I thought when the Government urinated all over the First Amendment, it required an Act of Congress. Silly me.

The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
:
The FTC said its commissioners voted, 4-0, to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.

The rules take effect Dec. 1.
:
Decisions about violations will be made on a case-by-case basis, but if someone receives cash or an in-kind payment to review a product, it’s considered an endorsement.

Yet another fascinating discussion sprouts underneath Cassy’s post about folks who are about her age (b. 1984), and her disappointment in them. I was particularly interested in the comment from Mat:

Actually Cassy,

Most of the Millenials are morons and they’re pretty much indefensible. Yes there are a few here and there like yourself who think for themselves, but from where I’m sitting at my university job, I’m just seeing a bunch of twits living in some kind of friggin’ dreamland. Cripes, one of my student workers told me the other day that he wasn’t worried about the unemployment because there would be plenty of “guvmint programs” he can work for when he graduated. Yeah kid, good luck with that one. Another one said she wouldn’t mind paying higher taxes, “if it would help me and other people out.” Yeah kid, try making that statement when you’re losing 35-40% of your check to taxes while paying for a car, house and other things. I’m not making this crap up (I sincerely wish I was).

Also bear in mind that the Millenials are the first generation to get indoctrinated by leftist ideals from the cradle (even the GenXers didn’t have that). It could easily swing to the point where the Millenials, instead of going more conservative, will just throw a temper tantrum and cry out for more “guvmint programs” to help them out. Personally, I think the latter will happen.

Someone please tell me he’s wrong.

And speaking of fascinating discussions. More than a week’s worth of dust has grown on this one, but I had to pause and take note of what happened when Dr. Helen witnessed the colorful interaction between bagger-girl and grocery cashier. I’ll save you some time — no, there was no conversation taking place about men or pigs. It was just something to chirp out spontaneously, kind of a “You Go, Girlfriend!” moment between bored co-workers…in front of customers. It would seem words have been had with them from management, thanks to Dr. H’s unwillingness to let things lie.

Daphne told me in an off-line she’s in a dark place the last few weeks, and one can see from her pages lately she’s made no secret of it. But what a fascinating discussion takes place as a result.

Weather Sealed, via Free Market Fairy Tales, via Maggie’s Farm.

Look what Santa-in-a-brown-suit dumped on my doorstep. For some reason there were two copies of it instead of just one…I’ll have to double-check that Amazon order and see what’s up.

Once again, reality has dealt liberal thought one of the harshest of blows; and liberal thought saves some face by conjuring up a translucent image, partially based on fact but partially photoshopped, of an angry, slobbering, vitriolic, emotionally unsettled hardcore “right wing” taking pleasure and pain from all the wrong things. In this case, people like me are taking “glee” in President Obama’s defeat in trying to bring the Olympic games to the City of Chicago.

The plaintive cry wails forth once again: What is wrong with us?

Let me put it in terms so simple it’ll be impossible to misunderstand, sparky.

What I am feeling is not “glee.” What I am feeling is roughly analogous to the parent who, after years of watching his child leap out into the street while obviously not looking at what’s comin’, discovers the child was finally hit by a car. But harmlessly. Had the absolute freakin’ bejeezus scared out of him. Piping hot tears running down his face and dripping down his chin.

Nothing amiss except a few token scrapes on the knees and hands where he landed. No broken bones. No bruises at all. And, unfortunately, an absolutely mortified driver who’ll never forget the lesson either…but perhaps that is a lesson well-learned too.

Watching people vote for Barack Obama is exactly the same feeling as watching one’s own child graduate past the age where he should’ve learned to watch for cars, and realizing the lesson won’t come until some impressive disaster takes place. This is the feeling I had a year ago that you didn’t have, chuckles. It is a sickening, ominous, foreboding, nauseating feeling. It is a feeling of “some massive failure is inevitable, what it is I do not know.”

I’ve gone through both those experiences. The feeling is almost exactly the same in both cases.

Well, the disaster has taken place. As I pointed out at Rick’s place, quoting three smart men:

“Those who value security over liberty, deserve neither.” — Ben Franklin

“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana

“Those who sacrifice everything for popularity, end up with nothing.” — Morgan K. Freeberg

This was as inconsequential a decision as a decision can possibly get. Thank God. Yeah that’s my feeling: Gratitude to the cosmic kismet that decides such things. Your inevitable lesson was a cheap one.

Look to your momma to kiss your little scratches, and hug you and make you feel better.

This daddy is taking the classic daddy approach: Did you learn anything? Did you learn that when you sacrifice everything for popularity you end up with nothing? If so, then I have reason to feel this gratitude. If not, then all that happened was an illustration…not a redemption. I am hoping for the best and fearing the worst.

Because you, like the child — let us face it, shall we? — ignored lots of warnings about looking both ways before crossing the street. Lots. Years and years of ’em. You may not be altogether stupid, but it’s been proven to me whether I’m receptive to it or not, that you can be impressively dense. So first things first. Tell me what you learned. I have a great deal more curiosity about this next piece, than a truly “gleeful” man would.

When I first met my gal, I was so impressed with her inventive, practical mind and her fearlessness in trying new things that I rewarded her with a vicious browbeating about reading Atlas Shrugged until she eventually caved in. The very next Valentine’s day I made a bracelet out of Rearden Metal and sent it to her. She still has it, I think…although she’s lost the printed-out Atlas Shrugged excerpt that went with it. I know this because she’s asked me to reprint it many a time, and unfortunately I lost the Microsoft Word document I made for it. The bracelet remains. A little five dollar trinket with baked-on green food color…suitable for mounting on a wall, but not for wearing lest the wearer be left scrubbing away that evening on a green-shaded wrist. It is a symbol of all the positive things we see in each other, or some of those things, anyway.

Readiness, willingness and ability to put one’s efforts — and name — behind plans that are calculated to work. As opposed to strongly resemble, to the point of being indistinguishable from, some other milquetoast “normal” plan from history that might or might not have worked.

Fellow Sarah Palin blogger Karen Allen, over at Palination.com, is currently on vacation…but still courageously blogging away. And she sees a similar parallel between Alaska’s former governor, and SpongeBob ice cream.

And therein lies a message for us all, I think. How many times do we catch ourselves playing it safe…and ending up with nothing, not even the prize we were trying so hard to keep safe. Sometimes a little bit of “recklessness” is the only way to victory.

Thing I Know #287. To live a life devoid of recklessness, is the most reckless thing any thinking human can do.

Just heard a recording of David Letterman’s speech. This is going to be a short note that ties in to Memo For File 98, which in turn observes that — while Conservatives would much rather have Sarah Palin watch their kids over the weekend than the typical hard-left liberal political superstar, liberals, also, would strongly prefer Sarah Palin watch their kids rather than the typical hard-left liberal political superstar. In other words, when we disagree about whether Palin is more qualified than, say, Obama; we aren’t disagreeing quite so much about who has what qualities, but rather about what qualities are germane to discharging the “real” responsibilities involved in the Oval Office.

In other words, on the left side the mindset is…

Hockey Mom in the White House! What an abomination. Better stick a Chicago politician in there who can hide things.

There exists, today — and it was manifested in Letterman’s audience as he spoke about his ordeal — a rather striking and unexplored antipathy toward decency. It’s as if it’s become a common phobia that has swelled up to engulf suburbia, that we’re all in imminent danger of being blackmailed with our various shenanigans. And we should fret over this so much that we should find some slime to discharge the duties in our highest public offices, since that’s the only way we can be protected from extortion by anyone cleaner than we are.

It would do my heart good to learn anyone has the attention span needed to engage in such hijinks. Dirty laundry of the commoner? People like me? I don’t deny it’s there; but knowing what’s in it, to me it looks more like a cure for insomnia than anything.

Seriously though, this is not a good thing. I realize people are out there saying Palin is an incompetent boob, but that’s just liberal propaganda. And it seems to have barely mustered up the sense of decency to fall into a retreat formation this year…purely out of necessity. Don’t see a lot of people running around right about now saying “Thank God we kept that tundra dimbulb out of there and we have responsible wise people running the show” or anything like that.

But this is not a good thing. We seem to be in search of unclean people to make our weighty decisions…so that we can own them before they can own us. I’d applaud it if it were a resurrection of the Spirit of 1776, the notion that government should fear people and not the other way ’round.

But this hooting and hollering during Letterman’s speech, didn’t sound to me very much like that.

Byron York, writing in Washington Examiner…

At a Sept. 23 committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken, the newest member of the committee, challenged the constitutionality of such wiretaps, and in the process left an Obama Justice Department official — who supports the law — muttering in frustration.

That official, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, tried to explain to Franken that the law allows, and the courts have held, that investigators can wiretap a suspect based on a specific description of that suspect’s activities, even if investigators don’t know his name.

Franken, who pointed out that he is not a lawyer, was unimpressed. “That’s what brings me to this,” he said, pulling a copy of the Constitution from his coat pocket. He read aloud the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Is the Patriot Act’s roving wiretap provision consistent with the Constitution? Franken asked.

“I do think it is,” Kris answered, “and I kind of want to defer to that other, third branch of government. The courts, in looking at — ”

“I know what they are,” Franken joked, as the audience laughed.

Kris seemed taken aback. “This is surreal,” he said under his breath.

Yes it is.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey put together an excellent summation of what exactly is on the chopping block:

Up for renewal this year is a provision that permits investigators to maintain surveillance of sophisticated terrorists who change cell phones frequently to evade detection. This kind of surveillance is known as “roving wiretaps.” Also up for renewal are authorizations to seek court orders to examine business records in national security investigations, and to conduct national security investigations even when investigators cannot prove a particular target is connected to a particular terrorist organization or foreign power—known as “lone wolf” authority.

Roving wiretaps have been used for decades by law enforcement in routine narcotics cases. They reportedly were used to help thwart a plot earlier this year to blow up synagogues in Riverdale, N.Y. Business records, including bank and telephone records, can provide important leads early in a national security investigation, and they have been used to obtain evidence in numerous cases.

The value of lone wolf authority is best demonstrated by its absence in the summer of 2001. That’s when FBI agents might have obtained a warrant to search the computer of Zacharias Moussaoui, often referred to as the “20th hijacker,” before the 9/11 attacks — although there was no proof at the time of his arrest on an immigration violation that he was acting for a terrorist organization. But a later search of his computer revealed just that.

Rather than simply renew these vital provisions, which expire at the end of this year, some congressional Democrats want to impose requirements that would diminish their effectiveness, or add burdens to existing authorizations that would retard rather than advance our ability to gather intelligence.

One bill would require the government to prove that the business records it seeks by court order pertain to an agent of a foreign power before investigators have seen those records. The current standard requires only that the records in question do not involve a person in the United States, or that they do relate to an investigation undertaken to protect the country against international terrorism or spying.

The section of the Patriot Act that confers the authority on investigators to seek these records was amended in 2006 to add civil liberties protections when sensitive personal information about a person in the U.S. is gathered. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly with support that included then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The same proposed legislation would make it harder to obtain a real-time record of incoming and outgoing calls—known as a pen register—in national security cases. It does so by requiring that the government prove that the information sought in this record relates to a foreign power. Currently, the government can obtain a court order by certifying that the information sought either is foreign-intelligence information or relates to an investigation to protect against foreign terrorism or spying.

While the changes may sound benign, they turn the concept of an investigation on its head, requiring the government to submit proof at the outset of an investigation while facts are still being sought. In any event, a pen register shows only who called whom and nothing about the content of the call, and thus raises none of the privacy concerns that are at stake when a full-fledged wiretap is at issue. Moreover, the underlying information in a pen register is not private because telephone companies routinely have it.

I note that people in Franken’s camp are not nearly so cavalier about dismissing court decisions they find more beneficial to their causes. That’s true especially when the “Government versus People” balance of power spins around 180 degrees relative to that cause. For example, there is the Second Amendment; prior to the DC versus Heller decision, the “standard,” such as it was, was a filmy, muddled thing to be found in the 1939 US v. Miller decision, which liberals recited with glee. Among other things, it held (erroneously) that The People did not enjoy a right to bear shotguns since shotguns were not used for military purposes. And let us not forget Roe v. Wade. Would Al Franken so casually dismiss such casework for some chuckles from the spectator gallery?

This is the real weakness of the liberal argument, and I would hope the Republicans have the sensibility to hammer away at it day and night: This notion that government is to be trusted completely some of the time, and not to be trusted at all at other times. It’s like a special strain of extremism that doesn’t even have its guts filled in. It just says to let the chips fall where they may. It’s just a big bunch of “alwayses” and “nevers” looking for something to which to affix themselves.

Meanwhile, one of the very few laws that authorize the federal government to do what it is supposed to do with — get ready liberals, I’m about to get judgmental and non-values-neutral here — this terrorist scum, is set to be jettisoned. And it happens so soon after the health care defeat.

It’s as if the message is “Well fine, you won’t help us to get the government to do what it isn’t supposed to be doing, we’re going to stop it from doing what it should be doing.”

Holly Weber, contender in last week’s contest, is challenged by Famke Janssen‘s co-star in Goldeneye, Izabella Scorupco:

It’s a little bit of an unfair contest since I’ve not seen Holly Weber act in anything.

But Izabella’s performance was amazing, so I’m gonna give it to her, although both ladies are feast for the eyes.

Blogger friend Rick links an intriguing piece at The American Thinker. It doesn’t take anything special to talk about pure evil, or about our President, but it takes extraordinary balls to connect the two of them together. Oooh…

Blogger friend Buck brought to our attention a year ago this thoughtful piece from Neptunus Lex about Ms. Palin — which is surprising, if you’ve been following Buck’s none-too-complimentary attitudes toward Her Tundra-ness.

Just got done conducting a failed search in my own archives, in which I made the point about liberal superstars throughout the ages…and trust. To bottom-line it: If you’re a conservative, you’d much rather have Sarah Palin watching your kids on the weekend than Barack Obama. And if you’re a liberal…you, too, would much rather have Sarah Palin watching your kids on the weekend than Barack Obama. Or John Kerry. Or John Kennedy. Or Ted Kennedy. Or either one of the Clintons. Or Joe Biden. Or…or…or. We don’t really disagree on which of these people are more reliable, truthful and trustworthy; we disagree on which qualities are more relevant to this thing we call “leadership.” It takes a certain testicular fortitude to search for the same attributes in your leaders as what you are trying to cultivate in your children. Some of us have it and some of us don’t.

The “There’s Just Something About Him!!” savior of the left-wing, across the generations, possesses this definite and constant set of personal aptitudes and strengths. They are not the things any of us are trying to cultivate in our children. We would not be happy seeing these things take root there. These have something to do with the power to present situations as the opposite of what they really are, and to get away with it. To sell ice cubes to the idiomatic eskimos. Character and integrity don’t seem to have an awful lot to do with it, in fact, they see to have an antagonistic relationship from what is truly being sought. In the leaders.

I guess it all comes down to this supposition we have formed that it’s a bipartisan desire to look for a “transparent” government. This seems, to me, a mistake. We don’t all want that. About half of us have defined competent leadership has the readiness, willingness and ability to keep government opaque. To marshall abilities not a single one among us would want to see developing in our own children. To present a situation as the opposite of what it really is, and get away with it.

I know an anecdote doth not a trend make, but this is still interesting.

From 1999 to 2007, Medicare denied access in a third of the treatments it evaluated through its coverage process, taking an average of eight months to complete its reviews. When coverage was granted, in 85% of cases the treatments were restricted, usually to patients with more advanced illnesses.

Medicare is lately increasing its use of the national coverage process and is becoming more tightfisted. Since 2008, according to my review of Medicare data, it conditioned access in 29% of its reviews and denied new or expanded coverage in fully 53% of cases.

Those who say it couldn’t happen with our brand new health care legislation being considered right now, might respond with some stories about medical care run by nations’ governments that ended up not being rationed. That’s what the debate is supposed to be all about, right?

Chirp…chirp…chirp…

The wires are burning up with news that Sarah Palin’s co-author is “extremely conservative.”

You know what? I don’t even know what that phrase means anymore.

I’m pretty sure I know what someone means when they call themselves or someone else “extremely liberal.” It means they think capitalism is evil and the government should run everything…right before it is dismantled and replaced with a communist empire. And as the necessary changes are made there are going to be sweet little whispers that it’ll all be done to “save the environment.”

Extremely conservative? Does anyone know what kind of meaning to make of that anymore? It means someone doesn’t have a problem if someone else eats meat or legally buys a gun?

BroKen, over at Rick’s place, heard an interesting and colorful phrase.

I think he’s learned about Yin and Yang, the idea that some among us perceive the world around us through facts and logic, and others among us perceive the world around us by means of social interaction with yet others. Which leaves us conflicted with each other, because it leaves some of us abhorring ambiguity, and others of us craving it.

He’s just come in contact with the world of those who crave it.

A few days ago I was watching a diplomat (I think she was retired) discuss the issues facing those seeking peace in the Middle East and she used a fascinating term. She said that agreements reached between the parties would need some “creative ambiguity.”

Do you see what that means? Since the parties have diametrically opposed goals, the only way to get them to sign a piece of paper is if each side thinks the paper says something different.

As Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” Not everybody is willing to sign on to that one.

…and may God have mercy on her soul.

My comments at Gerard’s site speak for themselves. This shouldn’t be a conservative/liberal thing, and yet it is quickly becoming one. Because of what’s being defended, and the methods used.

Had another thought though:

A while back, Republican Senator Larry Craig pled guilty to trolling for sex in a mens’ bathroom in a Minneapolis airport. Conservatives came out in defense and liberals came out fightin’. I’m reasonably sure I heard all the arguments on both sides…not that this means very much. You’d have to have been living on Mars to miss anything.

To the best I can recall, the conservatives all made note of the idea that the law was absurd…but not a single one of them made too much of it. Going by their words, they all would have gone along with the suggestion — if indeed he was guilty, and if indeed whatever punishment’s on the table would also be applied to you or me in the same set of circumstances…well then, the conversation’s over. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.

Whoopi acts like no matter how many layers you peel off the onion, there’s always some other infinitesimal, crucial distinction to be made that changes everything. Perhaps she’s convinced herself this is the case. But look at all that time that was given to her to define why exactly this wasn’t “rape-rape,” and her teeny brain couldn’t come up with a single salient point. She just threw out a big fact-salad to confuse people, and when it was all over, nothing had changed. Nothing had been argued. She just went through the motions.

Is she laying down some protocol of justice to be applied to the esteemed director, that would also apply to everyone else? Heh. The question is too ludicrous to even be asked.

I quote myself, once again.

7. Find Out What People Are Missing

Once you’ve demonstrated a connection between your concerns and the concerns of your audience, you’ll find people are quite forgiving when confronted by disconnected, trashy logic. So don’t be afraid to turn your dumb idea into a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. Dumb ideas get sold that way pretty much all the time.

Once again: What you are doing is not putting together a meritorious argument; instead, what you’re doing is dispelling the requirement for you to put together a meritorious argument. It would be highly difficult to assemble a meritorious argument that a weak economy will recover through an ambitious “stimulus” program financed through record-setting debt and draconian tax increases against the most productive citizens. Or that the unemployment rate will go down when the minimum wage goes up. Or that when we activate a “disarmament” treaty with a belligerent foreign power, things will work out okay because there’s just no way our former enemy would stockpile some secret weapons and fail to tell us about them.

None of those things make any sense, but they’ve been sold over and over again, quite successfully, through a suggestion that the plan is substantially conducive to the declared goal. Once that suggestion is planted, people don’t check it out to see if it makes sense. They think they did, but they didn’t.

That’s Item #7 from the list of ways To Motivate Large Numbers of People To Do a Dumb Thing, Without Anyone Associating the Dumb Thing With Your Name Later On.

And perhaps I should make a mental note to begin writing about the flawed human condition with just a little bit more optimism. Sometime in the future. If recent events constitute any indication of what will continue to happen indefinitely…

President Barack Obama made a “public option” his centerpiece not because it’s the answer to what’s broken in the U.S. system, but because it’s a halfway house to a single-payer setup that liberal Democrats have always wanted. Team Obama also knew the public is concerned about rising costs, so they jammed together a hooey-filled argument that the public option was somehow the solution to rising costs.

The public is not as dumb as it’s made out to be, and Mr. Obama’s public option died a bipartisan death yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee.

I don’t entirely share Mr. Jenkins’ optimism; I think the public is, generally, just as dumb as it’s made out to be. The public smartens up at breakneck speed when pain is coming. Personalized, individualized, “Yeah I Mean You” pain…not some other guy’s pain. We’re ready to indulge in all kinds of whacky theories about how much water may or may not be in the pool, when it’s the other fellow diving in; factual statements about the volume of water, and gravity, are just too dry and time-consuming for us, messing up our precious schedule of downloading tunes to our iPod-whatever. And we don’t have any patience for anybody else paying attention to such boring stuff either.

Once our own feet are on the diving board our interests suddenly change.

That’s why “The Man Who Can Sell Anything” suddenly met His match. He tried to sell us something that was bound to mess things up, and soon. Crafty as He is, I doubt like the dickens Mr. Juice ever saw it coming. I really doubt it. Don’t ever forget — this is the guy who argues with dictionaries.

Go for it, Tinseltown. Show us exactly what you think is moral, and what you think is not (via Big Hollywood, via Memeorandum). And when you’re done showing us your oh so refined sensibilities, I think the word needs to get out, to be broadcast far and wide. The whole world should know exactly what makes you tick.

Best quote from the story by far:

“[A]t a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you’d hope that LA County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor [sic] by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime…”

If anyone wants to argue with me about this in the comments below, know this: I am an admirer of Polanski’s work. I think he’s incredibly talented. If you agree, then we have no quarrel here.

Your beef with me, therefore, comes down to a question of creativity entitling certain elite, talented individuals to special sunset provisions not enjoyed by others. Certain talented convicted individuals, who have been convicted of horrid, damaging, hurtful crimes.

Proceed to make your case.

You know what the difference is between invading countries and molesting young girls? We don’t have any young girls who need molesting.

Headline speaks for itself. But the article is worth reading too. Confusing “love” with respect is a mistake that’s been dangerous since the beginning of the human race.

They love Him like a pit bull loves a bloody rag.

Here’s my worry about Obama. Lots of people love him and he is indeed very lovable. But I wonder if anyone at all, anywhere in the world, really fears him.

Ever stop to think what a different world we’d have if democrats “fought” terrorists the way they fight conservatives?

I just have to include the video making the rounds…stop-motion of our “loved” President, and His unchanging, creepy smile.

National Review Online, via Ace of Spades, with a tip of the hat to I Think Therefore I Err.

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
:
Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist…wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Ay-yup…and then it, uh, gets weird.

Is that hope and change working out well for you there, junior? Something about We Are The Change We’ve Been Waiting For?

The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 52.2 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. — meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

The number represents the flip-side to the Labor Dept.’s report that the employment rate of 16-to-24 year olds has eroded to 47.83 percent — the lowest ratio of working young Americans in that age group, including all but those in the military, since WWII.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults — aged 16 to 24, excluding students — getting a job and moving out of their parents’ houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession — in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

Is it unfair, in any way, for me to bottom-line our current plan this way:

We are engaged in a process of using taxes and regulations to make every single business move — that is, every move that would expand a business — as expensive as it could possibly be. That’s every single decision. Every last one.

As a direct result of this, we shall be putting this thing we call “business” in such a state that it’ll do something called “recover” and start humming right along.

Is that an unfair summation? Is it an incomplete one? Did I miss anything? If not…someone please walk me through the steps. Now that we’re in midstream, what exactly are we supposed to be looking for here.

Remember, this is the generation that’s going to be saddled with the $10 trillion in debt. Hope won and fear lost?

It’s an interesting thing about democrats when one observes them across the election cycles: Whereas Republicans and Libertarians more-or-less have their minds made up about whether or not government is to be trusted, and how much, the democrat teeters back and forth on the matter depending on what letter happens to be behind the President’s name.

You’re a terrible person if you aren’t helping them protest and stop just short of advocating a complete overthrow of the government — then all of a sudden you’re a terrible person if you’re not entrusting your most cherished life-and-death decisions to the whim of the lowliest bureaucrat who can read and write.

Which makes it tough to go through the motions of wondering how the mainstream press votes…as if we still had reason to wonder. The interest in photographing caskets returning from the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operation, seems to have just…gone…somewhere…

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 — more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

I’m beginning to understand now what people meant last year when they said Barack Obama has what it takes to unite us. They must not have meant by that there will be less bickering; the events of this summer have shot that full o’ holes. Their meaning must have had to do with conflict between the government and the press that is supposed to be holding it accountable. Like the press was working way too hard to show us what we had a right to see, and they were getting tired of it, so please put Obama in charge so they wouldn’t be working at it quite so hard.

I can’t help but wonder how many PATRIOT Acts a President Obama could get signed into law every single week — if He had a mind to do so. He obviously has bitten off more than He can chew with the health care thing. But the resistance there was true grassroots, whereas the PATRIOT Act backlash was anything-but.

To those of you who thought this was a tad on the obsessive side…and I know you’re out there, I’ve talked to you. (“You were going to make the judge sit through fifteen slides, really??”) This is for you.

In my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, by the Grace of God, of House of Eratosthenes The Blog That Nobody Reads…and let all the civilized world tremble in the face of my wrath…I hereby proclaim in my infinite wisdom, this (hat tip, once again, to Gerard) to be the finest video of the year. In all aspects. The hootin’ and hollerin’, the thigh-slappin’, the solving long overdue problems, the “Yeah Go Get ‘Em”‘s…calculating least common multiples…

Enjoy. Yes, I know it reeks of “staged.” I don’t care. This is a man whose priorities are set properly. Beats the hell out of dismantling nuclear weapons in the very same stretch of days that “Ah’m A Dinner Jacket” guy starts building up his own stock.

William Teach at Pirate’s Cove discusses nitpicking, which means to showcase a comment in someone else’s blog, give it the publicity you feel it deserves.

We’ve done it quite a few times. It’s fair, IMO, because it’s in a public view. The fact that the blog has no control over the commenter and very little control over his product, simply doesn’t enter into it. You know for a fact (barring the possibility that someone’s writing pure fiction under a blog comment) that the thoughts exist “out there,” because you’ve just pointed to living proof; in what quantity and saturation said thoughts exist, is a matter for speculation. And of course it’s alright for you to speculate.

If someone else reads it, and speculates the idea is out there in high saturation when it really isn’t, that’s their problem. Just like if you tell a story about a guy streaking down your neighborhood, and the guy you’re telling it to surmises this must happen all the time. Purely a matter of opinion, and purely his concern.

Now if you’re working hard at putting an unwarranted spin on it, of course that might be a different story.

So we aren’t going to have them…

With President Barack Obama in the chair at an unprecedented meeting of the U.N. Security Council, major world powers on Thursday endorsed his goal of a nuclear weapons-free world and pledged to strengthen the shaky international system for preventing the spread of nuclear arms.

The Security Council unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution that endorses the eventual goal of “a world without nuclear weapons.” It lays out steps for nuclear powers to trim their arsenals, while making it harder for other nations to convert civilian nuclear programs to military ones.

While it isn’t clear how fast this will come about, diplomats and private security experts called it the most significant U.N. action on nuclear weapons proliferation in years.

…but those other guys will. What could possibly go wrong?

President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain on Friday blasted Iran’s construction of a previously unknown uranium enrichment facility and demanded that Tehran immediately fulfill its obligations under international law or risk the imposition of harsh new sanctions.

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” Obama said, detailing how the facility at Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Association. “International law is not an empty promise.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Iran of “serial deception” that he said “will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.”

“We will not let this matter rest,” Brown said. “…Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear programs.”

We will become very angry with you, and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Ah geez, you’re really busting my balls here Hans. Why don’t you take a few steps to your left…

Looks like the sun has set on the era of finger-waggling disarmament diplomacy. Time to put it on history’s bookshelf, right next to the League of Nations. The task before us now, is to find a new way to confront the threat, and then figure out how to explain to our grandchildren the finger-waggling diplomacy was supposed to work…how & why it ever made sense to anyone.

I’m not sure which one of those two tasks is more difficult. One is going to involve people dying, the other one has a real chance of being altogether impossible. Time will tell.

Public school children being taught to worship His Wonderfulness.

Others blogging:

Malkin.

Gerard.

Exurban League has the school’s explanation.

American Thinker Blog.

Rick.

Cassy.

Who’s behind it?

Charisse Carney-Nunes, “writer, speaker and social entrepreneur.”

Gemma Atkinson and Holly Weber.

Once again — everyone looks awesome and wonderful in lingerie/bikinis. It comes down to faces: Gemma is not only more friendly-looking, but possessing of a girl-next-door undertone not reverberating from her counterpart.

What a shame for Holly. I can’t think of a way to improve on that bombshell of a figure — not by so much as a fraction of an inch. But these chins and noses that could cut through glass…I don’t know why they’re so popular. Kind of a turn-off. They suggest a lack of proper nourishment, and an unhealthy adoration of female qualities that civilized people aren’t quite so quick to adore. Perhaps that’s unfair, but like they say; you never get a second chance to make a good first impression.

Gemma 1, Holly 0. Them’s the breaks.

Surprise!

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of people who believe government has its hand in too many areas of American life has reached its highest point in more than a decade.

The question asked by Gallup was, “Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?” Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed say government is doing too much, while 38 percent say it should do more. Five percent are undecided.

The number of people who believe government is doing too much is up sharply from early March, when 47 percent said government was doing too much and 42 percent said it should do more.

The last time the number of people who believe government is doing too much hit 57 percent was in October 1994, shortly before voters threw Democrats out of power in both the House and Senate.

Your required reading for today on ACORN:

Acorn found its way into the mortgage business through the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 legislation that community groups have used as a cudgel to force lenders to lower their mortgage underwriting standards in order to make more loans in low-income communities. Often the groups, after making protests under CRA, were then rewarded by banks with contracts to act as mortgage counselors in low-income areas in return for dropping their protests against the banks. In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn’t been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector.

Given the economic fallout from the long efforts by advocacy groups to water down mortgage lending standards, as well as the controversy surrounding Acorn’s mortgage counseling methods, you would imagine that politicians in Washington would be eager to narrow the scope of the CRA and reduce the leverage that community groups wield under it. But to the contrary, Washington is actually looking to expand the CRA once again.

On Capitol Hill today the House Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Barney Frank is holding hearings on legislation supported by the Obama administration that would bring insurance companies and credit unions under the umbrella of CRA, placing new lending demands on these groups and opening them up to protests and pressure tactics by organizations like Acorn. As proof that Washington is a looking-glass world where basic values and logic get perverted, proponents of the new legislation claim we need more CRA to rein in the bad practices of the housing bubble, which is sort of like arguing that the cure for alcoholism is another martini. Any review of the history of the affordable mortgage movement in America demonstrates the power that CRA had in helping to shred mortgage underwriting standards throughout the industry and exposing us to the kind of market meltdown we’ve experienced.