Dept. of I Told You So, Economics Division

Prospects of economic recovery in the near future are now being dismissed scornfully by private-sector financial analysts.

Three weeks ago, I noted Paul Krugman's observation that, once the Fed cut rates to zero, we had reached the limits of monetary intervention. Between the TARP bailout and the massive "stimulus" passed in February, we may have reached the feasible limits of fiscal intervention. And none of this has produced recovery, nor even any realistic hope of recovery any time soon.

The situation is not yet catastrophic, but . . . well, give them time. If the Democrats get what they want (the Waxman-Markey energy tax, socialized medicine, and another stimulus) it may suffice to bring about a Zimbabwe-style meltdown.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. This morning the professor adds a gloom-and-doom roundup, including Daniel Indiviglio's estimate that the actual unemployment rate is already 12 percent.

Think of Al Franken as an overture

by Smitty (h/t The Corner)

Jonathan Adler points to a Times Online article about Alec Baldwin running for Congress in 2012.

Baldwin said that his fantasy opponent would be Joe Liebermann, the former conservative Democrat from Connecticut who went independent after losing the party ticket. In the end, however, he conceded that his political ambitions lie in his native New York.

“Here anything can happen,” Mr Baldwin said. “People get sick, die. They’re offered lucrative deals and want to cash in and make money for their retirement. People misstep. Unfortunately, an opportunity for me may mean bad things for someone else.”

And then, further on

Baldwin has not always been so courteous about those on the other side of the political divide. In his Huffington Post blog, he once called former vice president Dick Cheney "a lying, thieving Oil Whore. Or a murderer of the US Constitution.”

Of the Republicans driving Bill Clinton’s impeachment, he told Conan O’Brien’s Late Show: “If we were in another country... we would stone them to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they're doing to this country.”

Alec, if you'll listen to your brother Stephen, you might have some potential.

Update:
Franken's First Act: Signs On As EFCA Co-Sponsor

How to make foreign policy interesting?

Cleavage-baring underwear photos may not actually make me read your foreign-policy blog. Such photos will, however, greatly increase the likelihood of my linking your foreign-policy blog.

None of this, however, will actually make foreign policy interesting. It is by nature a dull subject. If we aren't bombing or invading another country, and they aren't bombing or invading us, then it's really just diplomacy, isn't it?

I'm trying to think of something that bores me more than diplomacy. Margaret Carlson is on MSNBC right now, talking to Keith Olbermann. Carlson is more boring than diplomacy, but Olbermann is more interesting, if only slightly so.

But the underwear/cleavage thing -- that's interesting.

David Brooks is a predictable swine

When he begins with a long paean to the Founding Fathers -- in this case, George Washington -- you can bet money that the Republican Iago is about to plunge his dagger deep into someone's back:

First, there was Mark Sanford’s press conference. Here was a guy utterly lacking in any sense of reticence, who was given to rambling self-exposure even in his moment of disgrace. Then there was the death of Michael Jackson and the discussion of his life. Here was a guy who was apparently untouched by any pressure to live according to the rules and restraints of adulthood. Then there was Sarah Palin’s press conference. Here was a woman who aspires to a high public role but is unfamiliar with the traits of equipoise and constancy, which are the sources of authority and trust.

Right. A logical grouping:

• The man who makes a spectacle of himself pursuing an Argentine floozy;
• The man who makes a spectacle of himself pursuing pubescent boys and trying to look like a freakish parody of Liza Minelli; and
• Sarah Palin.

Am I the only one who thinks the third item in this list is misplaced? Am I the only one who believes that the entire purpose of this 804-word column was to deliver that one cheap shot at Sarah Palin? Is there anyone on the planet who respects David Brooks or desires his approbation?

UPDATE: Linked by Obi's Sister, Daley Gator, Paco Enterprises and Memeorandum. Meanwhile, HuffPo's Adam Hanft analyzes the Brooksian method.

It's a familiar technique. If you go back to his classic 1997 betrayal of the conservative cause -- "A Return to National Greatness" -- you find Brooks begins by describing the century-old magnificence of the Library of Congress building. He contrasts a bygone time when "there was enthusiasm for grand American projects" with the limited-government agenda of the GOP majority which then controlled Congress, and finds the latter sorely wanting:

At a moment of world supremacy unlike any other, Americans are not asking big questions about their civilization, nor are they being asked anything but the sorts of things pollsters and marketers want to know. And so our politics has become degrading and boring. Political conflict appears trivial, vicious for no good reason.

So the splendor of the Gilded Age, symbolized by the elaborate architecture of the Library of Congress, is made a contrast to the "trivial" nature of contemporary politics, and the eloquence of Brooksian prose is such that the argument might easily persuade a reader who knows nothing of history.

To start with, if you walk three blocks north from the Library of Congress, you can find another impressive architectural specimen, Union Station, completed about a decade later. It took only a year to build it, too. What's up with that? You couldn't build a replica of Union Station today if you had a trillion dollars, and you sure as hell couldn't build it in a year.

Skilled labor was cheap. It's really that simple. This is the great lesson to be learned by the grandeur of the monuments of the past. Go to Berry College in Georgia and examine the Gothic glories of the Ford Buildings (example photo). With a philanthropic donation from Henry Ford, Berry brought in Italian stone masons to do the work. And they worked cheap.

A 55-hour week -- 10 hours a day Monday through Friday, and half a day on Saturday -- was common for laborers a century ago. (Benefits? Whoever heard of such a thing?) And the laborer who earned $2 for his 10-hour day was actually doing better than many small farmers of the era, who toiled from dawn to dusk merely to earn their family's subsistence.

When what we would today consider poverty (at least as measured by annual cash income) was the plight of a majority of the people, and when there was no welfare state to provide for the idle, it was possible to build grand monuments like the Library of Congress, Union Station or the Ford Buildings. Today, mechanization and mass-produced materials -- steel, glass, concrete -- allow us to erect giant skyscrapers, but the awe-inspiring handcrafted touches of those older buildings can't be had for any feasible sum, basically because of changes in economic conditions.

This historical background is omitted entirely from Brooks' celebration of the Beaux Arts splendor of the Library of Congress building in "A Return to National Greatness," just as he stripped George Washington from historical context for his column on "dignity." (One wonders how Washington would have dealt with the FOIA frenzy of Palin's enemies.)

Brooks' walk-off yesterday was a classic:

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

What is the sum of the "reticence" and "dispassion" that Brooks praises? Mainly, there is Obama's deep baritone voice. If the politics thing hadn't worked out, Obama could have had a successful career as an announcer for an FM "smooth jazz" station. As it is, however, he is blessed with a fawning press corps whose members seem to conceive themselves as employees of the marketing department of Obama Inc.

Easy to strike the presidential pose of reticence under such circumstances, but as is his habit, Brooks omits the context necessary to understanding the phenomenon he celebrates. Brooks wishes to appropriate for himself the "dignity" he praises, but in fact his impulse is childish: "Look, something wonderful!"

Let mature students of statesmanship reserve judgment. We'll see how Obama's "dignity" holds up when unemployment hits 14 percent.

Pope + U.N. = ?

Revelation 13 or USA Today:

Pope Benedict XVI today called for reforming the United Nations and establishing a "true world political authority" with "real teeth" to manage the global economy with God-centered ethics.

Global economic power vested in the United Nations with the Pope's blessing? Where do we line up for our "666" tattoos? This is the kind of conspiracy-theory nightmare scenario that makes people want to buy shortwave radios, stock up on dehydrated food and move to Idaho.

In which I dare to disagreewith Francis Cianfracco

He's a successful Wall Street guy. Me? A mere blogger who can't even pronounce "Cianfracco." Yet I'm going to disagree with this:

When you have a huge collapse in economic output, as we have, then all your future measurements are coming off the much lower base. That's why everyone from President Obama on down can credibly say that the recession will end this year. Sooner or later the economy will stop shrinking, and when it does, by definition it will be growing again.

"Sooner or later," yes. But my hunch is "later," and certainly not before the end of the year.

Why do I say that? The Keynesian stimulus/bailout interventions have damaged the economy in ways that aren't going to be clearly apparent until months, if not years, down the line.

The real-estate bubble began collapsing in 2006, but it was not until 2008 that the bottom fell out, and the Keynesian interventions have only delayed the housing market from finding a solid bottom from which recovery can begin. Another wave of defaults and foreclosures is yet to come and, when that hits, Uncle Sam will have fewer resources available to rescue the financial institutions which will be bankrupted in the process.

If the government had avoided its deficit-swelling attempt to avert the natural economic consequences of the bubble's end, the misery would have been severe, but of relatively short duration, and the economy would soon have found itself at true rock-bottom, ready to rebuild.

Instead, interventionism created a false bottom. It's like one of those inflatable "moon bounce" things you rent for a kid's birthday party -- interventionism sends false signals that prevent the market economy from reacting rationally. So we got a three-month "sucker's rally" on Wall Street that ended last month but which many investors didn't realize was actually over until last week.

The Dow closed over 14,000 in early October 2007, and fell to below 6,600 by March 2009. Was 6,600 the real market bottom? Or was the movement upward -- which peaked near 8,800 on June 12 -- a result of false optimism generated chiefly by political inputs?

There are analyst who have said they don't think the Dow will bottom out above 5,000, and the Dow closed today at 8,163.60, which means if the pessimists are correct, stocks are at least 60 percent over their real value. Yet how are investors to calculate values rationally when Bernanke, Geithner and Co. are pursuing such insanely inflationary policies?

We will almost certainly be experiencing double-digit unemployment well into 2009, and Cianfracco references the likelihood of a "jobless recovery," which is not really recovery at all.

What causes the "jobless recovery" phenomenon? Inflation. Pumping up the money supply is an inflationary measure but, in a cycle where the real economy is experiencing deflation, there is no discernible impact on consumer prices. However, the immediate and direct recipients of the Fed's monetary largesse -- major financial institutions -- gain low-interest funds for investment, which boosts prices on Wall Street.

That is to say, investment markets absorb the inflationary pressure, and corporations gain value thereby, but without producing any meaningful improvement in the real economy, the kind of improvement that creates jobs. The high-tech bubble of the late '90s, and the more recent housing bubble, were examples of how inflation can be channeled into investment vehicles (stocks or houses) rather than impacting consumer prices.

Add to this toxic formula the heavy economic burden imposed by the endlessly expanding federal deficits -- to say nothing of the soaring entitlement expenditures that will begin when the Baby Boomers start turning 65 in 2011 -- and you have a perfect recipe for Carteresque stagflation.

With so many rational reasons for a pessimistic outlook, Cianfracco's sanguine expectation that recovery will begin before year-end looks irrationally optimistic. Which isn't to say it's guaranteed wrong. I just don't think a near-term recovery is likely.

However, I can't even pronounce "Cianfracco," so my pessimism may be more irrational than his optimism.

First comes love, then comes marriage . . .

. . . next comes Megan McArdle with a baby carriage? Well, it is to be hoped, now that The World's Tallest Female Econo-Blogger has ensnared Peter Suderman as the infinite demand for her supply in the marketplace of love.

While I do not recommend the free-milk-samples approach to selling cows, I nevertheless extend congratulations to Mr. Suderman on his good fortune, and fondly offer best wishes to his intended.

As James Joyner notes, neither member of the newly betrothed couple gives me any credit, but that might require them to actually link me, which is against their religion.

When I saw her at Reason magazine's June happy hour, the soon-to-be Mrs. Suderman said to me, "Acromegalic?"

Hey, some guys consider that a synonym for "sexy." But let's not discuss Peter's personal preferences . . . NTTAWWT.

Michael Jackson died like he lived

Like a punk.

Let's face it, people: He did not die like Tupac or Biggie. He didn't die like Sam Cooke. Michael Jackson's death is not a "tragedy," as the idiots on TV insist on calling it.

He died like a plastic-surgery addled pedophile freak. He orchestrated a sham wedding with a foul-mouthed slattern whom he paid to bear test-tube children biologically unrelated to either of them. He built a bizarro fantasyland home and used it to attract the little boys he molested. He wasted gazillions of dollars on shopping sprees that would make Liberace blush, and died bankrupt.

He is unworthy of remembrance, and anyone sucked into this televised vortex of fake mourning is a fool.

Also, my traffic has been down ever since this mawkish memorial service began, and I can't forgive that.

UPDATE 2:40 p.m.: Brooke Shield is now getting goopy on live TV. What a waste.

Japanese cell-phone porn junkies

Actually saw this on Ace's sidebar yesterday, but then Conservative Grapevine linked it, so here's Bloomberg News on the phenomenon:

Takeshi says he pays 6,300 yen ($66) a month to NTT DoCoMo Inc. for unlimited Internet access, allowing him to download adult movies on his mobile phone.
"A mobile is far handier than a computer for Internet access -- I seldom use a PC outside the office," said Tokyo travel agent Takeshi, 32, who declined to give his surname.
Takeshi and other pornography fans are feeding a surge in demand for movie downloads in Japan, home to the world's first third-generation wireless network. While profiting from the traffic, Tokyo-based mobile carriers DoCoMo and KDDI Corp. say they've been forced to impose limits on the heaviest users as the $74 billion network feels the strain.

Read the rest, just in case you thought I was joking when -- in explaining the rationale of Rule 5 -- I said that recovering porn addicts might need the occasional dose of methadone. The SiteMeter sees all and, as the blogger obsesssively refreshes to discover where his traffic is coming from, even I am sometimes surprised by the bizarre Google search terms that bring people to a conservative political blog. The fact that I got my two months of heaviest traffic with the help of Sarah Palin bikini pics and Carrie Prejean nude is mute testimony to an enduring truth: Sex sells.

Well, then, if porn freaks are Googling for sexy hot pictures of world-famous celebrities -- or searching the 'Net for that notorious Michael Jackson sex video -- should conservatives allow TMZ and Perez Hilton to monopolize such a lucrative market niche? If kinky Japanese are seeking hentai redhead ladyboys, are we to eschew any effort to redirect them to Austrian School discussions of free-market economics?

I say, "No!" Maybe the snobs at NRO don't feel the need for outreach to the Japanese porn-freak community. However, if that traffic is heavy enough to shut down a cell-phone network, then don't be surprised when the phrase "spanking schoolgirls" makes an appearance in a serious educational policy debate.

Jules Crittenden is not ashamed to be Marie Osmond's lesbian daughter, Cynthia Yockey owns the Bea Arthur nude Google-bomb, so if any of those disgusting perverts in Tokyo want to see Michael Jackson with Macaulay Culkin, they've come to the right blog.

If conservatives don't practice shameless capitalism, who will?

Feedback for Jimmie, too

by Smitty

I was just questioning the near-term focus of Power Line. Turning attention to Jimmie at the Sundries Shack,

Barnes aimed at the wrong target entirely. Instead of counting out Palin because of her perceived shortcomings, he should have been targeting the Republican Party establishment for running so many boring nominees.

Boring, or too Progressive?

The GOP has been very lucky since Ronald Reagan but, as Barack Obama proved, luck only lasts until the other guys find your weak point.

I don't think luck exists, in an existential sense, or is politically relevant. You can argue that, tactically, the GOP had to run Bushes to win the White House. But I'd argue this has to do with having ceded the ground to the Progressives. Lack of Constitutional grounding did that to the GOP in a strategic sense.

The simple truth is that people don’t want experience and know-how nearly as much as they want someone who inspires them and demonstrates enough charisma to catch and hold people’s attention.

I don't dispute the realpolitik of this, but there has to be an educational commitment on all our part if there's ever to be improvement past that nitwit (troll?) commenter Anna on your thread.

Sarah Palin does both of those things, which is why I think it’s extremely foolish for conservative pundits and the Republican Party to slam the door on her now.

If those pundits are preferring a Progressive GOP candidate (say, Romney) to keep their sorry butts employed, then their moves are completely rational.

J.R.Dunn comes to the same conclusion, except that he doesn’t see the GOP getting the point until after 2012. He thinks Sarah could very well be ready by then, but the party will not be even close to ready for her.

Hey, you know, up the GOP. They've been saying toe-may-toe to the Democrats toe-mah-toe for so long that we're now enjoying the Obama Administration. Doom on us.
I really don't care who represents the traditional, Constitutional bent of American politics expressed in the Tea Party movement. The Tea Parties, overall, may be slightly pale, but that, too, is a function of needing to educate the rest of the spectrum of peoples in this great country as to what it's all about. And it's absolutely not about failed Euro-socialism.
I hope that this has not been a Helpy Helperperson post.

Related:
The Vodkapundit's Hair of the Dog segment mostly summarizes Sarah Palin on the Sunday talking head shows, generally to negative effect. However, juxtaposing Mike Mullen and George C. Scott's Patton is worth a "heh."

The Parable of the Doubting Ace

Ace, that sentence from my column . . .

Other media types joined the rush to write Palin's political obituary, with a Greek chorus of "conservative" commentators transparently eager to agree that her resignation represented proof that Palin is both unelectable to and unfit for higher office.

. . . was a reference to an entire cottage industry of David Gergen types -- The Republicans Who Really Matter -- who specialize in going on TV to parrot the conventional wisdom of the liberal establishment, in order to foster the appearance of bipartisan agreement. That was written on Sunday, and it wasn't until Monday afternoon that I extended the reference in a blog post:

Of course, not all the commentators rushing to write finis on Palin's career were of the Ed Rollins/David Schuster variety. Both Ace and Allahpundit hastened to endorse the pundit consensus.

Which is true. No accusation of mala fides is involved in saying that you "hastened to endorse the pundit consensus" -- and that consensus may, after all, be accurate.

It was evidently God's will that the Internet service provided by my cable company was on the fritz most of Monday, and despite my paying those jackals $90 a month, I couldn't even get through on the customer-service phones, which beeped a busy signal all day. So it wasn't until this morning that I was able to catch up with your post about "heretic hunting in the GOP."

If anyone is hunting heretics or planning an Inquisition, Ace, it's not me. (I'm not the type who signs petitions.) The problem is that there have been such purges in the past, for which you are not to blame, and the associations of old memories are stirred when we behold this bandwagon rush to declare an end to The Palin Epoch. If even Robert Novak can be tagged an "unpatriotic conservative" for having criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy, the conservative movement has problems far more fundamental than a squabble among bloggers.

Are the Palinistas guilty of intolerant "heretic hunting"? Where did they learn that? It is the conservative elite -- the National Review crowd -- who have developed the "urge to purge" into a cultic religion. If Rich Lowry wasn't fired after he banned Ann Coulter from NR, he should have been fired after he published Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives."

This isn't just about Coulter or Buchanan or any of the other victims of the exclusive cliquishness practiced by Lowry & Co. Rather, it is about elitism, and a certain type of Republican who craves a conservatism that is respectable within elite circles. This manifests a defensive mentality on the part of the GOP elite that one never encounters on the Democratic side of the aisle, where Democrats routinely associate with shady organizations and individuals (ACORN, Bill Ayers, etc.) without fear that such associations will put them beyond the pale of respectability.

Why this fearful insecurity on the part of Republicans? Why are Republicans embarrassed by Sarah Palin in a way that Democrats are not embarrassed by Joe Biden? It is a mystery worth contemplation, but not one I feel like unraveling this morning (having been deprived, by the will of God and my cable TV company, of reliable Internet service for 24 hours).

Nonetheless, I'm grateful for the Ace-o-lanche, however merited. I didn't mean to attack you. You're my hero. You are the wind beneath my wings.

To apply some de-fisking, however, you took strong exception to this paragraph:

First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes -- what she must believe -- is that if it is God's will that she become president, she will.

Yes, Ace, she must believe that. This understanding of God's will is best expressed by Romans 8:28 and Palin is obviously one of these Bible-thumping hayseed holy rollers who take such things seriously. To quote the apostle Paul from another passage, "we see through a glass, darkly" (I Cor. 13:12) and thus our perception of God's will is imperfect. Yet we may either seek to know God's will, and to do it, or else go our own way at our peril, in a state of rebellion.

Shortly after Sarah Palin was announced as Crazy Cousin John's running mate, there erupted a minor furor over a video of Palin's June 2008 address at Wasilla Assembly of God in which she spoke of God's will in reference to the war in Iraq. "Lunacy!" screamed the liberals.

Well, what Palin said might seem insane to those who haven't spent much time in Bible-believing churches, or who didn't listen closely to what she actually said:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

And let all the congregation say, "Amen!" Pray for your country, pray for its leaders, pray that when they send our troops into war, it is in accordance with the aims of the Almighty. To say this is not to confuse God's will with George W. Bush's will, but rather to hope that the latter is conformed to the former, and that . . . well, God bless America . . . God mend thy every flaw.

It might be that the state of our politics in June 2008 was a flaw that the Almighty wished to mend, and that Barack Obama was the instrument by which He chose to mend it. This is not to imply a divine endorsement of Obama's political agenda, any more than the Babylonian captivity of Israel was an endorsement of Nebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless, the Bible-believer understands that the pagan Babylonians were an instrument by which God chastised the Chosen People, in accordance with His purpose.

To believe like Sarah Palin believes is to conceive oneself an actor in a play of divine authorship, and the conclusion of that drama is foreknown, because it has been foretold. (Aside: Hunter S. Thompson was a huge fan of the Book of Revelation.) If we are living in the End Times -- and I am reasonably confident that Sarah Palin also must believe this -- then it was surely no fluke that her name was drawn out of the hat as Crazy Cousin John's running mate.

Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
-- Esther 4:14

Evidently, it was not in God's plan that Crazy Cousin John become president, for which mercy we are grateful. But if you believe like Sarah believes, then her selection as his running mate was no accident. Some purpose was intended, in these prophesied times, if only as a sign to the faithful that we are indeed living in such times.

What troubles me most, right now, is the fear that some idiot will do something nutty out of the belief that his insanity is divine. While I was in Alabama this past weekend -- I'll upload the video of my fireworks show later today, God and the cable company willing -- my friend's father said to me, "Stacy, do you think Obama will be assassinated?"

"God, I certainly hope not," I answered, profanely. (I believe well enough, I just don't obey so good.)

Since December, I have said that the Democratic economic agenda will be Obama's undoing -- It Won't Work because The Fundamentals Still Suck -- and any kook terrorist who thinks he needs to intercede in that process will be preventing the revelation of a truth as durable as the gospel: In economic matters, markets work, governments don't.

This goes back to my dispute with Ryan Sager, who asserted an eternal conflict between libertarians and Bible-thumpers, a conflict I consider false:

Some years ago, I was asked to speak to a Christian homeschooling conference -- my wife and I have homeschooled our six children -- and during the question-and-answer session after the speech, I faced a question for which I was unprepared.
"How has your Christian faith influenced your political beliefs?"
This stunned me into silence for a second. Then I answered: "Well, I guess it comes down to that part about 'Thou shalt not steal.'"
From there I proceeded to discuss the basic immorality of the welfare state, how it is wrong for government to take money that one man has worked for and give it to someone who hasn't earned it. . . .
Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral -- indeed, it is sinful, as I told the Christian homeschoolers -- and by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of its citizens.

You can read the whole thing, but the point is that those who view Christian belief as incompatible with proper principles of government are mistaken. Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have done their part to discredit born-again belief as a guiding force in politics, but God is not to blame for the fact that fools claim to be divinely inspired.

Nor should you, Ace, blame God for any of my foolishness. I am not your enemy, at least not by my own choosing. Right now, the TV in my office -- God has granted me cable! --is tuned to MSNBC, which is airing Andrea Mitchell's ambush interview with Sarah Palin.

There are no accidents. Amen.

UPDATE: Did I say there are no accidents? Andrew Sullivan, Radley Balko and Ross Douthat cage match! If only Conor Friedersdorf would jump in . . .

UPDATE II: On Sully's assertion of an "absurdly soft" media treatment of Palin, here's Dan Riehl:

[I]t really does suggest serious emotional issues of some sort. Whatever Sullivan may have been at one point, people who still believe he's even a semi-honest broker in touch with objective reality are just fooling themselves.
No one in their right mind could possibly conclude the above about the media coverage of Sarah Palin and claim to have a genuine appreciation for an objective political reality. And what's even more sad is that the web editors of a once prestigious brand like The Atlantic allow it to go on.

I don't know, Dan. As a matter of New Media "branding," bugfuck crazy hasn't hurt me any.

Note the ironic signification of self-awareness. Outlaw!

Respectfully disagree with Mr. Hinderaker

by Smitty

As we've written more than once, voters tend to turn to the "outs" when they become fed up with the "ins." It appears that not too many voters were fed up with the Republicans because the party was too conservative. Nevertheless, there was enough dissatisfaction with Republican governance that the other guys got a shot.

I submit that the Tea Party movement may have a deeper root than sheer contrariness and wallet-voting. Consider the popularity of Goldberg's book, the resurgence of interest in Hayek, Sowell, and Rand.

Possibly I'm thinking wishfully, but it's my hope that the American people are waking up to the giant, bi-partisan, un-Constitutional scam that has been Progressivism. Not to say it's been entirely without value, but there is a crucial need for "We the People" to ask ourselves questions like:

• How has the Sixteenth Amendment worked out?
• The Federal Reserve, good news, bad news, who can say?
• Just as we needed a Bill of Rights, is it time for a Bill of Federalism?

Thanks...Russia Today?

by Smitty

Via Left Coast Rebel, the news coverage our Marie Antionette Media were too busy covering Michael Jackson's funeral minutia to notice:

Then again, I saw some actual coverage of the Uigher violence in Western China on Al Jazeera's English channel, which suddenly showed up on our cable feed. Head 'splodes.
And, in case you missed this hoot down in Texas, Michelle Malkin had Senator Cornyn getting his face ripped off by the crowd in Austin:

We'll see if we can task our Tejas correspondent, South Texian, for some follow-up. Mike?

Congratulations, Miss Plantation!

Words have denotations -- their dictionary definitions -- and connotations, the significance they acquire by usage and context. "Plantation" originally denoted a commercial agricultural operation, but the word has acquired historical associations that affect its connotation.

At any rate, Plantation is the name of a city in Broward County, Fla., and the winner of the local beauty pageant is therefore Miss Plantation and . . .

Plantation Teen First
Black Pageant Winner
PLANTATION, FLORIDA- 16-year-old Archbishop McCarthy High School student Aubrey West is making history as the first black female to win the Miss Plantation Outstanding Teen pageant and is in the running to be only the second black female to ever win the Miss Florida Teen pageant. In her first pageant ever, Aubrey wowed Miss Plantation judges by playing classical and jazz piano and took home the title. Her win is a big break in the pageant world for young African-American teenagers who once were shunned from entering the coveted Miss Florida pageant series.
"I am proud to have this title," West said. "I hope to be an inspiration for girls of all races."
Aubrey is an honor student and holds a 3.5 grade point average. . . .

That's from a press release I received today. I get so many press releases, I don't even read most of them, but that headline was what folks in the news business call a "grabber."

Being the diligent researcher I am, the coincidence of the surname "West" and "Florida" in a press release caused me to do a quick Google search that brought me to the campaign Web site of FL-22 Republican congressional candidate, Lt. Col. Allen West:

Excellence is a West family tradition. His wife, Angela, holds an MBA and PhD. and works as a financial planner. His oldest daughter, Aubrey, attends Archbishop McCarthy HS and his youngest daughter, Austen, attends Parkway Christian School.

Excellence, indeed! I called Mrs. West, who explained the history of the name of their town, founded in he 20th century without any apparent thought to connotation. Mrs. West also told me that for the talent portion of Saturday's competition, Aubrey will perform a piano medley of "Maple Leaf Rag" and "Ain't Misbehavin'."

Then I spoke to the proud father. I covered his 2008 campaign against Democrat Rep. Ron Klein. West updated me on his 2010 campaign plans. Klein has voted for TARP, the stimulus, cap-and-trade and all the rest of Nancy Pelosi's agenda, so that West now calls Klein "Pelosi's puppet."



Congratulations to Aubrey and best wishes in Saturday's pageant. To borrow her father's campaign slogan: Go West!


Update, Special Political Correctness Note: by Smitty
As a service for our Rhode Island readers, use of the "P" word in this post is explicitly not intended to inflame any shame or sorrow you might be feeling concerning the full name of your state.
Slavery undeniably sucked, but it is completely unclear exactly how the shameful modern contortions of some affect the past in any positive way.

Update II: by Smitty
Still more field work on the "P" word.

Preach it, Whittle!

by Smitty

That is all.

Dead people don't file libel suits

The author of "an explosive new book" takes advantage of the law to exploit the gullible:

Jackie Kennedy had a four-year love affair with Bobby Kennedy that began not long after JFK's assassination and grew so intense that when RFK was gunned down, it was she — not his wife — who instructed doctors to pull the plug, an explosive new book claims.

Also, Robert McNamara was gay and had bisexual orgies with Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and J. Edgar Hoover.

Common Dogs'R'Us

by Smitty

Carol at No Sheeples Here has another fine piece on offer. It seems that around 5 years ago, Sarah Palin had a promotional picture taken for Valley Trash. Michael Shaw of the PuffingtonHost, as a Clinical Psychologist, extrapolates Sarah Palin's pride in being trash from this image.

This blog joins Carol (not presuming to speak for Sarah herself) in expressing pride in our "just folks" trashiness, common dogged determination, and general rejection of haughtiness.

The fact that some of us does have some edumacation stems from pure joy in learning, not from any sense of sitting comfortably among the anointed, pinky finger erect, staring at the little people laboring out in the field through the steam coming off of the Earl Grey.

Sarah Palin's surprise

UPDATE 7/7: Parable of the Doubting Ace

PREVIOUSLY: From my latest American Spectator column:

"Her national political career is done," NBC's David Shuster declared, even before reports of her plans to resign had been confirmed. Other media types joined the rush to write Palin's political obituary, with a Greek chorus of "conservative" commentators transparently eager to agree that her resignation represented proof that Palin is both unelectable to and unfit for higher office.
Of course, she had just exposed as fraudulent the pretended omniscience of the commentariat. None of them had predicted Palin's resignation, and yet their latest oracular pronouncements -- Ed Rollins told CNN she looked "terribly inept" -- were treated as authoritative.
The punditocracy can't predict Palin because she shares neither their perspective nor their assumptions. Her ascent to political stardom has been treated as a fluke by most of the GOP establishment for the simple reason that she doesn't slavishly follow the standard script of Republican politicians.
Of course, in recent years this script usually has ended with "…and then the Democrats won," suggesting the need for a re-write. . . .

Please read the whole thing. Sunday morning, I was driving back from Lake Weiss -- where we'd shot our fabulous annual Fourth of July fireworks show -- when the editor called asking me to write the column.

Of course, not all the commentators rushing to write finis on Palin's career were of the Ed Rollins/David Schuster variety. Both Ace and Allahpundit hastened to endorse the pundit consensus.

I've got MSNBC on my office TV and the mid-day newsette just referred to Palin's "baffling" resignation. It's not baffling. Palin explained her reasons, and her reasons sounded entirely plausible to me. What baffles the pundits is the fact that it was (a) unexpected, and (b) doesn't fit the established script for presidential hopefuls.

The people who pronounce themselves "baffled," and who conclude that Palin has made a stupid move by resigning, are leaving a couple of things out of their calculations. First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes -- what she must believe -- is that if it is God's will that she become president, she will. Therefore, the conventional wisdom of the commetariat and all the advice from political "experts" are just so much noise to her.

Second, Palin's closest adviser is her husband, Todd. He is not stupid. He is also not a man who will show up on TV and blabber his every thought for the sake of creating the impression that he knows everything.

Just because you don't know what Sarah Palin is doing doesn't mean that she doesn't know what she's doing.

UPDATE: Karl at the Green Room refers us to Ace's NSFW thoughts on "magical thinking" in politics:

This is fucking insane and it must stop. I will not be bullied by this ludicrous magical thinking brigade who insists that only Nice and Positive Words must be uttered or else one is contributing one’s Evil Energy to the Wrong Side.
It’s insane. . . .
Stop jumping to claim some one is not just wrong but actively malicious.

Very good, very true and very timely. On the other hand, there is this: In politics, perception has a way of becoming reality, and one way to win -- as Obama has recently demonstrated -- is to promote the impression that you are unbeatable, and that your victory is inevitable.

First, the winning candidate wishes to create that perception within his own campaign. It does wonders for morale -- as also for fund-raising and volunteer recruitment -- to believe that your team is the winning team.

Next, the campaign team then works to create that perception of electoral inevitability in the minds of voters. Bandwagon psychology has a powerful effect in politics. Undecided "swing" voters are especially vulnerable to the vote-for-the-winner appeal.

Finally, the campaign team desires to convey the perception of electoral inevitability to its rivals. If the belief that you're on the winning team has a positive morale factor, the belief that you're on the losing team obviously has the opposite effect.

You saw this very clearly in the Democratic primary contest last year. Team Hillary had been fostering the perception of inevitability ever since the beginning. However, once she began to stumble -- when Tim Russert tripped her up with a debate question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants -- and Obama pulled within range, a fearful defensiveness took hold in the Hillary camp. After Obama won the Iowa caucuses, you couldn't find a single member of the campaign press corps who really thought Hillary could come back to win. (See Josh Green's memorable account of what went wrong inside the Hillary campaign.)

OK, so let's relate this back to Ace's defense against "magical thinking" by (some) Palinistas:

I do not mind being called wrong. I do, however, greatly mind being called a traitor, of harboring a secret agenda I hide from you in order to advance the MSM's interests, etc., and all the rest of this insane bullshit. . . .

Ace is entirely correct in saying that this is bad sportsmanship: X disagrees with me, therefore X is an enemy of All That Is Good And True. On the other hand, the fanaticism of Palin's supporters, and the fury with which they attack Palin's critics, constitutes evidence of why Ace is wrong.

Sarah Palin inarguably possesses the kind of charisma that inspires fierce loyalty. This is a valuable political resource and, if could be harnessed and channeled into productive organized activity, could easily carry her to the nomination in 2012. "If" is the key word there.

So there is, then, some rational substance in what Ace calls the "insane bullshit" of (some) Palinistas. Conservatives who derogate Palin's aptitude for the presidency, or who disparage her in terms of "electability," may be damaging the prospects of the one candidate most likely to achieve a quick reversal of the GOP's fortunes, by defeating Obama in 2012.

Further, while Ace is obviously not angling to "get invited to these famous DC dinner parties," there are people whose career ambitions and political elitism are very much implicated in the anti-Palin agenda. Because of Palin's populist appeal (something that seems innate, rather than conscious on her part), she attracts followers who are sick and tired of The Republicans Who Really Matter.

As is always true in any engagement between populism and elitism, the elitists always have the most articulate writers on their side, while the populists seem to be full of incoherent rage. But the rage of the populists does not mean -- repeat, does not mean -- that they have no legitimate grievances, or that they're all a bunch of lowbrow yahoos.

Instinct counts for something in politics. Having been around the Beltway GOP for nearly 12 years now, I agree with the populist instinct that the national Republican leadership has succumbed to political elitism -- a deadly temptation in small-d democratic politics.

Like the Buchanan Brigades of 1992, or like the Tea Party movement, the Palinistas represent an effort to get the GOP establishment to acknowledge the party's conservative grassroots. If they sometimes commit rhetorical overkill -- including demonizing everyone who is not a True Believer -- this should be understood in context.

Oh, you thought it was about science, Dr. Aldrin?

by Smitty (h/t Tigerhawk)

Buzz Aldrin was in the Telegraph, with a nice note on the hottest hoax around:

But while trying to spread the word about the possibilities of space, Dr Aldrin said he was sceptical of climate change theories.
"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," he said.
"If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favour of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today."

Note to Dr. Aldrin: antrhopogenicglobal warmingclimate change has everything to do with money and power, and precious little to do about the environment.
The climate weenies can't predict the weather accurately for next year any better than an almanac.
While there are plenty of common-sense arguments to be made in favor of clean air, water, and smart stewardship of resources, keep your antennae tuned to two frequencies:

• Guilt--you should be ashamed of X behavior, possession, or attitude that is perfectly reasonable and legal
• Fear--you should capitulate to the superior ideas of authority Y, because if you don't you'll be assaulted/impoverished/internationally shamed/die of cancer

Appeals to fear and guilt are prima facie evidence that your prima donna evangelist is peddling primo farce.
Apparently Dr. Aldrin hasn't received the briefing.
Probably hanging around Dr. Dyson too much.

Update:
Right on cue, "A plethora of corroborative data shows that this year’s sea ice levels in the Arctic are the lowest seen in 800 years."

Precedent, Rhetorican: precedent

by Smitty

There is some noise about the nuclear arms negotiators short-circuiting Senate confirmation in their negotiations with Russia.
The Smith guess is that this is a stalking horse for something even less palatable...
I do hope I'm wrong.

Honduras: now what?

by Smitty

Jacobson points to boots on the ground reporting a tense situation.
"Zelaya's plane was not allowed to land," according to the wires.
Are they warming up the teleprompter with the "I have consistently supported the Honduran people on this one" speech?
Fausta has the updates. Zelaya didn't land.

Do you have 12Sep plans?

by Smitty (h/t Protein Wisdom)

Where have you gone, Ron Wilson Reagan
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...

I'm hearing a few hundred thousand people givin' this one a workout.
Details here.

Rule 5 Sunday

by Smitty

Rule 5 Sunday again. This blog maintains its dedication to supporting the admiration of beauty even in the face of the most relaxing holidays.
Hopefully, your Fourth of July was a time to reflect on those who've sacrificed, and those who'd render that sacrifice a collectivist mockery.
To work:

• Three Beers Later leads us off with the Lady of the Hour posing amidst National Guardsmen. I used to say "dressed like salads", but these new digital cammies are wrecking my jape. TBL was also way out front with the Sarah Palin Runner's World pose. Let's not turn Rule 5 Sunday into the All Sarah Review, people. And then he chips in some latin dancing video. Is TBL just a nom de blog for Fausta?
• Daley Gator accuses Marisol Nichols of being "absolutely adorable". Guilty.
• Blogprof has a couple of links of note:
  • We'll focus on Megan Fox here, and pretend not to notice He Who Should Be Fired.
  • Then there's that great vegan/carnivore support group bit, which he uses as a cheap excuse to link Padme again. Celebrate cheap, as we say.
• Skepticrats calls attention to Diane Lane. Streets of Fire? May have to check it out.
• In other movie news, Donald Douglas points to The Stoning of Soraya M. and its star, Mozhan Marno. He also picks up Monique Stuart's Kate Perry slack.
• In weather news, Kirbside found 13 female hurricanes that could be altering the humidity near you. The male names are skipped, which could pose a challenge for the female readership.
• You know about our commitment to history. Tigerhawk points to a photographic history of the bikini at Slate, but we won't link directly, so that TH scores the traffic.
• Saftey, too, cannot be understated. Or underdressed. Unless you're Air Kiwi.
• Sports. The Blogprof's all on about Wimbledon. Deuce contributes a follow-up segment on Maria Sharapova.
• Carol at No Sheeples Here brings an obituary. Karl Malden. I remember him most from Patton.
• The WyBlog has some reporting on fireworks for your edification.
• Here is a roundup of actresses who began as models.
• Tea Party update: from St. Louis, Dana Loesch is both easy to pay attention to, and well spoken.
• Troglopundit was in patriotic pinup mode.
• Teach at Pirate's Cove continues his pinup tradition, as well.
• Phillipe Ohlund reveals himself a Kate Ryan fan.
• And the mighty Paco contributes another silver screen roundup.
• Bob Belvedere at The Camp of the Saints has a nice soup-to-nuts, classics-to-guns roundup.
• rightofcourse has the lovely on Miss Iraq.
• Closer to home, Fishersville Mike features the new Miss Virginia.
• Jeffords has some Jessica Simpson that never grows old, and some John Wayne that's immortal.

Not a bad outing for a holiday weekend. Keep the tasteful links coming to Smitty. Cheers!

Update:
Dave gives us an interview on Lady GaGa. Saftey tip: leave the pyrotechnic brassiere to trained professionals.
And, yeah, Dad29, Karl MALDEN: you star in that many good flicks, live to 97, have a 71 year(!) marriage, and we'll feature you in a Rule 5 post as well. Distinctive nose and all. ;)

Don't feed the sharks

by Smitty

Gateway Pundit reports that Sarah Palin's legal counsel threatens to sue liberal blogs and the media for slandering the governor.
Unwise.
Andrew Sullivan has to be given free reign to compete for the Largest Buffoon in the History of Mankind award.
Recommend Sarah allow half an hour on Thursday afternoons for direct responses to baseless allegations. And let that response be laughter.
The rest of the time, respond indirectly to all of it with clear, Constitutionally-based foreign and domestic policy recommendations, speeches in support of non-Collectivist candidates, and the like.
Who the ____ wants to support a candidate who collects contributions and hands them over to the sharks for frivolous legal battles?

Update:
Think of Sarah as the balloon, and these attackers as a bunch of pussy cats:

Sara Palin doesn't seem concerned

by Smitty

Politico has the story and the tepid review.

But asked exactly what stories the governor was criticizing, Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said Palin wasn’t referring to any specific news or TV account but rather the speculation and questions about what may have been her motivation for resigning.
As for the “higher calling” Palin referred to, Stapleton said the governor was just generally referring to what she sees as a move up in public life.

Here is the full text, interspersed with commentary:

Happy 4th of July from Alaska!
Today at 4:55pm

On this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.

If I may, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the last 24 hours and share my thoughts with you.

First, I want to thank you for your support and hard work on the values we share. Those values led me to the decision my family and I made. Yesterday, my family and I announced a decision that is in Alaska’s best interest and it always feels good to do what is right. We have accomplished more during this one term than most governors do in two – and I am proud of the great team that helped to build these wonderful successes. Energy independence and national security, fiscal restraint, smaller government, and local control have been my priorities and will remain my priorities.

For months now, I have consulted with friends and family, and with the Lieutenant Governor, about what is best for our wonderful state. I even made a few administrative changes over that course in time in preparation for yesterday. We have accomplished so much and there’s much more to do, but my family and I determined after prayerful consideration that sacrificing my title helps Alaska most. And once I decided not to run for re-election, my decision was that much easier – I’ve never been one to waste time or resources. Those who know me know this is the right decision and obvious decision at that, including Senator John McCain. I thank him for his kind, insightful comments.

OK, so it wasn't sudden, has no health overtones. If there is scandal afoot, you wouldn't expect a hint here. However, it does seem to hint at Big Plans.

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.

Sarah: we can't mock BHO for singling out Hannity and Limbaugh if you condescend to notice the kneepad media. If you depart the high ground of George W. Bush, do so with faintly ironic humor: "My media chums," or "That swell Katie Couric." Let the use of Leave it to Beaver adjectives be a signal that you agree with us that the mainstream media are hardly qualified to sweep a floor.

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change; I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America. I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint. I hope you will join me. Now is the time to rebuild and help our nation achieve greatness!

Another "nobody asked me, but...": can we minimize the personal pronoun? A major component of the decadence of contemporary politics is the overemphasis on the personal. You can score a cosmic win if you drive the discussion away from Alinsky Rule 12. Yes, much is about you, for reasons of family and appearance. Yet the first woman elected POTUS shall have been metaphorically crucified a thousand times. Yes, it's highly personal, on the receive end, but please minimize making it personal on the transmit end.
John 15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.". Also, the sky is blue. Speaking truth makes you more, not less, hated.

God bless you! And I look forward to making a difference – with you!

Sarah

As long as it's a Constitutional, Federalist difference, great, lady. Full support. It doesn't seem like this at all, but if it's merely trading one megalomaniac for one with longer hair, then it's a difference making little difference.
The country has to realize that there is only one party: Progressive, with its Democratic and Republican wings. One can admire the clever device of appearing to maintain two parties: the underlings are probably convinced they are in actual competition. But they're re-arranging the ore load on the Edmund Fitzgerald.
Make it about "We the People" and "50 States United", please.

Mike Lux is light on history

by Smitty

I was at the Woodbridge, VA Tea Party today. Surrounded by conservatives, in fact. So I peeked at the Google Reader during a lull on my cell phone. Here is a Huffington Post article by Mike Lux, pushing his book "The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be".
His bio on the HuffComPost, empahsis mine:

Michael Lux is the co-founder and CEO of Progressive Strategies, L.L.C., a political consulting firm founded in 1999, focused on strategic political consulting for non-profits, labor unions, PACs and progressive donors. Previously, he was Senior Vice President for Political Action at People For the American Way (PFAW), and the PFAW Foundation, and served at the White House from January 1993 to mid-1995 as a Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison. While at Progressive Strategies, Lux has founded, and currently chairs a number of new organizations and projects, including American Family Voices, the Progressive Donor Network, and BushRecall.org. Lux serves on the boards of several other organizations including the Arca Foundation, Americans United for Change, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Center for Progressive Leadership, Democratic Strategist, Grassroots Democrats, Progressive Majority and Women’s Voices/Women Vote.
In November of 2008, Mike was named to the Obama-Biden Transition Team. In that role, he served as an advisor to the Public Liaison on dealings with the progressive community and has helped shape the office of Public Liaison based on his past experience working on the Clinton-Gore Transition, as well as in the White House.

I, for one, am blown away by the authors chops as an historian. Back to his attempt to peddle his book:

progressives should take special pride in this holiday, for it was the ultimate achievement of progressive values that brought us this day.

Right. From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.
In the United States, the term progressive emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization.

As you watch the Obama Administration trainwreck pile up, the term "egalitarian" seems a jape, and "statist" seems to mean something akin to "banal Chicago thugocracy", as Scare Force One is followed by the IG-Gate is followed by the Imaginary Legislation (HR-2454), etc.
Interestingly, the Revolutionary War began in the 1770's, about 100 years ahead of the chronological birth of Progressivism.
Wikipedia also has a page specifically on Progressivism in the US. Let's peek at that, to guage what affinity the Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and Constitution may have with Progressivism:

1 Tenets of early United States progressivism

• 1.1 Democracy--"Progressives such as William U'Ren and Robert La Follette argued that the average person should have more control over their government."
• 1.2 Municipal Administration--"There were many changes introduced into municipal administration during the Progressive Era in the 1880s and 1890's. These changes led to a more structured system, power that the centralized within the legislature would now be more locally focused."
• 1.3 Efficiency
• 1.4 Regulation of large corporations and monopolies
• 1.5 Social justice
• 1.6 Conservationism

1.1 and 1.2 are hilarious in the modern context. Average person having more control, or even...involvement? Look at what happens to someone with a Journalism degree from a Western school with the temerity to accept a Vice Presidential nomination. Locally focused? Where locally is defined to mean "within the Beltway", sure.
1.3, 1.4, and 1.6 were certainly not concerns of the 1770s. And Social Justice? Amar's book spends a great deal of time talking about the lengths to which the Constitutional language went to avoid the fact that its Social Justice aims were just a trifle narrow. Oh, I weasel-worded that! The Constitution enshrined slavery, front and center, with overtly farcical elements like the Three-Fifths Compromise. Social Justice waits the better part of a century, for Amendments 13-15 to acquire legal adequacy. Almost another century later, the Civil Rights Movement gets us most of the way there. There are still elements of DNA-based decision hanging around in the form of Affirmative Action. What can I say? Evil dies hard.
Back to Lux:

the Tories who opposed American independence were the conservatives of their day.

Does this mean that modern conservatives are Royalists, secretly plotting the restoration of the House of Windsor as American sovereigns?

Our progressive revolutionary founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine argued that we should "make the world new again."

One is nearly tempted to waste time on this wretched book of Lux's to see him dance around Jefferson's slave ownership. Admire the man's achievements and contributions, but don't whitewash the truth and call him progressive just because he "felt bad" about being a slaveholder.
Oh, I think I perceive a counter-argument: your definition of Progressive has progressed to the point where it means "basically anything with which Mike Lux agrees at the moment".

And make no mistake: the ideas we take for granted today were truly radical in 1776.

Hey, check out this idea that was as radical in 1791 as it was in 2009:
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Let me unveil a counter theory: American independence is about the freedom of the individual, and finding ways to delegate enough power at differing levels to differing branches of government to accomplish tasks with minimal risk of tyranny.
Progressivism, like labor unions, had an important historical place. However, organizational behavior has kicked in. The leadership of the country, Democratic and Republican Party alike, has quaffed this progressive kool-aid and quietly moved in the direction of aristocracy. If you don't know the proper people, have the proper accent, haven't attended the proper schools, and, perhaps most importantly, ponied up sufficient money, then you are nothing.
Lux tries to use the Declaration of Independence as a fig leaf:

deriving their just power from the consent of the governed

To which the Woodbridge, VA Tea Party replies:

(Sorry about the spelling error. Completely invalidates the point, no? And, clearly, we need a funding increase at the DOE to help Joe Teabag with his learnin'.)
This is one book where the one-star review is probably most accurate:

The author tries that old canard of equating modern liberals with classical liberals like the Founding Fathers. Never mind the fact that modern liberals are the exact opposite. He claims that progressives fought for things like the Declaration of Independence, against the Conservative Tories. However, most of the "progressive" things that we have today were exactly what the Tories supported and the more classical liberal citizens wanted. Most modern-day "progressives" despised the idea of "individual rights", hence famous progressives like John Dewey who absolutely despised homeschoolers. Let us not forget that throughout the twentieth century, many progressives looked starry-eyed on the Soviet Union as well. Many still do.

Update:
Teach piles on.

Friggin' Mind Just Reset Again

by Smitty

So, after the Friday fireworks of the Palin announcement, it seemed time to get to work on the FMJRA installment. It's the 4th of July, and a major Tea Party outing. Government spending is so crazy that economists will soon be forced into using logarithms to talk about deficits. Life seemed so much less chaotic back in the old GWOT days. Sarah really wiped out the right-o-sphere traffic. All other topics Palin comparison. (Stacy: put the bludgeon down.)

Speaking of soon-to-be-ex-Governor-Palin was the focus of about three major threads this week, which can't be organized coherently. They were, generally, children, Vanity Fair, and the abrupt departure from office. So here is a bundle of Palin joy:

• rightofcourse links us, also pointing to a slightly pro-Palin blog that leaks her plan, in its entirety, shaming me for not having grasped its sublime simplicity straigtaway:

  1. Sarah steps down as Alaska's Governor
  2. ???
  3. President Palin 2013!

• Carolyn Tackett had great analysis and linkage to Stacy's coverage of the Vanity Fair hitpiece that everyone seems to have forgotten.
• The South Texian refers to her as future President of the United States.
• Obi's Sister gave me a quote of the day link related to Krauthammer's "unready" analysis, editing my TLA in the process. Now, now, Obi's Sister: if you put anything naughty into that acronym, that's your business. I meant "Anatomically Fatigued, Ultimately." We are, of course, running a (mostly) clean blog here. She also speculated that the anti-Palin brake-screech in the 4th Estate might be an allusion to The Hunt for Red October. But that would imply Commie intent, and we've outgrown McCarthyism, so that's un-possible.
• His Insty-ness linked Palinpalooza and followed up when Joyner joined the fray.
• Pat in Shreveport apparently held down breakfast long enough to read Sullivan, and includes this:

  Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan blasted the MSM for failing to get the details on Trig Palin's birth. He concluded his post with "I believed then and I believe now that the MSM is too concerened with their own reputations and too deferent to power to even ask the questions. Which is another betrayal of their core purpose. And why they are dying. And deserve to."

  Theory: the Trig Palin fixation is an attempt to come manufacture a cosmic justification for the MSM's general abdication of responsibility WRT BHO. It's all good that BHO was unexamined; look at the lack of inquiry on the right. The trick to analyzing a Sullivan is to suspend standard rules of logic and proportion.
• Of Palinpalooza, The Blogprof said "Stacy seriously must have trashed his keyboard over this one." He also picked up It Takes Small Men...
• The Classic Liberal: "let the bottom-feeders go!"
• Melissa Clouthier wants to blacklist all that old McCain staff.
• Pundette notes that attacking Palin never gets old. Yet supporting her shall likely stay younger.
• Teach at The Pirates Cove links. Sullivan's rants are "plainly insane, and makes the people who run The Atlantic look like morons". Paging McArdle...
• Knappster goes for the NIN reference, and sounds as coherent as a Trent Reznor outing in describing his disdain for Sarah Palin. But let's wait and see if she lets the Left and the disgruntled Right scare her off. If not, when she's a declared candidate, then her national-level policy positions will be explored at length and in detail.
• Thumb and Whip had a thorough deconstruction of the "It Take Small People" post.
• Teach picks up the phone, as Stacy picks on Andy: "Someone get Milky Loads a waaaaaah!-mbulance as he gives RS McCain a Malkin Award"
• Deuce at the Skepticrates blames Sarah Palin for borking his blog post about BHO in Russia. It's a fair cop.
• ToM Athens correspondent Jesse Hathaway piles on the snark.
• Kirbside on the "Small Men" post: "I am tired of how many of us on the right tap dance around the issues... R.S.McCain does not!"
• Fishersville Mike noted that Todd Palin is a dude, not a piece of meat.
• The Rhetorican also gives link.
• Little Miss Attila thinks that the size of the post may have other connotations.
• Donald Douglas was involved in some of the fray over the Palin children.
• Bob Belvedere at The Camp of the Saints was had a good roundup.

Sarah also drowns a clown out of the media.
My take has been consistent on Governor took-a-wrong-turn-and-wound-up-in-Argentina. Why is he still in office? My respect for Jenny Sanford is as great as my not-respect for Mark.

• Again, Carloyn Tacket appreciated my analysis in part of a larger round up.
• Daley Gator on Sanford: "If Meghan McCain thinks he should stay, then that is evidence that I should go the opposite way." Yes, Meghan, begone with you and that Progressive kool-aid.
• Now, Mrs. The Other McCain may be a tough cookie, but do give consideration to Mrs. TCotS. Yikes.

Also momentarily submerged, but possibly bubbling back to the surface is IG-Gate.

• Pat in Shreveport picked up the slack for us.
• The Rhetorican linked.
• Carol at No Sheeples Here had excellent Photoshop #4,721 on the topic.
• Track-a-'Crat found a chilling graphic.
• Pundette was so gracious as to link us.
• Michelle Malkin, unsurprisingly, is also tracking.
• Paco finds amusement in an HR person being appointed an IG.
• TCotS Bob seems particularly fascinated with IG-Gate. He also linked it here and has added a deep link into the WWU-AM page for your convenience..

The Franken nail in the 111th Congressional Coffin caught some notice:

• Jimmie quotes the "sewage-like stream of liberal nightmares moving towards us".
• Bob at TCotS chimes in.

The NORC campaign has some traction in the face of the Imaginary Legislation That Will Eat The Economy:

• Andrea at Radio Patriot introduces a cool Not One Red Cent graphic.
• Whereas the Riehl World View is that such victories could turn pyrrhic. I dunno. Given the choice between death by capillary or arterial bleeding, I'll note that the latter has the virtue of being faster.
• Winkydog (great name!) had some coverage, highlighting the 44 semi-conscious Dems in addition to the 8 RINOs.
• Carol was graphic and unambiguous about the news at No Sheeples Here.
• The Reaganite Republican Reseistance weighed in. Splendid Green Giant graphic.
• In which Jules Crittenden trumps all the climate scientists: "I thought the global warming scare was caused by horseshit."
• South Texian played the Judas card:
  

  Robert Stacy McCain has found out the likely reason one of those turncoats, John McHugh, voted for the bill: Barack Obama nominated him to be the new Secretary of the Army. Enjoy your thirty pieces of silver, Johnny.

• Carol takes Vodkapundit's immortal Churchill riff and goes graphical.
• Over at Paco, Seabiscuit registers disdain with a pose.
• Bob at TCotS offers a thorough overview with follow-up.

On the topic of the species whose presence in high office requires substantial diminishing:

• The Cranky Con hopes to cook the burgers well enough for his local laywer clutch.
• Lindsay rogered up that it was a great lawyer rant.
• Steynian gave linkage, though you have to get past the hilarious Barney Frank coverage to find it.
• Bob at TCotS rogered up for this rant as well.

Oh, and did we say lawyers? The Ricci, or, "let's install clowns in all three branches of the Federal government", decision:

• In noting the local impact of Ricci, the Blogprof linked us.
• Linked by Conservative Political Report.
Seriously: what more do we need than "DNA-based decision making is false" any longer in our society?

The GOP ad that brought out the curmudgeon in me:

• Sundries Shack was supportive.
It comes down to this: we have a Progressive party running things in the US, with a Democrat wing and a GOP wing. Only, that bird don't fly. I fact, that bird flips off the electorate every time it short-circuits the Federalism inherent in the Constitution, as it has since Woodrow Wilson. So if these clueless GOP hacks don't realize that (mostly due to Jonah Goldberg in my case) we're on to their crap, then doom on them.

Miscellaneous shouts:

• The Track-a-'Crat appreciated the Rangel tip.
• Carol lights off the fireworks at No Sheeples Here, and offers a roundup to rival this one.
• Moe Lane, who, hopefully,had a good day.
• Troglopundit thought Stacy was on fire with the effort to purge Sully of silly.
• Deuce thinks little of General Powell, apparently. As with Carter, I'd generally like to have a positive opinion. Sometimes I just can't. It's not them: it's me.
• Jesse Hathaway linked my Boehner quibble. Any analysis? Am I off base?
• Bits Blog awards snark of the day to Stacy. Stacy, snarky?
• Lead and Gold enjoyed a quote from It Takes Small People....
• Jimmie could use a bailout.
• ToM is on record for the first Presidential Pardon prediction. Jeffords was so gracious as to link.
• The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge linked the RINO herd post.
• In reply to the Troglopundit: "Nothing says...like...taken...!"
• Little Miss Attila comes down hard on White House furnishings.
• Another Black Conservative: thanks for an excellent graphic.

Future publishing note from Bob at TCotS:

Bernard Goldberg is writing a sequel to his current book; it will be called A SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR II: THE OTHER MCCAIN, SMITTY, & THE SHAMELESS BLOGWHORING OF A MAN NAMED BELVEDERE. Pre-order it at AmazonWomen today.

So that's the wrap. Please email cheers and jeers to Smitty. On the Fourth of July, consider those who've gone before, the wisdom of the founding documents, and the foolishness of those attempting to hijack the most exceptional system of government in history.