'No more fun of any kind!'

UPDATED & BUMPED (AGAIN!): Adding new material at the end, plus discussion of the WaPo's disgusting coverage of the case, and video of Jason Talley talking about the incident on NBC-4:



Very interesting how schoolkids on a field trip to the Memorial cause far more noise at midday than did 20 dancers at midnight. "Officer, arrest those third-graders!" By the way, there is now a legal defense fund to help defray Brooke Oberwetter's court expenses.

* * * * *

The Washington Post's coverage of this case is so infuriating that I will not even link to the story. As Radley Balko notes, the story gets wrong one basic fact about the arrest, a fact that anyone with two eyes could see. Plus, never mind calling her "Mary" when everyone knows she goes by Brooke.

Down lower in this (very long) post, I crack a lot of jokes in an effort to add the healing balm of humor to a situation involving friends of mine. But I became extremely angry -- in a very serious way -- when I saw that the WaPo reporter had included some personal information about Miss Oberwetter's family that was entirely extraneous to the story.

The first time I met her, she was working at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Several of my friends work at CEI and one of them told me about her family background. So the second time I met Miss Oberwetter, I mentioned this, and she became furious: "Who told you that?"

Miss Oberwetter is her own person, and doesn't go around trying to impress people. So my friend who let her secret slip to me -- a journalist, for crying out loud! -- got himself an earful the next time he encountered Miss Oberwetter.

That's why when that WaPo reporter twice referenced her family -- getting it into the third paragraph of the story -- it kind of boiled my blood. That bit of biography was entirely irrelevant to the story of her getting arrested for dancing. The reporter invaded Brooke's privacy. She's an independent 28-year-old (she had to put her blog on hiatus because of her job), her father is not a politician, and her arrest had nothing to do with her father.

Still . . . why do I now suspect that if she were the daughter of a Democrat, the WaPo story would be more sympathetic to her plight?

* * PREVIOUSLY * *

An eyewitness account of "The Jefferson 1" incident at last reveals the name of the terpsichorean perpetrator:

Organized by Bureaucrash, the youth-oriented libertarian affiliate of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Thomas Jefferson Dance Party looked to revive the dancing-as-freedom meme with a dedication to many free marketeers' favorite founding father on the occasion of his 265th birthday.
The plan was simple enough: Freedom-loving individuals . . . would gather in the Jefferson Memorial just before midnight, April 13, and spend ten minutes bopping, swaying and moonwalking to honor the author of the Declaration of Independence.
So as not to disturb any fellow memorial visitors, the group . . . opted to wear headphones and listen to their own iPods. As it turned out, the half-dozen or so unrelated onlookers who happened to be on-hand (the park is open 24 hours) appeared mostly amused by the spectacle.
Security personnel assuredly were not amused. Within two minutes of the event's start, they began moving to disperse the crowd, ordering the dancers to leave immediately, forcibly laying their hands on some and hurling profanities at others.
A few party-goers attempted to explain the nature of the event, but memorial staff were in no mood to discuss political theory. At 11:59, just four minutes after the event's start, U.S. Park Police had detained and were handcuffing the aforementioned "Jefferson 1" -- 28-year-old occasional Spectator contributor Brooke Oberwetter -- ostensibly for unauthorized dancing.

OK, so now her name is out there. Brooke is a friend, someone I know from attending various free-market events around D.C. Most recently I saw her at the Media Research Center "Dishonor Awards" gala -- she's shown here at the gala reception with Derek Hunter and J.P. Freire:

To know Brooke is to gain a deeper appreciation of John Randolph of Roanoke's famous declaration, "I love liberty. I hate equality. I am an aristocrat." Like Randolph, Brooke is a libertarian aristocrat. If she were to write a self-help book, it would be called Get In Touch With Your Inner Patrician.

Brooke has a sort of innate dignity, and you can imagine the horror her friends felt when they saw two cops shove her up against a column of the Jefferson Memorial and put her in handcuffs. In the video of the incident, you can hear Jason Talley mutter: "Holy f---ing s---!"

I had been invited to the dance party, and had hoped to attend. Unfortunately, I had an assignment to cover Bob Barr's appearance in Burlington, N.C., that day, and was still driving back home when the midnight hour arrived.

About 10 minutes after the arrest at the Memorial, I was rolling through Virginia on I-95 North when my cell phone rang. It was Lene Johansen, a science writer who is the current Warren T. Brookes Fellow at CEI. "Stacy, you've got to get down here!" Lene said. "They just arrested Brooke!"

Lene filled me in on the situation, but by the time I could reach the D.C. area, it would be far too late -- and I would be far too tired -- to do any reporting. By dawn, however, the blogosphere had jumped into action, with Megan McArdle and others blogging about the incident.

Other bloggers were not naming the arrestee, and I followed suit. Then Radley Balko posted a video in which eyewitness Nicki Kurokawa used Brooke's first name in describing the incident, so I thought it was safe to begin using the first name. But then somebody asked that I stop that, so I edited the name out and referred to her instead as "name witheld" or "B."

Well, now her identity is public, and I suspect the Spectator story will not be the last we hear of "The Jefferson 1" incident.

We should all be grateful that the incident ended without any bloodshed. Which is to say, it's a good thing I was in North Carolina instead of at the Memorial that night, because those cops would have had to shoot me before I would have stood by while they manhandled Brooke and dragged her away in cuffs.

Sir Walter Raleigh was also an aristocrat, you know.

As to the issues of liberty-vs.-order involved in the "J1" incident, the Spectator's Phillip Klein -- also an eyewitness to the arrest -- offers his perspective:

I make my debut as a Nazi collaborator in the third video, about 4:30 in. My voice can be heard off camera. As the dancer is being detained, libertarians are yelling about the oppressive state, and the legacy of Japanese internment to a puzzled officer who (to my knowledge) wasn't responsible for the arrest. Though I agreed that the arrest itself was absolutely ridiculous, I made an ill-fated attempt to argue to a crowd of perturbed libertarians that lobbing anti-statist rhetoric at an officer who didn't seem to know what was going on, wasn't the most productive course of action. Needless to say, it didn't go over too well with my companions, and I was soon reminded that, "Adolf Eichmann said he was just doing his job!"

Despite my chivalrous offer to take a bullet for Brooke, my own longtime policy is: Never argue with the police.

When the state trooper says he clocked me at 89 mph, I might politely suggest that perhaps his radar was miscalibrated. I might offer some lame excuse and ask if maybe, just this one time, he could let me go with a warning. I might even accidentally have a $50 bill in my hand while I'm handing him my license and registration. ("Oops, my mistake, officer. That was supposed to be a hundred.") But I never argue with the police.

Of course, it's a free country, and others are entitled to their own policy vis-a-vis law enforcement. But I spent my formative years in Douglas County, Ga., when the mere name of Sheriff Earl Lee was enough to frighten even the most hardened criminal, and was an absolute terror to juvenile delinquents like me. When one of those Douglas County deputies showed up in his brown uniform, the time to argue was over. Run, yes. Argue, no.

Spending one's adolescence as a ... uh, freelance pharmaceutical distributor tends to teach the value of a non-confrontational approach toward the law-enforcement community. When you're a 15-year-old trafficking in felonious quantities of controlled substances, the last thing you want to do is get busted for a two-bit misdemeanor because you mouthed off at a cop.

It's all about personal perspective, I guess.

UPDATE: Matthew Vadum, one of the most respected young investigative journalists in Washington, posts a thoughtful comment:

You are probably right that in most situations one should not argue with law enforcement personnel, but does asking a sincere question of an officer when one doesn't know that she is possibly breaking a law constitute arguing with the police? . . . These officers appear to have exceeded their authority and their actions might give the arrested individual the right to sue the police force they work for. I know [Brooke], as you do, and can't imagine her defying an officer and persisting in a supposedly unlawful behavior after said officer has explained his concerns. What happened was wrong, plain and simple.

Of course, Mr. Vadum makes an important point here, and I would not dispute his judgment. I was merely relating the fact that I, due to my personal experience, am in the habit of trying to avoid confrontation with policemen. When such a confrontation accidentally occurs, my habit is to disengage as quickly as possible. So if a cop says, "Jump," I don't even pause to ask, "How high?"

These are my own personal habits, and I explained how and why they became ingrained in my personality. I did not say that the cops were right or the dancer was wrong, and I said nothing that might be prejudicial to any legal action. All I said was, as soon as a cop tells me to move along, I move along -- unless, of course, chivalry requires that I sacrifice myself to the dictates of honor.

SUGGESTION: Next time a flash mob plans to dance at a national monument, some advance preparation would help: Bring a couple dozen donuts for the cops.

Give a cop a Krispy Kreme, you can get away with murder. OK, maybe not literally murder, but at least dancing.

UPDATE II: Just got an e-mail from a guy who says he used to make the I-95 run smuggling illegal guns and cocaine from Miami to Philadelphia, and he questions my suggestion of Krispy Kremes:

Two words, dude: Dunkin' Donuts. Never saw a Jersey trooper who could resist
'em. We always used to stop at a Dunkin' Donuts down in Delaware and pick up a
dozen, just in case.

My correspondent is correct about the NJ trooper's known affinity for Dunkin' Donuts, but remember that I'm a native of Atlanta, and the Georgia State Patrol has always been partial to Krispy Kreme.

Now that the subject of regional differences in confectionary preference among law enforcement personnel has been introduced, I guess I might as well share my own discovery about Maryland State Police. MSP seem to be immune to either Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kreme. However, I was once running late for an important meeting in DC, and just happened to have with me a plate of my wife's homemade cinnamon rolls . . .

Backyard gunfire

Crack!
Crack!
Crack!

My 15-year-old twin sons are currently taking turns at target practice with their .22 semi-automatic rifle.

A few minutes ago, I was on the phone talking business with a friend, and had to ask him to hold on while I told the boys to hold their fire until I finished my conversation.

"That's the good stuff," my friend said, referring to the pleasure of watching one's children grow up.

He's right, of course.

Crack!
Crack!
Crack!

'Extremely gloomy'? That's me!

Craig Henry knows how to pick 'em, including my "extremely gloomy" outlook in his roundup on the future of the newspaper industry. Part of my assessment is that the decline of literacy, rather than liberal bias, is the primary factor in the downward spiral of the industry:

[T]he reason I know that liberal bias is not a sufficient explanation for this decline is the fact that small "hometown" newspapers -- which have never reflected the liberalism that plagues the major metro dailies -- have suffered equally, if not worse, from the decline.

Craig takes issue with my appraisal of liberal bias at "hometown" newspapers, responding:

I’ve lived in a bunch of different places over the years. Some were liberal communities (Madison, Wisconsin) while others were conservative (Carlisle, Charlotte). In every city and town, however, the local paper was and is more liberal than the community it serves. In Madison, the papers were very liberal, here in Carlisle the Sentinel is only a little to the left of center. This is a striking stance, though, in a community that voted for Bush 60/40 in two elections.

I would agree with Craig that in most cases, newspapers are more liberal than the communities they serve. Journalism, as a profession, attracts a lot of liberals -- sic semper hoc.

Good points, but a few points in reply:

• If the newspaper in Madison is "more liberal than the community it serves," then it must read like a Symbionese Liberation Army manifesto.
• The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer is much larger than the kind of "hometown" paper I meant.
• The Observer has been part of the Knight-Ridder chain for more than 50 years. The conglomeration of newspapers into chains is a major factor in the loss of connection between newspapers and their communities. Editors and reporters are shifted around within the chain, and so you see journalists with what you'd call a "transcontinental" resume, where they've worked at newspapers in Pennsylvania, Texas, Iowa, Tennessee, Arizona, etc. As a result, you get a sort of bland, standardized product -- the McDonaldization of newspapers.

The worst offender in this regard among newspaper chains is Gannett, which is an intensely top-down operation where all the basic guidelines are dictated from the central command. The "Local Gannett Paper" (LGP) has become the sick joke of American journalism -- a thin, weak gruel of blandness.

The LGP is the newspaper equivalent of a mayonnaise-on-Wonderbread sandwich. But there's one twist: Gannett corporate guidelines include a sort of mandatory PC "diversity" quota, so that reporters are expected to quote a certain number of sources who are female or minority.

This LGP quota system is notorious within the newspaper industry, because it yields such laughable results in towns without large minority communities. Imagine working as a reporter at a Gannett paper in some town in Nebraska or Maine and trying to find Hispanic or Asian-American sources to quote in a story about the county commission's plans to install a traffic light at the intersection of Church Street and Highway 301. It's absurd.

I've got 22 years in the newspaper industry, but I'd dig ditches before I'd ever work for Gannett.

Being in job-search mode right now -- with a family of eight, I've got to have a full-time gig with benefits to support my freelancing/book-writing/blogging habits -- I'm keenly aware of the difficulties facing the newspaper business, so my expression of interest in the ditch-digging industry is not just empty hyperbole. Nobody cares about the politics of a man with a shovel in his hands.

The obligatory Iranian brothel post

General Reza Zarei, chief of the Iranian vice squad, was arrested in a Tehran whorehouse with six hookers.

In Iran, couples can get hassled or arrested for holding hands in public, and homosexuals can be sentenced to death. Yet prostitution flourishes, and the exploits of Gen. Zarei suggest why this is so. A little bribe, a little corruption, a little hypocrisy.

Actually, this arrest is perhaps a promising sign for Iran. If the whole society was into the fanatical Shi'ite Islam trip, then prostitutes and pimps would live in fear of their lives. Their neighbors would inform on them to police, or they would be beaten to death by mobs of devout Shi'ites. Instead, the whorehouses proliferate, the people look the other way, and the police are in on the scam.

Ergo, Islamic fundamentalism is not really pervasive among ordinary Iranians.

Kinda funny ...

... even if it is the Village Voice slamming on conservative bloggers.

The best? Ace of Spades has a "stupid/evil" ratio of 1/99.

Don't worry, Ace. Speaking on behalf of my fellow morons, I vow to help maintain the level of Fratboytarian stupidity until you eventually get that perfect 0/100.

Headline of the Week (Again)

In addition to being voted Best Conservative Blogger and CPAC Blogger of the Year, Ace of Spades has now accomplished the heretofore unimaginable feat of winning the prestigious Other McCain "Headline of the Week" prize twice in one week.

First, there was his headline on Obama's "Bittergate," and now this:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Breasts

Threaten To Burst Out of Dress, Capture Poland

And you know what? That isn't even the funniest thing in the post. I haven't laughed so hard since the fall of Guernica. And wait until you see the morons in the comment field.

Taxes and Teddy

My friend Jason Mattera does an ambush interview with the Chappaquiddick Swim Champ:



(Via Michelle Malkin.) Probably the best thing in the video is Jason's grin at the end.

Folks, I did my taxes today and got totally raped, especially on Maryland state taxes. The thing about Maryland is, they don't give any break at all for parents of children. It's like they're anti-child or something. As the father of six, this means that I end up owing extra taxes to Maryland every year, even when I get a refund from the feds.

What it is, I think, is that Maryland's tax structure assumes that all children attend public schools, thus imposing a cost on the state. Ergo, a tax break for parents would shift the cost of education onto non-parents, which would be unfair.

But my children have never attended Maryland public schools. The only time any of my kids attended a public school was 1994-95, when my oldest daughter attended one year of kindergarten in Rome, Ga. Since then, all of our children have either been homeschooled or attended private schools.

"Well," some people might say, "if you can afford private education for your kids, that means you're rich, so you can afford high taxes."

Most of the people who say such idiotic stuff make more money than I do -- including public school teachers.

That's been one of my pet peeves for 20 years, this false claim that public school teachers are underpaid. Underpaid? Compared to whom? I've been a professional journalist since 1986, and my annual salary at no time has exceeded the salary of a public-school teacher with five year's experience.

Teaching kids to read and write may be tough, but it's not open-heart surgery, so why do public-school teachers feel entitled to demand higher salaries and better benefits than the average salaries of the taxpayers who are footing the bill?

Yet because the teachers can lobby the legislature for higher pay and more benefits -- paid for with your tax dollars and mine -- they spend all their time whining about how horribly underpaid they are, and what atrocious working conditions they endure.

The whining of the teacher lobby boils my blood, expecially when I am forced to remember -- as I was reminded today -- that their whining is ultimately done at the expense of my children.

/rant

Good morning, Romania!

Yesterday, I saw I'd been linked by a blog called Gradinariu. The subject was Barack Obama and my assessment of his Marxist interpretation of small-town Pennsylvania culture, but it was written in a language I didn't recognize.

It was a Latin-derived language, that much was clear, but it was neither French nor Spanish nor Italian. I guessed it must be Romanian -- Romania being one of the easternmost redoubts of Latin-influenced language.

My guess was right, it turns out. The blogger left a comment today saying that in Romania, they pay their taxes on Christmas Eve. A legacy of Ceausescu, I suspect.

Well, then .... Greetings, my Romanian friends!

I apologize to Romanian readers for any translation difficulties caused by my colloquial English. For example, I sometimes get bored with politics and click over to WeSmirch, pick up some trashy tabloid thing about a Hollywood celebrity and blog about that. But I'm not sure that "trashy tabloid" translates easily into Romanian.

What does translate? Kim Kardashian.
Talk about the universal language, huh? You may or may not understand American politics, but I know you guys in Bucharest are looking at Kim right now and saying, "Yeah, baby." (Or whatever the equivalent of "yeah, baby" is in Romanian.) So by posting this, I'm engaged in something I call "babe-blogging," which I will define thus:

Babe-blogging -- The practice whereby a political blogger seeks to attract more readers by gratuitously posting photos of attractive women. (See also: "traffic bait")

Some political bloggers refuse to engage in this practice, and look askance at those who do. But my traffic's down today, it's been a while since I've got a link from Ace of Spades, and I figured, what the heck, why not give it a try?

The Miraculous Miss Rittelmeyer

April 15, and I was browsing the SiteMeter while waiting for Mrs. McCain to find the proper tax documents to satisfy the greedy jackals of the IRS, when I discovered I'd been linked by something called The Cigarette Smoking Blog (TCSB).

So I clicked over, half expecting it to be one of those blogbot things that automatically links blog posts on certain topics, since I've blogged about Obama's nicotine habit. To my great surprise, TCSB turns out to be the site of a slender blonde named Helen Rittelmeyer who identifies herself as a conservative, a Catholic and -- mirable dictu! -- a senior at Yale University.

Did I say "surprise"? It's more like anabolic shock. The admissions committee in New Haven is in sackcloth and ashes lamenting that an actual Christian got through the university's intensive screening process. But she's not only a Christian, she's a Catholic conservative, and we know what kind of malevolent vengeance those people have inflicted on Yale.

Yet Miss Rittelmeyer not only slipped past the Argus-eyed Yale admissions committee, the fact that she still calls herself a conservative means that she's managed to thwart the university's cultural deprogramming/re-indoctrination process whereby 18-year-old freshmen from respectable Republican backgrounds are taught:

• Their parents are fascists;
• Their religion is a discredited myth;
• Their ancestors were genocidal troglodytes;
• Their nation is the source of all the world's evil; and
• The only way to atone for their privileged bourgeois upbringing is to become a bisexual pagan vegetarian environmental activist who pursues progressive social justice by firebombing ski resorts.

More than that, Miss Rittelmeyer is also a senior. That means she's managed to avoid expulsion on charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or voting against Ned Lamont.

She's a survivor, in other words. She's endured the fiery inferno of enlightened tolerance, steadfastly (and bitterly, as Barack Obama might note) clinging to her guns, her religion, her antipathy to people who aren't like her. Now, she need only maintain her benighted bigotry for two more months before she will emerge from this ordeal as a fully credentialed member of the meritocratic elite -- and yet, a conservative.

Oh, what curses and gnashing of teeth this must induce in the Yale faculty. Harvard's faculty managed to purge a university president who transgressed against the egalitarian creed, and yet the combined professoriate of Yale can't muster the energy to block or eject a mere undergraduate?

Something must have gone terribly amiss, and Miss Rittelmeyer's matriculation will no doubt become a case study that Yale administrators will scrutinize during a special session of their annual June retreat in the Bahamas. (What the hell do you think they do with all that tuition, anyway?)

Understand, however, that Miss Rittelmeyer is not just one of these lightweight College Republican types who engage in a bit of campus mischief by saying less-than-respectful things about Chris Dodd. No, indeed, she is a genuine right-wing intellectual, a senior editor for the Yale Free Press and perhaps even (brace yourself) a paleoconservative.

Yes, you read that right. Miss Rittelmeyer has posted a very lucid discussion of paleoconservatism, a discussion free of any indication that she views palecons as atavistic degenerates:

This scattered post on the future of paleoconservatism is not necessarily meant to be taken in the context of the "Paleo Epitaph" flurry (on which Robert Stacy McCain has, I think, the best take), although it might make sense to put it there insofar as more than a few of us are Bright Young Paleos who, while certainly not up to the task of reenergizing the intellectual Right just at the moment (we've got finals!), at least take the task seriously.

(Read the whole thing.) "Bright Young Paleos"! Somewhere, I suspect, the ghost of M.E. Bradford is smiling, and folks in Chattanooga may be startled to hear a deep chuckle from the vicinity of Forest Hills Cemetery.

Above and beyond all other hallmarks of her future greatness, Miss Rittelmeyer had the precocious wisdom to flatter the one right-wing journalist who is most vulnerable to the art of flattery.

Stay strong, Miss Rittelmeyer. And if you ever get down to D.C., the cigarettes are on me.

Tax Day is Love Day

No, I don't love paying taxes -- and having six adorable deductions children is a good way to avoid paying too much.

I also don't love filling out these stupid tax forms on April 15, even now that I'm doing my taxes online. The process of filling out federal forms reminds me that we live under a government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.

But while entering my children's Social Security numbers and birthdays into the software program, I received an unexpected inducement to romance. After entering each child's data, the program asks this question:

"Add another dependent?"

Leering suggestively at Mrs. McCain, I asked, "Hey, baby, want to . . . add another dependent?"

Can't print her answer. This is a family-friendly blog.

Buchanan: Bitter?

Finally, a real populist weighs in:

It was said behind closed doors to the chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco, in response to a question as to why he was not doing better in that benighted and barbarous land they call Pennsylvania.
Like Dr. Schweitzer, home from Africa to address the Royal Society on the customs of the upper Zambezi, Barack described Pennsylvanians in their native habitats of Atloona, Alquippa, Johnstown and McKeesport.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and ... the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. . . ."

Pat Buchanan not only hits Obama where it hurts, he also hits the nail on the head, targeting exactly what is so obnoxious about "Bittergate": The extent to which Obama and the liberal zillionaires who comprised his San Francisco audience view blue-collar Americans as the exotic Other.

Buchanan, it must be remembered, was one of the first conservatives to see and understand the latent political power of "the Silent Majority."

Back in the '60s and '70s, there were lots of Americans who were sick of turning on their TVs and seeing mobs of overprivileged college students burning their draft cards, buring their bras or burning the flag. The media lavished attention on the hippies and the Yippies, the feminists and the Panthers -- noisy people who, it seemed, had nothing better to do than to stage protests and demonstrations and shout angry rhetoric about their rights.

What Buchanan presciently saw was that this Loud Minority did not speak for most Americans and were, in fact, profoundly resented by those hard-working, law-abiding people -- the Ordinary Americans --- who paid their taxes, saluted Old Glory, and were just as proud to send their sons to Parris Island as the elite were to send their sons to Yale.

Over the years, Buchanan's efforts to channel the unheard voices of the Silent Majority have led him to say and do things that have exposed him to criticism. He embraced economic protectionism, he was famously dismissed as an anti-Semite by William F. Buckley Jr., and he left the GOP in 2000 to run for president on the Reform ticket -- and ironically, because of his hitherto unsuspected level of support in Palm Beach County, played a key role in electing George W. Bush to the White House. Buchanan has since been denounced as a ringleader of the "Unpatriotic Conservatives," those on the Right who opposed the Iraq war before the first shot was fired.

Through it all, however, Buchanan has never stopped listening for the quiet voice of the Silent Majority. Here, in his column on Obama's now-notorious phrase about the "bitter" people of Pennsylvania, Buchanan hears that voice clearly. And what he hears is the Ordinary American's resentment of the snobbish condescension of so-called sophisticates.

Obama gave his wealthy San Francisco supporters a "pitch-perfect Hollywood-Harvard stereotype of the white working class," Buchanan says:

Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.
A few months back, Michelle Obama revealed her mindset about America with the remark that, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Barack has now revealed how he, too, sees the country. The Great Unifier divides the nation into us and them.
The "us" are the privileged cosmopolitan elite of San Francisco and his Ivy League upbringing. The "them" are the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America. Toward these folks, Obama's attitude is not one of hostility, but of paternalism. Because time has passed them by, Barack believes, they cannot, in their frustration and bitterness, be held fully accountable for their atavistic beliefs and behavior.

"Us and them" -- as often as conservatives like Buchanan have been accused of dangerous "divisiveness," here he exposes the inherent divisiveness of liberal elitism. While an Ivy League liberal like Obama can feel pity toward the working-class people of small-town Pennsylvania, he can never feel empathy toward them. From Obama's stratospheric perspective, those grubby steel workers are so far beneath him as to be unworthy of his notice . . . except for the unfortunate fact that he needs their votes to satisfy his upwardly-mobile ambitions.

Obama's ambitions, however, also require something else: Campaign cash. And to get that, he jets off to San Francisco for a Sunday wine-and-cheese event where he delivers an academic analysis of the "bitter" troglodytes whose votes he was so earnestly soliciting just a day or two earlier.

Obama is supposedly the new face of progressivism, the future of the Democratic Party. But he's actually a familar face from the party's past, the phony rich liberal. As Buchanan says:

Obama's remarks about small-town America told us little about small-town America, but a lot about Barack. He is yet another cookie-cutter liberal who has absorbed and internalized the prejudices of that blinkered breed. He is an African-American John Lindsay, the great liberal hope of the Nixon-Agnew era, of whom Frank Mankiewicz once said: He was the only populist he knew who played squash every day at the Yale Club.

Frank Mankiewicz! The mention of the name of George McGovern's campaign manager reminds me to ask Buchanan to tell the story about how Hunter S. Thompson nearly changed the course of history at the Manchester, N.H., airport in 1968.

"I'm a sane, responsible journalist; otherwise I might have hurled my
flaming Zippo into the fuel tank."

--Hunter S. Thompson

Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72, p. 45

UPDATE: Linked by James Antle of The American Spectator. Thanks!

Bitter enough for you, Barack?

A new poll shows that Barack may bitterly regret his bitter words about the bitter people of Pennsylvania -- Hillary's opened up a 20-point lead (57%-37%) in the space of a single week.

Ed Morrisey:

That looks very grim for Obama as he heads into working class states such as Indiana and Kentucky. Prior to calling small-town middle America a bunch of xenophobic bigots who cling to guns and religion out of economic bitterness, Obama had made headway in taking those voters away from Hillary Clinton. . . . His sop to the Frisco liberal elite has . . . left him vulnerable once again to the overall electability counterargument.

Admit it, Ed: You're just bitter. You hate Hope -- and Audacity, too. The hopelessly audacious James Tarranto also has bitter fruit for Obama:

Obama's promise rests on a false premise: that it is within the power of the president to restore the Rust Belt's luster. . . . If presidents had the power to make Pennsylvania's declining towns wealthy, don't you think one of them would have done so by now? . . .
Obama's reference to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- which he notably did not repeat in Indiana -- seems just a cheap shot, an appeal to his San Francisco audience's antipathy toward people who aren't like them. Or perhaps it is evidence that he was listening more attentively than he has admitted to the sermons of his "spiritual mentor" about the "U.S. of KKK A."

Obama needs to make a new gaffe pretty soon, because I've milked this one for all it's worth. Now, I'm bitterly disappointed to be running out of wordplays. I guess you could say my cheap jokes have reached . . . the bitter end.

PREVIOUSLY:

4/14: Obama? Oh, boy!
4/14: Barack & the bitter people
4/14: Obama is ... right?
4/13: Keep digging, Barack
4/11: Obama busted by blogs
4/11: Obama trashes small-town America

Tim Robbins: Punk

There are other left-leaning performers who seem to be OK as human beings, but Tim Robbins has always struck me as an arrogant punk. And now he gives a boastful, insulting speech to the National Association of Broadcasters:

Robbins peaked with what he called a three-pronged proposal that broadcasters should adopt in order to eliminate "confusing, complex issues" such as diversity of thought and opinion.
"First, erase all diversity," he said. "You only need two opinions. Second, stay focused on sex scandals. We don't want any kind of reporting outside the soundbite. I don't know about you, but show me a drunk starlet getting out of a car with no panties on, and I think the world is a better place. Third, more distraction. The economy sucks? Chaos in Iraq? It is a moral responsibility to distract." . . .
"In all seriousness, folks," Robbins said, dropping the good-natured satirical tone, "We're at an abyss as an industry and a country." He talked of pervasive cynicism in the country and added that "you, as broadcasters, have the power to turn the nation away from cynicism. Or you can hide behind the old adage, 'I'm just a businessman, just providing what the audience wants.'

I'm sorry, but that isn't "good-natured" satire or "good-natured" anything else. It's just a rude, ill-informed and obnoxious diatribe that wouldn't even qualify for "front page" at Daily Kos. It sounds like Robbins wrote his "speech" during an all-night coke binge while reading Glenn Greenwald.

The broadcasting industry actually paid Robbins for that abusive rant. Apparently Robbins has some kind of martyr complex. Michelle Malkin writes:

It is just so very, very damned difficult to speak your mind (such as it is) when you’re a Hollywood liberal in America, isn’t it?

Wealthy movie stars are horribly oppressed . . .

Teen cheerleader video fight

"STUNNING NEW DEVELOPMENTS
IN TEEN BEATING CASE"

That was the logo at the bottom of the screen just now on Fox News while Greta Van Susteren was interviewing Gloria Allred. I searched Google News, but didn't see any "new developments," stunning or otherwise. The most recent news is this:

The last of the eight teenagers arrested and jailed in the videotape beating case has been bailed out of the Polk County Jail.
According to the Polk County Sheriff's Office, 18-year-old Stephen Thomas Schumaker posted bail and was released overnight.
Schumaker has been accused of being one of two lookouts that were outside of a Lakeland home March 30 as six girls beat up another teen girl and videotaped it.
The other teens arrested were Brittany Mayes, April Cooper, Cara Murphy, Kayla Hassell, Brittni Hardcastle, Zachary Ashley and Mercades Nichols. They range in age from 14 to 18 years of age.

Not exactly "stunning," huh? The whole point is that Greta needs ratings, and is in competition with Nancy Grace, who is an expert at lurid sensationalism:



The questions: Is there any real news value to this story? Is this incident the tip of an iceberg, symptomatic of a widespread problem? Are hordes of vengeful cheerleaders roaming the nation, seeking innocent victims for their sadistic violence?

The answers: No, no, and no.

Sleep safe, America, knowing that it is highly unlikely that you or your loved ones will be beaten unconscious by a vicious gang of high-school cheerleaders.

This story is about an isolated incident, an unusual and atypical sort of crime. The reason the cable news networks are beating this story to a bloody pulp (so to speak) is:

• TV is about pictures. The perpetrators made a video recording of the crime, which can be looped over and over -- like the Rodney King beating video -- to provide a continuous visual element to the story.
• Sex sells. If it was a bunch of football players beating up a band geek, Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren wouldn't still be talking about it nearly two weeks after the arrests. Instead, it involved high-school cheerleaders -- "Ooh, those sexy, nubile, teenage temptresses!" -- and so the story offered a lurid angle that allows Greta and Nancy to appeal to prurient interests at a subliminal level while overtly discussing "issues" and "developments" in the case.

Cable TV news does this stuff all the time. It's like "The Case of The Missing Young Blonde," a recurring theme in the Grace & Greta Zone. Missing-person cases are a dime a dozen in a nation of 300 million people, but if the missing person is an attractive young woman -- especially if she's a blonde -- cable-news producers can't seem to resist.

For all we know, middle-aged brunettes are being kidnapped and tortured in America on a routine basis -- without a peep from Greta or Nancy or Geraldo -- but every time a young, pretty blonde is late for a lunch appointment, her photo is plastered on the CNN screen with an URGENT UPDATE every 20 minutes until she is found.

Understand that I'm not really condemning the TV news people who do this crap, I'm just pointing out what it is they do, and why they do it. If people didn't want to watch stories about kidnapped blondes and cheerleader catfights -- or polygamist teen sex cults -- then the cable networks wouldn't be doing endless hours of coverage of such cases.

So if you're one of those brain-dead morons glued to the tube watching sensationalist crap, don't worry -- the very fact that you're watching it means that they'll keep providing a steady supply of crap.

Obama? Oh, boy!

A predictable nightmare:

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman."
He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.
"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

A predictable apology:

“My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity," Davis wrote in a letter that staffers said was hand-delivered to Obama’s U.S. Senate office. "I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.”
Davis continued: “Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.”

Notice how, as a service to younger (or particularly clueless) readers, the Lexington Herald-Leader feels obliged to explain:

The word “boy” is considered extremely offensive by many African-Americans, as it was used by Southern whites in the Jim Crow South to assert racial superiority.

Uh . . . close enough, probably, although these blanket generalizations are always inexact. Diminuitives (including "boy" and "girl") were, and still can be, used as an attempt to belittle or derogate someone. But they also were, and still can be, used to communicate endearment or familiarity. And this is true in many contexts having nothing to do with race or Southern history.

Context is everything in construing the meaning of such usages. No one would think an insult was intended if I greeted an old Georgia friend by saying, "Boy, I ain't seen you since high school!" Similarly, the use of "girl" as an endearment -- "she's the sweetest girl I know" or even, "you go, girl" -- is easily differentiated from any offensive sexist use of the word.

It appears that Rep. Davis did not purposefully intend to use "boy" in a racially pejorative sense, although it was clearly meant to belittle Obama. This particular way of using "that boy" is a common Southernism, as in:

"That boy ain't got the sense God gave a mule!"

... or:

"That boy's dumber than dirt!"

So while a derogatory intent is clear -- Davis was delivering a putdown against a political opponent -- the racial context is almost certainly coincidental.

At the same time, the flap over the remark is indicative of the kind of problems the GOP will have to deal with if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. The Democrat/MSM axis will not hesitate to look for racist intent in any Republican attack on Obama.

UPDATE: Dan Riehl discusses media, Obama and race:

Putting aside the race issue, Obama has several problems. He's young, inexperienced, and far better working with a teleprompter, than working on his feet. . . .
Also, while some do, personally, I don't think whites will vote for Obama out of some sense of guilt, or desire to show their lack of bias.
In the end, he's never held an executive position, is starting to look rather brash - more ego, than substance - and for now I'm thinking he'll lose on the merits, even if the media will make the race all about race.

A very good point. Objectively, Obama has strengths and weaknesses as a candidate. He makes mistakes like any politician. Whether he wins or loses, however, the MSM is likely to be obsessed with the race angle.

If Obama wins, his election will be presented as some sort of fulfillment of The Dream. If Obama loses, we'll get ponderous Sunday op-ed ruminations on whether America will ever escape the bitter legacy of slavery, etc.

Either way, we're doomed to a surfeit of race talk from the MSM. How do I feel about that prospect? Bitter.

Tailgunner Joe Lieberman?

I've studied Joe McCarthy. I've read books about Joe McCarthy. And you, Senator, are no Joe McCarthy:

NAPITALIANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

You'd "hesitate to say he's a Marxist"? Damn it, Joe, if you're going to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you'll have to learn to stop hestitating about stuff like this. Be reckless and irresponsible, like me.

Don't worry, Joe. I know you're new to this witch-hunting persecution thing, where we destroy the careers of innocent Communists by calling them Communists. You'll get the hang of it eventually.

(Via Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Rushing to the defense of Obama is heroic civil libertarian Andrew Sullivan:

Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama's remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the "real Obama" - and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably "masks." . . .
You could argue, as Kristol and others hilariously will, that Lou Dobbs has no base, that fundamentalist Christianism has no problem with "the other" in a globalized world, that dozens of state constitutional amendments banning civil marriages that had never and would never have taken place were just spirited forms of civic engagement, rather than scapegoating or politicking on resentment. You could also argue, as others legitimately will, that spasms of economic distress and social discontent are unconnected. Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler.

Uh, Andy, let me offer some etiquette advice here. Whenever you are arguing with people with names like "Lieberman" and "Kristol," it is generally considered bad form to introduce the word "Hitler" into the discourse. If they want to talk about Hitler, OK. But if you, the angry Gentile, just randomly throw "Hitler" into the argument, some people might get the wrong impression.

Just trying to help, buddy . . .

UPDATE II: I guess I should clarify that the above remark was not meant to accuse Andrew Sullivan of anti-Semitism. It's something called a "joke."

If you have to explain a joke, it ruins the joke, but I'll go ahead and ruin it, rather than be misunderstood:

• This blog post began with a link to a Think Progress post in which Joe Lieberman is accused of red-baiting Barack Obama.
• Then, I mocked the accusation against Lieberman with various references to the career of famed anti-communist Sen. Joe McCarthy. (I've interviewed two McCarthy biographers, Arthur Herman and Stan Evans.)
• Self-deprecating humor was employed by urging Lieberman to "be reckless and irresponsible, like me."
• Then, after clicking over to Memeorandum to see if my post was linked, I noticed Sullivan's post, which included a non sequitur Hitler/Weimar reference.
• Knowing Sullivan to be a critic of neocons, it occurred to me that his introduction of Hitler to the argument might be misconstrued as one of those anti-Semitic digs to which some anti-neocons occasionally resort.
• Thus, I offered my "etiquette advice," pointing out a true fact of etiquette -- that one should not introduce to conversation a topic known to be painful or offensive to others -- and suggested the possibility that "some people might get the wrong impression," i.e., that Sullivan might be accused of anti-Semitism.
• This adds new layers of self-referential humor to the post, since (a) I'm not exactly known as the most tactful and sensitive person on the planet, and (b) I've also had personal experience with thoughtless remarks that gave "some people . . . the wrong impression."

So, a joke ruined, but a misunderstanding avoided.

Video: Barack & the bitter people

Some politicians claim to love "the little people"; Obama loves the bitter people. (This is an official campaign video; not a parody):



I like how the (obviously bitter) college student asks about the word "oligarchy." (Take notes, kids -- this might be on your final exam.) The Obama campaign sent me that video, along with this e-mail message:

Earlier this month, we wrapped up a bus tour of Pennsylvania, and it was an amazing trip.
For six days, we visited factories and schools -- even a bowling alley -- and talked to folks from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia about the issues affecting their lives.
The April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania is our biggest remaining contest, and supporters from around the country are taking the trip this week to help build our movement there.
Our team put together a video of the bus tour. Check it out -- then sign up to go to Pennsylvania and help Get Out The Vote this week:
http://my.barackobama.com/CometoPA
Hearing these stories confirmed something you and I already know -- our great country is facing some serious challenges.
But it also showed me that what unites us is much stronger than what divides us.
We all believe that people who are willing and able to work should be able to earn a decent wage. We agree that folks should never go bankrupt just because they, or their loved ones, get sick. And we know how important it is that we leave a livable planet for the next generation.
None of this is going to be easy -- but if we come together as Americans to pursue our common goals, all of it will be possible. It will be possible if people like you commit to make a difference right now.
That's why I'm asking you get involved in our campaign in Pennsylvania in this crucial final week before the primary.
Sign up now:
http://my.barackobama.com/CometoPA
This election isn't going to depend on the polls or the pundits. It's going to depend on you -- and your vision for where we want to take this country.
I hope I can count on your help in Pennsylvania.
Thank you,
Barack Obama

It's so great that Obama himself sent me this personal e-mail message -- because, man, am I ever bitter!

Polygamy cult custody case

Get ready for the biggest child-custody case in American history:

State officials moved 416 children seized in a raid on a West Texas polygamist compound to a new shelter Monday after some mothers complained to the governor about conditions that were making the children sick. . . .
Earlier on Monday, a court began laying the groundwork to sort out the custody arrangements for the hundreds of children seized from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Chris of Latter Day Saints, with nearly four dozen lawyers seeking to represent the children in attendance.
State District Judge Barbara Walther held the hearing to prepare for Thursday's expected marathon session, when the state will plea for permanent custody of the children.

Holy crap! The state of Texas wants custody of all 416 children?

As creepy as this FLDS cult is -- and, judging from news accounts, they're nearly as creepy as the Jonestown cult, Heaven's Gate, or even the Manson "Family" -- this action by Texas Children's Protective Services (CPS) is draconian.

My inner cynic suspects that CPS is pushing for total custody of all the children as a way to force the adults either to confess to crimes or to inform about the crimes of others. In other words:

'Fess up and snitch out your friends, or you'll never see your kids again.

In other words, this is the opening gambit of a protracted legal battle. The fact that there were "nearly four dozen lawyers" in the courtroom tells you that these FLDS families are not going to just roll over and play dead in this case.

Hey, it's America. Everyone is entitled to due process of law, everybody gets their day in court -- even creepy cult people who force 13-year-old virgin girls into becoming the teen brides of 50-something "elders."

Karaoke's 'Patient Zero'

A few years ago, at a Washington Times Christmas party, I encouraged my friend Pete Parisi to try singing karaoke.

I created a monster. Being mobbed by karaoke groupies (see Exhibit A; click to enlarge the photo) appeared to transform Pete's entire personality. It was if the experience tripped some kind of Skinner-box reinforcement mechanism.

Pete has turned into a stone-cold karaoke junkie. He prowls the Internet, looking for new venues in which he can rock the mike. Before he goes on vacation, part of his planning includes locating every karaoke bar within a 20-mile radius of his destination.

Now, Pete's spreading the karaoke virus -- the contagion which causes the disorder that experts now call "Parisi's Syndrome" -- to his professional peers in the American Copy Editors Society:

The ACES conference in Denver has officially come to an end. . . . After the great wrap party at Falling Rock, many folks headed over to karaoke, which was said to be one of the greatest get-togethers that ACES has ever had. Peter Parisi led the group down to the sushi restaurant and started the 'afterhours' session with a booming voice and great stage presence. But Jim Thomsen, new to the ACES board, brought down the house with "Too Sexy."

I feel so ... guilty. I've started something that I am powerless to stop. The casualties of the karaoke pandemic are mounting, with no end in sight. I'm sure that Obama would demand Pete's immediate withdrawal from karaoke. But Pete's a Republican, so he'd probably listen to John McCain and keep singing for 100 years.

'Crushed into silence'?

Very interesting column by Amy Alkon:

“Men explain things to me,” complains [feminist writer Rebecca] Solnit [in the Los Angeles Times], “and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean.”
We do? I think somebody forgot to send me the memo. Yet, Solnit claims this terrible injustice is something “nearly every woman faces every day” . . .
I have to say, if there’s one problem with men these days, it isn’t “unsupported overconfidence.” I likewise can’t say I’ve ever felt “crushed into silence” or any of the maudlin rest. So… either my dad, who taught me to stand up for myself, and told me over and over that I could do anything boys could do, is unique among fathers in America, or there’s a name for what Solnit’s peddling, and it’s “grassy-knoll feminism.”

(Via Memeorandum.) My own thoughts on this:

• Men do have a tendency toward seeking dominance -- and that tendency includes conversation. The first time this fact leaped out at me was when I was doing a story about a Northwestern University sex-research grant. This federally funded research involved transsexuals, some of whom were upset about how they were treated by the researcher. In a phone interview with one transsexual woman, I became aware that, although her voice sounded quite feminine, there was something distinctly male in her conversational style. She interrupted me frequently, would sometimes seem to ignore the point I was trying to make, and would often do what I call "filibustering" -- sort of lecturing me, and refusing to "yield the floor" when I would attempt to interrupt. Sex-change surgery and hormon treatment had not altered her masculine habits in dialogue (or monologue, as it were).
• Radical feminism is an anti-social ideology. The differences between men and women are real and innate. Turn on Comedy Central and you'll see an endless parade of stand-up comedians, both male and female, cracking up their audiences with observational riffs on the differences between men and women. Where these comics find fodder for their stand-up routines, the radical feminist sees . . . injustice! The radical feminist is someone whose inability to cope with male-female differences has been exaggerated and overdramatized into a political cause.

Every culture develops customs and traditions to allow male and female to coexist peacefully in society. The reason radical feminism is hostile to these customs and traditions is not necessarily because traditional culture oppresses women in general. Rather, it is because radical feminism was created by, has been promoted by, and attracts to its cause, women who are unable to adjust to, cope with or succeed within traditional society.

In other words, radical feminism is about the grievances of a particular type of woman -- women who are, in a word, anti-social.

This explains the implacable nature of radical feminism. No concession or compromise can ever satisfy them. As soon as they are granted one of their demands, they will instantly find some new grievance and issue another demand. Feminists are predisposed to political aggression, since the hunt for grievances and the making of demands is their movement's raison d'etre.

If the Feminist Majority were to issue a final and complete list of its demands, and if all those demands were granted, the Feminist Majority would not disband. They wouldn't say, "Oh, well, our work is done now. Close the office, cancel next month's fundraising campaign, issue severance pay to the staff, donate whatever's left in our bank account to the Red Cross." Not going to happen, is it?

In this sense, then, radical feminism can be said to resemble Hitler's Germany. Give them Austria, and next they'll want the Sudetenland. Give them the Sudetenland, and next they'll start ranting about the Danzig Corridor and issuing ultimata to Poland. As soon as their panzers get finished mopping up in Poland, they begin transferring divisions to their western frontier. Et cetera.

I realize such a comparison will be denounced under Godwin's Law, but the analogy -- about the nature of aggression and the futility of appeasement -- seems inescapable in this instance.

Call me the Winston Churchill of patriarchal oppression: "We shall fight them on the beaches ... we shall fight in the hills ... we shall never surrender!"

Obama is ... right?

A semi-endorsement of Obama's remarks on American bitterness from my former boss, Fran Coombs:

While his political opponents quibble over his language, Barack Obama is absolutely right about one thing: Americans are in a bad mood these days. We're in a war that, no matter which side you're on, seems never-ending. The economy is the worst it's been in years with no end to bad news in sight. . . .
Young voters are just coming into that world, and job and economic security must seem like oxymorons to them.
Accordingly, in this election cycle, Mickey Mouse-gotcha politics isn't sticking like it has in recent years. Mr. Obama misspeaks. His minister is a racist. His wife says something many people don't like. So what? In years past, things like that could derail a candidacy. Not this time. . . .

Go read the whole thing, not just because Fran used to be my boss, but because it's an excellent analysis -- and that's a neutral, objective fact.

Bob Barr: Special Report

UPDATED & BUMPED: Courtesy of Third Party Watch, here's video of Barr on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal":



Saturday, while I was in North Carolina to cover Bob Barr's speech to the state Libertarian Party convention, Stephen Gordon of Third Party Watch alerted me that George Will had just posted a Newsweek column analyzing Barr as a threat to John McCain:

Compact and feisty Bob Barr, 59, probably will seek and get the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, which convenes in Denver on Memorial Day weekend. Given the recent fund-raising prowess of a kindred spirit -- Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet -- libertarians are feeling their oats. . . .

The main problem with that column is . . . well, George Will obviously hasn't hung out at too many Libertarian Party events.

What makes perfect sense to Will -- that the LP would score a great coup by nominating Barr, a veteran politician with a high-profile media image, as its presidential candidate -- is by no means self-evident to LP regulars.

My American Spectator special report is chiefly an attempt to explain the challenges Barr faces in winning over the Libertarians:

The delegates applauded at the end of Barr's speech, but afterwards it was clear that many of those attending the two-day state convention still viewed the Republican-turned-Libertarian with a good deal of skepticism. When a presidential preference straw poll was taken the next day, Barr got only one vote, compared to 17 for longtime LP activist Mary Ruwart, three for Massachusetts physicist George Phillies and two for Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allen Root. (Ruwart is something of a "favorite daughter" among Libertarians in North Carolina, where she lived for four years before moving to Texas last year.) Like Barr, ex-Democrat Mike Gravel got just one vote in the straw poll. . . .
Since Barr announced the formation of his exploratory committee April 5 at a Libertarian conference in Kansas City, his potential impact on the presidential race has been widely discussed as if his LP nomination were a certainty. . . . However, the fact that Barr could finish in a straw-poll tie with Gravel -- who only announced his conversion to the LP two weeks ago -- is one indication that Barr's nomination is by no means a fait accompli. . . .

Please read the whole article. The Spectator editors let me have over 1,100 words, but there wasn't nearly enough room to get in everything I gathered during my Burlington trip, or to explain everything that makes the LP presidential contest different from that of the major parties.

One of the things I couldn't fit into the article was a comment that Barr emphasized in his speech, that "this is the Libertarian Party, not the Libertarian group." Barr was saying, in other words, that the objective of the LP should be to acquire more members, attract more voters, and win more elections.

Obvious enough, right? Not to some hard-core LP activists, who seem to think of the LP as a super-selective private club, where only the ideologically pure are welcome. Brian Doherty wrote about this tendency in Radicals For Capitalism, his definitive history of the libertarian movement. If you've spent much time at gatherings of libertarians, you know the phenomenon Doherty describes.

Since leaving the Republican Party, Barr has worked as the LP's southeastern regional representative to the party's national committee. He has shifted his position on key issues, including drug policy, toward the Libertarian line, and has worked to boost the party's media profile. But to some of the hard-core LP types -- which includes a few who've been involved in the party almost since its inception in 1971 -- Barr is still an untrustworthy outsider, an interloper, and certainly not ideologically pure enough to be considered a real capital-L Libertarian.

That's the biggest problem Barr faces in getting the LP nomination. Speculation as to what impact a Barr candidacy might have in November is moot, unless he first succeeds in getting the support of enough party regulars to win at the Libertarian convention in Denver -- where George Will most definitely won't be a delegate.

UPDATE 1:30 p.m.: Dave Weigel of Reason magazine also endeavors to explain the challenges Barr faces in getting the LP nomination:

The party's got a comparable embarassment of riches this time, but it's easy to write a scenario where left-libertarians and people who simply don't like him elevate some less prime-time-ready candidate, and watch as the political press ignore them for six months.

Notice Weigel's use of the phrase "left-libertarians," which I'm not sure is quite the right term. The opposition to Barr is likely to be less ideological and more political -- or perhaps anti-political would be the better description. We are talking about people who appear to be opposed to trying to win elections.

Weigel also links Brian Doherty's report on the 2004 Libertarian convention, which nominated Michael Badnarik. Doherty describes that choice in the most tactful, diplomatic language:

All they want is to see someone out on the campaign trail saying the things that they believe in, in a style they are comfortable with. . . .
The delegates voted for the man who was the most like them, who presented in the most professional way the modal opinions and views and style of a Libertarian Party activist -- quiet, intense, no deviation from the catechism, more concerned with eternal ideological and philosophical verities than the political events of the day.

Because I'm fluent in Polite Euphemism, allow me to offer this colloquial translation:

The faction of anti-social kooks who listen to shortwave radio in their mother's basement formed a coalition to prevent the nomination from going to the glib, telegenic, outgoing Aaron Russo, because of the anti-social kook's inherent distrust and resentment of socially adept extroverts.

Healing begins with truth.

J1: The videos

Jason Talley has videos of the "Jefferson 1" incident. The following segment begins with the cop talking to the arrestee, "B." Then Jason tries to talk to the cop, then -- at the 1:44 mark -- Jason looks back and uses very strong language when he spots the cops putting "B" in cuffs.

There is more than a minute when "B" is off-camera, and we don't yet know what happened during that minute. But when we see her at the beginning of the video, she doesn't appear to be combative, disruptive or rude.

This kind of reminds me of the Rodney King incident, except she wasn't on PCP and they didn't use nightsticks.

Tabloid headline of the year

When it comes to lurid sensationalism, the British are world-class:

Horror of the Texas child sex cult ranch

-- U.K. Mirror

For tacky tabs, you can't beat Fleet Street. The word "horror" is a real grabber in a headline, especially when combined with a sex-crime story.

But as far any verifiable news accounts are concerned, there was no "child sex" at the Texas FLDS cult compound. Teen sex, yes. Child sex, no -- at least unless you're applying "child" so broadly as to mean "minor."

The headline-writers at the Mirror surely saw the shock value of using the word "child," so they used it. It's not honest journalism, but it sells papers.

Gratuitous Gonzo

Shawn Macomber shoehorns this reference into a story on McCain's business advisor, Carly Fiorina:

No doubt, the picture of McCain tackling unspecified "entrenched interests" may sound to many conservative ears somewhat akin to how Bill Clinton's promise to put 100,000 new cops on the street sounded to Hunter S. Thompson when he and P.J. O'Rourke met the future president at a Little Rock restaurant in 1992. "I was up all night persuading Hunter this was not a personal threat," O'Rourke has recalled.

Don't think I'll sit idly by and let you out-Gonzo me, Macomber. If you want war, you got it.

Jefferson Monument dancer revealed

Thank you, officer, for saving America's national treasures from this fiendish criminal:

Yes, this is the monster who wreaked havoc at the Jefferson Memorial by illegally dancing in celebration of Thomas Jefferson's birthday. Not only that, but she then "interfered with an agency function" by asking a policeman why she couldn't dance!

If you should spot The Dancing Bandit, do not attempt to apprehend her yourself, as she is believed to be armed with a fully-loaded Ipod.

'Footloose' vs. fascism?

Sources inform me that another eyewitness account of the Jefferson Monument dancing arrest will be online after midnight, and I'll update when that's available. (Previous blogging here and here.) (UPDATE: Have just been informed it will take another 24 hours to get the eyewitness account online, since the witness is seeking information from the law enforcement agencies involved.)

Julian Sanchez has a long and thoughtful post about reactions to this incident, including some commenters who resorted to pretzel logic to justify the way the Park Police responded.

Julian dismisses as hysterics those who see the case of the "Jefferson 1" as "one more symptom of the jackboot of the looming police state stamping on the face of humanity." I think he dismisses this concern too lightly. No, we are not teetering on the brink of totalitarianism, but there is a serious issue involved:

The United States is over-policed

Some researcher with more energy and diligence than me will surely be able to produce statistics showing that, since 1990, the number of law-enforcement officials has increased at a rate much higher than the increase of U.S. population. A researcher can prove this statistically, but I know it to be true by direct observation. And I blame Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton promised in 1992 that he would put 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America. What he didn't tell us was that at least 20,000 of those officers would be assigned to hide beside America's interstate highways in radar-equipped patrol cars, waiting to bust some poor shmuck going 16 mph over the speed limit because he's running late for work. (Direct observation, I said.)

The experience of the Ipod-wearing dancers at the Jefferson Memorial is just another example. The photo posted by Radley Balko shows at least three officers in the immediate vicinity of the arrest. How many others were on the premises of the Memorial? Too many, however many it was.

For crying out loud, it was midnight. A two-man team of security guards should be enough, right? It's a lot easier to overreact if you've got a whole squad of cops on the job.

'Get over it'?

Breaking my no-blogging-today promise, I just have to link this insulting column at Townhall.com:

For John McCain, the good news is that the Democrats are beating themselves up. The bad news: Certain movement conservatives and business types are dissing him -- not embracing his candidacy as they should. . . .

(Note the "should" -- people just love being told what that "should" do.)

McCain does not generate enthusiasm in the business community the way other Republicans do. . . .

(Maybe they were in favor of the tax cuts that McCain voted against?)

Similarly with certain movement conservatives. They yearn for romancing by McCain, and though he has gone a-courtin’ it has been — they judge — with insufficient ardor. He hasn’t done it the right way. To top it all off, they don’t like some of his advisers — either their personalities or their views.

(Translation: Anyone who doesn't enthusiastically support McCain is petty and selfish.)

These conservative ideologues measure the McCain candidacy in terms of their own power within the conservative movement. They see that power as being eroded in a McCain presidency. They feel that if their opinions are not solicited in the campaign, then their influence certainly would not needed -- or felt -- in a McCain presidency. So some play coy or are outright hostile in withholding their support now. . . .
So it is indeed time for hypercritical conservatives and business types to get over it -- to bury their egos and their lingering hesitations or reservations — and support a John McCain with the appeal to the moderates and independents that any national Republican has to have to prevail against a lunatic leftism.

I could do more italicized snarking, but you get the picture: John McCain is entitled to your support, regardless of his record, regardless of anything he has said or done. In the McCainiac worldview, loyalty is a one-way street. McCain can be completely unresponsive to your concerns and yet remain blameless. You, however, are an ignorant and immoral wretch if you don't support McCain.

All Good Americans Must Rally to the Great Leader! And it is unpatriotic to ask why.

As James Antle says: "If you think obnoxious, boilerplate columns that barely advance a single positive argument for the Republican nominee will rally conservatives behind John McCain, then Ross Mackenzie has really hit one out of the park."

Her crime: 'Excuse me, sir . . .'

Radley Balko has video in which two witnesses (one of whom is the Cato Institute's Nicki Kurokawa) explain that [name witheld by request]'s crime at the Jefferson Memorial was to respond to the arresting officer with remarks that began, "Excuse me, sir . . ."



Radley says the charge was "interfering with an agency function," which is a bureaucratic euphemism for "unauthorized pursuit of happiness."

Deadline headlines

Just got back from North Carolina, where I was covering Bob Barr's "exploratory" presidential bid. (Among other things, Barr weighed in on Obama's "bitter" gaffe.)

Today is Thomas Jefferson's birthday, and last night a flash mob (Facebook slogan, "Let's Party Like It's 1743!") showed up at midnight at the Jefferson Memorial to dance on the steps in celebration. Park Police arrested one of the dancers for unexplained reasons. The flash-mobbers are friends of mine, so this morning at 12:10 a.m., as I drove across Virginia, I got a call on my cell phone from science writer Lene Johansen: "They arrested [name witheld by request]!"

Now the incident is all over the blogs: Radley Balko has a report at the Agitator, and Julian Sanchez also has an account. (Julian mentions that there is video of the arrest, a fact which ought to worry the cops in question). Megan McArdle also has a roundup.

This incident is ironic. Thomas Jefferson was fiddler and dancer, and I'm sure he would have supported [name witheld by request]'s right to crunk. James Joyner observes:

The days when the police spoke to the general public -- whom they are paid to serve -- with polite deference are long gone. Instead, most have adopted a bullying attitude and demand to be treated with unearned deference.

Exactly. [Name witheld by request] is a citizen and a taxpayer, not a criminal. Having fun is not a crime.

UPDATE: Jason Talley organized the Jefferson Memorial flashmob. He's posted about the incident and promises to post the video soon. He's also formed a new Facebook group, "Free the Jefferson 1!" (In fact, I'm told that [name witheld by request] has already been released, but Jason demands -- and I believe rightly so -- that the charges be dropped, her record expunged, and that an apology be issued.) Glenn Reynolds sees the arrest as one more blow in the Bush administration's relentless assault on freedom. (Personally, I blame Karl Rove.)

Being on deadline today with audio to transcribe -- I hate transcribing audio -- I won't be blogging until late tonight. In lieu of blogging, then, here are some Sunday morning headlines from Memeorandum:

• Gore, Carter to ask Hillary to quit

(FBI hostage negotiators will assist)

• Obama's 'bitter' pill

(Small-town America gettin' some payback)

• Olympic torchbearer assaulted

(Who says all Buddhists are non-violent?)

• Satire of feminism roils campus

(Humor: A sexist weapon of the patriarchy)

• Clinton foundation has China links

(The most ethical administration ever)