Well at least three things. Says E.J. Dionne.

1. Flexible Platform

At the first level are the party's candidates, who can be as reasonable or as angry, as moderate or as conservative, as their circumstances require.

2. Lots Of Money

Next come the outside groups that refuse to disclose their donor lists. They are doing the dirty work of pounding their Democratic opponents in commercials for which no one is accountable. The Republican candidates can shrug an innocent, "Who, me?" Deniability is a wonderful thing.

3. Turn Out

And then on the far right, Glenn Beck and his allies cast President Obama as the central figure in a conspiracy against America itself, fueling participation by the most extreme 10 percent or 15 percent of the electorate.

Plus. E.J. is getting smarter. Much smarter. He has figured out who is behind this nefarious plot that claims to want smaller government and lower taxes. And it is a block buster. The John Birch Society. No really. I can quote him:

Their crackpot ideas, as the historian Sean Wilentz documented in The New Yorker recently, originated in the 1950s and '60s, in the paranoid theorizing of the John Birch Society. But whereas responsible conservatives such as William F. Buckley Jr. denounced the Birchers and the rest of the lunatic fringe back then, Republicans this time are riding the radical wave. In some cases (think Sharron Angle in Nevada), the extremists are their standard-bearers.

I could let him say more but he already looks foolish enough. Instead let me turn a little attention to Tim Rutten.

Though the actual voting is still 17 days [TEA minus 15 and counting as of today. - ed] away, it seems clear that this midterm election cycle will be defined by a surprising presence and a remarkable absence.

The presence, of course, is the "tea party," and what's absent are the social issues that so bitterly divided the electorate in recent campaigns. Demography and evolving public opinion are well on the way to making an electoral dead letter of same-sex marriage, which played a pivotal role in the 2004 presidential campaign. Despite the best efforts of Democratic candidates like Barbara Boxer to rally their base around protecting access to abortion, most voters' attention is fixed firmly on their ability to feed and clothe the children they already have. The Roberts court's declaration that the 2nd Amendment confers individual rights was an unintended gift to the Democrats because it essentially took gun control off the table

See. I have discussed the abortion question. And my opinion is that other than regulation the Federal government for sure should not be involved. That Constitution thing all us crazies want followed. So we all agree on that. That it is a States Rights issue. So that takes a lot of the fever on both sides off the table. Now personally I think any states which enacted such laws would find them unenforceable. i.e. a lot of expense for not much result, kinda like the drug laws. But that is just me. And where exactly did the Feds get drugged on such power? They needed an amendment for alcohol.

OK. Tim (he is not Tiny) is just getting warmed up. And say. This is looking like he cribbed from the same notes E.J. Dionne got. Or he (or could it be E.J.?) is a psychic. Well never mind. Maybe they just read each other.

A secondary influence on this election is the novel role of so-called third-party money, much of it secretly contributed to groups unaccountable to either party. By election day, according to a report Friday in the Wall Street Journal, such committees will have spent $300 million in support of GOP candidates. And, unlike the Republican National Committee or congressional sources, these third parties have been perfectly willing to spend on behalf of those with tea party roots. (By contrast, about $100 million in independent contributions will go to Democratic candidates; organized labor will spend an additional $200 million, but the bulk of that is going to rally union voters, whose enthusiasm has waned.)

Tim is looking at the candidates and is just so damn annoyed that the Republicans seem to be running a few libertarians. That has got to hurt. Especially for a man who has never heard of the Republican Liberty Caucus in the now serving Congress. Nice of you to pay such close attention Tim.

At least three candidates are such programmatic libertarians that they'd really be more at home in that party.

On Friday, the New York Times reported that its pre-election analysis has 33 tea party-backed candidates running in congressional districts that are either leaning Republican or too close to call. Eight "stand a good or better chance of winning Senate seats," the paper says.

If that's correct, the next Congress is going to contain a significant tea party caucus, and that may bring social issue tensions back to the fore.

And I guess since I'm shooting fish in a barrel I might as well have a few blasts at Lorelei Kelly at the Huffington Post. And she too has it all figured out. We are a lucky country to be full of such genius.

The Tea Party has done us all a favor. It has pointed out how absent we've been in building a common narrative about modern American citizenship. Their candidates are fascinating -- like watching campaign season through beer goggles. But every time I hear one of them speak in public, I realize what an advantage the rest of us have -- real stories, real characters, real democracy.

The Tea Party is taking a joyride through the world of American ideals.

Loreli says this is just a fantasy.

Along the way, it has grabbed the best revolutionary symbols, the cinematic frustration of the masses, and an irreproachable sounding plan (Fiscal responsibility! Constitutionally limited government! Free markets! Yay!)

But it's all emotions and fantasy. Despite the symbolic appeal, Tea Partiers don't really speak to tradition. They speak to nostalgia. These signals resurrected from the past are not representative. They are kitsch.

Enough time for her. Nodda clue.

Peter Berkowitz writing at the Wall Street Journal diagnoses the root cause of the misunderstanding so amply illustrated above.

For the better part of two generations, the best political science departments have concentrated on equipping students with skills for performing empirical research and teaching mathematical models that purport to describe political affairs. Meanwhile, leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history.

Neither professors of political science nor of history have made a priority of instructing students in the founding principles of American constitutional government. Nor have they taught about the contest between the progressive vision and the conservative vision that has characterized American politics since Woodrow Wilson (then a political scientist at Princeton) helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the Constitution had become obsolete and hindered democratic reform.

Enough Tea Party-supported candidates are running strongly in competitive and Republican-leaning Congressional races that the movement stands a good chance of establishing a sizable caucus to push its agenda in the House and the Senate, according to a New York Times analysis.

With a little more than two weeks till Election Day, 33 Tea Party-backed candidates are in tossup races or running in House districts that are solidly or leaning Republican, and 8 stand a good or better chance of winning Senate seats.

While the numbers are relatively small, they could exert outsize influence, putting pressure on Republican leaders to carry out promises to significantly cut spending and taxes, to repeal health care legislation and financial regulations passed this year, and to phase out Social Security and Medicare in favor of personal savings accounts.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Not much time to blog today, but here are some pics of Coco (who has recovered nicely from her illness) and her friend Pearl.

Pearl is a Redtick Coonhound. We didn't see any raccoons, but there was a carved wooden squirrel statue, and they both checked it out.

And now that I'm back, I have to say that Coco would have been incredibly pissed had she known I was off in the countryside feeding buffalo today. Check out this guy.

And look at his tongue!

MORE: Feeding the buffaloes.

No one tell Coco.

Buy Low, Sell High = FREE TRADE

Buy High, Sell Higher = NO TRADE

Any questions?

Cross Posted at Power and Control

While the subject is the same, I think this:

leaves more to the imagination than this:

It's all a question of scale.

Not as in balance, though.

MORE: In other news of runny ruins, "Facebook draws 7,000 to anti-Muslim pork sausage party in Paris." When I was a kid, rebellion took the form of long hair and loud obnoxious music. Now it's eating what fear has made uncool.

Pig is "out," so pig out?

G-g-gotta p-p-problem with t-t-traditional p-p-ppork?

MORE: You think the above is bad? For the first time in my memory, people in the United States are getting death threats for publishing cartoons and caricatures not of Muhammad, but of the president.

Run of the mill political stuff.

Like this:

And this:

Above images via Glenn Reynolds, who was kind enough to link an older post in which I tried to make light of Those Who Take Themselves Deadly Seriously.

These people (most of whom would probably be delighted to call themselves atheists) seem to have absolutely no sense of humor.

The way they act, you'd almost think they were followers of some tyrannical deity.

But that can't be right, because they claim to be against theocracy.

Sheesh.

Who'd have ever thought it would be so easy to commit heresy in modern America?

There's a raging battle over what sort of ads should be allowed on Craigslist. The more Craiglist attempts to comply with the demands of prosecutors and various self-appointed monitoring groups and advocacy organizations, the louder their demands. First it was demanded that they monitor the "Erotic Services" section. Then they had to take it down. And the latest is the demand that they remove the "Adult Services" category:

In November 2008 the site began requiring a phone number and small fee to place an advertisement in the Erotic Services section.

In May 2009, after coming under further fire from state and local law enforcement from around the country, Craigslist replaced the Erotic Services section of its regional sites with the new Adult Services section. All advertisements in this section, according to Craigslist, would be screened by the site's employees before being posted and cost $10, rather than the previous $5 cost of an Erotic Services advertisement.

State attorneys and law enforcement have remained unsatisfied with Craigslist's efforts to curb illegal activity.

"In our view, the company should take immediate action to end the misery for the women and children who may be exploited and victimized by these ads," last week's letter stated. "Because Craigslist cannot, or will not, adequately screen these ads, it should stop accepting them altogether and shut down the Adult Services section."

In fact, I would be willing to bet that in a lot of communities (whether real life or online), the word "ADULT" alone is a red flag.

If you doubt me, try putting a neon sign in your front window with nothing more than the word "ADULT." A Bud or Corona sign is one thing, but neighbors would call the cops at the sight of that filthy word, and something would be done.

ADULT has come to mean filth, raunch, sex. So I guess if the censors get their way, Craigslist will have to stop allowing all things adult. Craigslist does not have as many defenders as it should, and I think that's because it's seen as a giant company.

And giant companies exploit victims! That's something all activists can agree on, right?

I don't know where the ACLU stands, but the EFF is concerned that whatever rules are concocted for Craiglist could be applied to all ISPs, meaning the entire Internet:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group, describes the various complaints against Craigslist as "increasingly bellicose rhetoric." The site, the EFF notes, is protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields providers of "interactive computer service" against criminal liability for content posted by outside users.

"The notion that Craigslist and [its] officers should be held responsible for third-party content on their site because they didn't do enough to satisfy the individual whims of respective state attorneys general is wholly inconsistent with the law," says EFF senior staff attorney Matt Zimmerman.

The implications, Zimmerman suggests, are enormous: By flexing their muscles against an entity such as Craigslist, state leaders are paving the way for a vastly regulated Internet that could be void of many of its current freedoms.

"If site operators were forced to screen all third-party contributions under risk of civil or criminal penalty, the Internet would lose many of the vibrant services that have made it so dynamic," Zimmerman says.

"Under such a radical re-envisioning, the Internet would ultimately become the province of rich and cautious media companies who would actively serve as gatekeepers to decide whether and how users could engage with the world."

While Craigslist's move may have a come as a result of its own internal decision, the company's willingness to cave under pressure still sends a troubling message about the power of states' legal threats. The conclusion of this battle, in more ways than one, is anything but a happy ending.

But I don't mean to end this post on such a sour note, and my inner conspiracy theorist is wondering whether there might be other factors behind the demonization of Craigslist. Might some of its ads be upsetting people in high places?

For example, those mean, filthy, Craigslist ads caused Poetess Extraordinaire Maya Angelou (as American as apple pie and the Fourth of July) to look ridiculous after she was forced to read them through a surrogate.

I kid you not.

Here is "Maya Angelou," with her poetic rendition of a Craigslist passage titled "Crazy Contortionist":

And here she solemnly reads from a Fourth of July Craigslist passage titled "My Face, Your Ripe Feet"

And finally, she reads "Two Chubs To Make Me Their Midnight Snack"

My theory is that people in high places might very well have decided that the above is inappropriate material for White House readings, and that's what's really behind the crackdown on Craiglist. This real reason, of course, is being systematically covered up.

I find it hard to believe that the crackdown is based on "individual whims of respective state attorneys general."

There are whims all right, but I think they're emanating from the penumbra of a much higher authority.

If we could save just one adult!

I am a member of a mostly lefty anti-prohibitionist list. The question to the list was: given Holder's recent Oct. 2010 announcement that he would go after Calif if Proposition 19 passes, how would the youth vote break? Would Proposition 19 bring them out? Would Holder's remarks make them vote R?

Which made me link to this post in my email response.

Richard Lee, the founder and president of Oaksterdam University, is a veteran activist who also is sponsoring a statewide ballot measure that would allow adults 21 or older to possess and grow relatively small amounts of marijuana. The initiative also would allow cities and counties to tax and regulate marijuana sales and cultivation.

Lee calls himself a "Libertarian Republican."

I'm beginning to think the Teatards are right, maybe we should drown the Fed Gov. in a bathtub.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

It turns out that Carl Paladino has an adviser. The adviser is pictured above at the Gay Pride Parade that Palidino said was unfit for Cuomo's children. Probably. And just so it is clear. He is the person getting his ear licked.

His name is Roger Stone and he has a few things to say about a few things.

Stone has been an adviser to Carl Paladino's campaign efforts, and Paladino said Monday that the parade is "disgusting." Tuesday evening, as he apologized for remarks that offended many gay leaders, Paladino said he still believed it was bad judgment for Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo to attend the parade with his daughters.

Paladino did not attend the parade.

UPDATE: Stone wrote to point out why he was marching -- he says he worked on the same-sex marriage bill and helped Sen. Joe Bruno draft a statement urging his former Republican colleagues in the chamber to vote yes.

He also has written on his website in favor of same-sex marriage, and told the Daily Beast that he rejected Paladino's remarks.

Yeah I marched with KRISTIN DAVIS in the Gay Pride Parade. Proud of it," he wrote. "I'm a libertarian Republican. I support Marriage Equality."

Kristin is also running for Governor of New York.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Sometimes I find the statements that come out of our leaders so mind boggling that I don't know where to begin.

Earlier I read that President Obama is complaining about a rise of "tribal attitude". It's one of my pet peeves too; I have written several posts about tribalism, which I think is indistinguishable from identity politics. Tribalism begets tribalism, and the struggles between oppressor tribes and oppressed tribes (whether the oppression is genuine or only perceived) fuel endless cycles, with each tribe taking "turns." While I am not saying that there are not occasional elements of tribalism on the right, for the left to accuse the right of tribalism (as Obama seems to be doing) is the height of hypocrisy.

I cannot think of a more classic example of modern leftist tribalism than gay identity politics. Things have reached the point where it is considered a form of "bigotry" to even say that there such a thing as a "gay lifestyle."

Glenn Reynolds (who was once accused of "demonizing" gays to strengthen his "cultural tribalism" by one of the leftosphere's leading gay chieftains) linked a post by Ann Althouse which attempts to examine how Obama spokesperson Valerie Jarrett ran afoul of the newest tribal rules, and was forced "to apologize for the heresy of calling homosexuality a 'lifestyle choice.'"

Here's what Jarrett said:

"These are good people. They were aware that their son was gay; they embraced him, they loved him, they supported his lifestyle choice," Jarrett told Capehart. "But when he left the home and went to school, he was tortured by his classmates."

Blogger Michael Petrelis slammed Jarrett for the reference, accusing her of taking "talking points from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council," a socially conservative organization that condemns homosexuality.

Anyway, Jarrett groveled about her poor word choice:

"I meant no disrespect to the LGBT community, and I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words," Jarrett said. "Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans."

I remember back in the 1980s, in the radical enclaves of the University of Wisconsin Law School and similar places, when it was heresy to say that sexual orientation was inborn. I remember getting snapped at by a very prominent left-wing lawprof for referring without scorn to research that showed some evidence that sexual orientation was innate. It was all about choice back then, and the choice model was deemed to be the framework upon which gay rights would be built.

The idea that all gays are necessarily by definition born that way just reeks of identity politics, and tribalism. It violates common sense, and beyond that, I think it violates sexual freedom, because the implication of sexual attraction being innate reduces the rights argument and sexual freedom theory to irrelevancy. It is determinism, and I think determinism is tyrannical because it is at odds with free will. Determinists argue that none of us have any control over what we are or what we do, and I can't think of any system more calculated to lead to tyranny.

No one has the right to tell people how they have to be. Neither the bigoted gay tribalists (better known as Gay Inc.) or their bigoted opposites, the anti-gay tribalists (which I have called "Anti-Gay Inc."). The former like to say that being gay is not a choice, while the latter say it is a choice and an evil one.

I will grant that I think there are a number of people born with the gay propensity. Whether it's genetic or whether it's a result of the prenatal environment can be debated, but these people certainly exist and I think they have every right to be homosexually inclined, and they also have the right to live the "gay lifestyle" -- whatever that may be to them. That right is grounded in freedom, though, not in genetics. Genetics does not convey rights, nor should it. It mixes apples and oranges to suggest otherwise. But I don't see how anyone who is thoughtful and objective can deny that far from a single "gay lifestyle," there is a spectrum of lifestyles. I have long been puzzled over the idea, for example, that gay men should like the music of Barbra Streisand, or prefer certain occupations. It makes no sense. There are people who have homosexual feelings but do not acknowledge or express them. Call them "repressed homosexuals" if you will, but that is their lifestyle, and unless they are hurting anyone, it is their inherent right to live that way, even if they were born with an irresistible homosexual inclination. Then there are those we would refer to as being "closeted." There are many degrees of being in the closet; some are open to themselves and family, but not their workplace, while others are open in the workplace but haven't told their mother. Are these not lifestyle choices for them to make? Or should the ruling tribal leaders have a right to intervene? And there are of course, totally open and "out" gays who have told their friends, families, employers, and everyone else. That too is a lifestyle choice I would defend without reservation.

But just as lifestyles are not inborn, there is hardly a monolithic "gay lifestyle" which someone must choose or reject, and in that respect Jarrett was wrong. But that's not what she was made to apologize for; her crime was in saying something contrary to the determinist view, which has apparently become politically dominant in gay identity politics. I see an additional problem with her phraseology, though. To say that "sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice," while that is apparently an endorsement of identity politics, it also means that there is no freedom to choose these things. Which is tyrannical in a free country. That means that not only does a gay man or a lesbian have no right to become heterosexual, but a man or a woman who is heterosexually inclined has to right to become gay. Why not? If there is a right to change one's gender, then why isn't there a right to change one's sexual orientation? What if you just want to do what doesn't come naturally? Who gets to decide what is natural? If you are bisexual and can enjoy sex with either gender, how is the way you have sex not a choice? Or is the fact that you have a choice said through determinism to be not a choice? Philosophically, that could mean that determinism has swallowed free will, which the determinists probably consider a delusion. Fine, but don't we have the freedom in this country to be as deluded we want in the eyes of some, and actually believe that they're the ones who are deluded? There is still a right to be wrong, is there not?

Who put Valerie Jarrett in charge of our sex lives?

And what about the Bonobo chimps? What gives them the right to screw around any way they want without being dragged into identity politics? Why should they have more sexual freedom than humans?

Sorry, now that I'm ranting, I didn't mean to neglect the culture warriors who insist that being gay is always a choice, and a wrong choice! and that gays must be encouraged to "leave the lifestyle." Presumably, these people think that teaching gay men the fine arts of penile-vaginal intercourse will benefit them and society, although I have never been able to understand why. Especially if you factor in the inborn/genetically gay people, it strikes me that if they were rounded up and forced to attend whatever kind of therapy sessions Anti-Gay Inc. demands, the success stories would consist mainly of those who learned to be facultatively heterosexual. More likely they'd be quasi "bisexual" -- a sort of gay equivalent of the straight guys in prison who learn to do without women and sexually use men as the equivalent. Common sense suggests that just as the straight guys in these circumstances seek women and not men after they leave prison, over time these "converts" would tend to revert to what they liked before, regardless of what sexual identity they might claim. In whose interest is that? Theirs? The women they've been hooked up with? For the life of me I don't get it, and I have never understood why so many cultural conservatives who insist that gay is always a choice and can be "cured" also tend to say that pedophilia can never be cured. Which is it?

I wish all of these various people didn't care so much about the sex lives of others, but it has become big business, and highly politicized.

I used to think that modern gayness in the western sense was a reactive stage (gay to anti-gay) of human evolution on the path towards full sexual freedom (which I would define as that point where people no longer cared about such things), for sex ought to be the business of the people involved.*

But sometimes I wonder whether some people just want not individual freedom, but sexual tribalism -- with endless reactions and counter-reactions to keep it going. Anti-Gay Inc. has at least as big an investment in gayness as does Gay Inc.

To not care is heresy.

*Barring harm to others, of course. (Accuse me of inconsistency if you will, but I don't think sexual freedom includes pedophilia or bestiality, because they are non-consenting activities that do harm.)

As most of you know by now there has been massive incompetence or fraud (take your pick - the initial net result is about the same) in the mortgage issuance and foreclosure markets. I covered that at Who Has The Title? You might want to visit there for some background.

The Financial Times finds that at least at Wells Fargo Bank it was straight up fraud.

Unlike its rivals, Wells Fargo has not halted foreclosures. The San Francisco-based bank said on Tuesday it was reviewing some pending cases, but it has maintained that it has checks and balances designed to prevent serious procedural lapses.

In a sworn deposition on March 9 seen by the FT, Xee Moua, identified in court documents as a vice-president of loan documentation for Wells, said she signed as many as 500 foreclosure-related papers a day on behalf of the bank.

Ms Moua, who was deposed as part of a foreclosure lawsuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, said that the only information she verified was whether her name and title appeared correctly, according to the document.

Asked whether she checked the accuracy of the principal and interest that Wells claimed the borrower owed - a crucial step in banks' legal actions to repossess homes - Ms Moua said: "I do not."

Ms Moua nevertheless signed affidavits that said she had "personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums of money which are due and owing to Wells Fargo". The affidavits were used by the bank in foreclosure proceedings.

Ms Moua added that before reaching her desk, it was her understanding that the foreclosure documents had been reviewed by outside lawyers.

In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in "foreclosure expert" jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn't define the word "affidavit." Others didn't know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers' accusations about document fraud.

"The mortgage servicers hired people who would never question authority," said Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield Beach, Fla., lawyer who is defending 3,000 homeowners in foreclosure cases. As part of his work, Ticktin gathered 150 depositions from bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents or ever laying eyes on them -- earning them the name "robo-signers."

The deposed employees worked for the mortgage service divisions of banks such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, as well as for mortgage servicers like Litton Loan Servicing, a division of Goldman Sachs.

H/T Tyler Durden Tyler also has a long explanation of why this is so bad. Money For Nothing And Houses For Free

Update: 15 Oct 2010 1111z

Head of Freddie Mac dead of apparent suicide.
The Best Congress Fannie Could Buy might explain it.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Welcome Instapundit readers.

My earlier post about big government's systematic elimination of large denomination currency -- ostensibly to fight the war on drugs -- made me wonder whether big government's need for the war on drugs is based not so much on a realistic goal or genuine desire to eliminate illegal drugs so much as it is the need for a contrivance. The drug war rationale thus becomes a pretext to trick citizens into supporting measures they would not otherwise support. Because people don't want to give up their freedom lightly, they have to be provided with a plausible rationale. Citizens instinctively and rightly don't want the government to be able to rifle through their financial or medical records (or bodily fluids) but if they are told it's to fight the war on drugs, or money laundering, they're more likely to be pliant. Citizens are willing to give up substantial amounts of their freedom if they think it's for a "good" cause.

In that respect, I wonder whether the mechanism at work in the Drug War is similar to the mechanism being deployed in the Carbon War (war against Anthropogenic Global Warming). Whether you agree with the principle involved in the former (saving society from people with destructive drug appetites), or the latter (saving the planet from people with destructive carbon appetites), my suspicion is that the stated goals in both cases are not only unachievable, but are not the real goal, which is simply to have as much state control over the lives of citizens as possible, as well as a rationalization for taking ever more. In this respect, the fact that existing controls are "not working" becomes an argument for increasing them.

So, to those in control, it does not matter whether the measures work or the stated goals are achievable.

It is better that they are not!

To those who rule, the issue is not whether the draconian measures involving substantial losses of citizens freedom are "worth the price," for they operate under a very different pricing scheme -- one which is geared towards taking away freedom. Debates over whether the restrictions are "worth it" are off the mark, and help rationalize existing losses of freedom as well as further losses of freedom, for they validate the statist position that the government has the right to take away freedom in the name of protecting people from harming either their bodies or the planet.

Has the drug war "worked"? This question has been asked a million times, and the proponents simply assert over and over again that if it has, it must be continued, and if it hasn't, it must be stepped up. Evidence that drug use has gone down means that this is no time to let down our guard and our efforts should be increased. And, of course, evidence that drug use has gone up means that we have to redouble lest the war on drugs be "lost."

Will the war against carbon "work"? If experience with the war on drugs is any indication, such a question will simply become a similar rhetorical foot in the door. Evidence that global temperatures or CO2 have gone down means that this is no time to let down our guard and our war against carbon should be increased. And, of course, evidence temperatures have gone up means that we have to redouble lest the war on carbon be "lost."

Human lives are at stake. The very planet is at stake!

This is no time to let up on our war against our toxic greed.

Any loss of freedom is a small price to pay!

I posted this over at Power and Control. Sort of a subtle way of saying it is my birthday. I generally don't make a big deal of it but since Eric let the cat out of the bag.... Thanks!!!!!!!!!! and hippie hugs. Oh. Yeah. I'm 66. I still feel 19. So I'm doing the 19 year old thing today. Don't ask. Because I won't tell. ;-)

Update: Sarah Palin advises me that it is also Maggie Thatcher's Birthday. Maggie has a few years on me. She is 85. My mom has her beat. Age wise. She will be 91 in a few weeks. I'm very lucky to still have her around. One of the best gifts I have gotten today. And thanks to Internet traffic making long distance more or less "free" I talked to her twice today. And I didn't have to get everything said in under three minutes. (Yeah. A "kids these days...." riff. LOL)

Yes, today is M. Simon's birthday, and I won't say which one as it just sounds too spooky (especially being that his birthday always falls on October13th, which looks Halloweenishly inverted). And I don't want to get into numerology here. One superstition at a time.

For this this special occasion, I decided to do something I hardly ever do, which was to make a YouTube video instead of writing a blog post. After consulting a very worthy and time-tested astrological text, I learned things about my co-blogger which I was at first hesitant to share, because they seem so personal in nature -- if not invasive of privacy. But the reason I decided to share them is because anyone else could have learned the same thing, armed with nothing more than his date of birth. So the more I thought it over, the more it seemed to me that it was my duty to share it with the world.

Happy Birthday!

If the video won't yet stream at this site, it's because it's still being processed.

(Link here.)

Human behavior being what it is, if we consider the sheer number of people on the planet (or even limit our considerations to the 300 million or so Americans), it should not surprise anyone that each day, a number of incidents occur which are capable of generating outrage. It used to be that local news tended to be treated as local news. If a kid got attacked by a vicious dog, beaten up by vicious thugs on the way home from school, or found himself victimized by bullies in one cruel manner or another, these things were not considered national events, and they didn't serve as fuel for the public imagination. This is not to belittle any victim of crime, but things have changed. It just so happens that if the right factors are present (certain emotional triggers), then local tragedies can be rapidly catapulted into national outrages. When that happens, the reaction tends to be along the lines of "how could this have happened in the United States?" and of course "Something must be done!" If a victim is different from his attackers (say of a different racial or sexual orientation -- or physically different, as in the case of obesity epidemic victims), if an attacking dog has the wrong genes (such as "pit bull"), then all of us in society are said to be collectively involved, and our attention is demanded one way or another. Why is that? Simply because there's an Internet to blast these events into the public imagination? At the rate ordinary tragic occurrences are becoming national outrages, pretty soon we will all be conspicuous outrage consumers. It's the "outrage of the day" phenomenon, and I have touched on it before. I make no claim to be innocent, as this blog is just as guilty of feeding upon outrage as any other outrage-fueled blog. Seriously, if it weren't for conspicuous outrage, what would there be to be conspicuously outraged about? We can't be outraged about nothing can we? Actually, we can. The epidemic of cultural nihilism itself can and probably should engender profound feelings of collective outrage. And is not apathy worse than outrage? Shouldn't we be more outraged by apathy in the face of outrage, than by outrage in the face of outrage?

What would happen if there were to emerge a cultural divide between people who care and people who don't? Political demagogues could exploit this, and already it is happening, especially when the outages involve "hot-button" issues of deep concern to single-issue-political activists. If you either don't care or can "see both sides" of, say, abortion issue or the gay marriage issue, you are likely to incur the wrath of those who have "selflessly" dedicated their lives to either combating the evil or (depending on your POV) remedying the evil. You're liable not only to be accused of apathy, but you might even be likened to the "good Germans" who stood by and did nothing while Hitler slaughtered millions and laid waste to Europe. (Oddly enough, we don't hear much about the "good Russians." Or the good Cambodians or good Rwandans.)

I'd call this entire situation outrageous, except I wouldn't want to succumb to outrage, lest I become a victim of the outrage epidemic.

Clearly, there is an outrage epidemic and clearly something must be done. But what? What sort of epidemic is it? Is there such a thing as addiction to outrage? If so, maybe the first step is admitting it. There can be no denial where it comes to outrage, because living in denial would be another outrage. But it would also be an outrage to admit that we are addicted, yet to go right on living as if being outraged is simply a fact of life. How dare we not be more outraged?

Either way, we should be more outraged. Anything less would be an outrage.

Sigh.

I should beware of the power of negative thinking. Expressing such negative thoughts about outrage could easily hamstring my efforts to tackle the outrages of the day. I have not read any news, blogs, or email, and I am still in a state of blissful unawareness of the emerging outrages of the day.

What, I should try to be more positive?

UPDATE: As M. Simon reminded me, "it's open season on Carl Paladino." Does that mean I should attack him or defend him? From what I've read, he fits the stereotype of being a loose cannon. It's tough to be honest without seeming to side with his attackers or defenders, yet as I have tried to explain, there is nothing more pathetic than not having especially strong feelings about something that everyone has strong feelings about.

Much as I wish the GOP had a better candidate (and if I had to vote in New York I'd need to be clutching my puke bag in the polls), is it OK for me to say that I just find the whole affair a little exhausting?

Hey, watch this vintage video of Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal (neither of whom I have ever been able to stand) going at it. And watch the reaction of 83 year old Janet Flanner. (I remember the show, and I loved her at the time.)

Janet Flanner I am not. But sometimes I feel like having a Janet Flanner moment.

I have been writing for the last week or so about how much I don't like Paladino in the New York Governors race. You can find the articles:

From The Beach

Wedge Issues

I think Warren Redlich is probably the best man for the job of those running. But let us be real. The odds are not in his favor this close to the election. (Yeah. Never tell me the odds.)

Which brings me to something Instapundit pointed out yesterday. Did Paladino smear our current Attorney General (who deserves it) or not?

It's open season on Carl Paladino, the homophobic, racist email-forwarding Republican candidate for governor of New York. And much to the delight of the Cuomo campaign, everyday seems to bring a new scandal. Now Paladino stands accused of using salty language about Attorney General Eric Holder, apparently telling a voter that he would say "fuck him" if he attempted to try terrorists in a Manhattan court.

OTOH I have learned from surfing the 'net that in one of Cuomo's past elections the unofficial slogan for Cuomo was "Cuomo not the homo".

You have to wonder why New York State puts up with any of these mopes?

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Union pension plans in America are falling apart. Congress has a plan to fix that.

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

In February, the White House released its "Annual Report on the Middle Class" containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through "retirement security" options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement -- which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" (GRAs), in the February "Middle Class" report.

Here is a report from 2008 on the topic which names some more names.

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not "earn a 3% real return in perpetuity." In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading -- spreading the wealth."

Well 2008 was a good year for warnings about this stuff. Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher tried to warn the 53% among us who were about to do something foolish.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

H/T Vox Populi and I think I got the Vox link from a comment at Riehl World View. But I can't find which post right now.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I don't like being lied to, and while I have come expect it, what irritates me even more than being lied to is seeing other people being lied to. Especially in the name of "democracy."

A perfect example of the kind of stuff that just pisses me off is the way the Democrats have run their campaign against Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young. (Here's his Wiki bio.) I met him, and I watched him give a short talk and answer questions in a small group setting. He is a rare breed in that he is not only a black conservative, but a black conservative who went to Harvard Law School. To the left, this makes him not merely a traitor, but a double traitor.

To my mind, this makes him a man of great courage, and whether I agree with him on each and every point is irrelevant. (I doubt there is a human being on the face of the earth with whom I agree on each and every point, myself included. Hell, I argue with myself daily right here on this blog!)

The Democrats -- per Party Chairman Mark Brewer -- have decided to ridicule Justice Young by accusing him of sleeping on the bench. That was the agreed upon "narrative" as it worked the last time they campaigned against a Republican Supreme Court justice. The trouble is that this time, they couldn't find any footage of him sleeping, so they had to invent it out of whole cloth. Or whole video. That's right; the techies who work for the Democrats have learned that if you obtain video of people, you will find that because they are human beings they will close their eyes occasionally. It is called blinking, and if you don't do it, your eyes will dry out and become injured. So, those of us who are not suffering from paralysis or brain damage will necessarily and involuntarily do it from time to time. It has nothing to do with sleep, but in the right hands, it can be made to appear that anyone is asleep.

Precisely what the Democratic Party activists did to Justice Young. Fortunately, the underlying video they used was discovered, and someone was able to painstakingly go through it frame by frame to prove that the purported "photographs" showing him sleeping were simply frames in which he momentarily blinked.

Just watch:

This could be done to any living human being and I find it beyond irritating. It's almost Orwellian.

The reason I said "almost Orwellian" is that for something to be Orwellian in the full sense of the term, the government has to be doing it. Here it isn't really the government, but a party that wants to run the government.

I will be blunt here. The people who do this sort of thing are lower than low, and I am glad their behavior at this stage is only quasi-Orwellian. So, it is not enough for me to just say that the above video constitutes good cause to vote for Bob Young in Michigan, or contribute money to the campaign to retain him on the Michigan Supreme Court.

I would go so far as to say that the tactics exemplified by the above video provide an excellent reason not only to support Justice Young, but to vote against the Democratic Party in any way, shape or form. I say this fully aware of the problems I have had (and have) with various GOP candidates, and fully aware that I may not agree with Justice Young on every issue.

The selective editing involved (which makes it look like the opposite of what occurred) reminds me of the time a video showing a Nazi crackpot being exposed and denounced at a Tea Party was edited to make it appear as if the Nazi spoke for the Tea Party.

If Republicans were caught doing the same thing, I would feel the same way. I realize there are those who think the Republicans ought to engage in similar tactics by way of retaliation, but I couldn't disagree more. Two wrongs are simply two wrongs. I think people who engage in such quasi-Orwellian behavior are unworthy of holding office, period.

If they'll do that to get elected, what do you think they'll do when they get power?

DISCLOSURE: I have donated to the campaign to retain Justice Young, and I am proud that I did.

An issue that has long fascinated me is high denomination currency. There used to be quite a bit of it in circulation, but it died out. In the late 1960s:

The Federal Reserve began taking high-denomination bills out of circulation in 1969. As of May 30, 2009, there were only 336 known $10,000 bills in circulation; 342 remaining $5,000 bills; and 165,372 $1,000 remaining bills.[2] Due to their rarity, collectors will pay considerably more than the face value of the bills to acquire them.

Highdenomination.com is all about U.S bank notes of denominations $500, $1000, $5,000 and $10,000. - These high value United States Federal Reserve Notes and Gold Certificates are out of print and prized by both collectors and investors. Unlike many other currency issues, U.S. small size high denomination notes are Federal issues. By law, they still carry legal tender status. It is specifically this legal tender status, rarity and of course high face value that offer an unparalleled draw. This desirability makes high denomination notes, arguably, the most exciting area in collectible US paper money.

In the United States, high denomination paper money dates back to 1861 (the "very beginning of U.S. Government issue") and it always included notes with face values as high as $10,000. Considering that the inflation-adjusted value of $10,000 would be $235,942.42 in today's money, that's a heck of a large bill, today. Almost a quarter of a million dollars.

So why is it that we can't obtain high-denomination notes if we want them? The highest value note is the $100.00 bill, but that was also the highest value note in 1969 when they decided to withdraw the higher-denomination notes, so I guess the government thought no one would need anything larger. But what about inflation since 1969? That hundred dollar bill would be $578.63 in today's money. So why hasn't the government at least re-introduced the $500.00 bill, just to keep up with inflation?

The answer seems to be the drug war.

Up until the mid-70s, and possibly later (I no longer recall the date), there were at least $500 and $1000 bills available to the public. They were withdrawn as part of the so-called "war on drugs"; the theory was that if large bills were unavailable, it would be more difficult to move large amounts of cash. In recent years, some people have suggested that since the change made no visible dent at all, the $100 and even the $50 should be withdrawn as well.

When was the last time that you had any need for a $100 bill or perhaps a $50 bill? Indeed, most purchases that Americans conduct over $20 are in the form of a check, wire transfer, credit or debit card. This begs the question: Who has the need for the $100 bill?The answer is clear -- the underground economy and criminal economy thrive on paper cash, especially the $100 bill.Because paper-cash transactions are non-transparent, anonymous and untraceable; paper cash has allowed criminal activity and the underground economies to thrive. In fact, the payment of choice by drug cartels and terrorist organizations is the $100 bill because it is easy to store, launder and transport.

As M. Simon keeps saying,

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

I understand why he put it in large caps, so I left it that way. Big government deserves to be fought in big caps.

Big Government, give us back our big bills!

MORE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all.

Comments invited, agree or disagree.

Watch this video. Or this one:

Needless to say the videos are Not Entirely Safe For Work.

I posted the above to illustrate a point. Beach wear. Now I could have done a bit with guys in Speedos but I'm partial to the ladies. And my point? I'm getting to that. There is a race in New York that I have been giving some attention to. And the gay punching is getting rough (Hippie punching does not work as well as it used to. I guess the hippie menace is no longer so menacing.)

Which brings me to Carl Paladino.

Carl Paladino, the volatile GOP candidate for governor of New York, refused to step back yesterday from his comments disparaging gays over the weekend, saying that children should not attend gay pride parades because they featured men in bikinis "grinding at each other and doing these gyrations.''

"I don't think that's proper; I think it's disgusting,'' Paladino told NBC's "Today.''

In appearances before Orthodox Jewish groups Sunday in Brooklyn, the Buffalo developer and Tea Party-backed candidate created an uproar by saying that children should not be "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is acceptable.''

He also took a swipe at his opponent, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade with his children.

He spoke as the state was still absorbing the news that nine young men had lured a gay man and two teenagers to a building and for hours savagely beat, tortured, and raped them with a baseball bat.

So given the choice between a society that tolerates gay guys prancing (yeah, what a cliche) in the streets or one that creates a truly vile atmosphere towards my fellow humans that makes some folks think acting out their violent fantasies towards people who are different (actively despised) is in the spirit of the age, I'm with the prancing gay guys all the way.

I'm kinda like Grant when it comes to moral panics. I don't scare worth a damn. And there are more citizens joining the unafraid ranks every day. I'm hoping that they represent enough New Yorkers to defeat Palidino. Pour encourager les autres.

Update: In case you are not comfortable voting for a Democrat and don't want to sit this one out Warren Redlich has been giving Paladino the HELL he deserves on the campaign trail.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Nate Silver over at Five-thirty-eight is clinging to hope. His latest headline reads:

Incumbents Polling Below 50 Percent Often Win Re-Election, Despite Conventional Wisdom

So I wrote him a little something to cheer him up.

Nate,

You sound like me in 2008. Every tiny spark of hope magnified into a lightning flash. Look at what is happening in AZ. A no name, no money, rocket scientist is statistically tied (latest numbers show her two points ahead) with a 4 term incumbent.

Morale keeps going up on the R side. Races that were not even on the radar become first competitive and then fugedaboutit. The fire wall is not holding. Money is not working. A word from Sarah Palin and the money starts flowing. And her endorsement is GOLD. Politically and in terms of cash. She is going to have between 20 and 50 allies in the next Congress.

In fact Palin has been our shadow President ever since she stopped being Governor. The Democrat campaign to drive her from the Governorship of Alaska has epic failed. Oh. It worked all right. It just didn't have the intended consequences. She is stronger than ever. It is an old Jedi trick I'm told.

I believe, based on the zeitgeist, that a 100 seat change is within the reach of the Rs. If you are a Democrat you have to consider that the mood of the country is murderous. If you are an old school R the mood is horrible. If you are with the rebels it is looking very good.

Yeah. I'm with the Rebel Alliance. You're welcome.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Happy Columbus Day!

As Glenn Reynolds noted earlier,

Many in the West will demonstrate their fierce originality and intellectual independence today by condemning Christopher Columbus using the same shopworn cliches they used last year.

How about "Christopher Columbus & His Crimes Against Humanity"? That seems as good a nomination as any for this year's Indigenous People's Day Award for Fierce Shopworn Originality and Intellectually Independent Cliches!

It's too bad I'm not into historical reenactment, though. Because it's always struck me that the people who talk about crimes against humanity think that some crimes against humanity are worse than others.

Hey cut it out!

MORE: As we all know, it is important not to be judgmental about gruesome scenes of torture and cannibalism:

"Then they kicked the bodies down the steps, and the Indian butchers who were waiting below cut off their arms and legs and flayed their faces, which they afterwards prepared like glove leather, with their beards on, and kept for their drunken festivals. Then they ate their flesh with a sauce of peppers and tomatoes."

Gruesome as these practices may seem, an ecological perspective and population pressure theory render the Aztec emphasis on human sacrifice acceptable as a natural and rational response to the material conditions of their existence. In Tristes Tropiques, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss described the Aztecs as suffering from "a maniacal obsession with blood and torture." A materialist ecological approach reveals the Aztecs to be neither irrational nor mentally ill, but merely human beings who, faced with unusual survival problems, responded with unusual behavior.

Now why can't they say that about the Europeans?

UPDATE: And a very Happy Columbus Day to Glenn Reynolds, who was not only nice enough to link this post, but who is very much a native American (and a forgiving one at that).

Diversity and divisiveness strike me as close cousins. If we all came from Africa, then we are all invasive species. (I'd say "Kumbaya y'all!" or maybe even "Can't we all get along?" but I'll spare the shopworn cliches.)

Thanks for coming.

Your comments are welcome, agree or disagree.

MORE: Don't miss this.

In our age of political correctness, when did such gleeful bashing of a day held dear by Italian-Americans become so tolerable? Columbus may have been an imperfect man, but his legacy and inspirational explorer spirit is directly tied to the Italian-American immigrant experience. Belittling Columbus may elicit knowing nods on Brown's campus, but in Little Italy, it only makes you look small.

Krugman:

Here's what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending.

Reality:

That level of government spending compares unfavorably even to profligate Japan, which is at 36%.

More Krugman:

Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level -- most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009.

This is pretty misleading, since as Fabius Maximus pointed out in January, government payrolls swelled by 326,000 from 2007 to 2009 -- while private payrolls fell by 7 million. And since Obama's Democratic congressional majority took the fiscal reins in 2006, government payrolls have galloped ahead by 575,000. As late as May 2010, there were 22,959,000 government employees, which appears to be a record high.

Krugman's unfalsifiable thesis (apparently he's been taking notes from Al Gore) is that more government spending would always make things better than whatever they are. But this argument fails for a simple reason: the marginal usefulness of government spending tends to fall pretty dramatically at higher percentages of GDP. The first 1% of GDP spent on roads, rail, and regulations have enormous marginal utility, Bridges to Nowhere and million-dollar educrat retirement packages at 45%, not so much. If government could efficiently allocate resources at any arbitrary level of GDP, countries that eliminated the private sector entirely would be leading the world in GDP instead of collapsing or instituting free market reforms.

But there is one notable nugget of wisdom in this piece: Krugman does at least manage to accurately describe his own column.

"...the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers."

It seems the Presidential sector is in a similar condition.

Barack Obama is being politically crushed in a vise. From above, by elite opinion about his competence. From below, by mass anger and anxiety over unemployment. And it is too late for him to do anything about this predicament until after November's elections.

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Obama did not turn out to be an orthodox liberal. He turned out to be a Communist. Community organizer? Black liberation theology? Share the wealth?

Puhleeeeeeeeeze.

Any one who didn't see this guy coming wanted to be rolled.

I prefer to think of it as "They came at us in the same old way, and, you know, we beat them in the same old way."

Instapundit has a great take on the media change:

IS THE MEDIA GIVING UP ON OBAMA? Hey, they'll go down for you, but they won't go down with you. . . .

Cross Posted at Power and Control

My friend Atlas aka Pam Geller vents at length on the story of this cartoon's non-publication in some places.

Libertarian Republican discusses a New York Times Hit piece on Atlas.

And for those among you who are looking for a cheap thrill (and thrilling it is) here is Altas in a bikini - mostly - vavoooom - oh yeah she is discussing the news of the day (2006). Brains. Beauty. Libertarian. And Jewish. What is not to like?

Come to think of it Dave's not here either

There are a lot of ways to drum up publicity for your own book, but I think throwing it at the president takes the cake.

As I just told M. Simon in an email related to his post, it's obvious that the authorities know the title, and equally obvious that they don't want ordinary people to know:

The Secret Service says it was aware of the incident when it happened.

A spokesman says the book was thrown by an "over-exuberant" individual who wanted Obama to have a copy of a book he had written.

The Secret Service says it interviewed the book thrower and deemed there was no threat - just bad judgment on his part. No arrest was made and the Service declined to give his name.

Which probably explains why the incident hasn't been much reported in the American press, so we had to learn about it via Glenn's link to the Brits.

MORE: From a local Fox News story: "There are no confirmed reports as to what was the book's title or subject matter. A Reuters photographer seems to have snapped the clearest picture of the book. And it isn't very clear at all.

Damn it, I just want to know the title!

It's hard to judge a book when you can't see its cover.

AND MORE: Many of the commenters at the WaPo writeup are speculating that the book thrower was a Tea Partier, although a few are saying the opposite.

But wait a minute! The Tea Partiers are a bunch of illiterate morons, right? So, if the book was thrown by its author, according to elementary leftist logic, he could not have been a Tea Partier.

MORE: Via a tip from a commenter here named Dennis Madden, I learned that a man (said to post Internet writings "about how 'wisdom is a fragrance of the brain' and 'why the man's sperm is tiny while the woman's egg is huge') is claiming to be the book thrower:

The man who threw a book at Obama in Philadelphia yesterday is a New York antiques dealer called Sajid Ali Khan.

From the Amazon description:

This book offers the guidance to learn exactly what is wisdom and how one can become wise. All the philosophers from the ancient times to the present have tried and failed to define wisdom beyond defining it by its attributes. Sajid has taken wisdom from the realm of philosophy and put it firmly in the realm of science. The 200 aphorisms contained here, first published as 'knols' on the web, give exact insights into the nature of the self and how it can be mastered. Lack of emotional intelligence education is a very big factor in the current world mess from economics to education and everything else in between. This book provides practical answers to many of these problems. It provides an opportunity to create a super mature society through emotional intelligence education which at the highest super mature stage is wisdom. These knollettes are remarkable for their beautiful clearness and simplicity of form. Wisdom is no longer a mystery any more and everyone can become wise.

I don't think throwing a book at the president is a very wise thing to do.

And I hope I haven't promoted the book; what happens to me is that I get curiouser and curiouser, and I can't quit until I have some sort of answer.

MORE: The picture above is a closeup from the picture circulating everywhere which shows the book as it passes the president. I think it is most likely the back of the book, as I assumed that the price sticker would normally be on the bottom, I turned the book upside down and saw what looks like the outline of a swan.

Amazon only shows the front cover (featuring a swan):

So while I could be wrong, my guess is that that's the book, and that the outline of the swan on the airborne book is part of the rear cover design.

MORE: The author denies that he threw the book at the president:

look how history is written I threw my book when the President was off the stage and I actually threw the book away from the President even though I very much wanted to get it to his attention and I know what lines I cannot cross. But it made it in the news as 'someone threw a book at the President'!

Some of my friends said that they saw it on TV and heard it on the radio. I am so grateful that America produces such great leaders. The Vice President is an original and he saved the day for me.

MORE: I find it fascinating that neither the title of the book nor the identity of the author are being reported anywhere -- despite the discussion of the event at the author's web site.

Had a conservative, Tea Party-supporting author had thrown a book at the president, and posted his version of what happened, I think the reaction would be very, very different.

MORE: Please bear in mind that I am only speculating about the title of the book, based on the shape of the swan, and the fact that the author has only one book listed for sale at Amazon, and that is the one with the swan on it.

Likewise, just because a man named "Sajid Ali Khan" has admitted he's the guy the Secret Service approached does not necessarily mean that he was. He could theoretically be making his story up.

However, I think it's worth noting that in 2008, a man with the same name wrote "An open letter to Senator Obama."

Nolan Finley (editorial page editor of The Detroit News) is warning the Republican Party about the inherently fragile (and often seemingly fickle) nature of independent voters:

The country is tilting more conservative, in reaction to the extreme liberalism in Washington, just as it leaned more liberal in 2008 in a rebuke of Bush. But there's hardly a far-right revival under way.

It's the middle that's moving, the independent voters that now decide most elections. Those voters can switch loyalties in a heartbeat, as we've seen over the past two years.

What they're looking for is a government that works for the people who pay the taxes and not for the special interests who pay the politicians. They don't want to be jerked too hard left or too hard right.

And they're sending a message this year that they don't want a government that dominates their lives and usurps their individual freedoms. They seem to be looking for a blend of fiscal conservatism and social moderation.

Republicans would do well to remember that if they're tempted to stray from attacking spending and the deficit and start dabbling in the divisive social issues.

Learning nothing from the Republican pummeling, Democrats stopped listening to voters as soon as the ballots were counted, reading their victory as a mandate to march to the left and impose one-party rule. They acted against the will of the people and ignored their aversion to massive spending and deficits.

The GOP is benefiting from the self-destruction of Democrats more than it is from the strength of their own platform.

The country remains deeply divided on social issues, but right now there is a huge wave of concern over economic issues, and over the fact that the Democrats have behaved tyrannically. They want to tell the American people what to do with their lives in so many ways that it is mind-boggling. As I keep saying, for the first time in many years, the Republicans and conservatives are sitting pretty. They are in the position to give back to people something that the authoritarian hair shirt Democrats want to take away.

So it's probably not the greatest time to be screaming about homosexual depravity or waving bloody fetus placards at people.

Let the authoritarians on the left do the screaming.

I have been meaning to write a post about wedge issues (with the usual delays and procrastinations) when commenter Fritz obliquely brought up the issue. So I went a lookin and found this. So - procrastination over.

Carl Paladino, Tea Party darling and New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, went on a shocking anti-gay rant, telling a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders that homosexuality is unacceptable.

Speaking in Brooklyn Sunday Paladino claimed that children should not be "brainwashed" into thinking that homosexuality was a "valid" or "acceptable" option.

Paladino's harsh words proved to be a stunning example of homophobia. Paladino's tone and words serve to foster and perpetuate a hostile environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) people.

To start it is always wise to know what you are talking about.

A wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which splits apart or creates a "wedge" in the support base of one political group. Wedge issues can be advertised, publicly aired, and otherwise emphasized by an opposing political group, in an attempt to weaken the unity of the divided group, or to entice voters in the divided group to give their support to the opposing group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

Wedge politics are the key to understanding the behavior of both candidates and voters during political campaigns. Among the voters most likely to be responsive to campaign information are those with conflicting predispositions--partisans who disagree with their party on a policy issue. For these cross-pressured partisans, campaign messages from the opposition can be persuasive if they are focused on the incongruent issue.

Currently Wisconsin is also embroiled in a culture war.

The economy has dominated the debate in the race for governor, but groups opposing abortion and supporting reproductive rights say the stark differences between the candidates mean results of the Nov. 2 election will have repercussions for years to come.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democrat in the race, and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, the Republican, have spelled out their positions over the years, and groups on both sides of the abortion divide say the distinctions are clear.

"We look at Tom Barrett as a retread of (outgoing Gov.) Jim Doyle on our issues," said Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

Walker "is really out of the mainstream when it comes to basic health care for women," said Tanya Atkinson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin.

Despite these examples (and how the two races turn out and the exit polling afterward) I think this tactic will get deep sixed. Why? Well to figure out that question we have to look at why wedge issues are used. That is not to hard - it is used because there is not a dimes worth of difference between the major parties on general issues - you know - one party wants socialism hell bent for leather. The other party is not quite in such a rush. Some choice. So you need wedge issues to crank up your base and maybe gather a few votes from the other side.

The down side is that you get a culture war. Straights vs gays. Dopers vs alkys. Pro abortionists vs those who prefer a black market in abortion. And on it goes. And you know this kind of thing works. In some places at some times. And when it does the outcome is always ugly. How do I know? Because it has worked before in Germany against the Jews. In fact it seems to be happening in this country against gays. Just suicides so far. I'm not encouraged. Still. I don't think Americans will stand for this. It is not in our nature generally. Most of the time. People who push this crap are playing with fire. Why? Because there are some of us who would rather vote bankruptcy than culture war.

And with all the economic issues on the table a "Culture War" is unnecessary unless you have nothing generally different to offer. I don't care who the TEA Party darlings are, if they are culture warriors I will work against them with all my power. So - Thanks Fritz!

Because I will be God Damned if any of these bastard sons of bitches are coming after any one, because Jews will always be on that list sooner or later. Which is why I take this sort of thing personally. And why Republicans have such a hard time attracting Jews. You stupid fucks.

OK. Deep breath. Anyway I think this will end in time because unity on financial issues is the most pressing issue now and we will not have a culture to fight over unless we get our economic house in order.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Someone threw a book at Obama during a rally to raise morale among Democrats. Does any one know what the title of the book is?

Which brings us to another question about titles. This time the titles in question are the documents that prove ownership. It seems that with the slicing and dicing of mortgages clear title is rather unclear.

Evidently when people are in a hurry they make mistakes.

Bank of America is delaying foreclosures in 23 states as it examines whether it rushed the foreclosure process for thousands of homeowners without reading the documents.

The move adds the nation's largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.

One cause of the problem is that banks relied on one company to do all the work and they weren't up to the job. Kind of like the Democrats in Congress.

Some of the nation's largest mortgage companies used a single document processor who said he signed off on foreclosures without having read the paperwork - an admission that may open the door for homeowners across the country to challenge foreclosure proceedings.

The legal predicament compelled Ally Financial, the nation's fourth-largest home lender, to halt evictions of homeowners in 23 states this week. Now it appears hundreds of other companies, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, may also be affected because they use Ally to service their loans.

As head of Ally's foreclosure document processing team, 41-year-old Jeffrey Stephan was required to review cases to make sure the proceedings were legally justified and the information was accurate. He was also required to sign the documents in the presence of a notary.

In a sworn deposition, he testified that he did neither.

The reason may be the sheer volume of the documents he had to hand-sign: 10,000 a month. Stephan had been at that job for five years.

Well this may be a case where Obama did the right thing.

President Obama stepped into a growing political furor over the nation's troubled foreclosure system Thursday by vetoing a little-known bill that critics say would have made it easier to evict homeowners who missed their payments.

The decision to block the measure, which Congress passed without debate, came as members of the president's own party have urged the administration and federal regulators to more actively address the crisis over flawed foreclosures.

Meanwhile, attorneys general from about 40 states vowed to band together to investigate reports of fraudulent documents and of banks seizing property without having clear ownership of the mortgages.

At least 10 states - with Iowa and Delaware being the latest - are seeking to expand a voluntary freeze on foreclosures by some of the nation's largest mortgage lenders to include more companies and more regions. And calls have increased for a nationwide moratorium - a move that could deal a blow to the earnings of big banks and grind to a halt the sale of millions of properties in foreclosure.

In the middle of a heated election season, a growing number of politicians have been eager to weigh in on the matter - and are taking pains to rebuke the financial institutions at the core of the controversy.

And the central problem? Bankers created new "security" instruments while bypassing the safeguards meant to prevent fraud in the real estate market. Then they sliced and diced the mortgages. You could buy the income from the interest on the mortgage. Or you could buy the income stream from the repayment of capital. And probably other things I'm not even aware of (I'm an engineer - not a banker). And the income streams from many mortgages were bundled together and sold as "securities". And every time the securities changed hands the title got cloudier. And at this point it is not exactly clear who owns what.

And that is causing problems for title insurance companies.

Sales of foreclosed properties, already stalled by mounting evidence of widespread flawed documentation practices by lenders and attorneys, may hit another roadblock: New buyers might not be able to get the title insurance required for a mortgage.

New House Title, owned by a large Tampa foreclosure law firm under state investigation, this week denied coverage for a 2009 Deerfield Beach condo foreclosure that its own attorneys had handled, citing potentially defective court filings.

The New York Times last week also claimed Old Republic National Title, the fourth largest title insurer in the country, had sent a memo to its agents in some states saying the company would not cover homes foreclosed on by JPMorgan Chase until "objectionable issues have been resolved." Earlier, the company had taken the same stand on homes foreclosed by GMAC Mortgage, now owned by Ally Bank.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I didn't know it before, but thanks to Glenn I realized that today is 10/10/10.

And right now it's 10:10 p.m.

So I better get this post up quick before I turn into a pumpkin!

AFTERTHOUGHT: It came and went pretty fast. I don't think I'll ever live to see another 1010101010.

And I just wasn't quite fast enough to get the post published at 10:10 p.m. and10 seconds (10:10:10 p.m.) Give me a break, OK?

It occurred to me that next year there will be another chance for those who are into numerical repetition. Assuming the planet lasts that long, and that we survive, most of us who are here now will live to see 11/11/11. And the following year there will be a 12/12/12. But there won't be a 13/13/13, nor will there be a 14/14/14 -- so my advice is to enjoy the few remaining numerically repetitive dates of this century while you still can.

That's what one advocate says about an idea floated by Michael Savage (a man I can't stand) to impose a 20% tariff on all Chinese goods:

In his book that just came out today, "Trickle Up Poverty," Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has proposed a tariff on Chinese goods in order to restore America's manufacturing sector, specifically:

20 percent tariffs on all China made goods immediately; rising by 5 percent each year for each year China refuses to revalue their currency.

Savage calls his collection of proposals his "Manifesto for Saving America." There is a major change occurring within conservative thought.

One of Savage's proposals is to raise tariffs on China. Maybe he can call it Smoot-Hawley-Savage .

That's been tried already. When we raise tariffs on other countries, they raise tariffs against us. You can forget any exports if you raise tariffs like that.

But that goes to the merits of what he says about one subject. There is more to Savage than merely bad ideas.

It's not so much that he says things that irritate me so much as the way he says things. I would hate hearing him say something I agreed with, for the guy's voice just plain grates on my nerves, and gives me the creeps, and has since I first heard him at the young and impressionable age of 41.

At 56 I might not be young, but I'm still impressionable. Or maybe it's just that whatever the process is that causes grating things to grate on the nerves worsens with age. Grating things seem to grate more than they used to, and not only was Savage one of more grating things I have endured, he seems to have gotten even more grating. So while I'm less tolerant, he's also less tolerant -- which makes him less tolerable for me. And life is too short.

Perhaps I should ignore him in the hope that he will just go away, but I have long suspected the man was a Democratic or leftist plant of some sort, and he has been caught giving money to Democrats.

But I'm not sure that this proves he is necessarily part of some grand conspiracy to confuse and destroy the right. He might simply be doing what he does for the money. He has a personality that is unique in its ability to simultaneously enliven and stimulate his "choir," while nauseating those who aren't in the choir. Interestingly, the latter group includes people who might agree with him on the issues:

Something about Savage has always rubbed me wrong. I share his outrage at the immigration disaster, and several other issues, but I just get the willies when I listen to him.

As to why his book with its tariff advocacy is being released now in October (on the heels of an election), that might just be another coincidence.

After all, no genuine conservatives would support protective tariffs, would they?

It's the sort of thing that might encourage divisions.

MORE: It occurred to me that the call for protectionism may be Savage's way of attacking Glenn Beck (who advocates free trade, especially with China), and I learned that Savage has ridiculed Beck's eye problems:

Michael Savage attacks Glenn Beck; calls him the 'hemorrhoid with eyes', crazy, and a fraud (among other things) after Glenn announces he may be going blind.

He also predicts 'something is about to happen' to Glenn that will conveniently increase his ratings.

"I shut that guy off a long time ago. He is mentally ill."

"... they're going to have to throw a net over him eventually."

...personally I think he's a moron."

"I don't listen to or pay any attention to Savage. I think he's a nut."

"Indefensible. If somebody at the polar opposite end of the spectrum from where I stand...Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, etc....announced they were going blind, they would get my prayers and sympathy as basic human decency would demand."

"Savage is nuts. He lost me with his mad rants a long time ago."

"There's only one man from whom I'll take negativity and crankiness over the airwaves, and it isn't Michael Savage. Heard him once and that was all I needed."

"I really dislike savage. [...]..he is everything the left accuses conservative talk radio of being."

"...I used to think he was an entertaining nut. However as he got more and more nasty, even when there was no need to be, I got turned off big time. Now I avoid him."

"Not a Beck fan, but Weiner Nation is the biggest imbecile of them all. "

"I think he's a fake.

He's a liberal who adopted an over-the-top populist (not really conservative, or at least not a thinking conservative) persona and is GOING crazy as a result."

"Savage hurts our cause."

"Something is wrong with Savage. I dont listen to him, ever."

While there is no way to prove it, Savage's call for protectionism may very well be a politically insincere ploy, calculated simply to target Beck.

If the guy is in fact the trollish provocateur I have long suspected him to be, perhaps I shouldn't be writing about him at all.