And they’re both local issues:

On health care, Massachusetts is in a unique position. It already has near-universal coverage, enacted in 2006 by Republican governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature, so a national measure designed to extend coverage to millions of currently-uncovered Americans means little to Bay State residents. But the Democrats’ national health care plan would force Massachusetts residents to pay higher taxes to expand coverage elsewhere in the country — with relatively little new benefits at home.

“In this state, we basically have universal health care,” says Joey Buceta, a Boston independent who attended a Scott Brown rally in the North End Friday. “Why should we pay more money for it? We already have it.”

It’s an opinion heard often in this race, and it unites conservative voters who don’t like the Democratic national health care plan because it is too intrusive, expensive and coercive with independent voters who don’t like the plan because it seems redundant for Massachusetts.
:
On the second issue, one-party government, Massachusetts is also in an unusual position. Often called the bluest of blue states, it is certainly dominated by Democrats. But over the years Massachusetts voters have shown an inclination to elect a Republican to the occasional state office.

That balance has usually meant a GOP governor; four of the last five Massachusetts governors have been Republicans. At the same time, the rest of the state government, as well as the state’s delegations in the House and Senate, have been dominated by Democrats. But even with that lopsided situation, the presence of a GOP governor gave voters a certain sense of balance.

Now, even that is gone. Not only are all other significant state offices occupied by Democrats, the governorship is in the hands of the very Democratic, very liberal, and very unpopular Deval Patrick.
:
“This country was built on debate,” says Diane Anderson, a Brown voter from Swampscott, Massachusetts. “And with the Democrats having 60 senators…just for that fact alone, if for no other reason, we should continue to have debate, and Brown will bring debate, being the 41st Republican.”

Here’s the challenge that confronts Republicans…hopefully: How to properly celebrate if Brown should win. Lots of realistic types are out there urging caution — he might very well lose. They’re right. But the wise Republican also thinks ahead to the other prospect, because careful planning is needed there. With defeat, the only thing that can really ambush them is an emotional letdown, and emotional letdowns become part of history very quickly.

Think ahead. Brown wins — then what? If these two pivotal factors that pushed Brown over the top are both local to the Bay state, how does that get spread all across the fruited plain, sea to shining sea, later in the year? This is the real challenge. Failing that, the attitude in November will be “well now that they’re being checked by the 41st vote in the Senate…democrats are alright. Hopenchange.” And we’ll be right back to letting the kids run the show.

The treachery in which the democrats have engaged for this last year, is the deceit ritually practiced by bad salesmen. They knew exactly what they wanted to sell, and when the dispassionate observer compares that product to what the public really needed and desired, it is charitable to call the resulting mathematical overlap “skimpy.” The overlap was not there at all. In the case of solving our rising public debt problem, it was oppositional — the prescription exacerbated the sickness.

Superpower nations in serious financial trouble don’t need womb-to-tomb government health plans. That’s just plain common sense.

And you go right on down the list of things Obama has promised and delivered…which means, the list of things He has promised. It’s all like this. Problem: The world doesn’t like us, supposedly. Solution: Try Kalidh Shiek Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. Okay, now how’s that work exactly?

That’s what needs to be pointed out, should things go okay tomorrow night. Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts for a reason, and the reason was that the democrat party has its agenda, and it bears precious little resemblance to the country’s. When the democrat party “loves America,” they love America the way a man loves his raven-haired wife he didn’t really want to marry in the first place, fantasizing about his buxom blond girlfriend in high school every time he makes love to her. They love the country the way a prospective buyer loves your car…when he’s planning to rip the stereo out of it, put it in something else, and send the balance of what’s left to the wrecking yard. They love our country for the vision of this otherworldly utopia they can make from it, after they’re done changing it, dismantling it. They love everything about it except its spirit, the spirit of 1776.

That’s why we just finished out our first year listening to them make as many speeches as they want to make, for as long as they want to make them — and the word “freedom” was never uttered a single time. Did I miss it somewhere?

That is the third issue that can be nationalized, and the time is right for it.

The Trek 7300 and I were here when I was about to grab my chest and keel over. That’s alright, it just shows I’m pushing the envelope. What’s not all right is that I was 16 miles into my ride. Sixteen…miles…this is beneath pathetic. This is nothing. It is some one-quarter of the distance I’ve gone before. What is this, Christmas “gift wrapping” that needs to be unloaded from my gut and derriere?

Well, perhaps I’d know better if I had more experience with slime tubes. This is the first time I wore one out; it’s lasted me pretty well. I think I snapped it up sometime in August, July maybe. I inflated it at 17 miles according to my bike computer, and at 22 miles I had to inflate it again. Okay, the tube’s gunnybags. And the slimy insides seem to have turned to a green liquid, which further implies impending retirement and decrepitude.

Someone sold me a 43mm tire to fit on a 35mm rim. Said it would work out fine. I can’t remember who this shyster is…but it is now a chiseled-in-granite article in my faltering encyclopedia of bike knowledge, that this is not fine. I just got done staring at the Kevlar bands that were visible to the naked eye…all the way around the rim, 360 degrees, where rubber meets metal. It was clear the fabric was not intended to be bent this way.

Herein lies the appeal. I am not, contrary to what some have said, a “lover of bicycle riding.” It fucking hurts. But the culture in which we live is becoming so anesthetized, that there aren’t that many opportunities left to live & die by your ability to perceive things, and think about what they mean. It’s a puzzle, filled with parts that work or do not work. One must sit in judgment of each of them, and it is not a kid’s game, one must do this competently if one wants to live long enough to reach home again.

The slime tube, I think, should be declared a success overall. You can neglect the thing, and if it’s more-or-less whole, it will keep the pressure. The tire on the other hand is a huge fail. Of course, I had spare tubes — of course! — but spare tubes don’t help you much out there if your tire is killing your tubes.

Another lesson learned is to keep the ear bud charged up. Kid called. Girlfriend called. Kid called. Girlfriend called. We-ell…I spent about six or seven hours out there, and covered a piddly little 25 miles. Felt like I should be checked into intensive care when it was done. I’ve covered between 60 and 70 before, and came out of it in much better shape. You know…still in the mode of “don’t anybody look to me to do anything for the rest of the day,” which is to be expected.

But not “OMDFG I gotta collapse and take a nap or else I’m gonna fucking die.”

I think my equipment needs an overhaul from stem to stern. I know it makes an enormous difference. And I’m not that fat. Yet. I don’t think.

Language is not safe for a general audience.

Hope that made your day. It made mine.

A grateful hat tip to The Conservatives Who Say F*ck.

Click pic to view. SIWOTI.

How’d we come up with this expression? The answer may surprise you.

Get your mind out of the gutter…

Yep, it happened because of global warming.

This is just as risible as anything Pat Robertson said. Both men have their pet cause all picked out, and any remarkable event is just going to provide one more excuse to talk about it. The affliction is the same in both cases. Both of them probably believe the drivel coming out of their mouths, down to the marrow of their bones.

Sometimes, what money can do to a man’s thinking process is not a pretty thing.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who adds:

The Massachusetts race shows fairly clearly that millions of dollars won’t rescue a Democrat from the outrage that the Obama agenda has provoked, and Reid’s continued presence has become an albatross around the neck of his son Rory, who wants to run for governor on the damaged brand of the Reid name. If ObamaCare runs aground, there isn’t much reason to linger to November to take his well-deserved beating at the polls.

…compiled by John Hawkins. All from the last decade. The top five are quite remarkable, packing a pronounced anti-military bent…but do check out the others. Each of them should get the responsible voter’s mental gears spinning, seriously pondering the question of who or what it is we have put in charge.

5) Through every Abu aib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform….We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?…[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary — oops sorry, volunteer — force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. — The Washington Post’s William Arkin

4) In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq. — Seymour Hersh

3) Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared. — Ted Rall

2) As to those in the World Trade Center…Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it. — Ward Churchill

1) The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.” — Michael Moore

The other question that comes up is, now that the inmates are running the asylum, exactly how much power should they have. Guess that’s up to Massachusetts to figure out.

Zombie reports from Pajamas Media:

Obama and the Democrats have not conceded the Massachussetts senate race, as some have suggested. Quite the opposite: This morning, Obama’s national Democratic activist group Organizing for America sent out a mass email to supporters saying they will fight tooth and nail to hang on to “Ted Kennedy’s seat”:

OFA is going all out in Massachusetts — we’re sending organizers, knocking on doors, and making phone calls by the tens of thousands to make sure that folks know how to participate.

Prediction: Scott Brown m-u-s-t win by at least a thousand votes; if the margin is any less than that, expect an Al Gore/Franken “recount” debacle several weeks or months long, followed by a victory for Coakley based on boxes and boxes of “found” votes.

Any election a Republican doesn’t win by at least a thousand votes, goes to the democrat. It’s a rule of Natural Law. They’re whiners and complainers, so they get the benefit of each & every doubt, because that’s just the way it works.

Urmila Matondkar, Bollywood legend. She’ll be turning 36 next month if my math is right. That’s twenty-seven years of acting success, with truckloads of wins & nominations. Three weeks ago, she lost out to Torrey DeVito.

Victoria Silvstedt, Swedish model, same age, Playmate of the Year 1997.

I think Urmila takes this one. I know with the pictures above that seems inconceivable. It’s a distance thing. If you zoom in on both of them, Urmila looks more enticing, Victoria less so. Not quite as wholesome.

That’s how I’m calling it tonight…

Ah-boom boom boom…another one bites the dust…

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) announced tonight that he will be retiring at the end of his term, citing the difficult political environment that he would have faced to win an eighth term in the House.

“2010 will be a robust election year during which great forces collide to set the direction for our country for another two years,” Snyder said in a statement.

“I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election.”

Blah blah blah pursue other opportunities spend more time with my family blah blah blah.

Snyder is the 11th House Democrat to announce his retirement. — and Republicans are aggressively contesting nine of those open seats. Griffin, a former U.S. Attorney, was mounting a vigorous campaign against Snyder and had already banked over $300,000 for his campaign, according to a GOP source.

You have to wonder what the democrat leadership says behind closed doors. There is 1933…there is 1965. And then there is 1993. There is, clearly, a decline. There were no “come-uppins” for 1933, although ’33 had to do with tearing apart the very fabric of what makes America. It may be argued that not quite so much the legislation passed in 1965, but the drive to marginalize the opposition that surrounded the activity — brought 1968. Lyndon Johnson’s narcissistic, psychotic personality brought 1968. Earl Warren letting all the murderers and rapists out of jail. “Knowing Where The Bodies Are Buried” politics.

And then 1993 brought 1994. But at least there wasn’t quite as much…well, maybe we should be charitable and call it “foresight.” And, a good democrat legislator was more-often-than-not proud, not ashamed, to climb on board the Clinton locomotive. It was where he belonged.

Today, the democrats need all the stars to line up before they can enjoy an instantaneous shot at pushing through whatever is “good for us.” They have to do it in the dark of night. Sneak around. Crouch and pounce. And it’s still a suicide run. Sixteen years ago, it was more like a gamble; I seem to recall there was just a vague feeling in the air that was only mildly suggestive of a “Republican Revolution,” one that was not perceptible (at least to me) until Election Day eve.

This is more like a slow-moving car wreck. Congressman Snyder joins Larry, Moe and Curly…and perhaps more as events continue to unfold.

Now, this is interesting:

On Twitter, Republicans are absolutely dominant, according to a recent study by a prominent Washington policy analyst. The study found that Republican politicians have far more followers and influence on the micro-blogging site than do their Democratic counterparts.

GOP prominence on online social networks heralds a markedly different trend from the technologically dominant Obama presidential campaign, which outmatched its opponents in virtually every area of online communications. But necessity is the mother of invention, and having been relegated to the minority both in popular opinion and electoral prominence, Republicans have had to turn to alternative ways to get their messages out.

According to Forbes, the report shows that

in the House of Representatives, Republicans are far more prolific, sending out 29,162 Tweets through early January, five times as many micro messages as their Democratic counterparts. In the Senate, Republicans’ 6,310 tweets outnumber Democrats’ by a far smaller 35% margin.

Because Republican Congressmen tweet more often, more people subscribe, or “follow,” their Twitter feeds. Thanks in part to lots of Twitter activity from groups like Top Conservatives On Twitter (TCOT), Republicans occupy 18 of the top 20 spots in terms of followers on Twitter. Republicans “follow” people back, too–or at least more than Democrats. The study says they subscribe to more people’s feeds by a factor of 10.

“Mother of invention” theory. I find this to be an intriguing explanation. It implies this isn’t quite so much a Republican groundswell as a democrat retreat. Like, as soon as they’re done beating that opposition they don’t have a whole lot to say to us.

True of both sides, I suppose.

Ah….finally some good news.

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead.

The watershed issue is, of course, that rancid carbuncle of a health care bill.

And the watershed issue of that, of course, is about the majority party completely marginalizing the opposition. Absolutely gelding them. If only for a moment…so they can pass this legislation a whole lot of people don’t want, and stick us with it. Forever.

That’s not Republican propaganda, it’s things the way they really are. And yet it doesn’t really sound “democratic” when it’s described that way, does it?

Update: The democrat party braces for impact:

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. “With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn’t be happening, but it is,” the Democrat says.

Yeah, take that.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The way democrats choose their contenders during their off-elections — that is to say, during presidential election seasons, when the White House is occupied by their opposition — ought to arouse deep, festering skepticism in any true American who is thinking of supporting them. Since JFK, although the fanfare and the hubbub has changed in cosmetic content, the one consistent desire/fulfillment that is given unswerving priority in the nomination contest is this: Something about the individual that makes it likely he can sell product contrary to the interests of the buyer.

Usually it’s “charisma.” They call it by a lot of other names too. “Moral authority” was something John Kerry stole from Maureen Dowd, or Dowd stole from Kerry. Bill Clinton was someone who would be a hell of a lot of fun as a drinking buddy if you were a guy, and if you were a gal, you could sleep with him and later on watch Hillary beat the shit out of him. One way or another, Bill could sell you some crap that wasn’t good for you. Carter? He was a decent guy who didn’t have anything to do with Watergate. So he, too, had a gimmick for plying us with crap. And did. For a little while.

To say suspicion is what this should arouse, is an understatement and a disservice to suspicion. If selling is a test of sound policy, then the sale should be just as likely when it’s sold by an every-man. You shouldn’t need some extra-special, once-in-a-lifetime silver-tongue-demon to get it sold. This is the philosophical basis of Thing I Know #271. So after a year of watching the crap get sold, it just makes sense to say “yeah I like your guy a whole lot because He’s really likable…and your product still sucks.” Now, if Massachusetts can figure this out, what’s everybody else’s excuse?

I shouldn’t make cracks about them, I guess. They’re about to decide if the Declaration of Independence still has meaning for the other forty-nine states…and besides, I’m here in California.

So a group is going to have a sit-down with Avatar on an IMAX screen. I’m part of the group, and it happens I’ve already seen it this past weekend. It is, indeed, a stunning visual treat, and I’ve been wrestling with this decision, but ultimately I’ve decided to sit it out. It would be purely a celebration of “Hey, we’re a group, we’re together, isn’t it great” and I’ve never added much to those…and while by itself this is an excellent product of entertainment, when placed alongside all the others it shows serious gaping defects in originality.

It’s not good enough to see twice. It certainly isn’t good enough to own.

This reviewer speaks for me:

“Avatar” is a cool film. Stunning visuals. Staggering technology. It’s a true breakthrough. That’s the James Cameron way.

But this is the first time Cameron has stopped there — the first time I’ve seen him fail to turn a good-looking film into a great one.

In order to do that, you still have to provide things like a strong story, memorable characters, sharp writing, emotional connection and humor.

Even one or two. Something other than this formulaic story we’ve seen before, populated by two-dimensional types — including token military villains and heroic tree-huggers — stretched out over 162 minutes just to show off Cameron’s tech prowess.

This is not how you spend $300 million. Didn’t anyone learn from the well-spent $30 million of “District 9”? Or, heck, the $27,000 of “Clerks”? Or the $140 million of “Star Trek” that showed how big-budget blockbusters can still be done right?

This is why I’m not a film critic. In all honesty, I would have to give Avatar a very high rating; to pan it would be a disservice to my readers, most of whom would decidedly enjoy it.

It didn’t work for me. And perhaps it’s just me; I’m story-sensitive. And Avatar — there’s no getting around it — has a poor story. The scenery, stunning as it is, is bogged down by this Peter Jackson-ish feel, which is the loss of timing. A scene justifies ten seconds, perhaps fifteen at the most. Instead, it is stretched out to several minutes because it is so awesome.

The reviewer mentions “Star Trek,” which I assume is this year’s release. I have a vivid memory of “The Motion Picture” some thirty years ago in which Kirk and Scott climbed into a shuttle and took an entirely unnecessary back-and-forth sweep across the starship’s exterior. When I held a stopwatch to this it came in at just over four minutes. This particular scene, needless to say, has aged rather badly.

But I suppose there are two types of people in the world, those who like a good story, and those who are more enamored of impressive effects. You’ll certainly enjoy Avatar if you identify more strongly with the second of those two. You really need to ask yourself a serious question about what exactly it is you are trying to get out of a film experience.

Cassy Fiano has made herself lately into the go-to spot for news on this campaign and all the weirdness in it. Many other bloggers have put more energy into it than I have, and to them, we owe our thanks for news like this.

Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday’s special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.

More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama’s health-care initiative and much of the Democrats’ 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.

Of course, it bears mentioning that this all relies on the use of the filibuster, which I’ve said repeatedly should be done-away-with permanently regardless of “who it helps or hurts.” Somewhere, sometime, I should jot down my latest thoughts about this in light of ObamaCare. Like Bob Dole said once, a filibuster is an awful process unless you’re trying to stop something. I must confess that this made a lot less sense to me at the time I was watching him say it, than it does right now.

This legislation is downright repulsive. If I’m ever going to flip on that position of mine, just once, now would be the time. I’ll certainly admit that much.

Boortz says all that needs to be said…not a single word needs changing, adding or dropping.

EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI

And a devastating one at that. High casualty numbers are expected. So, what happens next? America comes to the rescue, that’s what. American taxpayers will spend tens of millions of dollars helping the people of Haiti. The American military will soon be involved. The U.S. Southern Command was gearing up for a relief effort within hours after the earthquake. Why? Well .. because that’s just what we do, that’s why. Frankly I would rather see the money spent to help the innocent victims of an earthquake in a neighboring country than on enabling single mothers, drunks and druggies in this country. You see pictures of the children trapped in the rubble in Haiti and you can’t help but want the do something. Not only American government, but American relief agencies will be stepping forward. My wife is a Red Cross volunteer … If she wasn’t involved in another project she would have been packing her bags last night. Americans will step forward .. and the world knows it and expects it. Can’t help but wonder, though, what Hugo Chavez will be doing. How much aid will be coming from Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s socialist whack job? Token help, at best. And what about the United Nations? Care to guess whether or not the wonderful U.N.’s efforts will exceed that done by the people of America. Right. Didn’t think so. And the aftermath? Chavez and his ilk will continue to preach their anti-American rhetoric and Central American will continue to bask in its hatred of the United States. The United Nations will continue to work day-after-day on its anti-American agenda. Then … the next time a disaster strikes … we’ll be there, as usual.

This CNN link lists resources you can use to help the people of Haiti. I urge you to chose agencies that are identified with the people of America rather than agencies affiliated with the UN. We can help without strengthening those who revile us.

The comment international perception of The Ugly American is met with a challenge based on personal experience.

The first thing I ever heard about Americans was that they all carried guns. Then, when I came across people who’d had direct contact with this ferocious-sounding tribe, I learned that they were actually rather friendly. At university, friends who had traveled in the United States came back with more detailed stories, not just of the friendliness of Americans but also of their hospitality (which, in our quaint English way, was translated into something close to gullibility). When I finally got to America myself, I found that not only were the natives friendly and hospitable, they were also incredibly polite. No one tells you this about Americans, but once you notice it, it becomes one of their defining characteristics, especially when they’re abroad.

This is very strange, or at least it says something strange about the way that perception routinely conforms to the preconceptions it would appear to contradict. The archetypal American abroad is perceived as loud and crass even though actually existing American tourists are distinguished by the way they address bus drivers and bartenders as “sir” and are effusive in their thanks when any small service is rendered. We look on with some confusion at these encounters because, on the one hand, the Americans seem a bit country-bumpkinish, and, on the other, good manners are a form of sophistication.
:
[F]or a week or so after landing, a form of what might be called Ameristalgia makes us conscious of a rudeness in British life — a coarsening in the texture of daily life — that had hitherto seemed quite normal.

For example. I pay a considerable sum of money to play indoors at Islington Tennis Centre. Eighty percent of the time, the next people to play indicate that your time is up by unzipping their racket covers and strolling on court, without saying a word, without a smile, without acknowledging your existence except as an impediment. In America that would be not just unacceptable but inconceivable.

What is the relevance of this anecdotal trivia to a serious debate about the status of America in the world?

Most of my American friends were depressed and gloomy about the Bush years. Several said that if Bush were re-elected in 2004, they would leave the country. He was and they didn’t. The bottom line is that given the choice, Americans love it rather than leave it.

Hat tip to Karol, who notes that the letter-writer needs new friends.

“…chronicling the most tested presidential administration in history, one test at a time.” Along with the most worn-out lazy journalistic bromide.

I do love seeing overused, hackneyed cookie-cutter cliches receive a righteous, long-overdue smackdown now & then.

Grateful tip o’ the hat to IMAO, who has some fascinating observations about the statistical analysis of this worn-out word-trope. It seems to have fallen out of favor for the time being. Test time’s over?

Hat tip to T-Shirt Guy, who also sports this delightful cartoon that reminds me of a certain kerfufflage that was taking place between blogger friends Buck and Andy on these pages a few days back…

Heh! I’m going to be keeping this one awhile. Judging by what I’ve seen over the last five years, it should come in handy quite often.

Like Andy says: “[S]omeone always takes it there. Every time.”

We were not alone in skewering that silly David Brooks column. Gerard tortured it with a devastating fusillade, simply by linking to this piece over here. And the author there makes a brilliant point about the folks in charge right now, and their lack of ability and experience with the all-important hard-hat logic.

I think the complexifying financial and political environment of the last few decades has simply outstripped the capacity of our “educated classes”, our cognitive elite, to cope with it. The “wizards” in our financial system couldn’t reason effectively about derivatives risk and oversimplified their way into meltdown; regulators failed to foresee the consequences of requiring a quota of mortgage loans to insolvent minority customers; and politico-military strategists weaned on the relative simplicity of confronting nation-state adversaries thrashed pitifully when required to game against fuzzy coalitions of state and non-state actors.

Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argued tellingly in their 1994 book The Bell Curve that 20th-century American society had become a remarkably effective machine for spotting the cognitively gifted of all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds and tracking them into careers that would maximize their output. They pointed out, though, that the “educated class” produced by this machine was in danger of becoming self-separated from the mass of the population. I agree with both arguments, and I think David Brooks and Will Collier are pointing us at the results.

In retrospect, I think race- and class-blind meritocracy bought us about 60 years of tolerably good management by Western elites. The meritocracy developed as an adaptation to the escalating complexity of 20th-century life, but there was bound to be a point at which that adaptation would run out of steam. And I think we’ve reached it. The “educated classes” are adrift, lurching from blunder to blunder in a world that has out-complexified their ability to impose a unifying narrative on it, or even a small collection of rival but commensurable narratives. They’re in the exact position of old Soviet central planners, systemically locked into grinding out products nobody wants to buy.

The answer to the problem might surprise you. Keep reading…

Levels of environmental complexity that defeat planning are readily handled by complex adaptive systems. A CAS doesn’t try to plan against the future; instead, the agents in it try lots of adaptive strategies and the successful ones propagate. This is true whether the CAS we’re speaking of is a human immune system, a free market, or an ecology.

So as you go down the list of our confounding problems, you see each one has not just one, but two obvious solutions: A practical, reactive solution and a theoretical, proactive one. Our tendency has been to try out the theoretical, proactive solution first…when it doesn’t work, we try it again. We refuse to adapt. Ahmed the terrorist m-u-s-t not be “tortured” in any way, employers cannot ever be restored to the liberty to hire & fire as they see fit. Our fancy theories, many of which have been provided ample opportunities to bear fruit across the decades — and never once have — keep getting in the way.

Enter the complex adaptive system:

CAS hardening of the financial system is…[easy]. Almost trivial, actually. About all it requires is that we re-stigmatize the carrying of debt at more than a very small proportion of assets. By anybody. With that pressure, there would tend to be enough reserve at all levels of the financial system that it would avoid cascade failures in response to unpredictable shocks.

Cycling back to terrorism, the elite planner’s response to threats like underwear bombs is to build elaborate but increasingly brittle security systems in which airline passengers are involved only as victims. The CAS response would be to arm the passengers, concentrate on fielding bomb-sniffers so cheap that hundreds of thousands of civilians can carry one, and pay bounties on dead terrorists.

At this point I must veer off into two honorable mentions for the Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award. Pardon the topic drift, but there have been so many candidates for Best Sentence this week, they can’t all go walking away with one…those invisible gold trophies are expensive!

But these two have to be captured in the scroll before they drift on into oblivion. And the subjects are somewhat Similar. Similar enough.

“We’ve all experienced periods of economic hardship that far from ‘depressing’ us in perpetuity, have made us more wise as to how to succeed.”

And…

“The United States does not have a security system; it has a system for bothering people.”

Hat tip for that last one, to Proof Positive.

Hat tip to Kathy Schaidle, via Kate at Small Dead Animals.

I don’t have all the facts here, but they’re acting stupidly.

And no, I’m not going to hold a beer summit for these jackholes.

UrbanGrounds:

A new study that is sure to make Liberal and anti-death penalty zealots’ heads explode (which is, obviously, a good thing) showing that the death penalty in Texas might actually work as a deterrent:

HUNTSVILLE — As many as 60 people may be alive today in Texas because two dozen convicted killers were executed last year in the nation’s most active capital punishment state, according to a study of death penalty deterrence by researchers from Sam Houston State University and Duke University.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes a monthly decline of between 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

“Evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in the numbers of homicides in Texas in the month of or after executions,” the study published in a recent issue of Criminology, a journal of the American Society of Criminology, said.

Whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent to future murderers or not is not my chief concern about the death penalty.

For me, the greatest argument in favor of carrying out death sentences is about justice. It’s acknowledging that some crimes are so horrific and the people who commit them are so evil, that the only suitable punishment is death.

Stossel edifies.

Even though [Ayn] Rand published “Atlas” in 1957, her descriptions of intrusive and bloated government read like today’s news. The “Preservation of Livelihood Law” and “Equalization of Opportunity Law” could be Nancy Pelosi’s or Harry Reid’s work.
:
The novel’s chief villain is Wesley Mouch, a bureaucrat who cripples the economy with endless regulations. This sounds familiar. Reason magazine reports that “as he looks around Washington these days,” Rep. Paul Ryan “can’t help but think he’s seeing a lot of Wesley Mouch”.

Mr. Miller’s comments, toward the end, speak for themselves. And liberals, woman-haters, conservative “intellectuals” et al, have heart pal(in)pitations about it.

Hat tip to Texas4Palin.

They have many reasons for hating her so much. And there are other things to notice about them as well. However, hesitant as I may be to condemn them…since I have friends, co-workers, acquaintances I consider to be brainy, et cetera, who count themselves proudly among the Palin bashers…

…the actual point is intellectually vacuous. That Sarah Palin is some kind of a lightweight or a dimbulb. They all set out confidently, ready to “participate in debate,” really lay the smack down on her. But in the end, they can make it convincing only by hurriedly changing the subject to “I wonder if you can help me with a problem I’m having with my computer” or “So have you seen that new Avatar movie?”

The more people get to know her, the more they like her.

And the more people get to know Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson…the more they like her.

Brooks places the movement under his microscope.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.
:
Personally, I’m not a fan of this movement. But I can certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade. [emphasis mine]

I place him under mine:

I have had conversations with Tea Party people, and I have also had conversations with those who are antitheses of Tea Party people. The former tend to present pretty solid arguments. They present arguments that are complete. The latter, like Brooks who is “not a fan,” do not. Their arguments are full of contradictions, rough edges, passion elevated above logic. The most notable problem with what they say, is the apparent offering that the Vice Presidency demands all kinds of sophistication when Sarah Palin is being considered for it but suddenly is a typical political-hack job that doesn’t demand anything when Joe Biden is actually in it.

That is the most glaring problem. There are many others.

They seem to be a lot more concerned with what kind of friends they’re making by thinking a certain thing, than with whether the certain-thing makes any sense.

I emphasized Brooks’ statements to illuminate the most simple of the many problems with the arguments I’ve seen him present over the past few months & years. The message of the Tea Party is “deeply rooted in American history” — and he’s not a fan of it? What’s that about, exactly? Isn’t that worth at least explaining? He doesn’t seem to think so; evidently his readers are just supposed to “get it.”

Get what, I wonder?

Dorgan…

“Although I still have a passion for public service and enjoy my work in the Senate, I have other interests and I have other things I would like to pursue outside of public life. I have written two books and have an invitation from a publisher to write two more books. I would like to do some teaching and would also like to work on energy policy in the private sector.

“So, over this holiday season, I have come to the conclusion, with the support of my family, that I will not be seeking another term in the U.S. Senate in 2010. It is a hard decision to make after thirty years in the Congress, but I believe it is the right time for me to pursue these other interests.”

Ritter…

A source tells Political Wire that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) is ending his re-election campaign. A fundraiser scheduled for tonight was canceled and all campaign staff was sent home in the middle of the day.

The decision does not appear to be fundraising related which has reportedly gone better than expected.

Dodd…

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.

Dodd’s retirement comes after months of speculation about his political future, and amid faltering polling numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term.

Rats fleeing a sinking ship. Wow, that democrat party is really an unstoppable juggernaut, isn’t it? Really the wave of the future.

Hugh Hewitt rattles off the bullet points. A successful midterm campaign would capture each one of them, and make the best use of all. That’s not asking too much is it?

First, the government takeover of private life is deeply alarming. The massive thrusts of Washington, D.C. into the control of health care, the car business, the banks generally and the home loan industry specifically — all these are obvious and disquietingly huge intrusions of the federal government’s presence into private life.

Americans hate to be pushed around, especially by the federal government. The president’s plans for even more power grabs via the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior using “global warming” as an excuse haven’t yet touched most Americans, but they are out in the open and coming. Only a rebalancing of power in D.C. will forestall further metastasis of government.

A second reason to rebalance the House and Senate by voting for the GOP is the simple fact that must be repeated again and again: Lower taxes equal job growth. Whatever minor improvement in the unemployment numbers that emerges in 2010 — if any — will be threatened by the looming lapse of the Bush tax cuts in 2011 unless Congress obliges the president to abandon his “spread the wealth” gospel that views every tax increase as a form of economic justice, regardless of the cost in real jobs.
:
The endless blaming of George W. Bush has also become an obvious dodge of responsibility, a childish complaint that satisfies only the hard Left. The president has played that card so often and in so many circumstances that the mention of Obama’s predecessor by any senior administration official has become a laugh line or a cue in a drinking game.

Big Government:

From the time he launched his campaign for president three years ago, Barack Obama had to consider how he would react to the first serious act of terrorism during the campaign, or if he won, on his watch. His fellow Democrats had been thinking about the moment even longer – since the September day in 2001 when attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon defined George W. Bush’s presidency and gave Republicans a decisive advantage on a defining political issue.

And yet the White House’s response to last week’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit could rank as one of the low points of the new president’s first year. Over the course of five days, Obama’s Obama’ reaction ranged from low-keyed to reassuring to, finally, a vow to find out what went wrong. The episode was a baffling, unforced error in presidential symbolism, hardly a small part of the presidency, and the moment at which yet another of the old political maxims that Obama had sought to transcend – the Democrats’ vulnerability on national security – reasserted itself.

Hat tip to Jawa Report.

It’s an even bigger weakness when you stop to consider what it will take to turn it around: The democrat method of fighting terror, has to succeed in a situation in which it can be asserted, in fact it is undeniable, that the opponents methods would have manifestly failed.

Which means — we have to actually see certain disaster averted because some Great Compromiser had the courage to sit down and Talk Out Our Differences With Our Enemies. The “Picard Maneuver” has to actually work in practice, not just continue to drift around as a theory among those who live out pathetic lives to avoid confrontation.

In other words — it’s not changing. And if anyone is tasked with the job of changing it, they should ask themselves who they pissed off to get that job.