Yep

Yep, Saw That Coming:

Just yesterday we were talking about punishing the guilty:

One expects that, in Obama's America, justice will be done in this case: the citizen whose experiment proved that the campaign had manually disabled all credit-card safeguards will be arrested and prosecuted for making the fake donations. Once he's safely in prison, just as Joe is now safely out of work, we can all stop worrying about the matter.

Today, Megan McArdle notes a plan for prosecution:

If a wingnut uses the Internet to give the Obama campaign a donation in a fake name, with the intent of fooling the website into accepting an invalid contribution, isn't that using interstate communications facilities to defraud under 18 USC 1343?

Here's part of the definition of "fraud" from Black's Law Dictionary:

a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury

Seems like a pretty good fit to me.

Ms. McArdle is a remakably generous woman, who chooses to believe the best about the Obama campaign:

The Obama campaign screwed up massively; it should not be possible to charge something to a credit card without matching the name to the name on the credit card. Most responsible web processors also require that you provide a fair amount of other information, to ensure that people aren't using stolen cards. And beyond that, last time I looked it was mandatory to get correct names to ensure that people aren't violating the campaign finance laws. I don't support those laws, to be sure. But as long as they are the law, all the campaigns have to abide by them.

Wondering if we can't prosecute the person who exposed the campaign's error smacks of police state tactics. Yes, I still support Obama, and I have no reason to think that the error was deliberate.

"Error"? She is aware that the campaign has disabled all the normal safeguards that "responsible web processors... require," and is ignoring the "mandatory" requirement to collect correct names "to ensure that people aren't violating the campaign finance laws."

It seems to me a stretch to believe this was a "massive screw up," given the extraordinary benefits that such an "error" brings to the Obama campaign. That would be somewhat suspicious even from a campaign that had behaved reasonably well up until now. This one has been accused of massive fraud from Iowa forward, as regards their abuses in the caucus states, with ACORN, and so on and so forth. Surely there's a threshhold beyond which we no longer assume these are innocent mistakes.

By the same token, this isn't the first time Obama supporters have wanted to destroy someone critical of the campaign. Ask Joe the Former Plumber.

UK OK

UK now OK:

Well, we can stop worrying about the economic crisis now -- at least, England can.

FOUR extra ravens are being drafted into the Tower of London because of the financial crisis — to prevent a 350-year-old curse coming true.

King Charles II decreed there must be at least six ravens otherwise a disaster would strike the nation and the Royal Family.

And up to now, bosses have kept just one spare bird in residence to act as a “super sub”.

But with the UK facing credit crunch meltdown, they ruled an extra four must now be acquired.

This strikes me as a totally reasonable and correct course of action: it's good not to mess with curses from ancient kings. Yet it is interesting that the English are interpreting the current crisis as so bad that they need reinforcements in the Tower of London: and not just to think of it, but to order it done and pay for it. There's a lot of end-times language going on here, too, as we've discussed from time to time, especially around the Obama candidacy and its messiah-like images. Interesting days.

1/3 on Welfare

Long-Term Thinking:

So we have this interview with then-State Senator Obama from 2001:



There are three take-aways for me.

1) He's spent a great deal of his life thinking about how best to effect what he himself calls "redistributive change" in America. The comment about 'spreading the wealth around' was not a slip of the tongue, but the core of his plan for America.

2) He would like to see the Constitution understood less in terms of what he calls "negative liberty" -- what we would call "actual liberty," that is, the freedom from government influence in your life. His goals have to do with creating a system whereby the Federal and state governments have to provide every citizen with certain goods.

The terms "negative liberty" and "positive liberty" come from Sir Isaiah Berlin.

Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.

"Negative liberty" is actual liberty. It's freedom from constraint, freedom to do what you can do, to be what you can be. Positive liberty is not the assurance that you'll have the chance to try for something, but assurance that you'll have that thing. The government will give it to you -- which means, the government will force other citizens to provide you with the means.

That is a fundamental alteration of our concept of the relationship between government and citizen. It is a radical mode, and one that Berlin rightly warned has often led to totalitarian modes.

3) Obama views this as an outgrowth of the "Civil Rights Movement." The video maker interprets this racially -- that Obama intends this redistribution to be about blacks and whites.

That's a plausible reading, since the Civil Rights Movement was chiefly about black and white issues. Nevertheless, I don't know that I believe that is what he meant to say.

Rather, I think that now-Senator Obama intends a vision that isn't race-based. Below I described his tax plan as "putting a third of America on welfare," as it would give people "tax cuts" beyond what they pay in taxes -- money for nothing. I think that really is the plan here: not to make payments to minorities, but to make payments to everyone below a certain threshhold.

The idea is that government should provide everyone with a basic standard of living. The Bible says: "If any would not work, neither should they eat." This is the opposite plan: whether you work or not, you shall eat, and have health care, and you shall vote, and be provided with a basic standard of living, and sufficient income to maintain it.

Those who want more than that common standard may work for it. However, because the money to provide that common standard to everyone else doesn't come from nowhere, these people who want more have to understand that they will be the ones bearing the brunt of the taxes. If, after they have paid those taxes they can still buy something better for themselves, that's fine.

Now, here's one of two great flaws with this plan: what if those people choose to work less, and have more time off? Their basic standard of living is guaranteed, and there's increasingly small reward for each hour of additional work.

Here's the other: The government is already in dire condition with underfunded pensions, Social Security, and Medicare. The government is already telling us that it will cancel or cut those programs as necessary, as they are "not true liabilities."

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

...

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities.

So why don't we change to the corporate-style accounting method?

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.
Right.

They're already telling you that they have no intention of making these payments. They are "not true liabilities." The government can "cancel or cut them."

So now we're going to undertake to provide a vast array of basic, communal standards of living to everyone? We can't pay for the promises we've made already. And that's if people don't stop trying so hard, as each hour of their working life returns less reward to them.

The New Socialist Age will be short lived, if it arrives. When the government finishes showing us how it keeps the promises it made on Social Security and Federal pensions, we'll all be like the Russians Doc mentioned below. None of us will ever trust them again.

Nor should you, now. Keep that in mind as you vote, but more particularly, as you prepare for the coming economic troubles. Don't depend on any government promise when preparing for your retirement, or for any other reason. Take care of yourself. Take care of your own: your family, your neighbors, those whom you love.

Cass' Cold Blood

Cassandra's Blood Runs Cold:

So she says, at this:

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.
Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business....

I'm sure it was a complete coincidence... just like the queries on his outstanding liens, the information on his ex-wife, his plumbing license, etc.

His business has been shut down, and his life plundered by the media in an effort to discredit him. That'll show you to ask a tough question to a candidate who stops by your house and ask for questions.

Well, Mark Steyn has a couple of questions about the funding of the Obama campaign:

As many Obama supporters wrote to point out, simply because you get a message saying "Thank you for contributing to the Obama landslide, Mr S Hussein of 47 Spider-Hole Gardens (basement flat), Tikrit!" is no reason to believe any real money is actually leaving real accounts.

The gentleman who started the ball rolling made four donations under the names "John Galt", "Saddam Hussein", "Osama bin Laden", and "William Ayers", all using the same credit card number. He wrote this morning to say that all four donations have been charged to his card and the money has now left his account. Again, it's worth pointing out: in order to enable the most basic card fraud of all - multiple names using a single credit card number - the Obama campaign had to manually disable all the default security checks provided by their merchant processor.

One expects that, in Obama's America, justice will be done in this case: the citizen whose experiment proved that the campaign had manually disabled all credit-card safeguards will be arrested and prosecuted for making the fake donations. Once he's safely in prison, just as Joe is now safely out of work, we can all stop worrying about the matter.

These guys are dangerous. Or so a fellow at Southern Appeal suggested, before he was duly chastened. I quote the exchange:

5. cg Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“The unconstrained vision is really an elitist vision,” Sowell explains. “This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians.”

Just wanted you boobs to read it again (you know who you are). And why not do something really revolutionary afterward–think about it.

6. John in Nashville Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“And why not do something really revolutionary afterward”? In that that exhortation was preceded by commentary on how dangerous a presidential candidate is, I would be careful about that kind of ambiguity, cg. It could draw unwanted attention from the Secret Service.

It's pretty clear that the revolutionary act being suggested here was to "think about it." Still, the reflex is to threaten and to bully.

Ask WGN Radio.

Russians For McCain

Another Supermajority for McCain:

First it was the US military; now, former Marine Doc Russia points us to another group that strongly favors John McCain. Russian immigrants are polling strongly in support of the anticommunist warrior.

Why? Doc says:

Those that have escaped from communism, or it's near-beer equivalent, socialism, have, without exception in my personal experience, understood that electing a man who espouses socialist programs is a socialist, communist, or any degree thereof. In other words, these guys from Poland, Russia, and the like damned sure know who Obama is, and what is likely to impose.

Doc's wife, who is Russian, is apparently on the same page about this.

About the most patriotic American citizen I ever knew was a professor at Georgia State University named Dr. An. ("An means 'peace,'" he would tell students, drawing the character: one woman under one roof. Then he would draw the character again, but this time with three women under one roof. "This character means, 'calamity.'")

Dr. An was Korean -- not "South Korean" or "North Korean," but a man born in Korea when it was under Japanese occupation. He spoke of how the Japanese treated him and his people as a child. He was liberated by the Americans, and then fought alongside the American army against the Communists in the Korean war. Following the war, he emigrated to the United States and became a citizen.

You never met a man with a greater love of this country. Unfortunately, he died a few years ago, because Doc's post makes me wish I could ask him how he felt about the current choices. I think his perspective would have been worthy.

Bowie update

Bowie Update:

It was suggested tonight that I ought to test the blade before heading out with it. It's always a good idea to test your kit.



I set up an old paperback atop a stool, and gave it a good stab. With no trouble at all, it sank through about two hundred pages of pulp, and deep enough into the stool that I could firmly lift the thing off the floor -- and hold it suspended -- without loosening the blade.

That'll do.

UPDATE: If you're looking for a good Bowie yourself, let me recommend my favorite custom smith's latest blade.

Wow

Wow:

Get some, Ma'am.

The Sack of Beziers

The Sack of Beziers:

From the Martin Best Consort's A Medieval Banquet, "Music from the Age of Chivalry."

Beziers has fallen!
They're dead.
Clerks, women, children:
No quarter.

They killed Christians too.
I rode out,
I couldn't see nor hear a living creature.
I saw Simon de Montefort.
His beard glistened in the sun.

They killed seven thousand people!
Seven thousand souls who sought sanctuary
In St. Madeline's.
The steps of the altar were wet with blood.
The church echoed with their cries.

Afterwards, they slaughtered the monks
who tolled the bell.
The used the silver cross
As a block
On which to behead them.

BAM! BAM! BAM!

We have life to resist!
Don't you feel it?
Let's sing for our futures!
All our futures!

This is followed by "Rassa, Tan Creis." The piece was composed by Guiraut Riquier, a troubadour of the first water. Yet that is half the story: the poem that is not included, for which the music was written, was by Bertran de Born, not only a troubadour poet but a baron and knight of France.

Investigations

Investigations:

Whose job is it to make sure a potential President is on the level? We've talked briefly about the Berg lawsuit, and how it is likely to be dismissed on standing grounds -- yes, you're an American citizen who has a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, and yes he has not produced a birth certificate in Hawaii; but forgeries are common in Africa, Hawaii says it's good enough, and anyway you're just some guy. What right do you have to challenge him in court to produce the documents?

Well, actually, that's a very good question. It turns out that there is no one with the duty to require that a given candidate for President prove he meets the Constitutional requirements. These can both be met by a birth certificate, but oddly there just isn't a national office in charge of demanding that certificate. If you want a job as an FBI agent, you'll need to produce your birth certificate, any college transcripts, and a huge host of financial and personal documents to prove you are entitled to the TOP SECRET clearance associated with the position; but there is no similar requirement for elected office. Congressmen get a SECRET clearance just because they are elected; and the President gets everything, whether or not he could qualify for such a clearance through the normal channels. (Sen. McCain could, and probably has held one in his decades-long military career; Gov. Palin actually has. Sen. Obama could not possibly qualify for a security clearance according to this article, which accords with my own experience.)

Yet we don't insist on security clerances for elected officials, and for a very good reason: that would be giving the bureaucracy a greater power than the Constitution imagines for it. If the FBI or the DOD has the power to define who is allowed to run for an office, they and not the People are the real decision makers about who will lead this nation's Executive branch. Yet they are meant to be subordinate to the Executive appointed by the People, not the commanders.

So whose job is it? Ours, the People: but, as we began with, a given PERSON doesn't have standing to challenge a candidate in court.

That's unsustainable. If you have the duty, you must also have the powers and tools to pursue that duty. Yet this isn't the only power we lack: we lack resources, and many of us don't have the investigative background.

As a work-around, we have normally conceeded this duty to the media.

How is that working out this time?

Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.

Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.

Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.

Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)

Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”

The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.

Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.

Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.

Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.

This guy has a bit to say on the subject. The market has a little bit more to say about it.

Yet it remains an unanswered question. Who has the right? Who has the duty? Who has the tools?

UPDATE: I see tonight that the Berg lawsuit was dismissed, as expected, on the grounds that he doesn't have the standing to demand Obama's records. OK: but who does?

The answer may not be "Any citizen." Yet, by the same token, neither can it be "Nobody."

Norm, over at Normblog, has this quiz about books, which I'm going to answer. Anybody else is free to join in.

What was the last book you bought?
The Culture of War, by Martin van Creveld.
Name a book you have read more than once.
Guadacanal, by Richard Frank.
Has a book ever fundamentally changed the way you see life? If yes, what was it?
That's a good one. And yes. The Enchiridion, by Epictetus.
How do you choose a book? e.g., by cover design and summary, recommendations or reviews.
Usually by Title and summary, occasionally by reviews. Very seldom by recommendation.
Do you prefer fiction or non-fiction?
Always non-fiction.
What's more important in a novel - beautiful writing or a gripping plot?
Plot.
Most loved/memorable character.
I honestly can't think of one. Really. Oh wait. Ebenezer Scrooge. He's memorable.
Which book or books can be found on your nightstand at the moment?
Let's see:
On Hunting by Xenophon
Escapism by Yi-Fu Tuan
Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece by Daniel Garrison
The Boy Mechanic by the Editors of Popular Mechanics
The Tale of the Genji by Murasaki Shikibu
Beautiful Evidence by Edward Tufte
The Flintlock: Its Origin, Development, and Use by Torsten Lenk
The Chinese on the Art of Painting by Osvald Siren
The Ancient World at War edited by Philip de Souza
The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn Iggulden
Syarcuse 415-413 BC: Destruction of the Athenian Imperial Fleet by Nic Fields
(I really have to get that stack down....)
What was the last book you've read, and when was it?
Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious by Gerd Gigerenzer
Have you ever given up on a book half way in?
Earlier than that. I think I got through maybe the first chapter of Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy before tossing it out.

Well, that was interesting.

Why Sarah Palin gets hated:

She's Sexy.

MEN RULE. This is the "scandal" that let the dogs out. For weeks I've been wrapping my head in wet towels trying to noodle out the reason lefty (and some righty) women hate Palin so very much. Why she seems to unhinge them to such an astonishing degree. The flap over her $150,000 wardrobe budget just cut though all the crap to the truth of it. They hate her because she's sexy.

It really is that simple. It's not that she's managed to have a career, including being elected Governor of Alaska. It's not that she's given birth to five children without wanting an abortion. It's not that she espousestraditional conservative values like pistol-grop shotguns. It's not that she's become a vice presidential candidate without a degree in womanitude from Radcliffe, Smith, Barnard, or Wellesley. It's that she won a beauty contest long ago and could still win one today. It's that in spite of an accent that makes her sound like Herb's wife on WKRP in Cincinnati, she's a 44 year old mother of five who still has it, whatever it is. She's every insecure career woman's nightmare. She has it all -- success, family, a long-term marriage, happiness -- and she's still hotter than Britney Spears for a huge percentage of men in America. That's why they HATE her so very very VERY much.

There's actually alot more to read at Instapunk. Just keep scrolling.

The Angry Pharmacist.

Go and read him and be afraid. Very afraid.

Sex

A Confession:

One of my favorite episodes in all television history is this one:



"Good evening and welcome back to FYI. Recent events have convinced me of the need to address my much publicized 'Wild Night.' Let me say first that I am from the Old School: when silence was golden, mum was the word, and those with skeletons kept them in the closet, where they belong.

"But those days are over. Thus, I present you the truth about my twisted, abnormal life....

"I am as normal as I can possibly be. Judging by today's tell all books, that makes me our nation's number one pervert. In a world without stability, I remain the same solid citizen I always was. And, since no one else will say it, good for me.

"I come from a functional family. I had a perfectly delightful childhood. I loved my mother, adored my father, and good for me.

"Here's something freakish: I have been married to the same woman for 34 years. You know how many women I have made love to in my life? One! And good for me."

Watch to the end, if you want to know how such lives are rewarded.

A kind word

A Kind Word for Sen. Obama:

The Wall Street Journal is unduly harsh in calling his tax plans "nonsense."

Now we know: 95% of Americans will get a "tax cut" under Barack Obama after all. Those on the receiving end of a check will include the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan.

In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you haven't paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.

Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we're not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we're really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn't that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?

I think the truth is not that he's talking nonsense. I think he's just saying things he doesn't mean. I don't think we'll see, if he were elected, anything but a repeat in 2009 of 1993:

I had hoped to invest in your future by creating jobs, expanding education, reforming health care, and reducing the debt [deficit] without asking more of you. And I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t because...

C'mon. We all know the truth. There's no reason to go through with this charade every year.

Son

Jackson and Junior:

Once upon a time, in the early days of color television, a man down South decided to try out the medium. So he got a few friends and made a show, but when he tried to sell it nobody up in New York wanted to buy it.

Now, out of the warehouse, a very early appearance by Johnny Cash and June Carter -- and the first TV appearance of Junior Samples.



Johnny Cash needs no introduction, but some may not now remember Junior Samples. Junior Samples was from Forsyth County Georgia, which is where I grew up. One day my father, who was with the volunteer Fire Department, was at a training fire. This is where they take an old property likely to be a hazard and burn it up, both to dispose of it and to practice firefighting techniques. My father was out by the road when a pickup truck pulled up. There was Junior Samples, who leaned out of the truck and told the firemen, "I hate to tell you boys this, but that place burned two years ago."

He was a very nice guy by all accounts.

Here's a much older Johnny Cash, singing about his horse:



You may wonder: can a horse have green eyes? Yes, but it's very rare. There's only one kind of horse that does, and "the color of the sun" is a good description.

John McCain 68-23

McCain Ahead 68%-23%:

Among the US military, according to the Military Times poll. Figuring that the undecicdeds and so forth break very strongly for Obama, that's easily a 7-3 split.

McCain leads 76%-17% among white servicemembers.
McCain leads 63%-23% among Hispanic servicemembers.

Active Duty break for McCain 67% to 24%.
Retirees break for McCain 72% to 20%.

Servicemen for McCain, 70-22%.
Servicewomen for McCain, 53%-36%.

There was one demographic that went 80%-20% for Sen. Obama, for reasons that we'll respect and can fully understand. Neverthless, that result was a clear outlier compared to the remainder of those polled.

Putting Your Minds At Ease:

Our good friend Doc Russia recently wrote me with a very kind offer: to lend me a good Bowie knife for the trip out East.

Now, Doc's about the greatest guy in the world, so I want you to know I took his offer as a true kindness. In case any of you are wondering, however, I am well provided on this particular score. There are many things I may not have enough of, and surely I am not a rich man, but a good Bowie knife I can at least claim.

I'm planning on taking this one in my kit:



It was made by a local Cherokee knifemaker named Jim Whitefeather, 82 years old. He didn't forge it -- it was cut from an old sawmill blade. Those were made of the finest steel that anyone knew how to make in the 19th century, and it is steel that has aged well. It is full tang, strong yet light. Indeed, it is both lighter weight and faster than a Kabar-style combat knife, but with similar strength.

I trust that Mr. Whitefeather will forgive me for altering the design somewhat. I prefer my Bowies to have a fully sharp backstrap, whereas he gave the backside of the clip point a flat surface. I spent a little time with a grinding wheel, followed by a medium and then a fine Arkansas whetstone, and now it suits me perfectly.

So be of good cheer. I know my art, and I am well equipped. Thank you all, though, for thinking of me.

Fair Warning

Fair Warning:

Kim du Toit starts a series I look forward to reading through:

So you want to get involved in Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS), but you don’t really want to spend a lot of money on it until you’re sure you’ll like it.

Silly rabbit.

CAS is, after home improvement, the easiest way to empty your bank account.

There are two reasons why this is true. One, you’re going to love it; and two, you’re going to get sucked into the “authenticity” thing. It’s impossible not to. I know a guy who bought a handmade twin-holster buscadero gunbelt which was almost as valuable as the two sixguns it carried—and we haven’t even started looking at accoutrements like clothing.

And here’s the simple reason why everyone who starts this eventually gets hooked: it is the greatest fun you can have without being arrested.

It sure sounds like it.

Some Links

Glass Jaw:

Deafening Silence has a manifesto for those remaining behind to fight for America, no matter who wins the election.

My love for this country does not depend on who runs the show. I wouldn't call it 'love' if it did.

Mr. President, I am a product of this nation. I was born here. It has fed my bones and blood. It's most sacred documents tell me that I am required to watch over it, to participate in it, to give it my eternal vigilance.

That is the bargain I was offered in exchange for my citizenship. And I have accepted it.

This nation also feeds the aspirations of thousands who adopt it as their home each year, newcomers who accept the bargain and know that the United State will exist in the bones and blood of their family as well.

I suppose there are some things you could do to drive me out, but they would have to be pretty extreme- things like credible threats to my life and my family. So far, you don't strike me as the type.

Would an Obama victory represent a credible threat to your life? Indirectly, yes... at least, if you listen to Joe Biden.

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right."

Sen. Biden raises an excellent point, and it's something I have thought about while preparing to deploy. An Obama victory is likely to result in a new wave of violence in Iraq, as Iranian-backed radicals and Qaeda militants test him. They will think, "Here is a guy who has always wanted to think this war was a mistake and that it couldn't be won. He'll take a bunch of new attacks as proof he was right all along, and the Surge was an illusion. He's got a glass jaw." They'll want to see if they can break it.

That may not be a reason to vote against Sen. Obama if you agree with him on policy, but Sen. Biden is absolutely right that it's something to expect. If Sen. Obama wins the Presidency, all Americans will need to be ready both to show support for the government against foreign aggressors -- but also to hold President Obama's feet to the fire, and not let him back off in Iraq or elsewhere.

That way lies disaster. Joe Biden is right in his diagnosis and proposed treatment.

Of course, the polls are tightening, so it may not be a problem. (Also from Hot Air: do you know that Gov. Palin now meets with the press at length on a near-daily basis, but Obama hasn't taken questions from the traveling press corps since September? How about that "cone of silence"?)

Hooah

The Oklahoma Resolution:

Now you're playing my song:

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Hooah.

H/t: Kat at the Castle.

Profile in Courage

Profile in Courage:

Joseph Epstein calls fire on his own position:

One might think that liberal women would have some admiration for Governor Palin's appearing to have solved the working mother problem that bedevils most contemporary American women. She is very feminine yet doesn't regard herself as a victim, and seems to be entirely at ease with men. Here is a woman raising five children who is able not only to have an active hand in the life of her community but actually win the highest political office in her state. As the governor of Alaska, moreover, she took on the corrupt elements in her own party, which requires courage of a kind liberated women especially, one would think, might admire....

The daughter of a dear friend of mine used to say of her mother, "I sense her rage." Of course when the daughter said this, my friend's rage would only increase. Suggesting that liberal women feel rage over Sarah Palin is, similarly, likely only to enrage them all the more. But rage in their reaction to Governor Palin is emphatically what I do sense on the part of liberal women--that and delight in any attempt to humiliate her. (Tina Fey, take a bow, and, hey, let's watch that Katie Couric YouTube interview one more time!) I wonder if the women who loathe Sarah Palin with such intensity oughtn't perhaps to reexamine the source of their strongly illiberal feelings.

He's right, of course. On both counts.

Sherman

$herman:

Hm.

[W]hat does Obama do with the extra money? A three-to-one ad ratio in a given state is worth about a point in the polls. But that’s in states with at least a decent baseline of Republican advertising. What’s it worth in states where McCain can’t advertise at all, like North Dakota or Georgia? 3 or 4 points? Does Obama move into states at the fringes of the target map to 1) heighten the sense of panic in the GOP? and 2) go for 400 EVs? Can he legally bail out the committees to go for 270 in the House and 60 in the Senate?

Either way, this is going to be the political equivalent of Sherman’s March.

Well, I'm seeing a huge number of signs this year. Haven't seen an Obama sign yet. I did see an Obama bumper sticker down in Atlanta, but only one so far.

Yeah, I still don't expect to see Obama win Georgia. Every dollar spent here is a dollar wasted.

Grim on Colin

The Powell Endorsement:

Once, I took a man's word about some bioweapon labs. Thanks for your opinion, General.

McCain is Awesome

John McCain at His Best:

Holy crap, guys.





Where has THIS guy been all campaign?

UPDATE: Here's Obama's speech:

Yeah

"A Plumber Is The Guy He's Fighting For."

Seen today in Dawsonville, Georgia: a truck with a big sign on the back that read, "I love Joe the Plumber."



The media are trying to claim he's unlicensed, although his company is, and he is enrolled in the apprentice program -- and not eligible to complete the apprenticeship until next month. The union -- Local 50 of the Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, which has endorsed Obama -- is making noises unsupported by the law (see the comments), in order to convince the media that he's not one of their plumbers and shouldn't be allowed to work. Union leadership has never been known to make dubious, politically-motivated claims before (or self-interested ones -- for example, putting out the notion that no plumber unaffiliated with them was legitimate) so I am sure we can trust them.

Obama stopped by this guy's house while Joe was playing football with his kids. Obama picked this guy to ask a question. And then the Senator broke a key rule: he gave an honest answer.

So now the Alinsky playbook kicks in: Joe must be destroyed. He must be shown to be a liar ("He's not a plumber. He works for a plumber."), a criminal (He's not licensed! Whether or not he could be yet!), a thug (Sammy Davis Junior!), and possibly a Republican plant (indeed, planted years in advance in a neighborhood Obama would pick at random in which to campaign, presumably under the influence of some sort of mind control ray! That was probably how they got him to answer the question honestly, too). Union muscle is brought in, democratic officials in the government, the media, the liberal bloggers, everyone focuses on wrecking this guy's life.

Not figuratively speaking, either. That American Dream of his, to buy the company and build it? He needs to be out of a job instead.

Joe's us, folks. Look hard. There's some rule you haven't followed, or that someone can plausibly claim to the ignorant that you might not have followed. You're a hypocrite. A criminal. You'd better watch your step. You'd better keep your head down, eyes on your work. If you want to continue to have work, you know what I'm saying?

Dude

"This Really Is The Apocalypse"

Ben Smith notes an email from a Republican focus group.

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

There is a remarkable amount of 'end times' language surrounding the Obama candidacy, and as we've discussed, some of it is really his own fault. Obama is a scion of the Alinsky movement, and Saul Alinsky did dedicate his book on "community organizing" to Lucifer. All those emails I've been getting warning that Obama is the Antichrist? I've spent my whole life thinking the Book of Revelation was impossibly vague to be considered a useful prophecy, and that it was always foolish to trot it out to try and interpret contemporary events.

As Dad29 says, though, you don't have to think "Antichrist" -- it's enough to think "Lucifer," because Alinsky did. The Alinsky method is deeply inhumane: the declaration that you should 'hold opponents to every part of their rule book' is intended to rule out compromise and discourse. Every opponent is a hypocrite, because every opponent is human and people can't live up to their every principle all the time. The system intentionally makes the perfect the enemy of the good, in every case, all the time.

I hope Jim Webb is right, and I'm wrong: and it is comforting to find that there are people I respect who are Obama supporters. I know I can put some faith in them, even if I have none in the man himself. Jim Webb is out there, Phil Carter of Intel Dump, retired General Zinni -- these are people I respect, whether or not we always agree and even when we rarely do. That's comforting.

It's important to have trust in such good and worthy men as there are on the other side, in the event of an Obama victory. We shouldn't follow Alinsky's road -- of making the perfect the enemy of the good, and all our opponents enemies. Sen. Obama himself is an unworthy man and the follower of a vicious creed, but with him come also good men of accomplishments with whom we have only some disagreements. In the event that we are forced to endure an Obama presidency, I am glad to know there are good people on his team.

Joe

Joe Wurzelbacher, American Hero:

This guy is the kind we need more of in our country.

PM: To you, what exactly is the American Dream? Can you explain that?

JW: Me personally?

PM: Yeah, you personally.

JW: Me personally, my American Dream was to have a house, a dog, a couple rifles, a bass boat. I believe in living life easy and simple. I don’t have grand designs. I don’t want much. I just wanna be able to take care of my family and do things with them outdoors and that’s about it, really. I don’t have a “grand scheme” thing. My American Dream is just more personal to me as far as working, making a good living and being able to provide for my family, college for my son. Things like that – simple things in life, that’s really what it comes down to for me. That’s my dream.

PM: Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?

JW: Well that was actually my intent. Most people, you ask them “do you believe in the American Dream?” Nine times out of ten they’ll sit there and go, “Yeah, of course!” That’s where he messed up, because as soon as I asked him that, his answer shows that he doesn’t believe in the American Dream. You know, like the question you asked before – he pretty much contradicted himself. “I don’t want to punish you but – “ Well, you’re going to anyways.

The whole interview is great. This guy is just what America is all about.

Firepit series

Firepit Series: A Lesson in Cleaning a Lever-Action Rifle

You folks liked the last picture from the firepit, so here's another from earlier in the week. This photo shows me teaching a boy how to clean a lever-action rifle. Mine, in this case, is a Cimarron Firearms Winchester '73. He is cleaning a Henry "Golden Boy" .22 rifle.



If you're moved to music by the photo -- while I didn't find a copy of "Back in the Saddle" by Cowboy Nation, I did find their MySpace page. If you skip to track 6 on their autoplayer, you can hear their version of My Rifle, My Pony and Me.

No Way!

No Way!

So, via FARK, a story about a couple who decided to declare themselves sovereign nations.

[I]n the 1990s, they stopped paying taxes and declared themselves independent of all government authority. They have been battling government ever since.

Joel, 76, went to jail. The IRS went after their money, and Seminole County sold their home because of unpaid taxes.

Now, they face a new battle: Florida's attorney general is suing them, accusing them of fraud and harassment for filing a lien naming four Seminole County officials: Sheriff Don Eslinger; State Attorney Norm Wolfinger; Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse; and Clayton Simmons, chief judge of the 18th judicial circuit.

The couple recorded the lien in April, claiming ownership of every piece of property held by those officials.

The lady is in trouble for paying for things with a "money order" she wrote herself, claiming that as a sovereign nation she has the right to create her own financial system. The husband has been arrested multiple times for driving without a license -- as a sovereign nation, he need not bother with the laws that touch mere citizens who want to drive on the road.

On the other hand, they've paid heavily for this little act: they've lost everything they owned to the IRS, gone to jail, spent time in court, etc. A certain part of myself that resents government meddling and longs for greater independence is thinking, you know, the liens are a problem, but otherwise if they're willing to bear the costs of this crazy scheme...

...and then I got to this part.

When the Brinkles declared their tax independence, they owned those 5 acres in Geneva.

Now they rent an apartment in a low-income section of Sanford. They have central air conditioning and heat but can't afford to run it. When Donna needed dental work, the couple's church and one of their adult sons paid for it, Donna Brinkle said.

They scrape by on $1,300 in monthly Social Security benefits, she said.

No way!

I would be willing -- eager! -- to sign away all future Social Security benefits in return for the right not to pay any more into the system. But to claim you are totally immune to any law or duty to the United States, and live off the public treasury? That's their conception of a sovereign nation??

The mind attempting to grasp this line of reasoning loses its focus, like an eye staring into a vertigous canyon. Just how far down does this thing go?

Good Point

Good Point:

National Review has a remarkable piece on the debates. What's left to talk about after two presidential and one VP debate? Well, it turns out, most of the issues that we normally discuss in an election haven't been mentioned at all. They list:

1) Abortion.

This is the #1 domestic policy issue for millions of voters on each side. Normally it's a huge issue. Maybe the differences are so stark, this year nobody feels we need to debate it.

2) Cloning/stem cells.

Normally a minor issue, but one we do usually hear about. It is surprising that Gov. Palin was not asked about these issues given her decisions about child rearing.

3) School Prayer/Evolution/Creationism.

It is odd, given the heat Gov. Palin has taken in the media on the subject, that no one asked about this. Maybe the media prefers their straw man version of Gov. Palin's position to her actual position, which is rather moderate.

4) Gun Control.

This is another issue to be the #1 domestic policy issue for millions of American voters. Unlike with abortion, where the difference between the tickets is stark and obvious, on the matter of gun control there is significant obfuscation. Sen. Obama served in the Joyce Foundation, which under his hand spent millions trying to produce anti-gun-rights organizations, and as a Chicago politician took a position on gun rights that was far less friendly than the laws on the books in the majority of states. On the other hand, he says he supported the Heller decision (an apparent reversal from an earlier position).

Sen. McCain, meanwhile, has not been a consistent friend to gun rights. Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr said he expected to get the NRA's endorsement (due to his A+ rating from the NRA and membership on its board), but did not. Gov. Palin is the only person in the race with a clear, uncontradicted record she will stand by.

5) Supreme Court vacancies.

Probably this is an issue like abortion, where people feel there is little need to discuss it. Sen. Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito, and said that he felt Justice Thomas was unqualified. I think we're pretty clear on what kind of justice he feels is qualified.

6) Immigration.

Sen. McCain is the most immigrant-friendly candidate in recent memory, but his base is opposed to heavy immigration. Sen. Obama is probably also friendly to pro-immmigration policies. This may be the opposite of the abortion issue -- there's not enough difference between the candidates to bother with a debate.

7) Race, racism, affirmative action.

Now that's an interesting set to be absent. My guess is the media doesn't feel we should be talking about those things at this time.

It's an interesting list. I think most Americans, asked for their top three priorities, would find at least one of these issues on the list; and if you ask people for their top three issues other than "the economy" and "the war," you'd probably see two or three of these items on the list. None of them have been mentioned in the debates.

Busy

Busy:

There's a lot to do to prepare for a long deployment.



Some of it is making sure to spend time with family and friends. Tonight we had Grim's Buffalo Chili, cooked on a fire over my own firepit.

The hard part will come soon enough. There's still a little time for the bittersweet part.

Notice the hook holding the Dutch oven over the firepit. That was forged from a piece of scavenged rebar by a former Navy SEAL turned blacksmith, "Tiny" Robinson of Moose Creek Forge. The last time I talked to "Tiny" (the nickname is precisely like "Little John" in its form and function) he told me he'd had to give up the hammer due to arthritis. That's a pity, because he was a real artist: one of the very best.

The Cats of Paradise

The Cats of Paradise:

"Only a Woman Could Make A Man So Foolish."

In honor of this story.

Back in the Saddle

Back in the Saddle:

My favorite version of this Gene Autry song was by the band "Cowboy Nation," but I don't see a verison of that one available online.



These guys are good too. Horses like it if you sing this to them. It calms their nerves.

UPDATE: Oh, here's Chet Atkins:



If you know of a Jerry Reed version, send it.

UPDATE: I give up. Here's Chet Aktins and Marty Robbins, the later-great Cowboy singer.



And here is Marty Robbins alone, rounding it out.



That last one I first learned from Atlanta's "Banks and Shane" group, who recorded a cover version on an album my father owned.

"The Western Financial World is Over."

"But, some of us have some money in the Western financial world!"

Berg

Berg Speaks:

Some of you will recall we discussed recently Philip Berg's assertion that Sen. Obama is not a US citizen. Elise in particular was fascinated with the assertion, so I thought I'd provide a link to a video involving Berg defending his case.



I think the hard evidence suggests that Berg is a nut, based on his previous lawsuits claiming that the US was behind 9/11, and the attempt to get SCOTUS Justices disbarred for their rulings on Bush v. Gore. That said, here he is speaking for himself: see what you think.

Boom

Boom:

An economist writes on the global situation:

On the real economic side all the advanced economies representing 55% of global GDP (US, Eurozone, UK, other smaller European countries, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) entered a recession even before the massive financial shocks that started in the late summer made the liquidity and credit crunch even more virulent and will thus cause an even more severe recession than the one that started in the spring. So we have a severe recession, a severe financial crisis and a severe banking crisis in advanced economies.

There was no decoupling among advanced economies and there is no decoupling but rather recoupling of the emerging market economies with the severe crisis of the advanced economies. By the third quarter of this year global economic growth will be in negative territory signaling a global recession.

'A severe global recession touching emerging markets' the kind of technical speech that masks hard reality. What this means is that war and famine are coming to much of the world, and with them the rider of the pale horse.

We tend to think mostly in terms of what this means for America, especially this close to an election: our minds are focused on the immediate. America is stronger than most of the nations, though: this is why the dollar is growing steadily through this crisis. The world is burning, and America is the safest place. It is unlikely that war will reach these shores, though not impossible given the political divisions in the nation and the deep distrust that will greet the incoming President, whoever he is.

Allah notes what we can look forward to tomorrow.

These things, dire as they are, take time to fall. You can see them coming, and there is time to prepare. I am in no way a financial advisor, lawyer, or other expert, but it is the experts who brought us to this pass. Here is what I have done: you may do what you like.

1) I moved all of our money into FDIC-insured accounts, both in the military's USAA and in another secure bank. All of it. The FDIC fund is limited, but it is backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States." If that fails, money will be the least of your problems.

Why this is worth doing: The market is losing massive value every day. The experts seem to think you should be buying now, so that you'll be in a better position when the market comes back. In the meanwhile, every dollar you sink into this is worth less tomorrow. That suggests to me: Walk away from whatever you've lost, and rebuild shares when the situation does turn around.

Several people I respect have declared they are doing the opposite, rather than be part of the problem as they see it, which is panic causing these credit shortfalls. I don't agree that panic is the problem; I think there are real, structural problems. Leaving your retirement funds in your 401K may be patriotic, in a sense; but I would have to consider it an act of patriotism, a sacrifice for some common good.

2) I purchased a large quantity of dry goods: dry beans, flour, salt, dry yeast, baking powder and soda, powdered milk, and so forth, plus oil, whiskey (for medicinal use only, of course), and other such goods. The real danger in America is transportation difficulties: so much of our economy is based on 'just in time' deliveries that can be disrupted by even minor variances in the fuel supply. Anyone living in the South knows this right now, because of the gas outages we've had lately. A major finance crisis could cause shortfalls, and most people keep only a few days' supplies on hand at most.

Stock up. Buy a few months' emergency supplies. As insurance goes, it is very cheap, and can prevent disaster. Right now supplies are plentiful and inflation is no problem.

Why this is worth doing: There is a real risk of disruption in fuel and shipping; at the least, you'll be sure of living in comfort through any such shocks. This kind of 'insurance' is cheap, and if all turns up aces, you'll eat the stuff anyway. So there's no risk, no loss, but you are protected from a danger that has potentially severe consequences and a nontrivial chance of happening.

3) I laid in a few hundred extra rounds of ammunition: not just heavy stuff for defense and deer hunting, but bird shot to make it easy to bag squirrels and birds for the pot. I trust it will not be needed except for sport, and I will have a pleasant day at the range some afternoon in the future. Yet if it is needed, it will be needed intensely.

Why this is worth doing: If you live where there is abundant wildlife (and deer populations are at or near record levels), it's another source of food in the case of fuel-caused shocks. In the case of wider chaos, you're prepared; and if the absolute worst happens, and even FDIC insurance is no good, you have a valuable barter item. Unlike the food, there is a small cost (you can't eat it later if everything works out fine, although you can enjoy a fun day shooting). Still, the potential benefit to having adequate ammunition stores easily outweighs that small cost.

4) I'll be leaving on another Iraq adventure much sooner than I wanted. The parallel for readers: if a solid, good paying job you may not really want appears, take it anyway.

Why this is worth doing: We've heard that in a recession or depression, cash is king. Adding to rather than living off your savings will be difficult at this time, but at the end of the collapse, there will be a lot you can buy cheaply: real estate, businesses priced below their value, homes, etc.

Conclusion:

The advice I hear the financial experts giving boils down to: buy, buy, buy. Double down on the 401K. Shares are undervalued, so pick up bargains and make a fortune on the rebound. Getting out of the market means you can't make up the value you've already lost.

As the AP notes in passing today, however, that money was never real. I would suggest a different approach to understanding wealth.

Wealth doesn't come from speculation. It comes from work.

If your hard work has left you with money to invest, invest it in your own work. Alternatively, invest it in the business of a man you know, whose work ethic is known to you. Use it to buy land, and put cattle or crops on it -- or hire someone who knows how.

These things have real value that can't just 'go away.' They aren't fairy gold. They're real wealth. Hard work, friendships with men of strong ethics, land, cattle, food: this is what we built the country on to start with.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is right: banks don't make out on this.

Clearly, with current International Monetary Fund estimates of the costs of the 2007-2008 subprime crisis, the banking system seems to have lost more on risk taking (from the failures of quantitative risk management) than every penny banks ever earned taking risks.

I intend to focus on the real fundamentals of the economy. It's hard work and sacrifice that got us where we are, and that is how America will thrive -- if it does -- in the future. There is no substitute.

Voting

"I Have Voted":

Since I'll be leaving before the election, I took advantage of Georgia's new 'advance voting' policy. I have some remarks on it.

1) I hate electronic voting. It's easy and convenient, but I don't love the fact that there is really no physical record of how I actually voted.

2) I was reminded again this year of how the real election in Georgia is the primary. Almost all the races consisted of one candidate running unopposed. When I was a boy, the Democratic primary was the real election -- nobody believed he could win as a Republican, so everyone ran as a Democrat, and whoever won the Democratic primary ran unopposed in the election.

Now, that's reversed: the word "Democrat" hardly appears on the general election ballot. The three national elections -- President/VP, Senator, Representative -- had Democratic candidates, but I don't think any of the other races did.

It's odd, for the few of us left who hold to the old ways. There were more Libertarians on the general election ballot than Democrats.

3) I voted for Governor Palin. Oh, and the gentleman she's running with.

Palin Cover

The Palin Cover:

I was off yesterday, but I see that the LA Times attempted to show how Newsweek got its cover picture.



Times reporter Elizabeth Snead writes:

How did Newsweek convince Gov. Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle for its cover?

Simple. It didn't.

Instead, it used an archive (fancy speak for old) stock photo of her taken back in June 2002 and used it for the cover without her knowledge.

However, to the magazine's credit, it did not try to hide the fact that it's a stock photo, even printing circa 2002 on the cover and again referencing the date in editor Jon Meacham's letter entitled "The Palin Problem."

So that makes it OK.

Right? Or maybe not? What do you think?

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can't you shoot your foot off like that?

Just wondering.

Grim's Hall readers will be laughing pretty hard about now.

But don't fail to follow the link and read through the comments. My favorite:

Good catch. That is a 50 caliber automatic street-sweeper cop-killer assault weapon. Not only could she have blown her foot off, she could've killed every human within a 1000 yard radius. Which she would've probably enjoyed, since she loves to kill things. She is terrifying, and I have nightmares about her every night.

Hold me.

Eric Blair would say, "This thread is full of win."

Debate

The Debate:

The moderator and the audience have asked some extraordinarily good, insightful, and deep questions tonight (as well as a couple of duds). The candidates have flatly refused to answer any of them.

Paraphrased based on my memory of the question:

Q: 'What does this $700 billion bailout do for the little guy?'

Nothing at all directly. It may help keep the economy a whole from derailing, which would be good for the little guy as well as the big guys.

Neither candidate wants to say, "It wasn't designed to help the little guy," so we got two dodges. Sadly, this was the least evasive answer of the night.

Q: 'Should health care be a commodity?'

This is a fascinating question, and one I was very sorry that both candidates dodged completely. It's a fundamental issue, and I would like to know what they both think about it. A 'no' answer calls for a European-style system whereby health care is instead considered a right, which we make arrangements as a society to provide for that right to be met. A 'yes' answer is compatible with a market system.

If the answer is yes, as I think it is, it is not only because many people have spent time and money becoming health care providers -- whether doctors, paramedics, nurses, etc. This is an issue, because the government would be seizing their means of making a living if it declared health care a noncommodity: all "commodity" means is that there is something you can buy or sell.

The more important reason, though, is that the market regulates the amount people spend on a commodity. If you take it out of the market, you regulate the supply by law instead. You tell doctors and other health care providers, "You will provide as much as is demanded, and we will pay you what we decide to." So fewer people become doctors, until you have to mandate that, too.

Furthermore, the government's resources become increasingly devoted to health care. Supply is limited by the number of doctors, etc., but demand for health care is essentially unlimited. I could go to the doctor every time I get a cold, or think I might be getting a cold. I could ask for a prescription of Tamiflu just in case. I don't, because of the copay.

If it's my right to receive that health care, then the government has to provide me not with the same level of service I currently get, but a much higher level. Me and everyone else.

Q: 'We all recognize that things are going to be tighter. Prioritize entitlement reform, health care, and energy policy as first, second, and third most important.'

This was an outstanding and direct question from the moderator. McCain flatly dodged it ("I think we can do all three") and Obama followed him. The proverbial tar and feathers should be applied here to both of them.

This is the question that has now been asked in all three debates: 'If you find you won't be able to keep your campaign promises, which ones are you really going to do, and which ones will go by the wayside if things are too tight?' It's a tremendously important issue, and one I'd like to see pushed. McCain came closest to answering it, by reminding people of his spending freeze plan, but that's still not an answer to the particular question (although based on the answer he did give, I'd estimate his priorities as: 1) Entitlement reform, 2) Energy, 3) Health care). Sen. Obama's answer was even less direct, just a recitation of his health care talking points and his energy talking points (which bled into his non-answers to the other questions).

Q: Best question of the night. 'How can we trust either of you, given how badly your parties have both behaved up to now?'

McCain almost answered this one, by pointing people to watchdog agencies that would show he was committed to bipartisanship, whereas his opponent voted with his party every time. True enough, although the real question wasn't about who will work with the other party. If both parties are so bad they cannot be trusted (which seems largely beyond dispute), bipartisanship is not the same virtue as if there are good ideas on both sides (which is less clear).

Instapundit and Brendan Loy spoke to this today:

[I]t's hard to argue with this: "It isn't just that McCain and Obama are flawed candidates; it's that there aren't really any better alternatives. Who would you rather see up there? Hillary Clinton? Mitt Romney? John Edwards? Mike Huckabee? Joe Biden? Sarah Palin? Nancy Pelosi? John Boehner? Harry Reid? Mitch McConnell? George W. Bush? John Kerry? Dick Cheney? Al Gore? Please. Our political class is totally failing us, almost as much as we're failing ourselves."

Yes, the political class isn't attracting the best talent in the nation. It's not even attracting the second-best.

This is the hope people have for Gov. Palin, who at least is a complete newcomer -- real fresh blood. My suspicion is that we'll see a whole lot of incumbents turned out this year, whatever the polls say about it now.

Q: Second best question, from a seventy-something lady: 'Since WWII, Americans haven't been asked to sacrifice anything for the good of the nation, except the blood of our heroic troops. What will you ask?'

Best answers of the night. Sen. McCain actually raises the prospect of cutting social programs and entitlements. Sen. Obama says he'll double the Peace Corps and volunteer programs for the youth. He tries to talk about the civilian expeditionary force concept, but doesn't really know how to phrase it. Pity.

Q: 'What about climate change?'

I can't believe we're still talking about global warming, but apparently we are.

Both candidates reiterate their energy policy talking points.

Most of the night, actually, was talking point hell. For those of us who are following these issues intensely and watching them with people who don't, that is very frustrating ("Obama just said clean coal! Do you know..." "Shh!" "McCain said he voted against the new tanker! Why..." "Shhh!").

The funniest moment of the night was when the moderator, after several warnings, took them both to task for not keeping their answers to the one minute required. Sen. Obama -- having just a few minutes earlier told a questioner that he knew they weren't there to see politicians pointing fingers at each other -- actually stood up and pointed his finger at McCain.

I don't know who won in the mind of the average voter. I am reminded of our discussion of who would be a good VP pick, when Cassandra asserted that one of her standards was, "Who would make a good standard bearer in 2012?" I said then that I didn't see anyone on the slate I'd want to be thinking about in 2012. Gov. Palin is better than I expected, but I hope we'll see a complete turnover between now and then. I'd still believe that our country needs to ask some of those good men who have done so well in Iraq and elsewhere to step up to the task. Sign me up for the Mattis in '12 ticket.

Election "2K H8"?

Those of you who try to keep up with Cassandra saw this fellow earlier today, and Mrs. G. linked to him as well. (Cassandra's post was the same one where she called me an ignorant racist.)

I was amused to read, via Mrs. G., that the Freepers invited him and banned him within 24 hours. That's kind of awesome.



So what did he say to get banned?

BIG BANG recreated!!! That's fantastic!!! Someone recreated a model of the big bang. But hey, you can't have a recreation without an original creation.... if [our] intelligence has brought [us] to a point where [we] can model a big bang recreation, then there must have been an intelligence that gave ignition to the original, and endowed it with life to boot!

I didn't realize creationism was a banning offense at Free Republic. Still, there's two things to say about this that ought to be said.

1) The fact that it requires intelligence to build a model of something does not mean that it required intelligence to create the original. I've seen a carefully-constructed wave pool built to study the movement of sand in tidal regions. That doesn't mean that the ocean was similarly designed. It may have been, or not; we don't know.

2) However, the fellow has a good point. Is it really a "recreation" of the big bang if it doesn't produce a new universe? What if you can make a 'universe,' but it doesn't contain intelligent life?

As Chesterton wrote, people lose the wonder of the thing sometimes.

If trees were tall and grasses short,
As in some crazy tale,
If here and there a sea were blue
Beyond the breaking pale,

If a fixed fire hung in the air
To warm me one day through,
If deep green hair grew on great hills,
I know what I should do.

In dark I lie: dreaming that there
Are great eyes cold or kind,
And twisted streets and silent doors,
And living men behind.

Let storm-clouds come: better an hour
And leave to weep and fight,
Than all the ages I have ruled
The empires of the night.

I think that if they gave me leave
Within the world to stand,
I would be good all through the day
I spent in fairyland.

They should not hear a word from me
Of selfishness or scorn,
If only I could find the door,
If only I were born.

Awe and wonder are too often lost, and this young man has pointed at a place where they are deserved. Our scientists have done a glorious thing! And yet, how very far we remain from knowing even the first things: How? Why?

WV Blog

A West Virginia Blogger:

You might like Deafening Silence, a blog by a lady from West Virginia. I had a pleasant email exchange with her recently, and I think she's the sort of person you'd all like.

Good Ad

A Good Ad:

It seems to me that any effective ad by the McCain team starts the way this one does. The most dangerous question Sen. Obama has ever had to face is, "Who are you?"

Joyce

Obama & Joyce:

Did you know that Obama was a director of the Joyce Foundation? Not that I needed another reason to be opposed to him, but:

[D]uring his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

The Geek With a .45 mentions Joyce occasionally. His point is that they create and support all these little groups so that, when they all say the same thing, it sounds like there are lots of different people independently coming to the same conclusion. In fact, it's bought and paid for by Joyce -- astroturf, in other words.

la horde sauvage

La Horde Sauvage:

From the Sergio Leone film My Name is Nobody:



You'll hear a tinny version of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" worked into this. This is the French version, Mon nom est Personne.

Hooah

"How To Speak Southern"

Feddie at Southern Appeal says that he realizes this link is "a little blue," but since he got it from his mother...

"Bless your heart." An ancient Confederate curse, used in cases of extreme censure. Rough translation: "F#*& you, Yankee." Sample usage: "You're supporting Obama? Why, bless your heart."

That is, um... yeah.

Racism

"Unsubstantiated"

Greyhawk takes note of the AP's remarkably evenhanded journalism:

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

UNSUBSTANTIATED???

What would it take to substantiate this in the AP's view?



See also "Founding Brothers" by Stanley Kurtz, which was written out of the archives for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge; and this piece, describing a clear effort by the Obama camp to avoid discussing it.

And then there was the time Obama got a job from Ayers:



So, aside from video archives, documentary evidence from the CAC, and the fact that the Obama camp has gone to great lengths on multiple occasions to try to silence discussion of the subject -- even trying to get people who talk about it prosecuted -- no, there's nothing to this at all.

Oh, and it's racist. Ayers is white, but whatever.