out of Lansing is just the latest manifestation, but President Obama's 2012 campaign will perhaps be remembered by traditional historians as the most dishonest (and morally reprobate) in post-modern history, marked especially by a media empire in service to state power, with journalists effectively functioning as party apparatchiks for the endlessly voracious tax-and-spend regime of the soul-crushing collectivist machine.

That's why people should simply refuse to call these people "liberals." They are precisely the opposite of the great classical liberals, and are indeed the very kinds of tyrants for which the latter developed theories to frustrate, prevent, and destroy.

Union Violence in the Age of Obama

From Michelle Malkin, "'There Will Be Blood': Union Violence in the Age of Obama":

Yesterday [Tuesday], Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed right-to-work legislation into law. The death threats against him are pouring in. The Left is blaming the conservative victims of union violence, as usual. The progressive climate of hate is always our fault. Today’s column sets the Democrats’ call for blood in the context of Obama-era union violence and incitement.

He helped build that.

Read it all at the link. The thug violence in Lansing is not an aberration. It's not an isolated case. The attack on Crowder --- and the racist attack on the hot dog vender --- is just the latest example left-wing bullying and malevolent muscle. This is what they do. This is who they are.

Angry Atheism Drove Nativity Scenes From Santa Monica

An awesome commentary, from Rabbi Michael Gotlieb, at the Los Angeles Times, "Santa Monica Ban on Religious Displays Leaves Us All Poorer":

Today's atheism is different from the atheism of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Nietzsche, Russell and Voltaire did not gloat over the presumed death or nonexistence of God. There was no triumphalism in their assertions. While not enamored of organized religion, they did not view it as a singular force for evil.

Things have changed. Outspoken, angry 21st century atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens have sought to eradicate God and organized religion from the planet; faith-based religion in any form is unacceptable to them. When studying these modern-day thinkers, the late Herbert Marcuse's lament proves fitting and prescient: "We, no matter the side, become fanatical in our own anti-fanaticism."

Today's atheists hold that religion educates children and adults to hate in the name of their pious doctrines. Religion, they tell us, encourages followers to engage in God-directed slaughter and conquest of innocents. Its mission is to convert skeptics — or worse, subdue nonbelievers — until the whole world buckles.

The truth is, they're partly right. There have always been people who commit evil in the name of God and religion. They do indeed give religion and God a horrible name. Such behavior is perverse, inexcusable and, of course, sinful.

But today's atheists are as extreme in their convictions as the fire-and-brimstone believer. The resolute follower knows beyond any doubt that God exists, whereas the atheist knows beyond any doubt that God is a figment of the imagination. I'm reminded of the aphorism: To the believer there are no questions; to the atheist, there are no answers.

As a Jew and a rabbi, my speaking out in support of Christians who wish to display a Nativity scene on public land can potentially carry more weight than a priest or minister speaking out. The reason is simple: It's not my religious narrative. More important, faithful Christians do not threaten me. If anything, I'm inspired by them. By definition, different people from different faiths view God and religion differently.

In the meantime, Santa Monica, where I live and serve a congregation, is less festive, bright and accepting this Christmas season. And given my city's current municipal policy — one that forbids the use of public.

So true. One more example of progressives making everybody less well off.

But read the whole thing.

Modern Workplace Distractions

These are office and work-station distractions. Things are a little different in my profession. In the classroom much of my job is working to minimize distractions, keeping students on task. The technology is everywhere. Students must put it away or you'll have multitasking nightmares.

But see the Wall Street Journal, "Workplace Distractions: Here's Why You Won't Finish This Article":

In the few minutes it takes to read this article, chances are you'll pause to check your phone, answer a text, switch to your desktop to read an email from the boss's assistant, or glance at the Facebook FB -1.43% or Twitter messages popping up in the corner of your screen. Off-screen, in your open-plan office, crosstalk about a colleague's preschooler might lure you away, or a co-worker may stop by your desk for a quick question.

And bosses wonder why it is tough to get any work done.

Distraction at the office is hardly new, but as screens multiply and managers push frazzled workers to do more with less, companies say the problem is worsening and is affecting business.

While some firms make noises about workers wasting time on the Web, companies are realizing the problem is partly their own fault.

Even though digital technology has led to significant productivity increases, the modern workday seems custom-built to destroy individual focus. Open-plan offices and an emphasis on collaborative work leave workers with little insulation from colleagues' chatter. A ceaseless tide of meetings and internal emails means that workers increasingly scramble to get their "real work" done on the margins, early in the morning or late in the evening. And the tempting lure of social-networking streams and status updates make it easy for workers to interrupt themselves.

"It is an epidemic," says Lacy Roberson, a director of learning and organizational development at eBay Inc. EBAY -0.25% At most companies, it's a struggle "to get work done on a daily basis, with all these things coming at you," she says.

Office workers are interrupted—or self-interrupt—roughly every three minutes, academic studies have found, with numerous distractions coming in both digital and human forms. Once thrown off track, it can take some 23 minutes for a worker to return to the original task, says Gloria Mark, a professor of informatics at the University of California, Irvine, who studies digital distraction.

Companies are experimenting with strategies to keep workers focused. Some are limiting internal emails—with one company moving to ban them entirely—while others are reducing the number of projects workers can tackle at a time.

Last year, Jamey Jacobs, a divisional vice president at Abbott Vascular, a unit of health-care company Abbott Laboratories, ABT -0.24% learned that his 200 employees had grown stressed trying to squeeze in more heads-down, focused work amid the daily thrum of email and meetings.

"It became personally frustrating that they were not getting the things they wanted to get done," he says. At meetings, attendees were often checking email, trying to multitask and in the process obliterating their focus.

Part of the solution for Mr. Jacobs's team was that oft-forgotten piece of office technology: the telephone.

Mr. Jacobs and productivity consultant Daniel Markovitz found that employees communicated almost entirely over email, whether the matter was mundane, such as cake in the break room, or urgent, like an equipment issue.

The pair instructed workers to let the importance and complexity of their message dictate whether to use cellphones, office phones or email. Truly urgent messages and complex issues merited phone calls or in-person conversations, while email was reserved for messages that could wait.

Continue reading.

Cal State Fullerton Locked Down While Police Search for Armed Men

When I got home yesterday afternoon, a little after 4:00pm, the high-speed chase was on TV.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Fullerton campus on lockdown after robbery, high-speed chase."

Also, "Cal State Fullerton lockdown: search focuses on Mihaylo Hall."

Hayden Panettiere Bikini Pics!

Very nice.

At London's Daily Mail, "Newly-single Hayden Panettiere shows Scotty what he's missing in stunning bikini photoshoot."

Mark Steyn on Breakdown in America

A great interview, with Michael Coren:

It's Hard Out There for Off-Season Sports Fans

From Bill Dwyre, at the Los Angeles Times, "Baseball off-season can be tough on fans who see favorite players jump ship":

The most intriguing game that baseball plays is not hitting and pitching. It is musical chairs.

This is the sport's funny season. But unlike golf, where the funny season was simply a time for Freddie Couples to make more money for Christmas shopping, baseball's is real and serious.

So serious, as a matter of fact, that we actually might feel sorry for baseball writers.

They spend seven months a year, on expense account, watching a warm-weather game from the best seats in the house, with hot dogs nearby. Then, when the season ends and it's time to rest and re-introduce themselves to family, the real work begins. The stadiums are replaced by cellphones embedded in ears and daily dealings with lawyers, agents, rationalizing general managers and Scott Boras.

Great newspapers should pay them reasonable salaries for the season and a hefty supplement for the funny season. A Boras Bonus.

The pawn in all this is the fan. He is wired to be loyal to his local heroes. He is encouraged to purchase the jersey of his favorite player ($79.95 at the stadium store) and be sure to get his tickets early. This will be the year, he is told. The team is there for his viewing pleasure. Of course, next year, the team will be there again for his viewing pleasure. It will just be a vastly different team.

To be clear, this isn't an attempt to identify good guys or bad guys. This isn't a anti-greedy-player or anti-greedy-owner rant. In the airheaded, overused term of the day, baseball's situation is what it is.

The news comes daily. Fingers point in all directions.

Michael Young is now a Philadelphia Phillie? He had Texas Ranger carved into his heart. The pride of Bishop Amat High spent 12 years as Mr. Ranger RBI. If you were an Angels fan and saw him at the plate with another Ranger on base, you just jotted down a run in your scorecard.

Kevin Youkilis is now a New York Yankee? Has he really joined the evil empire, as did Johnny Damon a few years ago, leaving Boston Red Sox fans speechless and suicidal. Sure, Youkilis made a brief stop with the Chicago White Sox, but he was Boston through and through. Expect jersey burnings around Fenway.

We just got used to Mike Napoli as a Ranger, after a nice run of being the power behind the plate for the Angels. But nope. Throw away that jersey. Napoli is now a Red Sox.

Ah, and so is Shane Victorino. It never seemed quite right to see him in a Dodgers uniform. He was a Phillie, a tough-guy-in-a-tough-city player. Now he is a Bostonian.

Albert Pujols, the best of the best, after all those years in Cardinals red, the modern-day Stan Musial, both in performance and local image, in an Angels' uniform? Good for Southern California, but weird nevertheless.

Yeah, and Pujols had a rough start last season. It takes a while getting used to new lineups.

More at the link.

'Chasing Ice'

There was a blurb on this at Memeorandum. Your daily dose of climate change propaganda. Some beautiful pictures, but at this point folks need to make themselves experts on the science. You simply can't trust anyone in the MSM to report on this objectively.

Michigan Stuns Labor as Blue Model Continues to Unravel

From Walter Russell Mead:

Labor’s clout is in steep decline in the Middle West. In a move that was unimaginable just ten years ago, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed a pair of “right-to-work” bills into law, dealing a serious blow to unions in one of the states that gave birth to the modern labor movement in America. The Wall Street Journal:

Gov. Snyder’s willingness to sign the legislation—a reversal of his previous position that right to work was a divisive issue that he would prefer to avoid—highlights the diminution of union clout both in Michigan and nationally.

The UAW once had more than one million members in the U.S., and as recently as 2004 had 654,000 active members. Now, after years of cuts by Detroit’s big auto makers and their parts makers, the UAW’s national membership is down to roughly 380,000 members, according to Labor Department filings. In Michigan, about 17.5% of workers were union members in 2011, according to Labor Department figures.

Besides the realities of declining union membership, this development more broadly suggests deep splits and ambivalence in American politics: At the national level, Democrats are running strong, but in many states something different is happening. Michigan was long seen as a great example of the blue social model. The high wage, unionized automobile industry supported the state economy and promoted the development of a mass blue collar middle class. It was a great social achievement, and Americans were not wrong to love it, but it has been in gradual yet inexorable decline for more than a generation.

Today’s blue model liberals face a challenge. Can they find a path that actually restores states like Michigan and cities like Detroit to the kind of health they knew back when the blue model actually worked?

Continue reading.

Mead suggests that "red state conservatives have yet to show that they can deliver something better," although right-to-work states, across the country, enjoy far more robust employment sectors than do the states of the bankrupt blue state model. See Heritage: "Simple truths about Right-to-Work."