He Who Hath Learned Nothing

Not content to have given us a splendid specimen on vicious nonsense on Tuesday, David Brooks returns today with a column ostensibly about how to end inflation in health care. Brooks being Brooks, radical libertarian ideas -- abolishing Medicare and Medicaid, letting the geezers fend for themselves and letting the poor rely on charity -- are not even considered, much less advocated.

Brooks is too serious, too responsible -- the columnist as policy adviser, a journalistic courtier -- ever to think radically. His discussion of health care is therefore a critique of proposed legislation, limited by conceptions of the politically feasible. And then there is this:

To get our overall fiscal house in order, we’re going to need to raise taxes on the rich. . . . We’re going to have to tax people in the middle class more.

Note the three first-person plurals ("our . . . we're . . . we're") that evoke the old punchline about Tonto and the Lone Ranger: "What do you mean, 'we,' Kemosabe?" Brooks rhetorically includes himself in the policy-making circle, inviting his readers to do the same, and presents his tax-increase proposals as imperatives: We need to do this, we have to do that.

Unstated in this "we" stuff is the inevitable "them": The taxpayers, who are not to be consulted about the imperative need for them to cough up more of their earnings to finance the business of "get[ting] our fiscal house in order."

Jennifer Rubin takes her shots at Brooks today, addressing the specifics of his column in terms of the overall prospects for passage of a health-care bill. I would argue, however, that the specifics of Brooksian discourse are merely symptoms of the disease, namely the conception of the columnist as a participant in governance, who views the governing class as "we," and the citizenry as "them."

The fact that the governing class is now composed of liberal Democrats is irrelevant to this basic problem of Brooksism. His political philosophy is neither liberalism nor conservatism, but rather elitism -- the belief that ordinary citizens are untrustworthy, incapable of self-government, unfit even to decide what to do with their own money.

It's your money, and Brooks seems to forget that. I don't. You are free to do as you wish with your own money. If you choose to give to the David Brooks Fisking Fund, I will therefore be grateful. The elite, who think themselves fit to decide what to do with your money, know nothing of gratitude.

Whose America?

"In Andrew Sullivan's America, if you never went to the Ivies, then you shouldn't run for office or be in public life. After all, he went to Oxford and Harvard, so he knows better than you in your hometown."

God Bless America!

Recession or no recession, the show must go on:

Fireworks can be crucial for local economies. Fireworks companies commission thousands of seasonal technicians every summer, and fireworks displays draw people to area restaurants and hotels. That's why, when La Jolla, Calif., resident Adam Harris heard that local restaurateur George Hauer -- who had paid for the town's annual fireworks for 25 years -- would no longer support the tradition, Harris founded savelajollafireworks.com to solicit donations from the township's residents and cove-side businesses. "It was silly to think that we couldn't raise money for something that people love so much," Harris says. Harris's group raised $40,000 -- $13,000 more than the $27,000 needed for the show to go on -- in just four days.

Fireworks as economic stimulus -- I like it!

VP at Shenendehowa High School

by Smitty (h/t Lucianne)

Vice President Biden was in New York state, creating a stir today:

The excitement about today's visit drew hundreds of people who lined up and then waited hours on Wednesday for a chance at a ticket to see the Democrat.

Opening act Spinal Tap almost whipped those hundreds of fans into a near froth prior to the VP's remarks about the virtual economic recovery that Smolderin' Joe's cunning plan has just about fomented.

Honduras update, courtesy of PJTV

by Smitty

An excellent clip. CNN is called the "Chavez News Network", as opposed to the "Clinton News Network" down in Honduras.
Support PJTV, and the renaissance of journalism.

Dept. of Economic Suckage

Lots of economic gloom in the news today, which must why President Obama is so happy that the Democratic stimulus plan has "done its job":

It's the Cloward-Piven strategy: Wreck the economy, then use the resulting crisis as an excuse to justify . . . uh, progressive reform.

Dear Republican Senators . . .

. . . while I love my wife very much and trust her completely, it has nonetheless come to my attention that some members of the Senate GOP caucus are so irresistible that any woman might be tempted to stray. And for $96,000 . . .

Ho! Ho! Ho! The Economy Sucks!

It's Christmas in July:

From department stores to discounters, sales remained on a downward trend for retailers last month, more than a year and a half into the recession. . . .
Some retailers are even starting to promote Christmas in hopes of getting consumers in more of a buying mood. Sears Holdings Corp. (SHLD) on Sunday opened Christmas shops in 372 Sears stores and also set up Christmas Lane boutiques at Sears.com and Kmart.com. (Emphasis added.)

More from the Chicago Tribune:

On Sunday, while most of America was recovering from Fourth of July fireworks and cookouts, [Sears] launched an online boutique called Christmas Lane at Sears.com and Kmart.com. It also set up Christmas decor shops at 372 Sears stores . . .
Sears typically waits until Nov. 1 to unveil its holiday merchandise, said Sears spokeswoman Natalie Norris-Howser. But with the recession putting a crimp in spending, the retailer is hoping to attract holiday shoppers early.
"This is the first year we've done the Christmas Lane event," said Norris-Howser. "We're allowing customers to put these items on layaway and pay over time." . . .
Last year, worried about a slowdown in consumer spending, many merchants, including Home Depot, Kohl's and Walgreens, began stocking their shelves with holiday wrapping paper, trim and trees in September.
The phenomenon, known as Christmas creep, is expected to kick into overdrive this year as retailers fight for their share of shoppers' shrinking pocketbooks.

More economic doom and gloom at NTCNews.com.

White House Press Corps:No Reporters Allowed!

A pathetic parody of journalism:

Much of the White House press corps spent the Fourth schmoozing with White House staffers, catching performances by the Foo Fighters and Jimmy Fallon, and watching the fireworks from the most exclusive vantage point in the D.C. metro area, all off the record . . .

(Via Instapundit.) Hanging out with your sources is not necessarily unethical -- what might be called "casual access" can be very valuable -- but this kind of intimacy with the Obama administration looks much worse in light of the fawning complacency in most of the White House press corps' coverage. One sees the puppet strings when the administration tries to suppress as "off-the-record" the very fact that officials and reporters are mingling at a social occasion.

The prestige of the White House is inherently intimidating. To become "chief White House correspondent" is a career pinnacle for most reporters -- short of becoming a network anchor or editor-in-chief, it's hard to go up from there -- and so there's a career risk in alienating the administration. If you piss off your sources, you lose access. If you make enough of a nuisance of yourself, your editors will get complaints, and you might get yanked off this very pretigious beat. When you see guys like Major Garrett or Jake Tapper get super-aggressive on the White House beat, it's because they know their editors have their backs.

Guys like Garrett and Tapper don't have to apologize for enjoying the Fourth of July schmooze-a-thon (if they were there), but the lapdogs in the press corps may need to do some explaining.

AmeriCorps stonewalls IG-Gate congressional investigation

Byron York:

A top official of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the government agency that oversees AmeriCorps, has refused to answer questions from congressional investigators about the White House's role in events surrounding the abrupt firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin.
Frank Trinity, general counsel for the Corporation, met with a bipartisan group of congressional investigators on Monday. When the investigators asked Trinity for details of the role the White House played in the firing, Trinity refused to answer, according to two aides with knowledge of the situation. "He said that's a prerogative of the White House, so he didn't feel at liberty to disclose anything regarding White House communications," says one aide.

Read the rest. There will be more news on this.

UPDATE: Kelley Beaucar Vlahos of Fox News:

"The mounting evidence that there might be political interference with the IGs is disturbing," said Pete Sepp, vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union. "The IGs are being emasculated."
"When inspectors general across the administration have roadblocks placed in their way, American taxpayers should worry. A threat to one's independence is a threat to them all," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. . . .
Jake Wiens, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit watchdog group in Washington, D.C., warned against seeing "patterns" in the dismissals. Taken individually, each IG's firing is a distinct case that could be "extremely problematic."
For example, Weins said, the Walpin case is mired in a number of "complicating issues," like documented complaints against Walpin from within the agency and a pending ethics complaint against him by the U.S. Attorney's Office in California.
Walpin is also the only IG in question to be fired by the White House. In the case of Weiderhold, the Amtrak IG answers to the Amtrak board of directors, currently chaired by Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

Wiens makes a good point that IG-Gate involves three distinct cases of IG's who have quit or been terminated -- AmeriCorps, Amtrak and the International Trade Commission -- and also the case of "SIGTARP," Neil Barofsky, inspector general for the TARP bailout, who has complained that the Treasury Department has not been fully cooperative. Each of these cases involves different facts.

UPDATE 12:05 p.m.: Did some reporting of my own for the American Spectator:

Democratic congressional staffers investigating the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin asked tough questions of an agency lawyer who refused to discuss White House involvement in the case, a source familiar with the investigation tells the Spectator. . . .
So far, the source said, interviews with "key board members" at CNCS contradict White House special counsel Norman Eisen's assertion that the June 10 firing followed an "extensive review" at the request of the CNCS board. Board members have told congressional investigators that "they weren't contacted [by the White House] until after the decision was made," the source said. . . .

Read the whole thing. Last week, Michelle Malkin called me an "investigative journalist," which is a term that I've always found troublesome. It's not really anything special. An investigative journalist is just a reporter with sources. And developing sources, like everything else in journalism, is a skill (something you learn) rather than a talent (something you're born with).

At last night's book-signing party, I was discussing this with someone and said that the difference between a pundit and a reporter can be summarized in four words: "Pick up the phone!"

Anyone can Google up the phone numbers of a congressman, make a call and ask to speak to his press secretary, and try to get a statement. What kills me is when I see someone like Ross Douthat -- with the resources and prestige of the New York Times at his disposal -- who refuses to use that awesome power to its full extent. "Pick up the phone!"

It's just inertia, really. Sitting in front of your computer and pontificating about the passing scene can too easily become a habit. If you never get up off your butt, make some phone calls and do some reporting, you stop thinking like a journalist. Before you know it, you're just another damned useless intellectual.

Good-bye, populist street-cred!

Let's face it: Once you attend a book-signing party for Richard Brookhiser at the home of David Frum, the peasants-with-pitchforks act might not play in Peoria anymore . . . Oh, yeah: Conor Friedersdorf was there, too.

DeMint on Honduras: right on!

by Smitty (h/t Right Wing Video)

Clip here if the YouTube embed is failing. (?)



What a giant disappointment is President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State Mr. Valenzuela.
The Hondurans seem analogous to a home owner with a small yard beset by a burglar.
The home owner breaks out a weapon of noticeable caliber, and ventilates the burglar.
Unfortunately, the kinetic energy of the impact moves the corpse off the home owner's property.
Then a bunch of pointy-headed little bureaucrats show up and claim that the final resting spot of the burglar is prima facie evidence of excessive force.

They told me if I voted for John McCain, my country would look like it is run by people with a disturbing affinity towards fascism. And they were right!


Update:
Fausta remains reference (a) on this story.

Somebody stimulate the GOP, please

by Smitty

Here they go again, missing the real point, either by omission or commission.
Somebody point Representative Boehner to The Other McCain, please. Consider the following:

POTUS:

"The Recovery Act was designed to make sure that local school districts didn't lay off teachers, and fire fighters, and police officers..."

The GOP tacitly accedes the debate about responsibility for these things to the Federal Government. In defense of the GOP, That's the Way Things Have Been. Stuff that.

What the GOP should be saying:
"This represents the fallacious Progressive thinking that has systematically damaged the Constitution of these 50 States United.
Amendment 10 explicitly says:

'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.'

The fact that Washington DC has acquired so much power at the expense of the States since the First World War is the overarching cause of the current crisis, ye knuckleheads. Increasing Federal power is not the solution.

DC has neither the capability nor the Constitutional basis for effective local management of teachers, fire fighters, or police. Via the short-circuiting effect of Amendment 16, DC enjoys recreational tinkering and micromanagement of a pointy-haired, Dilbert-ian style. The 111th Congress has currently achieved the luxury of voting for non-existent legislation, and explicitly laughs at the thought of actually reading bills that will expand its reach directly into the very beating hearts of American citizens.

Altering the course of the ship of state away from Socialist Shoals and back out to the free, High Seas is going to require conscious effort on the part of Americans. We must elect sober leaders who understand the difference between 'promote the general Welfare' and 'put everyone on Welfare'. We need the States to look after people, and the Federal government to police the States."

In terms of the means employed to stimulate the GOP, I'd like to flog them with a rolled up copy of the Constitution. Tasers and cattle prods, which also come to mind, are best left in the background, for punctuation. For now.

Wednesday afternoon reading

Events require my presence in D.C. today and I'll be offline for several hours, so . . .

• Camille Paglia, Palinista?
• Al Gore vs. Nazis (like you)
• If at first your stimulus doesn't stimulate, try, try again!
• Citizens revolt in California
• Tax code limbo!
• Lyrics from Sarah Get Your Gun
• The Pope's social-justice platypus

Paul Krugman's size worries

We need a big, big, BIG stimulus -- and if you disagree, you're stifling dissent:

During the initial discussion of the stimulus, the debate was framed almost entirely as a debate between Obama and those who said the stimulus was too big; the voices of those saying it was too small were largely frozen out. And they still are — if it weren’t for my position on the Times op-ed page, there would be hardly any major outlet for Keynesian concerns.

Oh, the loneliness of those who have only a New York Times column to advocate their views!

The soon-to-be Mrs. Suderman plays Keynesian concern-troll. (Via Memeorandum.)

IG-Gate Update

Fox News obtains notes from a meeting that led to the firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin:

The informal meeting notes, taken by CNCS Counsel Frank Trinity, said that board members were indeed concerned about Walpin's "behavior." . . .
But the account also shows that Chairman Alan Solomont stated concern about Walpin's accusations against the board and not his mental health as the apparent cause for the dispute that led to Walpin's termination. . . .
A congressional investigator who participated in a three-hour meeting with Trinity on Monday told FOXNews.com that it was clear the board sought Walpin's ouster because of hurt feelings and professional friction, even though inspectors general are supposed to be free to challenge staff at their respective agencies. The investigator, who requested anonymity, argued the White House did not thoroughly review the matter.
"It was the disagreements between the IG and the senior management at the agency that provoked the board to remove Walpin," the investigator said. "The senior people at the agency chafed under Walpin's oversight. ... They communicated this to the board, which rubber-stamped senior management. [The board] took it to the White House, which rubber-stamped the board."

Hmmm. Is Fox's source also my source? Then why . . . Never mind. As long as it advances the story, I'm not particularly concerned with who gets what. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are working to muzzle federal watchdogs in the financial sector:

Inspectors general at five financial regulatory agencies are objecting to legislation that would elevate their positions to the presidential-appointment level, arguing that the move would compromise their ability to conduct independent investigations.
The bill would elevate the five officials at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Lots of graft opportunities in those agencies, y'see. Don't need independent watchdogs snooping around while the Chicago Way is put into operation on Wall Street. And here's some news on the "SIGTARP" story I overlooked last week:

Congress did not legislate transparency for its own members' manipulation of the bailout fund, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. . . .
[T]he Treasury Department steered $135 million in TARP money to a bank in Hawaii after Sen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted bank regulators on its behalf. Mr. Inouye, a Democrat, is Hawaii's senior senator. Nothing unusual so far: Members of Congress have been lobbying for home-state banks almost since TARP started -- so much so that congressional influence is the subject of a TARP inspector general report due out this summer. In one prominent case, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) arranged a meeting between regulators and OneUnited of Massachusetts, a bank in which her husband held shares. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) later wrote language into the bailout bill that effectively directed the Treasury to give special consideration to OneUnited, and he followed up with a call to Treasury. The bank got $12 million. (Emphasis added.)

That forthcoming report from "SIGTARP" -- special inspector general Neil Barofsky -- should be lots of fun.

Tatiana Kozhevnikova

A name to remember, if you're ever in Novosibirsk:

A Russian woman has set a new world record, lifting a 14-kg. glass ball with her vagina muscles. Tatiata Kozhevnikova of Novosibirsk, aged 42, has been exercising her intimate muscles for fifteen years, and has already made her entrance into the Guinness Book of Records as the possessor of the world’s strongest vagina . . .

Hat-tip to Fear and Loathing in Georgetown.

UPDATE: The Web site where she advocates "intimate fitness." Intimidating fitness might be a better description. Are you worthy of the Olympic-caliber vajayjay?

Did I mention that National Reviewnever bothered to notice our book?

"In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. . . . Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party."
-- David Kahane, National Review Online, July 7, 2009

"[T]he main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that Democrats qualify for federal matching funds -- and at least the Gambinos have never pretended to advance the cause of 'social justice.' "
-- Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain, Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (2006)

"Styrofoam Diadem of a Clown"

by Smitty

Green, Ott, and Whittle take the President's 04 July address into the lab, and dissect the disingenious rhetoric.
Recommend supporting PJTV, a priority second only to supporting this blog.

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: