Why Choosing The Right Blog Name Is Important

rbniiAfter seeing fabulous blogs on the internet, ordinary people may start thinking about a blog of their own. So the idea “I want to start a blog” is not unusual. People from all around the world are blogging, but not all of them are successful. The most popular blogs are those who have quality content that will attract readers, fans and followers. No one wants to have a blog that will not be visited.

One of the steps in starting a blog is choosing the right name and URL address. The simple rule is this: less is more. The name of a blog should not be too long and not too complicated. People like names that are easy to pronounce and also easy to remember. If the blog’s name is too long, it will not be good. So, to have short name is better. The blog’s name should represent a person who will write posts, so it is ok to choose a blogger’s name and surname as a name for a blog. If the blog will represent a company, then it’s wise to choose a company’s name in giving a name to a blog. Also, a name should be original and easy to write for people from foreign countries.

How To Make Money Via Blog

The blogosphere is a place where lots of blogs exist. Bloggers often meet and communicate, so the blogosphere is today a strong place with strong connections. People who run blogs also visit other people’s blogs and communication is usually being made in comments below blog posts. Many blogs are used as a daily diary, but many people use it for business in order to earn money and improve the business. There is a lot of advice on the internet on how to start a blog and make money online. The most important is that a person makes a good business plan and decides what kind of blog will be the best to earn money.

Some blogs are private and completely non-professional, but still many people use them to drive traffic and advertise their web shops or services on their private blog. Some blogs are combination of two – professional and private life. This combination of business and private life can be efficient as well. But if a future blogger decides to run a blog that will be completely professional and directed to dedicating each post to business only, then a future blogger should be prepared to make a blog which will be divided from a private life.

Can Great Blog Design Bring More Audience?

People who run successful blogs know how details can help in driving traffic. It is not only important to know how to start a blog and make money but also how to make a blog that will be visually appealing to readers.

The truth is that great blog design brings audience. Most of the people today have Facebook accounts and when they see something interesting online, they often share it on their Facebook profile. Great design does not always mean something extraordinary, but sometimes, only few details designed with taste can make a blog to look appealing. Bloggers who have a mess on their blog will reject visitors. If they come to visually confusing blog, they will soon leave it and never come back. If the design is well and attractive, it will serve a blog and not be against it. Too many fonts, low quality photos and too many different colors may look well on some creative blog, but the blog that tends to be professional will have more elegant appearance. The minimalistic blogs are very popular today because they put the content first while visual details are only making the whole blog a bit attractive. Still, content is the most important, but the design is important as well.

What Are The Negative Side Effects Of Super Beta Prostate?

nsospThough there are many good side effects of Super Beta Prostate supplements, few people indicated some cons of it. One of the main problem user extracted from it is its weird effectiveness. They said SBP works faster for some people and for others it works slowly.

Again, this is probably not a horrible thing. Prostate health is a subject that a lot more men are familiar with these days, mainly owing to the fact that so much study has taken place. Prostate cancer, no matter what you think of it, tends to be a major killer.

This is why using supplements in your middle age can actually help a man to avoid prostate issues later on. Early detection is a must for most prostate issues, so you can imagine just how effective early prevention is!

So far, there are no negative side effects that Super Beta Prostate users have reported. This is not to say that there aren’t any. Certainly, if you have a weakened or enlarged prostate and have had this condition for a long time, you might find a healthy feeling prostate to seem quite strange.

Worry not: that’s just the supplement doing its work!

Article Source: http://www.allholistichealth.com/

My Wife is Making Sure I Stay Healthy

wmsshMy wife has been getting on me about my health since I am getting older now. I know that I should be taking care of my body better, but I just don’t like to think about it. I remember the good ol’ days of just being able to eat whatever I want. I sometime wish I was younger just for that reason. Now I have to worry about all the health conditions that older people are prone to getting. I know that heart attacks are very common in my wife’s family which is is way she wants me to take better care of myself. So far she has bought me some supplements for my prostate. They are suppose to help my frequent peeing problem. The brand that she got me is Super Beta Prostate. I read some of the Super Beta Prostate reviews online and they all seem to like the product a lot.

I will try it out for a month to see it if has any effect on my body. I am sure it will though based of the great reviews that it receives. My wife will also be happy if it works because she wants be to be healthier.

What Are Others Saying About Super Beta Prostate?

We know that Super beta prostate is a typical supplement of prostate gland problems. It contains a lot of things and it is hundred percent natural. It is better than saw palmetto in many ways. Most of the people have used this supplement speaks of it well and recommend it to others as they found something special. My uncle is a Prostate patient and he is taking this for almost two months. He always praises it a lot and advises me to take this too.

Causes Of Skin Tag

rstmIt is important for us to learn the skin tag removal procedures. However, before we dwell on this subject, it is important to consider knowing the causes of skin tags. It is evident that some people are more prone to have or develop skin tags more than others. An answer to this kind of condition is still being sort. According to a survey conducted, it is evident that the more one grows older, the more the person is likely to develop more and more skin tags. Skin tags are known to be increasing with age.

Skin tags can be inherited from one generation to the other. A child whose parents have skin tags is likely to have them and also get children who will have skin tags. In some families, skin tags are passed over from grandparents to the children, not necessarily affecting the parents of these children. Secondly, skin tags are caused when a person is bruised and gets a blood clot under the skin. If this condition is not dealt with quick enough, it is likely to cause a skin tag. There are also other incidences when friction between a person’s skin and clothing causes these kinds of unwanted growths on the skin.

Methods Of Removing Skin Tags

General knowledge on how to remove skin tags is important for every household. You may develop a skin tag through different means such as getting bruised, your skin having friction with the clothes you wear and many other different ways. Removing a skin tag does not necessarily have to send you to hospital for the procedure. You can decide to do it just by yourself in the house. This will save your money as well as time. Also, these traditional methods are not painful at all. However, you are supposed to be very careful not to damage your skin.

One method that you can apply in removing skin tags is by use of a duct tape. Tie this tape on the skin tag and let the tape stay for some time. Within a maximum of 36 hours, the skin tag will fall off by itself. Another method that you can apply is the use of dental floss or sewing thread. First, ensure that this thread is clean. Tie a knot around the skin tag. This will automatically cut the supply of blood to the skin tag. Anything that has no supply of blood to it automatically loses life. This will make the skin tag to fall off after a total of approximately 24 hours.

Benefits Of Taking Up A Medical Billing Course

When you have identified that you would like to work in the medical field, you could have been drawn by the work of medical billing. People who do this kind of work are involved with the follow-ups on payment claims from insurance companies. Usually, when you have gone to a doctor or hospital for some kind of treatment, your cover details will be taken by the people in charge. Thereafter, the right documents will be filled and submitted to the medical insurance company to have it submit the required payment.

A medical billing course will be crucial for one who desires to work in such a field. There is a lot which is taught at such institutions which come in handy for the execution of the roles in this kind of job. You will be taught how to carry out coding which is an integral part of billing as well as many more skills which will make you prolific in executing your duties. Also, you are more likely to be preferred by employers. Whereas some people are able to work in this field without training, employers today look for those with training. There are jobs as well in this field; people take medical covers everyday and you are not likely to stay unemployed after completing college. Get more details at www.medical-billing.net

What Are The Consequences Of snoring?

cosSnoring is irritating to a recipient and can lead to the ending of a relationship. The one with the snoring problem has interrupted sleep too as difficulty in breathing can cause frequent waking up. Snoring pillows elevates the head and neck muscles of a person preventing snoring.   Poor night sleep weakens the immune system of a person making them venerable to diseases. A good night sleep improves the mood of a person and gives that good feeling that brings joy. Frequent waking up experienced by a snoring person leaves them irritable and quick to anger.

Interrupted breathing experienced by a snoring person is believed to interfere with the normal functioning of the heart. Snoring pillows support the neck muscles of a person to breathe in deeply and provide the necessary oxygen to the heart. Snoring can make the healing period of a person longer. The body heals itself in sleep. A recuperating person requires a lot of sleep; snoring causes frequent waking up that leaves the recovering person restless and exhausted. People who snore, are not able to sleep deeply as frequent waking up only allow them to sleep lightly. A snore less pillow will be appreciated by someone who has not gotten a good night rest in a long time.

How Do You Stop Someone Snoring In Your Room?

Sharing a room may be required at one point in life. Sharing a room with someone who snores can be stressful for a light sleeper. Most people who snore fall asleep quickly as they are usually tired from lack of enough sleep, due to frequent waking up in the night. The best way to stop someone from snoring in your room is to gift them a pair of snoring pillows. These pillows are easy to clean, they are convenient and your roommate will enjoy a snore free restful sleep.

Most people deny that they snore and nothing short of video recording will convince them that they do. No-snore tablets are available in some areas and if your roommate is willing to take them, buy some for them. Another way of stopping your roommate when snoring is to turn them to the side; take this opportunity to replace their pillow with snoring pillows. They will thank you in the morning after having a good restful snore free night.  Nose strips have been used by several people with some rate of success and your roommate should try them. Make sure your room is well ventilated, as stuffiness can cause congestion of the nose and snoring from your roommate.

How Exactly Do People Listen To Rush Limbaugh?

Seriously Rush... You're boring people.

Seriously Rush… You’re boring people.

So, I was listening to my favorite “Intelligent Talk” station the other day (they bill themselves as intelligent talk, which is about 50% right, and often wrong), and they happen to be one of those stations that syndicates one Rush Limbaugh for their 9am slot. It’s not a show I usually listen to, because frankly I’ve got better things to do at 9am (like fight for freedom, fantasize about the times when things were really, really great in America).

Anyway, I digress. I’m not sure how many of you out there have actually listened to Rush lately, but if you do, I’m  shocked you have the patience for it. The other day he spent 35 minutes BELABORING the point that the President thought the Debt Ceiling was “not spending”. I mean, yep. We get the point, Rush, but move on.

But no. He didn’t move on. He ranted endlessly about something that most people could have expressed quite effectively in about 30 seconds. And I wondered to myself, “Self, how often does Rush literally blather on about ideas he’s clearly expressed more than 20 minutes ago?” And what’s worse, do some people actually listen intently to what this moron has to say? Seriously. He gives the right wing a bad name!

Are We Idiots?

Maybe it’s just me, but I know of a lot of people on the right who are smart, Republican, and can actually express their points very articulately within a minute or less. What’s more, they don’t go on about what is essentially a minor semantics issue for over 35 minutes. My point is this: who exactly is the audience for Rush? Well, first of all I have to think it’s a lot of Seniors.

Why do I think that? Well, who exactly listens to the radio anyway? What’s more, his show is mostly carried on AM stations, which is probably the lamest early 20th century frequency you can find. I mean, this is basically the frequency of the decrepit!

Anyway. My point is this: how about tightening your message up a bit, Rush? You’re beginning to sound like:

This is the 2010s. Our attention spans are different, my friend. What happened to the young, spritely ideologue that used to make us laugh with his questionable, albeit funny/controversial rhetoric? What happened to that guy?

Ah. Was it the drugs, Rush? Was it the drugs that kept you from lolling on like some kind of forgotten senior in a forgotten hospice?

If it was, how about re-hooking up? I mean, it certainly can’t hurt. People under 75 may actually consider listening to your show now and again? How about a little amphetamine? Cocaine? That outta speed things up.

Let’s Talk About Guns!

Yep, guns are back. They certainly weren’t cool for quite a long time, but with the events of the Sandy Hook Massacre writ large over the American public, people are buying them like M&Ms, afraid that their “legal right” to have weapons that can kill hundreds of people in five minutes might be taken away.

Hey, I’m a 2nd amendment guy. No doubt about it. But, I’m not a smoker of crack. I’m not, as many pundits are, of the belief that having teachers armed with Uzis is actually going to stop madmen with gun collections. Just not going to happen. In fact, you start arming teachers, and I’ll bet you a million that people start “accidentally dying”. In numbers.

The NRA Is The Most Transparent Lobby Ever!

Ok, I know I’m going to take some flak for this, but seriously. These people make money building weapons that slaughter people all over the world everyday. That’s their job. Yes, they might talk up the “self defense” and “right to bear arms”-crap, but let’s face it: Those are sad talking points at this point. People murder. Yes, I get it. But guns do a pretty good job helping them out with that task.

And when the 2nd amendment was written, guns looked like this!
I am incredibly PRO-MUSKET. Seriously. I’d love to see these things all over the place. It would be serious, serious laughs. Ban assault weapons, but assault muskets? Now we’re talking. How about that 1 rounds per minute firing rate? Sign me up!

So anyway. Saw this piece of BS on the web yesterday:

Picked yourself up off the floor yet? You’re really drinking the Smith & Wesson Kool-aid if you believe even a second of this junk.

Let’s call down point one: HE’S THE PRESIDENT! Show me a president of the United States who DIDN’T have the Secret Service protect his kids, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t the President. Point: IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN.

The President has a few people out there that do not like him. A lot of those people are crazy and would love to hurt him. So he has guards. Full stop. There is no hypocrisy in this, NRA. You people are just idiots.

The Rest Of The World Have It Wrong

Ok, so gun deaths in the rest of the world are extremely low. It must be a coincidence that they also have stricter gun laws. Seriously effective coincidence, yes, but all just a rare and non-correlated situation.

Of course, America is a different country. We have different needs. And according to the NRA, we ALL NEED TO BE ARMED. I’m sure gun crimes will come down once everyone has a gun.

What do those Canadians, Swedes, British, Norwegians, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, (INSERT REST OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD) know about REAL GUN CONTROL?

Absolutely nothing. They just happen to have a few thousand less bullet-ridden corpses in their morgues than America does every year.

Wow. Their funeral industry just must be a shambles.

 

Facts Behind The RAID Recovery For RAID 10 Arrays

RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Independent Disks.  RAID 10 servers use multiple disks thus allowing the user to have more file space and have amazing redundancy. Two varieties are known to exist: a hardware and software RAID. It also pays to give the difference between the hardware and software RAID. The two differ in terms of pros and cons.

Software RAID is dependent on central processing unit (CPU) use. This type of RAID shares the CPU while the computer runs different applications. This is the reason why it is slower than hardware RAID. Since it does not require the use of other equipment, it is made cheaper. On the other hand, a hardware RAID is made functional by a controller. It functions even in periods of no power. This is a possible reason why RAID recovery is expensive. In selecting from the two types, a certain principle should be followed where the software type is compatible with CPUs.

A number of RAID arrays are known to exist with different recovery requirements. This ranges from RAID 0 to RAID 10 arrays. Regardless of the type of array, RAID recovery of data is possible with the help of professionals. The main reason professional help is necessary is due to the complexity of restoring files from RAID arrays.

RAID 10 recovery should be carried out by the companies that are recognized and have some experience. If you use a company that is not recognized you might end up regretting it after having lost all your data which might be very important to you in one way or the other. Some of the RAID 10 recovery service providers offer great price discounts to students, registered charities and also local authorities. This comes in handy for improving customer loyalty because the customer will prefer their discount services over other service providers that do not offer the discounts. Some companies also offer door to door server collection and delivery.

Some of the RAID 10 recovery companies charge a fixed rate for their services despite the time used and the extent of the damage. They will retrieve your data from inaccessible hard drives with specialized processes. The competition is high in this arena and you will typically get good services for a fair price. You are not expected to pay for the examination fees to get the services. To add to that, there is secrecy to your data and you are assured on confidentiality of your data when in the process of recovery.

More About RAID 10 Recovery

RAID 10 recovery is a hot topic in today’s world. Many people have been trying to solve the problem on their own by using online professional software but are often still unable to recover their data.

Are you one of the people struggling with RAID recovery?

Here is another way to look and work out the problem/issue regarding your server recovery. You can always use a professional’s help. Professional companies are available online and also they have stores for their service. They consist of mostly engineers or experts in the field with many years of experiences. Many service providers work 24/7 to provide you with their service. As each person will have different problem with their RAID array and because of complicated setup, recovery is highly delicate; so, getting RAID array recovery should usually be done by a professional company like http://www.raidrecovery.ws/. Usually for a professional, it takes 2 to 5 days to recover the data fully and you will be updated regularly about the progress of recovery. Confidentiality and data security is a cornerstone of the policies of many companies. Most service providers will let you know beforehand about what they cannot recover and some of them will also give you back your RAID array if it looks unrecoverable.

How A RAID Server Fails

There are major reasons that can be associated with RAID 5 and 10 failure. These reasons are some of the main ones in relation to multiple drive failures. They are all linked to configuration. They include RAID controller failure, RAID array failure; rebuild failure, damaged strip and configuration failures. It is good to note that there are varieties of RAID levels and they need different ways to handle them. Their storage patterns are different. The simplified version are RAID 1 o RAID 5.The other complex ones include RAID 10 arrays. Most of the service providers have spread their wings and gone to very many parts of the world so that they can provide the very valuable service of data recovery.

RAID 10 recoveries assure maximum recovery of data and that is why it has become an all time favorite to very many people who want to have their data retrieved safely. You should be very cautious because if any wrong step is taken it can lead to a failure. The cost of using RAID 10 is efficient; so much so that it is unlike any other server available today.

Where, Oh Where Is Pete Wilson?

At the hot start of a hot August long ago, Governor Pete Wilson reached agreement with legislative leaders on the largest tax cut in California’s history — a $1.4-billion cut next year, rising to $3.6 billion over four years — and breathed a sigh of relief. With the full tax cut under his belt, Wilson claims an overall tax reduction of about $2 billion in his two terms. With only the first installment, he would still be a net tax-cutter — just. Without it, his record would be that of a man who had raised taxes net by more than $1 billion. Not a reputation to brandish in GOP presidential primaries. So the tax cut is the final but indispensable stage in the careful transmogrification of Pete Wilson from GOP moderate to conservative warrior.

Surprised? Don’t be. Wilson’s quiet revolution has received little attention outside California. He is now rarely mentioned among potential GOP candidates for 2000. Yet he will be leaving office on a high note. The California economy is in its 62nd month of economic expansion. A large budget surplus allows him to have both tax cuts and hikes in spending — e.g., to cut class sizes in the public schools. He has won his major political battles, notably the initiatives opposing illegal immigration, quotas, and bilingual education. And most watchers think he would be easily re-elected if he ran in November.

Given California’s electoral importance, this record should entitle him to glowing media profiles as GOP front-runner. Why his present obscurity?

The answer appears to be that he has succeeded deplorably — at least from a media standpoint. Republicans are supposed to start on the Right and move to the Center, even perhaps a few yards to the Left. Wilson has done just the reverse. He started in the Center and moved Right. Instead of “growing,” he has shrunk. By all the rules, he ought now to be an unpopular failure. And there is little appetite in the media for addressing his current embarrassing success. It is worth examining nonetheless.

It is hard to recall today just how disastrously liberal — with equal emphasis on adverb and adjective — Pete Wilson was at the beginning of his first term. He arrived in Sacramento apparently determined to transform the conservative California GOP into a socially liberal, good-government, public-interest group; an aide said at the time that he aimed to purify the party “as if 1964 [i.e., Goldwater and Reagan] had never happened.” In the 1992 Assembly primaries, he even supported moderate clones of himself against the now alienated conservatives. (His people mostly lost.) But his decision to compromise with the majority Democrats and raise taxes in his first budget by $7 billion — the largest single tax hike in California history — did most damage, turning off the voters and making him a pariah in his own party

Wilson reluctantly defended the tax hike in an interview with us as a case of fiscal necessity: “I hated doing it at the time . . . [But] we closed a gap of $14.3 billion. . . . That amounted to a third of the General Fund.”

Whatever its merits as good government, the tax hike was bad economics. Imposed as the California economy was being led by the defense industry into a recession, it deepened the misery and retarded the recovery even as neighboring states like Arizona rebounded.

In the run-up to the 1994 election, Wilson’s poll numbers collapsed. Kathleen Brown, his likely Democratic opponent, was 23 points ahead. And an unknown millionaire, Ron K. Unz, won a third of the votes with a shoestring campaign in the GOP primary.

This was a near-death experience and it produced a dramatic reformation. Wilson reprogrammed himself as a tough fiscal and social conservative. He began to prune government, to cut taxes, and to make California a more business-friendly environment. Some of the tax cuts were less than met the eye, but he had signalled a change of direction in economic policy — and it got results. Wilson himself deadpans that California today is so prosperous that “even a penniless Buddhist monk can afford to give thousands of dollars to Al Gore.” He is especially proud that the state has one-fifth of America’s spending on R&D. By various tests, the relative burden of government has fallen modestly under Wilson. Per $1,000 of personal income, for instance, tax revenue has gone from $72.45 to $71.47. And California employs 107 state workers per 10,000 people against a U.S. average of 151.

Such figures explain why many conservatives now take a favorable view of Wilson. The Hoover Institution’s George Shultz chairs his Council of Economic Advisors. Martin Anderson, President Reagan’s domestic-policy advisor, says Wilson has instituted important social reforms — notably “opportunity scholarships.” These are education vouchers for children at poor-performing schools. (A post-mortem conversion, since Wilson opposed the 1992 initiative on school choice — the loss of which causes Milton Friedman to make his verdict a qualified “broadly favorable.”)

But Wilson’s social conservatism was built most dramatically upon two hot-button issues: crime and illegal immigration. In 1992 a citizens’ group had put Proposition 187 on the ballot to deny non-emergency social benefits to illegal immigrants. Kathleen Brown, captive to her party’s ethnic base, called it “barbaric.” Pete Wilson, citing the immense fiscal burden they imposed on the state ($1.5 billion annually for education alone), endorsed it. He was denounced as a “racist,” a “nativist,” etc. But Wilson, an ex-Marine, never refuses a fight. And when the votes were in, Proposition 187 won with 59 per cent, Wilson won with 55 per cent, and the hapless Miss Brown lost with 41 per cent. The lessons of Wilson’s first term were unmistakable: social liberalism and high taxes put you thirty points behind in the polls; social conservatism and tax cuts give you a 14-point victory.

So when Wilson began his brief campaign for the 1996 GOP nomination, he gratefully accepted a journalist’s definition of “moderate” as “a conservative who is pro-choice on abortion” to describe himself. That crossed half the distance to the GOP’s presidential nomination. But in 1996 it could not save his doomed campaign. Not only did Dole have Wilson’s base — the GOP establishment — locked up; but Wilson’s running broke a pledge to his 1994 voters and financial backers that he would stay on for a full term. That was a big blunder, still cited by Californians from pols to Sacramento taxi-drivers as reason to distrust him.

His stance also left him at the 1996 San Diego Convention as the leading pro-choice spokesman in a pro-life party. Even today, abortion remains the most important issue separating Pete Wilson from most conservatives — an issue, therefore he needs to defuse.

Astute enough to know that waffling and wavering opportunistically on abortion is the one position everyone despises, he remains forthrightly “pro-choice” in principle. He therefore opposes a pro-life constitutional amendment as an unrealizable goal that will not prevent a single abortion. But he also deplores the “shocking 1.6 million abortions in America each year” and offers olive branches to pro-lifers in the form of practical measures to reduce this number now. These include such familiar restrictions as parental-consent laws and the ban on partial-birth abortions, but also reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the first place by changing the culture of welfare. “We have cut teen pregnancy in this state since 1991 by almost 20 per cent,” he points out. And in a speech to the Christian Coalition last year, his list of such measures even included “teaching children premarital abstinence.”

From Wilson’s empiricist standpoint, this attempt to shape an all-Republican compromise is a reasonable one, offering pro-lifers a real reduction in abortions. Still, it will almost certainly fail. The abortion debate is about moral principles as well as outcomes. Pro-lifers cannot agree to shelve the principle that the state has a duty to protect innocent life — or the constitutional amendment that embodies it — even in return for a united Republican push for more practical restrictions on abortion. Nor is the moral Right likely to approve of at least one of Wilson’s measures to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies: encouraging the spread of contraception. And, finally, other GOP presidential contenders will outbid him for the support of religious conservatives, thus reducing their incentive to compromise. Wilson and George W. Bush are to Steve Forbes today what Forbes was to Pat Buchanan in 1996: the second-best alternative. The most Wilson can gain is to reduce hostility to himself among conservatives whose first priority is halting abortion.

Which makes it all the more imperative for him to win over other constituencies that most Republicans have neglected. One such constituency was obligingly identified for him by a 1997 Fabrizio – McLaughlin study as “cultural populists”: people worried about crime, declining standards, the balkanization of America, and the fraying of the social fabric in general. About a quarter of the electorate, these voters swung heavily GOP in 1994. But Republican politicians, frightened by the instant interpretation of media liberals that they were pandering to “angry white males,” backed nervously away from the cultural issues such as racial quotas and immigration reform. In fact, the liberal analysis was invented: cultural populists are disproportionately white, like most voters, but they are also disproportionately female, disproportionately young, and anxious rather than angry. Given no comfort by a nervous GOP, they swung back to Clinton in 1996.

Wilson, however, has assiduously addressed their concerns (and those of constituencies like small business) by intervening in three major battles — the campaigns over Proposition 209, barring race and gender preferences, 227, abolishing bilingual education, and 226, prohibiting labor unions from spending money on political causes without their members’ consent. Proposition 226 was narrowly defeated. But add Proposition 187, and that makes three landslide victories in four elections.

In fighting these California battles, Wilson and his political ally, Ward Connerly, became the spokesmen for conservatives worried about national disunity and social breakdown, in part because national GOP leaders went AWOL. Wilson’s own explanation for their absence under fire is that they are intimidated by the charges of racism and have accordingly allowed liberals to define the political agenda.

Will California ever be up for grabs for the GOP?

Compare this pusillanimity with Wilson’s own unyielding stance. When he was attacked over 187 and 209 for exploiting “wedge issues,” he replied in a public speech (at the California GOP’s Hispanic Summit): “Wedge issues are those that liberals want to duck . . . Wedge issues don’t get to be wedge issues unless the underlying problems are real, and if there is such a pervasive sense of injustice and outrage that they cannot, or morally ought not, to be ignored . . . Slavery was a wedge issue.” The audience applauded.

The reply from Democrats and the media to Wilson’s cultural populism is that it is a shortsighted tactic which alienates Latinos, who are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the U.S. and a natural GOP constituency. This argument has spooked many California Republicans. Gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, strongly conservative on most issues, pointedly refused to back the initiative banning bilingual education. His aides subtly distance him from Wilson, even though they are friends and Wilson is co-chairman of Lungren’s campaign. And Lungren presents himself to Latinos as a good Catholic.

Behind these divergent political strategies lies a deep disagreement about how best to win over Latinos (and other minorities) to the GOP. The standard GOP approach, modeled largely on Jack Kemp’s appeals to black Americans, is to treat Latinos as a distinct ethnic group and to emphasize the similarity between certain Latino traits (family values, strong work ethic) and Republican philosophy while avoiding issues which can be stigmatized as anti-Hispanic. In sordid practice, of course, this approach often degenerates into treating the minority in question as a liberal constituency. For instance, the GOP has recently helped restore social benefits to immigrants on the explicit grounds that this would win Hispanic votes. But even in its pristine form, this appeal still emphasizes and so perpetuates ethnic identification.

In the long run, that is bad news for the GOP. As the failure of its wooing of black Americans has shown, ethnic loyalty will trump shared political values every time. The switch in Hispanic voting intentions on both 187 and 227 during a campaign in which these issues were consciously “racialized” by the Democrats further illustrates the point.

The alternative approach, symbolized by Wilson, is to address minorities principally as Americans who share common concerns with the rest of the nation. Such an appeal is based upon the evidence of recent history that the more deeply minorities assimilate — in particular the less they retain a minority consciousness — the more likely they are to vote Republican. Immigrant white ethnics have moved rightward politically as they melted in the American pot, and black Americans have grown less Republican as ethnic ideologies of Black nationalism and Afrocentrism have spread among them. Short of enlisting, voting Republican is just about the ultimate expression of assimilation.

So the propensity of Latinos to vote Republican will increase in line with their assimilation into the American nation. Those Latino voters attracted by a message of American unity rather than by ethnic appeals will be more reliably Republican. In order to attract them, the GOP will not need to dilute its message — or its appeal to non-minority voters (the anxious white females above). What Wilson’s critics gloss over is that he won landslide majorities on Propositions 187, 209, and 227, and in doing so attracted substantial Latino minorities — 31, 24, and 37 per cent respectively. By contrast the Dole – Kemp ticket in 1996 got 21 per cent of Hispanics and 12 per cent of blacks.

What matters long term, of course, is fostering a more rapid assimilation of Latinos. But that also justifies Wilson’s opposition to bilingual ghettos, which perpetuate ethnic loyalties; to racial quotas, which give people a material incentive to think ethnically; and to illegal immigration, which retards the social and economic assimilation of legal immigrants already here. Wilson is even prepared to use the unadorned language of national interest in discussing legal immigration, arguing that America is “the most generous nation in the world. We annually admit more legal immigrants than all the other nations in the world combined. And we have every right to do what the others do — and that is to set definite criteria and admit people based upon our needs.”

If this frankness seems quixotic, the hard evidence is that it wins elections short term and holds out the prospect of making Latinos more amenable to Republican politics long-term.

But this analysis risks making Pete Wilson sound too original. On most issues he steers slightly to the right of his party’s mainstream. As a senator, he strongly backed missile defense and fiscal prudence, repeatedly winning the Treasury Watchdog award. He also enjoyed ratings from 75 to 90 per cent from the American Conservative Union. Today he favors school choice, free trade, NAFTA, and privatization. Asked how he would use the U.S. budget surplus, he says simply: Cut taxes.

IS Wilson now a committed conservative? And if so, what happened? Wilson himself claims a politician’s consistency: not he but the circumstances have changed — e.g., the affirmative action he supported became the quotas he resists. Paradoxically, some of his old critics among California conservatives agree. Assemblyman Tom McClintock argues that Wilson is still the tax-hiker of 1991: the full $3.6-billion tax cut requires revenue rises that will never be met after the Asia meltdown. Taxpayers will still pay $287 a year per family more than under the last governor. Wilson’s budget office replies that it underestimated recent revenues by 14 per cent, and that future cost-of-living adjustments in welfare payments depend upon the tax cuts going ahead.

Time will resolve the narrow statistical dispute. But McClintock is right to point out that there is a lot of new spending in the budget. Probably there will always be a good-government moderate inside Wilson, struggling to get out. His instinct is for cutting class sizes as much as government (Friedman wryly says: “At least it’s better than spending it on more bureaucrats.”) as long as it can be done with fiscal prudence.

Still, it can hardly be denied that Wilson has become conservative in a broader sense — perhaps pushed into conservatism by fiscal and social crises that came his way and the popular sentiments they aroused. Columnist and former NR publisher Bill Rusher gives that explanation a twist of bitter lemon: “Wilson is not a convinced philosophical conservative,” he says. “He is an opportunist. But unlike most politicians, he is a courageous opportunist. Once his calculations point to conservatism, he will not be blown off course by attacks from the media. If his political calculations do not change, he may even die a conservative. This is less than ideal, but better than most.”

“Most” here means Wilson’s rivals in the primaries — notably Texas governor George W. Bush. Bush is an untested figure alongside a big-city mayor, U.S. senator, two-term governor, and “Comeback Kid” like Wilson. Bush has faced no crises and advanced few causes. In his first term, as W. S. Gilbert said of the House of Lords, he “did nothing in particular — and did it very well.”