Cafe Hayek.

Bill Gates’s monetary wealth, for example, is approximately 70,000 times greater than my own, but I’m certain that he doesn’t daily ingest 70,000 times more calories than I ingest in a day. I’m also certain that the food Bill Gates eats isn’t 70,000 times tastier than the food I eat; that his many homes are not 70,000 times larger than my one home; that his children are not educated 70,000 times better than is my child; that he cannot travel to Europe or to Asia 70,000 times faster or more safely than I can; that he doesn’t have 70,000 times more annual leisure than I have; and that he will not live 70,000 times longer than I will live.

I’m even sure that he’s not 70,000 times happier than I am.

So, really, it’s incorrect to conclude that Bill Gates’s real wealth is 70,000 times larger than my real wealth. The difference isn’t remotely close to being that large.

Hmmm. What would the logical thinker conclude if it could somehow be established that Mr. Gates was 70,000 times happier than the average fellow?

That we need to find a way to re-distribute Bill Gates’ happiness? Or that it’s on other people to think to themselves “I wonder what Bill Gates did to become that happy, and what it would take for me to do the same thing…”

But it’s a good point about “wealth.” We argue about how much people have and we don’t put that much thought into what that word really means.

Hat tip to one of my friends and former colleagues on the Hello-Kitty-of-Blogging.

What in the blue fuck is going on here…

Sad.

According to POLITICO, the staff members of Democrats who got slaughtered are being visited by all kinds of support professionals (you know, resume advice folks, so that they can land on their feet).

But also this…

But one of the staffers was described as a “counselor” to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).

Said one staffer: “It was like it was about death.”

+++blink+++

But I thought these were the people who were going to face down our nation’s worst problems, the housing bubble, the unemployment rate, China, Pakistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda…

They need grief counseling when their butts get paddled in an election?? I thought they lost the election because the electorate was stupid, what happened to that? Since when does dealing with stupid people cause such emotional turmoil? And if it does, then is there any hope at all?

Hat tip to Instapundit.

I care about Palin-bashers. They’re a threat, although not to her. They create bubbles of fantasy, and then start living in them, every time they open their mouths. Which is often.

Some background, although by now you probably don’t need it. The former Governor of Alaska criticized the latest round of pump-priming plans from the federal government.

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.

This is a controversial theory and we’re split squarely down the middle on it. The ivy-league snobs, movers-and-shakers who make money and power off of pump priming schemes, and smarmy Palin-bashers are on one side; Sarah Palin, the ghost of Milton Friedman, humanoids who eat food and pay for it, anyone with a decent long-term memory, reality, history, logic and common sense are on the other. This abstract concept we keep referring to as an “economy” is a means by which some of us generate wealth that did not exist before. It is also a communications network. Tampering with supply of commodities, like money, interferes with the communication. So does tampering with demand. It works best, over the long term, when it is left alone. That’s because over the long term, it services our needs not by delivering goods and services but by facilitating the communication about the supply of and demand for those goods and services.

Artificial interference creates bubbles. It inflates prices for a term, and when the term is up the bubbles collapse so that people on both sides of the transaction enjoy an ample opportunity to get the shaft. This has been proven out, time after time, commodity after commodity. Oil and oil products. Rental property. Agricultural goods. Housing. Health care services. Just name it, when we start screwing with it people get screwed.

My point is, though, that: Palin said something so the Palin-bashers see an opportunity to renew their sense of identity…which means to bash. Oh fine, she represents exactly nobody, so go ahead and bash her — she obviously doesn’t care so why should I.

The problem is the thinking process. Palin’s argument has something to do with rising food prices. And so the rejoinder has to have something to do with food prices not going up. Hello fantasy bubble, here we come.

Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact. The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record. Even if you pick a single snapshot — say, September’s year-over-year increase in prices — that was just 1.4%, far better than the 6% annual increase for food prices recorded in September 2008.

Hey, all you food shoppers. Prices haven’t been going up. A Palin-basher found some statistics that say they haven’t. Aren’t you glad to hear that?

Don’t worry, the lady needs no help defending herself.

Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal.

So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”

Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”

The article noted that “an inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants…Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months.”

Now I realize I’m just a former governor and current housewife from Alaska, but even humble folks like me can read the newspaper. I’m surprised a prestigious reporter for the Wall Street Journal doesn’t.

Zing! That, like they say, is gonna leave a mark.

But that isn’t the end of it. There never is an end to it as far as the loyal Palin-basher is concerned. Sudeep Reddy tweeted, proving he was right and Palin was wrong, by…finding someone who agreed with him. So no, food prices have not been going up after all.

It’s changed from who-ya-gonna-believe, Sudeep-Reddy-or-your-lyin’-eyes…to…who-ya-believe-Sudeep-Reddy-and-Ryan-Chittum-or-your-lyin’-eyes.

Unbelievable.

I was going to ignore the whole thing. Everyone else is already writing about it after all, and I think deep down, most people understand that there is a deep and troubling psychosis involved with the widespread, popular Palin-bashing. I’ve long maintained that Palin-bashing is older than Palin herself, that she is a symptom and not a cause. That when she is excoriated and snarked-at and sniped-at the way she is, people are really confessing their own weaknesses.

When they devolve into saying “Palin is wrong because prices are not going up” — there really isn’t anything else that needs to be said, is there?

But I was intrigued by this paragraph from the last link up there, the Reddy-tweet-story:

The food inflation article that Palin cites acknowledges there has been no inflation yet. It’s just a risk, given soaring commodity prices.

So Palin is saying prices have already been going up over the last year, the tweet-article says no, it’s just a risk that this will happen, it hasn’t happened yet.

They really are trying to tell you what your food shopping experience is. Just amazing.

Perhaps that is why…I say “perhaps” because I’m really not sure…I decided to click open the link and read it for my self. The Wasilla dimbulb can read it, and she isn’t even supposed to be able to read, right? Seems like the least I could do.

And lo…

An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.

Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. [emphasis mine]

Not much point reading any further past that. But we should anyway. Right above the body of the article is a notation that there are corrections below. Go to the correction, and we find…

BJ’s Restaurants has been steadily raising prices this year so that by early next year they will be 2.5% higher. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that BJ’s planned to increase prices early next year by about 2.5%.

In the body of the article…

Stater Bros. has seen the prices it pays for cereal rise 5% in recent months. The chain has passed about half the increase on to consumers while making up for the rest by trimming other expenses, such as what it spends on cell phones and delivery truck tires.
:
Domino’s Pizza Inc. is letting consumers decide whether they’re willing to pay more. The company is offering two medium, two-topping pizzas for $5.99 each but has recently offered the option of converting one of them to a premium pizza, with more toppings, for an extra $2—a price increase, in effect.
:
Food prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The consumer price index for all items minus food and energy rose 0.8% over the year to September, the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The food index rose 1.4%, however. The U.S. Agricultural Department is predicting overall food inflation of about 2% to 3% next year.

To be fair to Messrs. Reddy and Chittum, the emphasis of the article is on what food prices are about to do; so their craven and obvious hair-splitting is not entirely without merit. But the evidence it brings is best characterized as a hodgepodge, a jumbled salad mix of past & future price hikes.

Which means Palin’s counter-point was valid.

Which means Palin’s original point was valid.

Which means it was a waste of time and energy to “correct” her. It was unnecessary, pointless, had nothing to do with informing anybody about anything. Worst of all, it was inaccurate, ignorant and just plain dumb.

Palin bashers may be competent in their own everyday lives, but only until that name pops up. Then they can’t think straight anymore. No, I don’t think they should be trusted with figuring out who our nation’s president should be.

These people shouldn’t be allowed to even pick out their own shoes. Their hatred warps their sense of reality. Palin says food prices are going up, and suddenly they imagine food prices have been holding steady when they haven’t. Palin says it’s a sunny day outside and they start packing umbrellas just because…or Palin says it’s raining, and they leave the umbrella at home. If somebody worshipped Palin, to the point they did exactly the same thing in reverse — Palin says such-and-such a thing is so, so it must be, and no research is necessary on the matter — I’d say those people’s opinions should be taken with a large grain of salt, too.

Palin-bashers are sick. In a way. It is a national epidemic. Something should be done to get them the help that they need.

Just leave my tax dollars out of it, if you please. I need all the nickels I can get hold of to buy my food, even if Reddy says that is not the case.

Blogger friend Professor Mondo links brilliantly, yet again.

Bruno Behrend at Chicago Boyz suggests the questions that should be used to frame the political debate for the next couple of years:

“Can you govern yourself, or do you need a Federal Czar to govern your life for you?”

and

“Can you find a doctor, a light-bulb, or control the flow of your toilet, or should one of our Federal Czars take that decision out of your hands?”

He goes on to suggest that framing the debate in these terms is a necessary step toward a rollback of statism. It’s an interesting strategy.

Behrend’s point is that the right people will win such a debate, by a 75-25 margin.

I, on the other hand, sought to make a different point when I observed this disparity some five years ago. People, according to my ruminations on the evidence that comes to my eyes and ears, are dedicated to whatever ways and means they have nailed down for living life. You see people placed in situations in which it’s ridiculous to seek help from others, and they do it anyway. Other people are put in situations in which it is risible and silly to depend on oneself, and they (we) do that anyway.

Our voting has come down to a selection between two absolutes, two “everywhere, always, whether you like it or not”‘s.

Which half of humanity is to be accommodated by government, the Architects or the Medicators.

Behrend might very well have a point, that the outcome of the decision will be altered significantly if it is simply framed as what it really is. I have long thought so, and would like to give it a try. That’s what it is all about anyway. We might as well admit it.

Why should the Architects win? Because that’s the American dream. If you want to be a Medicator with a leviathan of a government servicing all your needs womb-to-tomb and telling you what those needs are, there are hundreds of other places all over the world where you can go.

There is only one shining beacon on this globe built to accommodate the Architects. And the Medicators desire to snuff it out, like a candle. That is their nature. When you’re dependent, you don’t want anyone else to be independent. Your business becomes everybody else’s business, so I suppose it’s only natural you want everybody else’s business to become yours.

Sure, let’s vote on that. But let’s do it honestly.

Republicans will make a move to repeal ObamaCare, and Obama is going to make some wonderful, awesome speeches about how this is not the right way to go, that we have to keep the law in place because it’s going to make life easier for us any week now. You know, I don’t think I’ve felt as sorry for any White House speechwriter as the guy who’s going to put these together. The New York Times will love whatever it is, but…just wow. How would you even get started?

We need to be thinking and talking about extending the Bush tax cuts. The party-of-more-and-bigger-taxes is in charge of the White House and the Senate, but this one might actually go through if it’s timed right. Only a month and a half left to the year, you know.

People who say “got to raise taxes, the money won’t come from anywhere else” — I get that. Disagree with it, it strikes me as living life on a merry-go-round, but at least I understand. What I do not understand is people who are enthusiastic about this. What is this widespread, feverish, rock-star-like appeal of higher taxes?

It must be easier to be an atheist when you’re a vegetarian. Imagine how silly it would be, if we were surrounded by Tribbles who were made of marshmallow and chocolate with a yummy caramel center, to say “they’re just like that because they evolved that way.” To a meat-eater gnawing on chicken wings on a rainy Sunday morning, this is what atheists sound like. Cook the animal’s flesh over flame and it turns into a delicious snack, you’re saying that was not part of a design? It certainly isn’t survival-of-the-fittest to have yummy flesh on your bones that tastes good with a dry rub.

We need a “Barney Frank” law. I’ve been listening to the President drone on for years about “The Folks Who Caused This Mess in the First Place” — well, there he sits. And Massachussetts might like him just fine, but it seems to me the nation as a whole has an interest in preventing more screw-ups like Fannie & Freddie.

I also don’t get people who are upset at the Tea Party folks, saying even more Republicans would have been elected on Tuesday if the movement had less influence. So you like the name “Republican” but object to fiscal discipline, and the idea of the next generations being able to earn and keep money? What exactly is it you want to see happen? Is it just that eighteenth letter that enthralls and enthuses you?

If you voted for Barack Obama two years ago I really don’t know how you can claim to know who’s “qualified.” How could you possibly think you’ve got what it takes to see this in people? You’re probably an excellent reverse-divining-rod for who’s “qualified.”

Speaking of which, two years after we elected a President mostly because Katie Couric successfully smeared someone from the other side, it’s time to say it: Katie Couric stinks on ice at picking our presidents. She’s even worse at that than she is at her real job.

Cross-posted at Washington Rebel and Right Wing News.

Bagdad Bob Gibbs:

The White House does not think President Obama will have to veto legislation repealing his signature legislative accomplishments.

Though Republicans are rattling their sabers with threats to repeal the new healthcare and financial regulatory laws, the White House feels safe with its buffer in the Democratic Senate.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday he does not think repeal legislation would make it out of both houses of Congress.

“I honestly don’t think it will come to that,” Gibbs said at his daily briefing on Thursday in response to a question about whether Obama would veto any attempts at repeal.

Republican leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Reps. John Boehner (Ohio) and Eric Cantor have said several times since Tuesday’s elections that they still plan to repeal the healthcare and financial reform laws.

Obama said Wednesday in a postmortem press conference on the midterms, which saw Democrats lose the House, that Americans do not want Congress to “re-litigate” the battles of the last two years.

Professor Reynolds has a comment:

That’s okay. Make ‘em vote for it again….

Exactly. There’s one guy in Washington who isn’t squeamish about being associated with ObamaCare by name, and that’s the guy who’s name is already on it.

People in the democrat party are not terribly fond of say those words the rest of us have to say all the time, before we can do anything that requires independent thought — something as simple as driving a car to a destination through unfamiliar backroads: “I think if I take this option, it will get me closer to where I want to go.” They very rarely seem to have thoughts like this.

Instead, it’s the legislation worked. It created or saved this-many-millions of jobs, even though there was a net job loss. If we did not pass fill-in-the-blank, the bad thing that happened right afterward would actually have been even worse. We need to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.

And the bill is good, not because of the effect it will have on things, but because it is such a sure thing for passage. You cannot block it. Or in this case, now that we’ve passed it you’ll never repeal it.

I don’t think they’re all that way; I think the ones from whom we hear over and over again, are the most powerful ones, the ones with the greatest authority within their circle. And those are the ones most entrenched in their way of thinking.

This way of thinking is liberated from cause-and-effect. I mean, by this, every plan they have is atomically simple — the plan itself defines the goal. In other words, when they propose a more progressive tax structure to fix the economy, so that 50% of us end up owing nothing, their goal is not to fix the economy. Their goal is to make the tax structure more progressive so that 50% of us end up owing nothing. I think all their plans are like this, so they never have to think about if-this-then-that.

And I mean EVER. “If I sleep with this intern my wife will leave me”; they don’t have to think that either, since if they’re caught, they’ll just have to appear on camera and talk about how nobody’s perfect, with the good little wifey standing by her man. No consequences, not for anybody, anywhere, never ever ever. Being conservative is the only thing that ever meets with an undesirable consequence; that’s the world in which they live, I think. All the evidence I’ve watched seems to lead back to this.

And so, when we discuss whether their plans should be defeated, or repealed, the discussion seems to continually go back to the eventual outcome — you shouldn’t try, because it’s an exercise in futility. What a sucky-ass defense; it might even work if there was a cost involved in trying to repeal ObamaCare. But imagine living your life this way. If you perceive the outcome is likely to go a certain way, you shouldn’t even get started on any effort to alter it because that would be Against The Rules.

I’m not sure the average progressive can define for me what the word “progressive” is really supposed to mean, but I’ve got a feeling it’s supposed to be the exact opposite of that kind of thinking.

Those of you reading about Governor-elect Brown and returning-Senator Boxer might be observing, correctly, that if you’re a democrat looking for a place to survive, this is your shelter. You may not be aware of the passage of Proposition 25, which is just California’s icing on the cake: Weary of the absurd summertime ritual of our legislature failing to pass a budget, voters have lowered the threshold from two-thirds to a simple majority.

The conclusion is inescapable: California, like no other state in the union, is ripe for a Tax Me More fund. Obviously, the prevailing sensibility here is that individuals don’t own money, it’s the government that owns money and we need to elect people who possess experience and skill in the fine art of taking it away from us. Californians who feel this way need a place to send their money.

We stink on ice as a local business climate. We absolutely, positively suck. We are the second-worst in the union, down one slot from being third-worst last year. We do everything we possibly can to keep businesses from moving in here, and to the businesses that are already here we give the Ferris Bueller treatment: Hello? What are you still doing here? Movie’s over. Get out! Leave!

But things are not going to stay the same. We’ve got Governor Brown coming in.

Prop 24, which would have repealed corporate tax breaks, did go down in defeat…

Proposition 24, also known as the “Tax Fairness Act”, was defeated Tuesday as voters decided to allow corporate tax break legislature to stay in place.

The legislature, passed in 2009, permits businesses to choose whether they would like their income tax based on sales, payroll or property in addition to tax credit sharing amongst their affiliated businesses.

If it had passed, Prop 24 would have created approximately $1.3 million in state revenue by 2012-2013. But opponents say that California’s budget woes should and will not be fixed by increasing taxes on businesses.

That’s a ray of hope.

But all that says is, as we careen wildly toward the brink with the throttle wide open, there is a perceptible gap between the gas pedal and the floorboard. We’re not doing everything we possibly can to make it impossible to make a dollar…just almost everything.

A Tax Me More fund would offer an outlet for all this guilt Californians apparently feel about having too much money (which, just to make sure the record is absolutely clear on this point, I’m not nearly decent of enough person to share in this — send me as much lucre as you want). And, it’s not enough for Californians to not have any money, apparently they’re all torn up with guilt about not having to look around long enough for a job, it’s too easy to find one.

Set up the special account, set up the Post Office box, and spread the word far and wide. Give Californians a way to get rid of that money burning holes in their wallets. There’s guilt that has to be relieved here, and it’s just inhuman and unproductive to allow fellow human beings to keep on stewing in it.

Something must be done.

A whole lot of things led to the results we saw last night. I’d offer there has been a palpable feeling in the air that we are voting on economic liberty; that there is economic suffering. A feeling that, perhaps, prosperity has left us because we have voted it away.

There is hope that maybe we can have jobs and savings again, if we vote the other way and arrive at the polls ready to accept wealth and the responsibility that arrives with us — if we say “yes, we are good enough to have money, we don’t have to give it all away to the Government.”

But a lot of idiotic asinine quotes got us to last night. John Hawkins has rounded up a list of seven quotes that, in likelihood, made a deep impression on America that she put the wrong people in charge last go-’round. These deserve to be remembered at least until 2012, when we vote on Obama’s successor and figure out what to do as the next class of Senators come up for re-election.

“As she prepares to step down as President Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer said Friday that she wishes she could redo one of her first official acts for the president: last January’s forecast that a big shot of federal spending would save millions of jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.”

“But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.”

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

“What good is reading the (health care) bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

“There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about (Scott Brown’s win), but if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”

It comes down to, there are two ways to cast a vote: As a baby and as a man. The baby way is what we do in high school. We figure out who is cool and who is a dork, and we live out our lives making sure the dorks never, ever ever ever find acceptance anywhere and the cool kids never, ever ever find any rejection. Certain people are always supposed to be told “no” and certain other people are always supposed to be told “yes”; when the class elections come up, that’s just an opportunity to keep exercising those same rules.

A man — grown-up — figures out what is broken and fixes it. You can’t directly do all that with an election, so what you need to do is figure out who’s recognized what’s broken, formed a vision around fixing it, and a plan around the vision, such that their plan most closely resembles the plan you’d come up with.

Necessity is the mother of invention. We tend to start voting like grown-ups when we are backed into a corner and have no other alternative. It is rather typical to vote like a little baby for as long as you can afford to do so.

We just can’t afford to keep “cool” people like this in positions of authority anymore. It’s not working for us because it’s too expensive. And they end up being liars. They talk a good game about building a country that works for everybody, and the next thing you know you’ve got statements out of them like Obama’s priceless “punish your enemies” line. Meanwhile, their “problem-solving” ends up being little more than opening the floodgates between the public treasury and whoever their best buddies are.

If you vote like a baby, that’s quite alright because they’re just so awesome, man. If you vote like a man, you realize this isn’t going to solve the problems that ail us…

Related: Where Do democrats Go From Here?

First, we have more than a communications problem — the public heard us but disagreed with our approach. Democrats need not reassess our goals for America, but we need to seriously rethink how to reach them.

Second, don’t blame the voters. They aren’t stupid or addled by fear. They are skeptical about government efficacy, worried about the deficit and angry that Democrats placed other priorities above their main concern: economic growth.

Evan Bayh makes a lot of sense. These ideas will not be implemented…

The benefits involved in voting like a baby are felt mostly by the candidate who is courting votes from voters who vote like babies. I can tell, just from watching their behavior, it must be as addictive as crack. Sens. Boxer and Reid had the entire day to become deathly worried over their jobs, and legitimately so, and had all night to make speeches about it. What did they say? Did either one of them utter a peep about what they’d do, if re-elected, to strengthen the economy? Nope. Just pablum calculated to shore up support, to boost the moral of the volunteers. We will win. We will prevail. They will lose. Us. Them. We. They.

In both cases, it really did turn out to be the case that they “won”; but what does this say about your career when it looks like the time has come to bottom-line what it’s all been about, and that’s all you can say? That you’re awesome and you’re gonna win again?

And not a single word about service to the republic?

Well, good. They won. But as a minority party in the House; and in the Senate, probably in their last two years as a majority. All of the “cool kid” factor is gone, spent, every single drop of it. Coast to coast, every single democrat incumbent who managed to hang on to his seat, did so thanks to seniority. And Sarah Palin’s question “How’s that hopey changey stuff workin’ out for ya?” now has an answer: It’s the fucking kiss of death in 2010. Two years old, and about as fashionable as a black-and-white television set with a nine inch screen. Covered with vomit. And anthrax powder.

Thing I Know #372. Whoever sacrifices all other things for the sake of popularity, will ultimately lose that as well.

I called this one too early. However, my smart-money says I’ll not need to re-write anything and Boxer will win a fourth term. That’s a bet I’d be pleased to lose, even if I had committed some real money to it.

A certain Palin-hater is over on the Hello-Kitty-of-Bloggin’ that is FaceBook…spoiling for a fight about Palin. I’m sticking to where things go from here, how much we’re likely to hear from her from here on — it is a logical impossibility that we’re done hearing about her, we clearly are not. My adversary just wants to stick to his personal dislike of her, which he would like to explain over and over again.

I’m more interested in what’s going to happen in the months and years ahead. President Obama, that lover of car-metaphors, is zipping on down a road that is veering sharply rightward whether He wants it to or not. His choices are to make an absolute failure out of His Presidency, or steer rightward to keep the car on the road. I view this as a guarantee that His Presidency is an absolute failure, because He isn’t capable of…what, what’s that favorite word of His…change. No can do. That’s for lesser mortals.

So Obama will deliver some speech saying how stupid we are and how we need to get with it. We’ll get sicker of Him, and by 2012 Jar Jar Binks could challenge Him for the presidency and win handily.

The democrat party could name another candidate just for the sake of hanging on to the White House. I’m having some trouble envisioning this. Johnson in ’68 is something of a precedent — but that was LBJ’s idea. Obama isn’t capable of doing this either.

So Obama will be challenged, and He will lose. There isn’t time for the Tea Party to form, recruit, organize, and offer a candidate. Libertarians don’t have the flexibility to ever become relevant. It all comes down to, a Republican is going to be sworn in on January 20, 2013. There really isn’t any avoiding it.

It won’t be Sarah Palin…if she doesn’t want to do it.

Or if she’s hit by a bus, or eaten by a bear.

Or if aliens abduct her.

Or if a majority of Americans become simultaneously transfixed and enamored with Newt, or Huck, or Mitt. The three erstwhile gentlemen who have almost completely sat this whole thing out, while Palin has been out stumping and speechifying and endorsing, and generally being a potent force.

She’s easy on the eyes, too. Plus, she owns this night like nobody else in the country does, except maybe Rick Santelli.

At lot can happen in twenty-six months. But at this point, an awful lot would have to happen to stop her from being the next president. None of these events are terribly likely, and a whole bunch of loudmouths yammering over and over again how much they’re irritated by her, aren’t going to make it happen.

Like it or not, it would be entirely reasonable to pick out the perfect bearskin rug for the Oval Office. If that makes you mad, you can get just as mad about it as you want to. She’s headed in that direction and there’s nothing in her way.

Phil’s word for the day, and it’s a damn good one.

Get out there.

Yes, it’s absurd, but we have to vote on the fundamental laws of physics that bind the universe. Whether Churchill’s fat-man can sit in a large bucket and lift himself by the handle. History has already shown us over the last two years how it really works, we’re just voting on whether or not we agree.

Life can be very, very unkind to people who disagree with the way the universe works. Nature has a way of teaching you the same lesson over and over again until you get it learned.

Update 1741: Should I turn this into a “live-blogging” session? I’ve seen other election-night live-blogging efforts before and I’m not sure I’m up to putting one of those through. Anyway, I’m thrilled to pieces with Alan Grayson going down in flames. What an asshole. Also, Rick Perry is going to remain the Governor of Texas. Wonderful, Texas will not be like us…not yet anyway. That makes me happy. Some of us Californians are like that. If we’re sailing over the brink, we don’t want to see everybody else following.

Update 1746: Todd Young takes Indiana, 54% to 40%. “This is a race to watch to see how big of a Republican night it will be.” Republicans need another 163 seats to take the House at this point. They’ve won 55, the enemies of the Constitution have won 25.

Update 1757: Onorato/Corbett in Pennsylvania too close to call; ditto Quinn/Brady in Illinois. My third St. Pauli Girl, and my real-life girl has brought me some yummy dinner. Kasich in Ohio is going down in flames. I’m looking at the news pages on the web, looks like cable teevee has more currency minute by minute.

Update 1806: “We’ve Come to Take Our Government Back!” — Rand Paul. I’m liking him a lot better than his Dad. Girlfriend calls to my attention that New Mexico gubernatorial is going to the GOP, 85% to 15% with 1% reporting in.

Update 1814: Fox News calls the U.S. House of Representatives for the Republicans with a net gain of about sixty seats. Bye, Nancy.

Update 1818: Scott/Sink in Florida too close to call. Palin says Republicans need to reach out to dems, but to invite them to come on board because the train is leaving the station — but we are going in a different direction. Pay attention, this is a real leader talking. It’s got zip zero nada to do with labels, it’s all about direction.

Update 1822: Four Governor’s races called. Fallin beats Askins in Oklahoma; O’Malley hangs into his seat against Ehrlich in Maryland; Daugaard beats heidepriem in South Dakota; Bently beats Sparks in Alabama. That’s three Republican Governors against one democrat Govenor.

Update 1828: Cannot call the Reid/Angle race just yet. But they’re in my time zone. Most of the races called are in states & districts at least two hours ahead. Barney Frank prevails 63%-35% with 59% precincts reporting in. I’m going to remember this one, the “smart” money said there was a real ray of hope here. Southerland beats Boyd in Florida, 55% to 40% with 85% reporting in. Shea-Porter implodes in New Hampshire, a hyphenated female hippie with a huge cash advantage, loses against a Republican white male 56% to 40%.

Update 1833: Giving the girlfriend some shit because it looks like New York is not joining this “party” in any way shape or form. They end up looking not more sophisticated than the rest of the nation, they look more like they’re stuck in something, kind of like a trombone player who can only do one note.

Update 1839: On “Hannity”: “Complete repudiation of the democratic party.” That’s exactly what I want to hear, word for word. BURY THAT PARTY, get rid of all these silly ideas so we can debate on the things that really matter. Get rid of Keynesian economics, get rid of cap-n-tax, get rid of “sit down and talk to our enemies” with zip-zero about what would get talked-about. These are un-American ideas, they don’t belong here…and they’d be welcomed by lots and lots of other countries around the globe, none of which anybody takes seriously. GTFO and take your fail with you.

Update 1847: In Wisconsin, with 10% precincts reporting in they’re saying it’s too close to call, but at 58% to 41% it looks like a Johnson-against-Feingold win to me. In the Senate, GOP has picked up 3 and the dems have picked up zip. GOP needs 12 to take the chamber and the traitors need 6. Of course, they have Biden, so by my count they only need 5.

Update 1902: Fox News projecting win for McCain in Arizona against Rodney Glassman. Brandstad beats incumbent democrat Culver for Governor of Iowa. Tom Corbett beats Dan Onorato for Governor of Pennsylvania.

Update 1913: Kissell wins in North Carolina district #8, against Republican challenger Harold Johnson. Mike Kelly unseats democratic incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper in district #3. Republican Lou Barletta unseats Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania district #11. It has been over four years since Congressman-elect Barletta caught our attention. Yay Lou.

Update 1915: Local Republican party calls on my cell phone to make sure I voted. Hope that’s the last phone call this year like that…looks like New York just voted for a Republican by mistake. Someone in District #25 by the name of “Buerkle.” Heads will roll.

Update 1918: Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro are going to get in a catfight in the fountain — I mean, appear together on teevee. The woman I’d like to see as our next President, and the woman who is the very, very first politician I voted to reject. Can’t miss that.

Update 1923: Hickenlooper is the next Governor of Colorado. The democrat takes it by a very large margin. They just put up a color-coded map of the U.S. by congressional district, and it looks really, really bad for the dems. Lots of red. Palin and Ferraro are appearing side-by-side, and that looks bad for the dems too. Time has not been kind to Geraldine. Sarah, on the other hand, owns this night and she knows it. She looks guarded, competent, optimistic and…yep, presidential. Hate to break it to ya, Palin bashers.

Update 1929: Palin is crediting Ferraro for “busting” the “glass ceiling.” I guess when you’re female it might have looked different…but I vividly remember Ferraro being a grossly unpleasant personality and not much else. Combative with a capital-C. Acid in her veins. Maybe that’s part and parcel of being the challenger, but that’s no excuse. In 1984, we needed some solid strategies from both sides, and all we got out of Mondale-Ferraro was a lot of hostility. Nothing else. That’s why they lost 49 states. Palin is giving way too much credit — but, that is, after all, what she has to offer. She builds consensus without sacrificing an inch of turf.

These two women shouldn’t be sharing the same stage. They aren’t even in the same league.

Update 1936: Called Cassy earlier in the evening, since she was liveblogging and so was I. She indulged me for a few minutes and then demoted me to IM because talking & typing was a bit too challenging (actually, this was my experience as well). I see over on her site that Nikki Haley has won. Cool. Bob Gibbs beats Zack Space, democrat incumbent, in Ohio district #18. Also cool.

We’re going to tune into some of our Netflixes now until the news starts thinking about discussing the Pacific time zone, which is where it really matters to us. Things are looking alright so far.

Update 2010: Fox News is projecting the obvious: No refudiation in the Golden State, Brown & Boxer to win. Hope Babs got a good scare out of it anyway. The GOP takeover of the House looks more and more like a done deal. At this point, the GOP has 44 seats in the next Senate, compared to 49 for that other part plus 2 independents that caucus with them. So it’s a one-chamber smackdown; I’ll take it.

Update 2015: A bowling ball, being brainless, moves by sheer momentum and with no strategy or contemplation of cause and effect. Daily KOS commenters, being weak of mind are not too much different.

Update 2122: Brown is our next Governor and Boxer looks like she’s headed for a fourth term. Its California — we hate $$$. We don’t want ordinary people to have any of it, we want it all to go to super-duper-wonderful demigod democrat people. Looks like Reid has it in the bag, up by seven points, so Nevada hates prosperity too. Great to see Kasich pulled it out of the fire in Ohio, and Lungren and McClintock are doing well too. Thinking of hitting the sack before the Alaska race is done, which the Wall Street Journal is telling me might not happen for weeks anyway.

The bottom-line stuff looks pretty sweet. House is a complete blow-out. The Senate is quite a dent, not a toppling but that was a statistical long shot from the very start.

Had the entire Senate been up for grabs…well, you can plot that out at your leisure. Multiply the GOP gain there by three, and add to 41.

It’s a successful refudiation, no getting around it.

I never thought I’d see a feminist come out and admit that’s what it’s all about. The context is a column by one Melanie McDonaugh lamenting how economical and workable the DNA test has become; pining for the good old days when a lady whose discretion lost out to her lust, simply rounded up all the candidates who knew they could be guilty, and picked the wealthiest. Or least recalcitrant.

A feminist is calling for a draw-down in technology because, darn it, this is the way The Good Lord built us. Mothers are supposed to know and Daddies are not. Science shouldn’t go messing with this!

At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.

What is surreal about this article is that there are only two words I can find in the entire thing, that even attempt to express concern for the welfare of the child. Usually when someone is anti-paternity-test, that’s the deciding factor, the child; and, in those cases, the child has typically progressed somewhat out of the womb and developed some kind of relationship with the “father.” There is little reason to believe McDonaugh is arguing out of this concern, especially when she comes out and admits it’s all about power, power, power.

Refreshing candor.

It all goes to show, once again, that feminism does indeed labor to cure our ancient inequities in the balance of power between men and women — but only those inequities that are pointed in one particular direction. True “equality” is not, and never has been, the agenda. As Glenn Reynolds notices, “How very . . . retro of them.”

As long as I’m making up fancy new slogans, I have another clarion call to make. The word that appears in the title of this post, I hereby suggest be given a new official meaning. I suggest it be re-defined as “calling things what they really are.”

More specifically, “calling things what they are without a bunch of bullshit euphemisms.”

If we can agree on that, then I agree with the majority that she is manifestly unqualified.

“Qualified” has a new definition lately too, I notice. It has something to do with finding fancy, creative, innovative new ways to make up look like down, wet look like dry, malevolent look harmless and reasonable look silly.

Thank God for “unqualified” people like Sarah Palin.

And I’ve just about had it up to here with the “qualified” people. I’m afraid I’ll be hard pressed from here on out to see the Q-word the same way ever again. Day by day, I’m starting to see it as “Qualified…to offer me some pleasant alternatives to facing reality.”

Mental grown-ups don’t need people “qualified” like the leaders we have now. To a mature, capable adult, it will be an invigorating change of pace watching the corrupt bastards get called out as corrupt bastards.

And I’m very happy Palin is as “unqualified” as she is.