Praying for Time...

I neglected to YouTube link in the post below, but here's the song, for your Wednesday night listening pleasure...

More Worthy Reading, over at the Volokh blog.

David Kopel, who's described as "a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart" and admits to caucusing for Obama in February 2008, has grave concerns over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which has passed in the House and is currently before the Senate.

One section of the bill gives the President the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens, picked up on American soil, because they are allegedly supporting the enemy.
...
Yesterday the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have stricken the detention provisions, and required the Executive branch to submit a report (within 90 days) on the the legal and practical issues involving detention, and required Congress to hold hearings on the detention within the next 45 days after receipt of the report.

The bill also includes provisions to prevent civilian trials of prisoners currently held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration is threatening to veto the bill, although the objections appear to involve Guantanamo-type issues, and not the expansion of the executive’s detention powers. [Note: The bill version quoted above is the version as passed by the House and sent to the Senate. It is the latest version available on Thomas. The numbering for some sections may be different in earlier versions of the bill.] Kudos to Senator Udall, one of the few genuine civil libertarians in Congress, for taking the lead on this issue.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that, according to Senator Carl Levin, it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power. See the C-Span video of the debate on the floor of the Senate, at 4:43:29. This is not the Obama I caucused for in Feb. 2008.

The blog comments there tend to typically attract the non-bottom-feeders, rare on many popular "law" blogs. This one seems worthy of reprinting in full, particularly because the mainstream media does not appear capable of delivering such news in accessible, bite-size format.

Steve says:
Democrats were 35–15 in favor of the amendment that would have eliminated this section; the Republican vote was 2 in favor and 44 against. The two Republicans in favor were Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky; I understand Sen. Paul spoke eloquently against this section of the bill.

There is a somewhat Orwellian component to the justification of the provision permitting military detention of U.S. citizens; the proponents argue that nothing in the disputed section of the bill would expand the already-existing powers of the President. The reason the argument is Orwellian is that the Government has taken great pains to prevent the courts from ruling that it does not have the power in question, so pointing out that the courts have not yet ruled against the President on this issue is a bit disingenuous.

The only modern precedent for this authority is the case of Jose Padilla, someone who may or may not deserve our sympathy. It is undisputed that Padilla is an American citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil and committed to military custody for more than three years without a trial. The decision to commit him to military custody came two days before a court was to rule whether Padilla was being properly held in civilian custody under the material witness statute, which was a creative application of the law at a minimum.

Padilla’s court battle made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ducked the issue on technical grounds and obligated Padilla to re-file. When he did so, the federal district court ruled in his favor, only to have the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn that ruling. Padilla naturally appealed to the Supreme Court again, whereupon the government suddenly procured a civil indictment against him — after arguing for years that it would be terribly misguided to require the government to try Padilla in civilian court. This was a fairly transparent attempt to prevent the case from going before the Supreme Court and to ensure the Fourth Circuit’s favorable decision would not be overturned. Indeed, the same Fourth Circuit judge who wrote the ruling (a Supreme Court short-lister) noted that the government had not offered any plausible explanation at all for the sudden decision to transfer Padilla to civilian custody.

In any event, the government’s ploy worked. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the grounds that it had become moot. Padilla was tried on conspiracy charges and found guilty. And now Senators who want the President to have the authority to lock up U.S. citizens in military custody without a trial are able to argue, somewhat truthfully, that the President already has the authority to do this (because no one stopped him in the Jose Padilla case) and therefore it’s no big deal.

Personally, I do not think the number of U.S. citizens who are loyal to al-Qaeda or the Taliban is nearly large enough to warrant us thinking about shredding the Constitution in order to lock them up indefinitely without a trial. If a citizen like Jose Padilla is plotting a terrorist act on behalf of al-Qaeda, charge him with treason, conspiracy, or whatever else you like and then put him on trial. This is how we handled Timothy McVeigh, after all, and the world didn’t come to an end. And even if someone like al-Awlaki who can’t reasonably be brought before U.S. courts presents a different case, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

You have to wonder, if what Sen. Levin alleges is true, if this is just some type of political game-playing by the Obama administration, that will later -- in true campaign mode -- trot out facts that the Republicans evilly voted down the measure supported by Udall, which Democrats unanimously approved and which the (evil, evil!) Republicans voted down...

I also like these ones:

Cornellian says:
re. "I’m curious whether this statute would be constitutional as regards detention of U.S. citizens on American soil."
Such concerns are a quaint artifact of pre 9/11 thinking. Only by granting the King President limitless authority to detain anyone, without charges or trial, forever, can we be safe from The Terrorists.

and

BL1Y says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

When we trade liberty for security, we’re keeping our right to life, but giving up our right to liberty. When we keep liberty, we might lose our lives, but we at least keep our right to it.

and

Arthur Kirkland says:
Who are we at war with?
Everybody!

Where are we at war with them?
Everywhere!

When are we at war with them?
Every day!

Why are we at war with them?
Everything!

The lack of anticipation of blowback is, as always, quaint.

FINALLY:

Owen H. says:
Re. "Americans are free to travel overseas and enlist in foreign armies. We hope they will make the right decision. After Pearl Harbor thousands of German American and Italian American citizens ended up in Axis armies, but we did not make a big deal of it. Two citizens, Huber Hans Haupt in 1942 and Jose Padilla in 2002 returned to the US in civilian clothes pretending to be civilians while they were actually members of the regular armed forces of a foreign country that was at war with the US, and in both cases their mission was to enter the US pretending to be civilians (which by definition makes them a military spy) and then blow something up (which makes them a saboteur)."

We have this tradition where we require that the government actually prove such things.

Personally, that's the America I'd like us to return to...

Rubin ... on Robinson on China.

WaPo black columnist Eugene Robinson visited China, got put up in a nice Westernized place, and he's warming to the regime:

This is my first visit to China, and I plan to spend the next few columns reporting what I see and learn. I spent enough years as a foreign correspondent to know how tricky first impressions can be. The subtleties and complexities of any society are — unsurprisingly — subtle and complex.

But not all first impressions are unreliable. Some are such no-brainers that they can only deepen with experience. One thing I already know is that the way many U.S. politicians talk about China is surely wrong.

With the exception of Jon Huntsman, who served as U.S. ambassador here, all the Republican candidates seem to want to be “tough on China.” Mitt Romney apparently has decided to be the toughest, at least on the economic matters most often cited as a reason to display toughness.

“We can’t just sit back and let China run all over us,” he said in one of the debates. “People say, well, you’ll start a trade war. There’s one going on right now, folks.”

Really? From here, it looks more like an embrace than a war. My hotel is in the chic, yuppified Chaoyang District, just up the street from an Apple store, a Starbucks, a Calvin Klein boutique and just about every luxury retailer you could possibly name. An hour’s drive away, at the visitors center for the Mutianyu section of the Great Wall, the first restaurant you see is a Subway. High-status automobile brands in China include not just Porsche, Audi and Mercedes, but also Buick.

None of this remedies China’s unfair policy of manipulating exchange rates or its laxity in protecting intellectual property rights. But when you walk the streets of Beijing, you see a huge, rapidly growing consumer society that in many ways looks much like our own. I know this is an oversimplification. I know that boomtowns such as Beijing, Shanghai and others near the coast do not reflect conditions in the less-developed hinterlands.

But I also know that the U.S. and Chinese economies will be the two largest in the world through much of this century — and that they are so codependent that talk of one country running all over the other is nonsensical.
...
But this ignores the big picture. Yes, China is governed — in an authoritarian, repressive, at times shockingly brutal manner — by a regime that calls itself communist. But communism self-immolated two decades ago. Walk down any commercial street in Beijing and you see storefronts, venders and hawkers selling anything under the sun. Communism is no longer a system in China. It’s just a brand name that officials haven’t figured out how to ditch.

I’m aware, of course, of the shameful human rights violations that the Chinese government commits every day — and of the government’s selfish, corrupt insistence on maintaining a monopoly of power. These atrocities can never be forgotten.

I think this is what happens when you get a "commercial class" of people, as Robinson clearly is, equating materialistic success elsewhere as being "the same" as the way our American society was built here at home. The elites identify with the elites, and look past the oppression and persecution of minorities. Same as it ever was...

(I identify Robinson as a "black" columnist here, not necessarily because you'd expect more nuanced thinking from a minority class, but how interesting it is that a bit of nouveau wealth, coupled with all the Western goodies your money can, can so simply ignore history or discount the sufferings of others who serve the growing regime.)

Rubin rightly rips him:

I asked Daniel Blumenthal, an Asia expert at the American Enterprise Institute, for his opinion. (He has spoken regularly with Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign about Asia but was speaking here purely for himself.) He was a bit dumbfounded by the column. He said that he would “suggest a visit by Robinson to the many women in China who have been forced to abort their second child thanks to the One Child Policy.” Blumenthal was just getting warmed up: “Or perhaps an orphanage where he can find untold numbers of abandoned baby girls. How about Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo in his jail cell? Or some Tibetan monks who have taken to burning themselves to protest religious repression. If he does have time to leave Beijing he can visit some of the villages where people’s homes have been taken from them without compensation to make way for some pet project of a favored Communist Party crony.”

A former Bush administration official, now at a think-tank specializing in China, was nonplussed, e-mailing me: “The bit about communism ‘self-immolating,’ in addition to not being factual, is in unbelievably bad taste when Tibetan monks actually are self-immolating under very communist, Cultural Revolution-style, Chinese rule in Tibet. Beyond tacky.”

Robinson does, in cursory fashion, recognize “the shameful human rights violations that the Chinese government commits every day — and of the government’s selfish, corrupt insistence on maintaining a monopoly of power.” So maybe China isn’t much like the U.S. after all? A Starbucks doesn’t make you pro-Western or just like America. It says nothing about your political system, to be honest. (It reminds me of the euphoria that greeted each new Soviet dictator. He drinks Scotch — just like us!)
...
Actually, China’s rulers very much cling quite cynically to their ideology, which it uses, as all totalitarian ideologues do, to crush dissent, brutalize its people and murder minorities. It’s very appropriate to hope for such a system’s decline, just as Ronald Reagan rooted for the rotting, corrupt Communist Soviet government to fall. But not to worry, Robinson is confident “the burgeoning middle class will find a way to cast off these shackles.” He wants us to cheer that, and we should. But cheering suggests that we do little or nothing about the regime itself. Blumenthal argues, “Yes, we should cheer the reformers on. Maybe Robinson can come home and visit with Obama. He can tell him to meet with just one of these dissidents and reformers. To my knowledge, our president has not yet done so.”

Perry and Mitt Romney, whom Robinson also dismisses as a hothead, see what Robinson does not: oppression, military aggression and economic criminality (especially with regard to theft of intellectual property). Blumenthal reminds us, “China has undertaken the largest military build-up since the end of the Cold War. Yet no nation threatens China. President Obama has responded by cutting our defense forces across the board, and make no mistake, our Pacific forces will be profoundly affected. Robinson should visit Taiwan, Japan, Australia, India, the Philippines. All have been intimidated by the Chinese military. They are the ones calling for a tougher China policy. Australia pushed Obama to place Marines in Darwin. They are frightened, as they should be. China’s military grows and we retreat.” He adds: “Obama is now pounding his chest with his ‘we are back in Asia’ rhetoric, but there is much less firepower to back up our supposed ‘return.’ ”

I hope Robinson’s column was the result of jet lag, and not the first in a series of Tom Friedman-like apologies for the brutal regime. I look forward to his accounts of meetings with monks, Christian minorities, mourning mothers, human rights activists and the rest.

Also, isn't it amazing how often somebody who can write, and is given an expenses-paid trip and national platform, succumbs so easily to thinking they have an immediate "expertise" on the topic matter that others have spent their careers investigating and learning about, so quickly dismissed by the Robinson's of the world, who slip in, assume they know better, and spout off too quickly?

Really, it is a shame what's happened to the independence of the Fourth Estate, a crucial "check" in true democracies. Don't suppose they've had that, or have need of that, in a Communist country like China though.

I sure hope, despite our collective addiction to materialistic things for their own status sake, America doesn't begin to emulate China, swapping government "choices" in formerly private areas like health or family rearing, for the guaranteed rights of individuals to freely choose otherwise, if they can pay their own way for said choices.

Whoops ... wait a minute ... we're already getting there now, no?, as the gambles some took didn't pay off, and we're all now asked to pony up and "be in this for the whole" to ensure our collective survival.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Learning the wrong lessons, we are.

Santa Got Hisself Stuck!

File this under, Keep It Simple Stupid.
The brilliant idea to have Santa rappel down into the waiting crowd quickly goes wrong at a mall in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida...

Santa's a fat, jolly man who don't do extreme sports, dontchaknow??

(Really, the link is well worth clicking ... I predict viral video here: "Go Santa! C'mon, Santa, you can do it!! Hilarious -- Dangling Santa! -- and ... unscripted.)

Kaus Slams Pseudo-Journolist Weigel.

Remember Dave "I dance funny" Weigel? The potty mouth (whom I'm loathe to admit, graduated from Medill) who played at being neutral, but was called out in his "conservative journalist" game when he was caught sneering and namecalling his conservative sources?

What a fisking he's been given:

Sneer Will Find a Way: Note to Dave Weigel, who found a way to turn Thomas B. Edsall’s clarifying post on Obama’s strategy into a constituency-pleasing sneer at Fox News: 1) It’s “Edsall,” not “Edsell;” 2) The Ruy Teixeira essay Edsall commented on was co-authored by John Halpin, not by John Judis; 3) It’s “Teixeira” Not “Texiera;” 4) Fox’s headline, “NYT: Obama Campaign Plans to Abandon White Working Class” is a completely fair summary of Edsall’s thesis, which (as Weigel himself notes) is that ”preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.” It’s the New York Times’ headline (“The Future of the Obama Coalition”) that’s scandalously boring. 5) Teixeira and Halpin’s point isn’t just that Obama will be “continuing to lose voters who have been voting Republican since 1966″–voters he only got 40% of in 2008. It’s that Obama should be planning to make up for unprecedented presidential-year losses among these less educated whites–in Edsall’s words, a “repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63- 33.” That’s not a non-story, as both right-wing Fox and left-wing Talking Points Memo understood. 6) Is it really true that Obama “isn’t switching policies in or out of a playbook because whites won’t vote for him,” as Weigel confidently asserts? Arguably, for example, Obama might have not delayed a decision on the jobs-producing Keystone XL Pipeline if he were as eager to mobilize a base of working class whites as a base of elite environmentalists. And he almost certainly would pursue an altered immigration policy–focusing more on protecting jobs from illegal undocumented unauthorized immigrant competition and less on suing states (like Arizona and Alabama) that have passed tough enforcement measures. …

Cmon Davey boy, get back to the basics? Accuracy first ... little things, getting the names/spellings right, accurate headlines, proper source attribution. Then and only then, you can insert your juvenile opinions (Beavis and Butthead: Heh... heh, heh), your political "expertise" gleaned from things secretly learned by only the Journolisters, things they never taught ya at school, I'm sure...

Shame more people read Friedman than Bernstein.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy (a law blog primarily populated by Jewish law professors discussing primarily legal issues), David Bernstein has some wise words today:

Thugs in Jerusalem
David Bernstein • November 30, 2011 8:44 am

Jerusalem Post [no link provided]:

After 20 months of attacks and a quarter million shekels in damage, a religious bookstore in the ultra-Orthodox Mea She’arim neighborhood of Jerusalem decided on Monday to accede to the demands of extremists responsible for the violence.

Under the terms of the compromise, Ohr Hachaim/Manny’s put up a large sign requesting that all customers dress modestly. A mashgiach, who checks the store’s inventory to make sure there are no controversial books, will go over the books in the coming week and require that some books be removed from the shelves, though they will not be permitted to remove any English books, said Marlene Samuels, one of the store’s managers.

A haredi group called Sikrikim deemed the store as “promoting immodesty,” and since Manny’s opened in March 2010, the group has smashed its windows more than a dozen times, glued its locks shut, thrown tar and fish oil at the store and dumped bags of human excrement inside. The owners were also personally threatened multiple times.

One of the group’s leaders has been arrested, which apparently allowed the bookstore owners to reach a “compromise” than fell short of acceding to all of the extremists’ demands. Nevertheless, this strikes me as a result an abdication of responsibility by Israeli authorities. The owners had to pay for their own security guards. How about a police patrol protecting the store? The leader was arrested, great. But what about all the lower-level thugs who perpetrated the vandalism and threats? The Israeli government has long permitted Haredi extremists to be above the law, permitting them enforce “modesty” rules on public streets via violence and threats, illegally segregating the sexes on public buses, tolerating violent demonstrations against construction projects allegedly taking place on ancient cemeteries, and so on. Not to mention the greatest malfeasance of all, allowing Haredi extremists to take control of domestic relations law. With the Haredi population increasing exponentially, the government needs to stand up for liberalism while it still can.

We need more reporting on extremists, particularly religious extremists. Calling out those on your own team is essential to reform.

Here's a pretty fair comment on Friedman's latest column too (see blogpost below):

Binyamin Netanyahu is a political evangelist who has drunk a little too much of his own whiskey. He believes that you can establish an official state religion, as do many Islamists, and that this will solve all of one's governing problems.

The beauty of the founding of America was that its leaders started out accepting a dozen different Protestant sects of Christianity and thereby established religion as a protected class. They did this to escape what was going on in Europe at the time which was warfare between the different sects in which each believed they had the right version of the gospel and church organization. Protestantism, recall, was a religious revolution against the "Papists." Catholicism went through the same kinds of civil wars during its first 500 or 600 years while the "Real Gospels" and the church hierarchy were decided upon and cemented.

Ultimately the Islamists and the Jews have to learn to live side-by-side and develop constitutions that establish religion as a protected class too.

There are no sustainable shortcuts here.

You have to wonder though... with our bestest colonial-ally bud Great Britain recently experiencing in Tehran a lesser version of our own 1979 weakness and hostage period, with our young people stating we should "take allies' interests into account even if it means making compromises" (like bankrupting our domestic game here at home? abandoning the American principles of democracy and "all men are created equal in the eyes of the law/Lord"?)... you have to wonder whether thinking people of all races and creeds will go along with whatever killing actions our multinational corporations, and their own supporting political class (of both parties here in America) deem "necessary" to protect our "allies" interests.

I hope we all wake up soon, reject the religious/traditional extremists where ever they might be found, and instead of trying to game the system as it currently is, honestly work to provide a more balanced playing field for all those healthy competitors who still have something to contribute.

I know, I know ... dare to dream even in these seemingly nightmare (kill! kill! kill!) days of pursuing peace...

I guess somewhere along the way...
He must have let us all our to play...
Turned his back, and all G-d's children...
crept out the back door.

~ George Michael, Prayin' for Time, off the Listen Without Prejudice album.

Too Late, Tom.

Friedman worries that Israel might soon regret its actions, "wake up one day and discover that, in response to the messy and turbulent Arab democratic awakening, the Jewish state sacrificed its own democratic character."

I think they've already blown well past that point, extinguished the beacon on teh hill idea, what with the indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians, the use of white phosphorus shells over densely populated Gaza, and the "Jews Drive Here/Non Jews Drive Here" segregated road system...

They just haven't awoken to real reality yet. "Call It Sleep" as the better writer Roth would have put it...

Remember, those Arab peoples are going to have a lot more say in how they are ruled and with whom they have peace. In that context, Israel will be so much better off if it is seen as strengthening responsible and democratic Palestinian leaders.

This is such a delicate moment. It requires wise, farsighted Israeli leadership. The Arab awakening is coinciding with the last hopes for a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli rightists will be tempted to do nothing, to insist the time is not right for risk-taking — and never will be — so Israel needs to occupy the West Bank and its Palestinians forever. That could be the greatest danger of all for Israel: to wake up one day and discover that, in response to the messy and turbulent Arab democratic awakening, the Jewish state sacrificed its own democratic character.

Will Urban Meyer Stick it Out at the OSU?

Sportswriter Greg Stoda of the PB Post says, "Don't Bet on It":

The smart money says Urban Meyer will quit on Ohio State, too.

And if he does fulfill the terms of the six-year deal he just signed to become the Buckeyes' coach? The same smart money says Meyer never will match the success he had at Florida with two national titles in six seasons.

The question no longer is whether Meyer punked the Gators - he absolutely did - when he bolted after last season and then popped up at Ohio State less than 11 months later. All that talk about his health concerns and desire to spend more time with family, while true, provided convenient cover. He was an arrogant man expediting his own agenda.

Meyer jilted Florida to escape a deepening slump and avail himself of whatever possibility might arise.
...
The team Meyer inherited at Florida from Ron Zook for the 2005 season was much better than the one he'll inherit at Ohio State. Meyer won his first national championship in his second Florida season with Zook recruits at the team's core. That's not how it's going to go so immediately for the Buckeyes, who'll need Meyer to be at his recruiting best if they are to regain powerhouse status out of the wreckage of this season.

Meyer managed three 13-1 seasons with the Gators, but said he burned out in the process. There were esophageal spasms and headaches and worries about a wife and children having to make too many concessions to his work. He contemplated leaving Florida a year before he actually did, took an ill-shaped leave of absence and kept the job.
...
It seems a leap of faith - not to mention the risk of spending $4 million per year even before bonus clauses kick in - for Ohio State to believe Meyer is refreshed enough to do heavy lifting for six years.
...
Bulletin: The Gators gave Meyer every opportunity to undertake a journey of such self-discovery when they granted him the leave. Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley, who cultivated a close friendship with Meyer, ought to feel insulted.

What? Meyer had an ... epiphany?

Umm, not really.

"I think, 'Go hard.' I mean, like, relentless," Meyer said.

That's quite a conundrum. Meyer could be pinched if professional ambition comes at the cost of personal angst, or if personal satisfaction comes at the cost of professional success. Is compromise even possible in such circumstance? And at a place where the college football cauldron burns as blazingly hot as it does at Ohio State and where there suddenly is so much work to do?

The 47-year-old Meyer the Buckeyes are getting isn't the same youngish firebrand the Gators got when they hired him out of Utah seven years ago, and the proof is irrefutable. Meyer decided he wouldn't or couldn't fix the mess Florida was in of his own doing after the 2010 season, so he walked away. Will Muschamp was said to be appalled at the drop in Gators' stock upon succeeding Meyer, and called this season's 6-6 team "soft" in a particularly cutting recent evaluation.

Now, it appears that Meyer's task at Ohio State will be more difficult than the one he first undertook at Florida despite a returning Buckeyes quarterback in Braxton Miller who looks plenty capable of triggering the kind of high-powered offense his new coach prefers.

Sure, it'll probably be easier for Meyer to win a title in the Big Ten than it ever was in the Southeastern Conference. But the reward for SEC supremacy is more often a chance to win a national crown.

It won't take long for the Buckeye crowd to be screaming for Meyer to produce what he produced at Florida.

Is he committed enough to do so?

The smart money says no.

Oh, I think the way Meyer measures, he's already won. (Show ... Me ... the MONEY !) Pity the family thing, though.

Maureen's Back ... Talking Smack 'bout Newt.

Remember though: she got to observe Gingrich in action his first time around in Washington political circles, so she obviously has some observable experience here:

In many ways, Newt is the perfect man.

He knows how to buy good jewelry. He puts his wife ahead of his campaign. He’s so in touch with his feelings that he would rather close the entire federal government than keep his emotions bottled up. He’s confident enough to include a steamy sex scene in a novel. He understands that Paul Revere was warning about the British.

Mitt Romney is a phony with gobs of hair gel. Newt Gingrich is a phony with gobs of historical grandiosity.
...
Franker than ever as he announced plans to retire from Congress, Barney Frank told Abby Goodnough in The Times that Gingrich was “the single biggest factor” in destroying a Washington culture where the two parties respected each other’s differing views yet still worked together.

Newt is the progenitor of the modern politics of personal destruction.

“He got to Congress in ’78 and said, ‘We the Republicans are not going to be able to take over unless we demonize the Democrats,’ ” Frank said.

In the fiction he writes with William R. Forstchen, Gingrich specializes in alternative histories. What if America hadn’t gone to war with Germany in World War II? What if Gen. Robert E. Lee had won Gettysburg?

The Republican also weaves an alternative history of his own life, where he is saving civilization rather than ripping up the fabric of Congress, where he improves the moral climate of America rather than pollutes it.

Romney is a mundane opportunist who reverses himself on core issues. Gingrich is a megalomaniacal opportunist who brazenly indulges in the same sins that he rails about to tear down political rivals.
...
Gingrich boasts that he’s full of fresh ideas, but it always seems to essentially be the same old one: Let’s turn the clock back to the ’50s. Just as Newt, who dodged service in Vietnam, once cast the Clintons as hippie “McGovernicks,” now he limns the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hippies who need to take a bath and get a job.

Maybe the ideal man to fix Washington’s dysfunction is the one who made it dysfunctional. He broke it so he should own it. And Newt has the best reason to long for the presidency: He’d never be banished to the back of Air Force One again.

Kinda makes that big "Mormon issue thing" pale by comparison, no?

Estrich weighs in as well.

She's obviously an Obama supporter, who made the belated switch from professionally supporting Hillary Clinton (flop flop flippety flopp flopp), and knows a trick or two about primary positioning, it seems:

Nobody is whispering in my ear, but speaking for myself, between Romney and Newt Gingrich, Democrats have far more to fear from Romney. Gingrich's hard-core conservatism helps him a lot more in January and February than it does in November. Maybe it's just a wonderful coincidence, but anyone paying attention to campaign news this week — and by anyone, I mean anyone planning to vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses — will be seeing footage of the "pro-choice" Romney that they will not like.

The president's supporters are doing Newt's work for him. Now why would they do that? To win swing voters 11 months from now? Call me a cynic, but I don't think so. Go, Newt.

If you want to wallow in political paralyzation... Vote Gingrich!

Afterall, if you're old enough to recall the results* of the "Contract On/With America" (prolly Ezzie was still being diapered), you know where this "government shutdown" phase was invented.

I suspect, after one more year wallowing in this mess, with no effective leadership coming out of DC, right-thinking people will overwhelmingly reject what Gingrich stands for...

And by then, surely some of those who honestly want to know, will begin to take Mitt Romney at his word: "Smaller, Simpler, Smarter ... Believe in America."

It will surely be a refreshing change of pace for those currently unsatisfied with the aging status quo...

-----------------------

* Wiki has the basic facts:

When the previous fiscal year ended on September 30, 1995, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress had not passed a budget. A majority of Congress members and the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, had promised to slow the rate of government spending; however, this conflicted with the president's objectives for education, the environment, Medicare, and public health. According to Clinton's autobiography, their differences resulted from differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and anticipated revenues.

When Clinton refused to cut the budget in the way Republicans wanted, Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the United States Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the government to avoid putting the country in default.

Gingrich and the incoming Republican majority's promise to slow the rate of government spending conflicted with the president's agenda for Medicare, education, the environment and public health, leading to a temporary shutdown of the U.S. federal government
...
On November 14, major portions of the federal government suspended operations.[5] The Clinton administration later released figures detailing the costs of the shutdown, which included payments of approximately $400 million to furloughed federal employees who did not report to work.

The first budget shutdown concluded with Congress enacting a temporary spending bill, but the underlying disagreement between Gingrich and Clinton was not resolved, leading to the second shutdown.

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report summarized other details of the 1995-1996 government shutdowns, indicating the shutdown impacted all sectors of the economy. Health and welfare services for military veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed each day; U.S. tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses; more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in spending, were affected adversely.

Clinton's approval rating fell significantly during the shutdown. According to media commentators, this indicated that the general public blamed the president for the government shutdown. However, once it had ended his approval ratings rose to their highest since his election.

During the crisis, Gingrich made a complaint at a press breakfast that, during a flight to and from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in Israel, Clinton had not taken the opportunity to talk about the budget and Gingrich had been directed to leave the plane via the rear door. The perception arose that the Republican stance on the budget was partly due to this "snub" by Clinton and media coverage reflected this perception, including an editorial cartoon which showed Gingrich having a temper tantrum. Opposing politicians used this opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff. Later, the polls suggested that the event damaged Gingrich politically and he referred to his comments as the "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.

The shutdown also influenced the 1996 presidential election. Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, was running for president in 1996. Because of his need to campaign, Dole wanted to solve the budget crisis in January 1996 despite the willingness of other Republicans to continue the shutdown unless their demands were met. In particular, as Gingrich and Dole had been seen as potential rivals for the 1996 presidential nomination, they had a tense working relationship. The shutdown has also been cited as having a role in Clinton's successful re-election in 1996

Let's agree that none of us wants to return to those ugly, politically parazlyzed days? Bad enough as it already is... Let's not choose to Double Down, eh?

Parker picks up the baton...

... and runs with it:

Titled “Mitt v. Mitt: The story of two men trapped in one body,” the ad traces the many, now-familiar “flip-flops” of Romney’s political career, including pro-choice to pro-life and his disapproval of “Obamacare,” which, as the president never tires of pointing out, was modeled on “Romneycare.”
...
Watching the ad closely, you see not only a changing position but also a changing Romney, from a youngish man with black hair to an older model with graying hair. Might the man have matured?

This is not to suggest that Romney hasn’t changed his mind. There is a record. Then again, who but the most-barnacled ideologue hasn’t had a change of heart given new information (abortion), experience (Romneycare) or circumstances (a national election vs. a state one)? Ironically, Romney has become a more conservative candidate because of his shifts, while the narrative that he is merely politically expedient rather than principled seems to be a contest between the pot and the kettle. Mirror, mirror.
...
Whether one agrees with ... Romney’s conclusions, this was at least a flip-flop of a higher order. Would that all our politics were so painstakingly crafted.

Good job, Kathy! Keep this up, and the "flip flopping" meme might just lose steam before it's trotted out again this election cycle as some kind of litmus test.

Let's stick with simply measuring by the results, shall we? If we can properly direct them, the media foot soldiers like Parker here might be able to stay focused on the issues of importance in the year's worth of columns to come.

Here's to Hope, eh?

"This lake-studded swath of Northern Wisconsin."

MMmmmm, mmmm, mmmm....
Getting past the "guns and Gods" bitter language spewed in SanFran, liberals at the NYT seek better understanding, apparently, of what white people in Wisconsin like*.

And as they bravely note in the headline, "In Wisconsin, Supper Clubs Open to All."

What -- do they still turn paying people away at the NYC and DC finer dining establishments? Do tell...

Personally, I think the story might have benefitted though had the editors axed all personal references and made it more about the Wisconsin people and places ... and less about the author, his wife and daughter. Enough already with the personal stories, people? Can't you save that stuff -- my daughter's first cheese curd!! How adorable!! -- for the private family blogs?

My visit to the Al-Gen was the culmination — or nearly so — of a three-day road trip I’d embarked on with my wife, Michele, through a hundred-odd miles** of northern Wisconsin in search of these living vestiges of the pre-Interstate era.
...
Growing up in Chicago, I spent my summers in Wisconsin, weaned on the iceberg salads, cold relish trays, char-broiled steaks and Friday-night perch dinners that constitute the bill of fare at a typical supper club. I fell in love with these restaurants long before I’d ordered my first cocktail, and for good reason: the food was always tasty — supper clubs were doing custom-cut dry-aged steaks long before the practice became an urban fetish — and the vibe was always pure Wisconsin gemütlichkeit, leavened by a lively mix of locals and vacationing families.
...
To this day a supper club meal remains the common touchstone for me and my far-flung siblings whenever we pay a visit to my parents in Wisconsin. I actually choked up when my daughter, now 4, tried her first fried cheese curd (a classic Wisconsin appetizer) at the Sister Bay Bowl, a supper club in Door County that my family has been going to for 35 years.
...
After our meal, at Mr. Swearingen’s suggestion, Michele and I drove north on Route 17 to a supper club called the White Stag Inn to end the evening with an ice cream cocktail, an after-dinner tradition in Wisconsin that merges dessert with digestif.
...
Our ice cream drinks — a brandy Alexander for me and a grasshopper for Michele — came in coupe glasses and were thicker than milkshakes.

Perhaps rather than, "Supper Clubs Open to All" a better title might have been, "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things..." (when the wait staff... brings a drink that stings... to the back of my throat, I throw down an ice-cream float!)

Same kinda misty nostalgia, same kinda "these folks really be living in the past!" mentality... These are a few of my fav-o-rite things!



------------------------

* heavy on the alcohol over-emphasis, of course. We got stereotypes to keep up, people!

** Betcha he and Michele wrote off, at 50 cents a subsidized mile, the recent family holiday vacation with this story. Dawg! (or, You can take the boy out of Chicago...)

















(... but you can't take the Chicago out of the boy! Don't let that cheese curds kidstuff fool ya. ;-)

Oh, and Pay No Attention ...

to that Herman Cain sexual sideshow.

Eyes on the ball now voters, don't be lazily distracted by personal fluff, stick to the substance and nevermind the media's need to fill 11 upcoming months with ... *all breathless now* irrelevant news you don't choose!

Nevermind Klein, Tapper Weighs In.

And calls foul on a bit of deceit in DNC ads insinuating that just because Mitt Romney did not support Obama's brand of stimulus -- "a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects." (remember Solyandra!) -- he rejected all calls for sensible spending and stimulus.

When asked how it justified the use of this quote, a DNC official said that “Mitt Romney supported a stimulus approach nearly identical in size and scope to what President Obama eventually passed and now he’s lead primary voters to believe he never supported any stimulus at all.”

Did he? Where did he do that?

The DNC official pointed out that on Morning Joe on January 16, 2009, Romney said, “in my view, the president’s willingness, his rhetoric to say, look, he’s going to reach across the aisle, he wants to seek the input from members of our party — that’s a very encouraging sign. The president’s plan for economic recovery, including a stimulus bill which includes a very healthy dose of tax reductions, is something which I think showed a willingness to actually listen to some of his own economic advisers that have pointed out in their research that tax reductions have a bigger economic stimulus impact than spending money on infrastructure does.”

Moreover, the Democrat said, on Meet the Press on December 13, 2008, Romney said “the government is going to have to step forward, not only with monetary policy to add funding and capital to the capital markets so we see more lending, but also for additional spending and lower taxes.”

In other words: he didn’t. Romney saying he supports the concept of stimulus is not the same thing as saying he supports President Obama’s stimulus bill. The DNC got greedy here. The use of that Romney quote is deceptive and false.

-Jake Tapper

Aside: I always thought Christiane Amanpour was more qualified to lead This Week, though Tapper had a nice turn in the interim. She simply shines on international issues, a woefully weak area as currently covered in American news.

But that's taking nothing away from Tapper's career. He's no Ezra Klein -- a shooting star journolist -- an expert organizer, and all-around career-oriented kid (no matter the career, or the accepted ethics) ... David Brooks coined the term years ago for the likes of Klein's career-ambitions-exceeding-intellectual-grasp: an Organization Kid.

Successful Political Flexibility.

A liberal WaPo columnist today asks:

Putting Romney’s serial flip flops in the context of his corporate past is an interesting touch, weaving together two strands of Romney’s political identity that Dems see as core vulnerabilities. The question is whether this view of Romney’s character will take hold as a broader media narrative.

I don't think so. Here's why:
If you call Mitt Romney's seizing on successful political initiatives "flip flopping", then you're also opening the door to more media scrutiny of candidate Obama's record.

Remember when Obama was against the Individual Health Insurance Mandate before he proved for it, and (temporarily some say) sneakily had it voted into law. What political flexibility and solipsism there, eh? (Win-ning! In the short term sense, anyway...)

Remember when Obama was for gay marriage as a liberal Illinois politician, before he debuted on the national stage and realized he had evolved too quickly on the issue and needed to slow it down?

Remember when he was for the working man, promising to keep his boot on the neck of the fiscal wrongdoers, before he realized if the national economy needed extra stimulus, he's have to approve of bailouts and look the other way, seemingly, to the previous crimes and misdemeanors...

Problem is,
if you're going to cut Mitt Romney on flexibility -- and so many liberal commentators are deliberately remaining ignorant on the difference between State Constitutions and the overriding United States Constitutions; that issue of federalism* is instructive on so many of these hot-button issues, you'd think it wouldn't be such a 10-letter word anymore -- you gotta do the same to candidate Obama.

The media simply can't get away with covering the features side of his campaign this go-around. The historical newness that seemingly gave his record and the experience part of his resume a pass when he was still a promising new face on the scene.

If your hands aren't clean yourself, you do little to start slinging mud hoping something sticks to your opponent. Besides, if you simply campaign on track record? That Mitt Romney -- say what you will, but he delivered real results in many situational outcomes, understanding how things operate on a statewide, and even private business environment.

Candidate Obama lacked that coming in, but promised his track record of creating compromise, reaching across the aisle to find results -- as he assuredly did in his community organizing and Harvard Law Review leadership days -- would more than make up for his lack of experience. He promised something new, and he simply hasn't been able to deliver on all that. So, he had quite a few of those goalposts moved, instead.

Is it wrong for political leaders to "change their minds" as many argue? I don't know. Facts on the ground change. Expenses mount, entitlement policies prove perverse incentives sometimes, and take their toll. But I'd also argue that Mitt Romney's policies haven't "changed" so much, as different operating environments call for different leadership skills. What sells in Massachusetts, under the state constitutional rules at play there, might not sell in Mississippi, or even Minnesota maybe. Different constitutions and all...

And sometimes, the Federal Rules are overriding. Much as we might like to dismiss the U.S. Constitution -- or simply change it, as the situation calls -- we've come to rely on the basic human rights protections for all, while distinguishing those issues that allow the States some variations.

So, someday perhaps, under the Equal Protection language in the Bill of Rights, a Supreme Court might find marital discrimination suspect on the basis of sex or gender. Like with other civil rights laws, States might have to swallow hard and accept they have no right to legally discriminate between similarly situated classes of people. Presidents, no matter how far evolved or not, no matter their personal religious preference or not, don't get to poo-poo the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court might rule that States have more freedoms to set up their own rules protecting their citizens on matters of health, and the Commerce Clause precedent simply doesn't reach far enough to compel uninterested others to participate in an insurance process they don't need to maintain current health, nor are they costing anything based on their own non-participation.

Presidents can contribute -- through the all-important bully pulpit, if they've the courage of conviction in their own intellectual evolution, or through careful study of the intellectual prowess (or empathy potential, if that's your bent) of their judicial nominations to Congress. Other than that?

They're probably too busy leading the nation to try and pontificate on policies that very rarely are the domain of presidential policies. In my opinion, that's the problem the newly elected President Obama found himself in, after having transitioned from candidate Obama. He tried to "lead" on a policy issue -- health care overhaul including newly introduced entitlements -- which was only the clarion call of aging Democratic dinosaurs, not the country as a whole.

And he did so in a time of fiscal belt-tightening when every federal program suddenly became suspect. Timing, babe. Folks spooked at our current spending policies simply weren't sold on the effectiveness of this new one. And truth be told, overreaching in forcing a mandate wasn't politically wise, even should the Court rule the latest overreach is legal.

You can't get honest stimulus through now if you oversell the viability of a bloated federal program, designed by the dinosaurs (and their offspring?) I think the next president -- whichever party he might represent -- might be wise to adopt a piece of the Rock: Know Your Role.

Pretending at accusations of flip-floppery (a rerun election critique, if I ever heard one) would hurt both candidates, and ignore the subtle innuendo that different situations and scenes require different responses. Who's the most solid in their promises, and who best knows their role? When you look at results, whose record do you most like? It need not be personal, but you know the paid media ... they've got months of airtime, blogads, and newsprint to sell.. So think Controversy! Sliming! BackAttcha!

But remember: the more quiet voters fully understand, that part is simply optional in educating oneself about future leadership of the country, and deciding for whom to cast one's ballot. Let the sociologists and pundits explain, in their own petty ways, the whys. Let them conclude racism or ignorance, values pandering or personal critiques. We don't all have to sink to the levels of those games... especially not when we could be sizing up the results of the Games...

Something solid, as opposed to airy promises.

--------------------

* Here's a promising discussion of the issue, intelligently analyzed:

Scholars have scoured [Justice, not Senator] Kennedy's previous cases for hints on how he might rule. They point out that it's not always easy to forecast Kennedy's vote on particular cases and that the term "swing vote" can be misinterpreted.

"I would reject equating swing vote with lack of clarity," says Michael C. Dorf, a professor at Cornell University Law School and a former Kennedy law clerk. "Being the swing vote is simply an artifact of who the other eight justices are. On some issues, free speech for example, he's very liberal. On gay rights, he's been very liberal, out ahead of the court. On other issues, he's been conservative -- the Establishment Clause, for example," which prohibits a national religion for the United States.

Neil S. Siegel, a professor at Duke Law, says Kennedy "cares about a number of different things and oftentimes they are conflicting. He cares about robust federal power to regulate markets, he cares about robust federal power to create and maintain an integrated national economy. But at the same time that he cares about federalism, he cares about states' power. He cares about individual liberty, and the role that federalism plays in preserving it."

"I think it's fair to say he resists absolutes in most areas of the law. That makes him a little less easy to pigeonhole," Dorf says.

Although previous Supreme Court cases regarding guns in schools, violence against women and medical marijuana may seem far afield of the health care debate, they offer insight into Kennedy's views on the scope of congressional power.
...
Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who is also representing a small-business group that is opposed to the health care law, says, "Justice Kennedy joined Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1995 opinion in Lopez -- a five-four decision -- holding that there were judicially enforceable limits on the power of Congress -- a proposition that had been in doubt for 60 years but which was reaffirmed in the 2000 case of Morrison."

ADDED: Self-defined policy wonk and journolist Ezra Klein tries to push back here ("Justify my salary..."), and explain away President Obama's own flip-floppedyness. Not very successfully though. Personally, I think his powers of persuasion were clipped -- successfully -- once he decided preaching to the choir, and trying to influence political policies through non-independent analysis, rather than using science and statistics, were a more important undertaking to his career.

The most generous interpretation is that Romney and Gingrich are simply playing politics. After all, when candidate Obama saw an opening to slam Clinton’s campaign by turning against the individual mandate, he took it, too. The most worrisome interpretation is that Romney and Gingrich are so fearful of offending the Republican base — particularly given the tea party’s comfort with primary challengers — that they won’t be able to make compromises and govern effectively if either one of them is elected president.

Well, given that's what we've currently got in the presidential office -- no courage in his convictions, thus the existing flip-floppedyness outlined above -- I suspect most voters are willing to gamble on honest change this time around, Ez.

UPdate: Or maybe... Ezra Klein has tired of this independent analysis journolism stuff, and is secretly just wangling for a political appointment -- for himself or the wife? -- the next go-around.

From JournoList to activist, it appears that WaPo‘s liberal blogger Ezra Klein is once again blurring the lines between being a journalist honestly informing, and trying to sway politics by using his prominent media post to nationally peddle political influence:

In what appears to be at a minimum a breach of journalism ethics, Klein spoke to a group of Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday about the Supercommittee, just days before the Committee announced its failing. “It was kind of weird,” said a longtime Senate Democratic aide, explaining that while people “enjoyed it” and gave it “positive reviews” this sort of thing is far from typical.

A longtime Washington editor who deals with Capitol Hill regularly also said this is not the norm: “”I have never heard of a reporter briefing staffers. It’s supposed to be the other way around. This arrangement seems highly unusual.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practiced to deceive?

I wonder if he can get an audience with the Supreme Court Justices set up soon, to lecture them on these all-important issues of national significance too? ... Heh.

RIP Maggie Daley.

Chicago's former first lady is laid to rest today.

"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will," Maggie Daley once said.
...
She was private citizen Maggie Corbett when she met a young man named Richard M. Daley at a Christmas party in 1970. He asked her out for New Year's Eve. She said yes, and 15 months later, they were married.

Maggie concentrated on being a mother even as her husband ran for and was elected an Illinois state senator in 1972.

Nora, Patrick and then Kevin were born. But the death of 33-month-old Kevin from spina bifida was a traumatic blow to both Maggie and Richie.

Later, daughter Elizabeth completed the family. In recent years, grandchildren obviously became a joy.
...
On Nov. 17, the Daleys' daughter Lally was married. The wedding was moved up from New Year's Eve because the couple wanted to be sure Maggie could "fully participate" in the celebration. It was a hint to the condition of Maggie's health.

One more emotional highlight to the ceremony was Lally wearing the dress Maggie wore when she married Richard Daley.

But more than anything, Maggie Daley's faith made her strong.

"I believe in the power of prayer, and that's why I think that prayer is such a gracious thing," she said.

Son Patrick Daley eulogized his mother.

Mom always lived in the present, enjoying life, laughter and the occasional piece of dark chocolate," Patrick Daley said. "She was the first one out and the last one off the dance floor.

"To us, she was a grandmother, aunt, sister, wife, and mother. We are so proud of our mother. She lived such a positive life, impacting so many. For such an accomplished woman with so many professional and personal commitments, she always had time to simply be our mother," he said.

He concluded with a mention of his toddler brother's death decades earlier.

"Mom, we thank you. We love you. We miss you. Hold Kevin close until we see you again."
...
The Daley family has always been in the public spotlight, and they expected that reality even in their time of grief. They posed Sunday for a photo in front of the closed casket of their beloved Maggie. Her visitation at the Chicago Cultural Center drew many people. Everyday Chicagoans were there, along with family friends and politicians.

"It is very much a celebration of her life. The ceremony is very upbeat, and you know, I think the family is well served by the presentation that they have," said family friend Robert Abboud.

"You just never saw her without a smile on her face, and as I said, Rich may have had his friends and enemies, but Maggie was all friends," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D), Ill.

Maggie's love of the arts was represented Sunday by the choirs and musicians from the After School Matters program she created. Many of the mourners were graduates.

"There is nobody that has done more nationally as an example for children and for the arts. I mean, her program, they talk about it every place you go around the country, and it was her heart," said Father Michael Pfleger, St. Sabina Catholic Church.

Officials say President Barack Obama could not be in attendance at the funeral because he has activities surrounding issues with the European Union.

In related news...

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.
...
But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira.

Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

To quote ... Milli Vanilli:
It's... a... tragedy for me to see the dream is over.

American "Help" Kills More and More...

And we wonder why they hate us so much abroad...

It follows a joint statement* by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who offered their condolences for the loss of life, backed the investigation into the incident and stressed the "importance of the US-Pakistani partnership, which serves the mutual interests of our people".

Pakistan has reacted angrily to the attack, which took place at two remote border posts in Pakistan's tribal district of Mohmand in the early hours of Saturday morning.

Prime Minister Gilani called it a "grave infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty".

Oh sovereignty, schovereignty... We're Americans, dude. We respect no borders, because we're untouchable here at home, natch. We learned nothing from 9-11, have no respect for life in this "Win-ning!" kinda culture, and truth be told? We deserve, fully, what we've got coming in the "Do Unto Others..." sweepstakes. Hopefully, the price won't be fully borne by underlings though.

Hint: We've helped enough already. How's about a lil help here at home, Hil? Investing a little of that military firepower on sustaining investment programs here at home?

Or do you think the Americans would be less accepting of such deadly, and dangerously ill-prepared conidering the loss of lives.

Honestly, it's like the Dems are worse than the Republicans here... Kill our way to Peace! Yeah, that's the ticket...

--------------------

*I think they must have smoked a big ole joint before putting that one out, with a presumed straight face:

and stressed the "importance of the US-Pakistani partnership, which serves the mutual interests of our people".

Just say NO to "Too Big to Fail" Settlements...

A judge rejects the Fed's deal, and orders the attorneys to prepare for trial ...

Go get 'em, Judge Jed:

In a powerful rebuke to a federal agency responsible for policing Wall Street, U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff criticized the SEC’s decision to charge Citigroup with negligence instead of knowing or intentional fraud.

He also slammed the Securities and Exchange Commission for following its standard practice of allowing defendants to settle charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing.Citigroup had agreed to pay $285 million to settle allegations that it misled investors about a complex investment tied to the deteriorating housing market in early 2007. The bank used that investment to bet against the investors, the SEC said

Citigroup made $160 million in profit on the deal, and investors lost more than $700 million, the SEC alleged.

Summarizing the SEC complaint, Rakoff wrote that the transaction allowed Citigroup to “dump some dubious assets on misinformed investors” at a time when the bank saw that the market for mortgage-backed securities was beginning to weaken.

In a sharply worded order, Rakoff faulted the SEC’s handling of one of the bigger enforcement cases to emerge from the financial meltdown. The court “concludes, regretfully, that the proposed Consent Judgment is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest,” Rakoff wrote.

If the SEC’s allegations are true, Rakoff wrote, “this is a very good deal for Citigroup.”If the charges are untrue, he said, “it is a mild and modest cost of doing business.”

“It is harder to discern from the limited information before the Court what the S.E.C. is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline,” Rakoff wrote.

“Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found,” Rakoff wrote. “But the S.E.C., of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this Court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency's contrivances.”

Mmmm ... language I like!

"I did not* have sex with that woman."

"I am committed to ESPN and will not pursue* any coaching opportunities this fall.”


Ugh. Something about Urban Meyer that has always seemed shifty, and fundamentally untrustworthy to me. He's a man, obviously cut from the worst of his generation, can we say that much at least?

But if he does become an Ohio State employee as soon as the paint dries on this season?

It'll bring into legitimate question Meyer's sincerity about the reasons he cited for quitting his Florida gig after last season. He mentioned concerns about his health and a desire to spend more time with his wife and children, remember? But if he lands with the Buckeyes only a year later - even though he'd be an Ashtabula-born boy going home to fulfill a career dream - Meyer still will come off as more manipulative than honest regarding how he ended things with the Gators.

He said he was exhausted and in need of the comfort of a family embrace.

"Six years at Florida," Meyer said of his tenure at the school, "equals 40 years of your life."

That was last New Year's Day after an Outback Bowl win against Penn State in his final game with the Gators. And now, having worked extensively for ESPN as a college football analyst this season, Meyer is rejuvenated? Already?
...
Because of what Meyer's wife, Shelley, told the same cynic on that Outback Bowl field.

"There's sadness," she said of her husband's decision to quit at Florida, "but there's a lot of relief, too, because I know Urban needs this. He needs something less intense."

Ohio State is not a "less intense" place by any measure. And the pressure to bring the Buckeyes back to prominence from penalties resulting from the Tattoo-gate scandal will be monumental despite whatever short grace period might be allowed. It now seems as though Meyer was just buying himself some time when, upon the forced resignation of Ohio State coach Jim Tressel last spring, he indicated he would "not pursue any coaching opportunities this fall."

But "this fall" is drawing to a close and the Buckeyes are 6-5 and the contract of Tressel's replacement, Luke Fickell, runs out after the season.

It's all being framed so ... conveniently.
...
But if he does end up on the Buckeyes' sideline as early as next season, Meyer's resignation at Florida is going to look less like a decision related to health and family issues and more like a calculated escape from difficult times.

*Rodney Dangerfield voice*
"Hey, she/they pursued me... I mean: what can you do? No respect, I tells ya... "

After 16 prosperous terms in office...

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) packs it in.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia.

There he grows again!

Tebow, the talk of the NFL because he runs the read option and often struggles while passing, carried 22 times for 67 yards — the most carries by a quarterback in a game since at 1950, according to STATS LLC. He also threw for one touchdown and finished with a better rating than Philip Rivers, 95.4 to 77.1. Rivers was pressured all day by Elvis Dumervil, who had two sacks, and rookie Von Miller, who had one.

The Broncos (6-5) won their fourth straight game and remained in second place in the AFC West. The Chargers (4-7) are on their longest streak since ending 2001 with nine straight defeats and are last in the division, three games behind Oakland with five to play.

Tebow's first start was also an overtime win, 18-15 at Miami on Oct. 23.

Tebow got a final chance to try to win it in regulation after the Broncos forced the Chargers to punt. Starting on his own 26, Tebow kept the drive going with a 39-yard completion to Eric Decker — which the Chargers unsuccessfully challenged — and a 23-yarder to Dante Rosario. The Broncos had to settle for Prater's 24-yard field goal that tied it at 13 with 1:34 to go.

Referee Jeff Triplette confused the crowd and TV viewers by saying each team would get a possession in OT. He then corrected himself, saying it would be sudden-death.

The Broncos won it on their third possession in OT.
...
The Broncos narrowly avoided the first NFL tie since Cincinnati and Philadelphia ended deadlocked at 13 on Nov. 16, 2008.

Criticize his skills, or unorthodox p(l/r)aying ways all you like... the kid is a winner in life. Can't beat that.

Ezra Klein's wife* has a gig at the Times?

Wow. Those Journolister's sure do have teh talent, eh? Can't just be connections and youthful good looks, can't be.

Behind Deficit Panel’s Failure, a Surprising Outcome
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ANNIE LOWREY

Really though? Was anyone surprised no deal got done, and re-election politics reigned supreme?

Oh, I get the spin now. Obama's failure might actually save us money. Those Beltway kidders... Something tells me, if she's anything like the hub? She's overly optimistic in what will be saved/cut, and not taking into account what it will cost the country, as the entitlement programs ramp up... (remember how he huffed and puffed and crowed mightily at the "success" of forcing Obamacare through? Poor lil fella ... who knew? Except of course, plenty.)

In other independent newspapering news,
we got a good issue out this week. Honest coverage, of all the local stories fit to print. And no nepotism needed.

-----------------------

*At least the boy finally made an honest woman of her, eh? No more of this linking your lover's stories, then only acknowledging the relationship when called on it...


ADDED: That's so cute. She's a 20-something English lit from Harvard, covering business and economics at the Times. Thanks heavens for pillow talk from the boy with the political science BA from UCLA (transferring in from Santa Cruz).

While at UCLA, he applied to write for the Daily Bruin but was rejected

Heh. It's great to see the qualifications -- cute kids! -- guiding our economic analysis these days. Trust me... if you swallow this stuff, you deserve everything you've got coming.

"I used to have political aspirations," said Klein. "...in the sense of getting my name on a ballot and promising Iowans more ethanol subsidies than they could handle. But over time, I found that I enjoy writing far more. More to the point, I think that the creation of a media environment that can sustain and propel progressivism is more important than any single elected official. I'd trade a liberal O'Reilly (or Limbaugh!) for 5, 10 congressmen. The media is as effective and important an agent for change as the legislative bodies, and I think it's where I'm happiest and most effective."

Working Overtime on the Pacifist Line...

He was one of a kind.
Just an old man -- well that's fine...

Oh dear me. Jimmy has another post up, and this one -- seriously -- seems to advocate disarming officers. (Jimmy took a noseful of tear gas twice: once here at home and once while visiting beautiful South Korea. You see, he knows 'bout these things. Personal experience and all...)

Here's the picture:

and the reprinted quote: Thanks to Davis prof Bob Ostertag (via HuffPost) for this picture of a campus cop at Columbia arresting a student. Looks like the volley ball coach. Looks totally in control. Looks good to me.

Oh Jimmy. So much has changed in society since your hippie days, dude. It really would be swell to think that officers can dress that way, and the toughest thing they gotta do in duty is ... arrest protesting young hippies.

But c'mon? If the bad guys got guns, and what weapons these days there are!, why do you want police officers and protectors dressed in casual sweats as garb? I want them helmeted, in riot gear when confronting "protestors", and well armed with batons, pepper spray, Tasers and all other non-lethal force, with the sidearm holstered and brought out as needed.

America's Going Bust? Some want a black-white, immigrant-native, educated-non, taxpayer-entitled showdown? I want my officers armed. I know who I'm rooting for. Tell us Jimmy: have your past tear gas experiences permanently put you off proper law enforcement? Or is your rejection of authority something more innate, perhaps a Boomer legacy you're unable to cast off as times have changed, and you've been left in the dust?

(Ooops. Did I say that too loudly, Jimborino? Were you planning a nice, slow, leisurely relaxed ride into the sunset, confidently surrounded by coach-attired officers who will 'specially take care of you and yours when the collective shit hits the fan? It's surely not too late to find yourself a home where you have no need to fear the masses. Ding-dong... China calling. Go relocate now, whilst there's still time... You know you want to. Escape this oppressive police state and all. *snort*)

--------------------

*Reminds me of those old Tex-Mex commercials: I don't care how they do it in China. We don't play that way in the U.S.A., where freedom of individual rights depends on controlling the worst impulses of the masses, who surely will seize what they can't create, once the entitlements dry up and the blame game gets going in full force...

Remember the Rainbow.

or, Never Again.

David Brooks winds up his column going all Old Testament on readers:

So it’s hard to see how we get out of this, unless some third force emerges, which wedges itself into one of the two parties, or unless we have a devastating fiscal crisis — a brutal cleansing flood, after which the sun will shine again.

Nice try, Dave, but remember the rest of the story?

You really ought to peer into the sequel sometime too.

The Trouble with Barry O'Brien.

Black or white, this is it:

He is attempting to run against the failures of a political process he is supposed to lead. He wants to campaign against the brokenness of a system he was hired to repair. His critique is a confession of ineffectiveness. Obama’s main self-justification could be turned into an argument against extending his tenure — that he is simply in over his head.

And even if Obama’s reelection strategy succeeds, it only succeeds for a time. Until our fiscal endgame comes.

Something tells me, now that Rahm has his hands full in Chicago, the dirty tricks necessary to pull this one out of the bag simply won't deliver... Too much Reality this time around countering all those Hope and Change promises.

Barry O'Brien never would have been elected on so slim a resume, thankfully. Too bad racist thinking elected Barack Obama, well before his due.

Sneak Peak.

Rather than an admission of failure,
this is a preview of how they'll spin the upcoming loss:

Racism (naturally).

The decision to carry the banner for conservative white America paid off in the midterm elections — helped enormously, of course, by a dismal economy under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, as well as conservative hostility to the administration’s health care program and economic stimulus legislation.
...
Another way of looking at it is this: fully 88.8 percent of all ballots cast in 2010 for House Republicans were cast by whites, compared to 63.9 percent for Democrats.

The degree to which the Republican Party has become a white party is also reflected in the composition of primary voters.
...
Now, moving toward what has all the markings of a historic ideological and demographic collision on Nov. 6, 2012, Republicans are doubling down on this racially fraught strategy.

While the subject of race and of the overwhelmingly white Republican primary electorate are never explicitly discussed by Republican candidates, the issue is subsumed in blatant anti-immigration rhetoric.
...
The major threat to the Republican “white” strategy is a revival of the high turnout among minorities that carried Democrats to victory in 2008. Republicans, however, are taking advantage of their newly won control of state governments across the country to enact laws designed to suppress minority turnout.
...
Liberal groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, estimate that as many as five million men and women will be unable to vote because of these laws, which disproportionately affect minority voters.

With less than a year to go until the election, poll data suggest that the Republican “white” strategy has a chance of working...

Dear G-d, please protect us from such stupidity. "Analysis" like this couldn't cut it coming from a ten-cent gumball machine.

We'll rip the country apart, shred the fabric, to stir up racial animosity ... simply because the more liberal pundits refuse to believe, that when you measure in terms of results -- black and white -- this First Black President simply has failed to perform. What's touted as his "successes" cost more than they are worth, and despite the professorial law degree, have overstepped the Constitution.

We're unbalanced, budget-wise, and we're continuing to sacrifice our futures to pay out in social entitlement programs those who would not fall at all, if we pulled their "safety net".

Truth be told,
we need someone who is not afraid to come in, and gut the heart out of many of these programs. Trim, and be unpopular for it, in order to protect and preserve our tomorrows. Who does that sound like to you?

Well ... Mitt Romney never much cared for being popular, I don't think... He has character, which the Clinton team lacked, and you know something? Most people don't give a damn how he and his family choose to privately vacation. Canada over DisneyWorld? Eh.

Now maybe, if the dog atop the car carrier had actually... died en route. But he didn't. He lived to bark again. To me, that particular episode comes off as painting Romney like Chevy Chase in Vacation. Again, you don't have to like the guy to estimate that he'd be a much much more effective leader than the First Black Man to take office...

Clearly, the libs brought this about themselves, when they pushed for a candidate based on identity purposes, and not experience or efficiency or ... leadership abilities, or anything really to show somebody has a hand on the helm during these hard times...

Best that he, and his wife, soak up as much travel abroad in the coming months as they can. Something tells me, the perks for travelling as President are much more rewarding than the perks of travelling as a former U.S. president. Not that Bill Clinton's done too poorly for himself, but then again, he has helped the wife and daughter build their careers through connections and the sympathy thing.

Something tells me though, eventually people will turn on them too. If you talk the talk, but then can't really walk the walk ... (I thought ole Chels was gonna be like mama -- devote herself via the masters' in healthcare to... managing healthcare issues. Whoda thunk she'd go the celebrity journolist route?)

Again, I don't predict these things, just get out there, take the temperature of those who aren't exactly in teh Beltway loop, and observe. What I'm seeing online today is fear: fear and loathing that white people who refuse to go along with the mirage of greatness, may just up and elect the incumbent out.

And (naturally) we'll rip the country up with our race-based accusations if it comes to that. Dear G-d...

Why Doesn't He Just Move to China...

and Stay There?

Ah, Jimmy Fallows. Another one of those "I want it all! And to come back with a safety guarantee too!" liberals...

The utter condescension just drips from this piece*... and then, when properly corrected by a man in the know, a bit closer to the situation than globe-trottin' Jimmy... he (naturally) can't bring it upon himself to apologize...

China's nice this time of year, sir.
Nevermind that smog -- surely you can afford a good respirator?

------------------
*Coincidentally, last week I heard our Barron County Sheriff speak at the University of Wisconsin -- Barron County campus, and he too mentioned a shared "SWAT" vehicle, or emergency responding tool, that helps protect officers when an armed hostage situation occurs, or an otherwise show of force is needed to curtail the "bad guys" while minimizing losses to civilians/protectors. (I'd be curious, in small-town America, to see how Jimmy Fallows defines that term, "bad guys". Obviously, = the police force).

It's shared by many communities, available for use as needed with transport time, kept down in Eau Claire, but can be called out to take down a meth lab (you want to talk unpredictable crazies....) out in the woods, respond to hostage situations, or otherwise respond when good citizens are physically placed in danger. Bad things can happen in otherwise picturesque, pastoral landscapes, Jimmy. This grates: What does it say about the fears of the townsfolk that they would consider this purchase a point of pride? What justification can there be? (Naturally) Jimmy knows better...

You don't want trigger-happy cops?

Wonderful. Nor do we.

So put them in a protected vehicle that has the power to ram through obstacles in controlling a situation, and trust that they won't use that force against non-law-abiding citizens. Keep them safe, and eliminate the potential deadly force needed in the typical shoot-it-out gunfight.

You see, James, sometimes ... out here in the real world? Bad guys do try to take advantage of our goodness, and a strong and decisive show of power can save lives.

Civilian lives, and even ... cop lives.
For what they're worth, to you, Mr. Big City Seen It All (and knows even more!)

"Vote NO -- Don't Be Bullied..."

Remember this?
Such a short time ago...

The Irish people got it right, essentially;
their "leaders" and expert policymakers did not listen...

Back then, capping off a post on Tim Russert's death, I wrote here:

IN OTHER NEWS: How 'bout those Irish voters?

You give something away too quickly, as many believe the U.S. did signing the NAFTA treaty, and only later do you realize how pretty much impossible it is to turn back the clock and reclaim sovereignty.* I think the Irish, for one, still appreciate what precious drippings that meat can provide...

Seems so long ago...
Too bad the alleged wise men just wouldn't take "NO" for an answer, and kept on, until they got the answer they wanted.

In retrospect, the people got it right the first time around...

-------------------
* The mandate to stick us all in a privatized insurance pool, to "hold up" an ailing and failing healthcare finance system for the time being by seizing assets from those not playing, nor interested in playing, in that game ... I see as similar.

If we're going down, do you chain everyone together?
Or do you leave room for the very American value of Choice -- which came well before Hope and Change, and to this mind, is the only realistic way some will be able to save themselves... by budgeting according to their own personal needs, by looking out for their own health and financial needs, and not by being dragged into a network that primarily serves the needs of others.

Remember: it ain't free-riding if you've no outstanding bills, and are budgeting and paying your own way in life. Now is the time to push back -- when forces are conspiring to eliminate personal choice, and propagandize bad from those who still instinctively understand the importance of personal sovereignty, at all costs.

Pledging Eternal Love to President Obama.

"Really, this guy is the one.
No, not just another GWB crush...
I really, really mean it this time... "

After recently getting about the country a bit,
Sullivan perplexes at the majority American attitude that our current leader is floundering in his job. (The prez is now off in ... Australia, it seems.)

It was never my party, but it was one to which I could once accord regular agreement and respect. No more. I remain unrepentant in my support for this president, a man who has accomplished more in the face of a more hostile environment in his first three years than any president since Johnson. I wish more reasonable Dems and a few moderate Republicans will soon have the courage to say so.

No worries.
No matter what comes,
seems he'll always have Andy ...

If George Bush had taken out Osama bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda's leadership and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now. If he'd done the equivalent on the right of universal healthcare, he'd be the second coming of Reagan.

Small consolation perhaps.

Snow Day.

The first real one this season, measured by having to brush the cars. Sure, we've scraped frost up here plenty of mornings -- (we defined as the collective population.) But this afternoon was the first call for the brush end of the snow scraper.

I, for one, am ready, I think.

Today was the gun-deer season opener*, so the hunters will like the dusting of snow. Before it fell, it was just an overcast day, where you can't tell 10:30 from noon, from dusk. We (Buddy and I) got two nice walks in early; he didn't care for being outside with the snow blowing in his face this afternoon, so we called that one very early... He's a smart dog, did I mention that?

Amazing the things you can get done inside, when you've no concept of time passing. I guess that's why they try to put office workers in windowless rooms.

-----------
* Always the first Saturday before Thanksgiving.

ADDED: Also, when I mentioned previously that the dill pea soup turned out pretty good for a first time soup? I meant, for a first-time dill pea soup. I've made plenty of soups in my life.

Weekend Chuckle.

Jordy Nelson ... on being a white receiver:

But for the record, Nelson is of the opinion that being a white receiver does, in fact, play a role in his success.

"Honestly, I think it is (a factor)," Nelson said. "As receivers, we've talked about it. I know (cornerbacks coach) Joe Whitt tells me all the time, when all the rookies come in, he gives them the heads up, 'Don't let him fool ya.' That's fine with me."

Hey, let's be real about this: Aside from Wes Welker, there just aren't many white guys who stand out as NFL receivers -- at least not compared to their African-American counterparts. Even with that being the case, Jennings, who's black, is quick to credit Nelson's success to something other than his skin color.

"It's not because he didn't put the time in. It's not because he's the white guy," Jennings said. "A lot of it has to do with the fact that guys look at him and say, 'OK, yeah, he's the white guy, he can't be that good.' Well, he is that good. He's proven to be that good, and it's because of the work and the time that he's put in, not only on the field, but in his preparation off the field."