The New York Times has a story about President Obama's visit to Indonesia, the country where he spent part of his boyhood. The graph that caught my eye:

His nanny was an openly gay man who, in keeping with Indonesia’s relaxed attitudes toward homosexuality, carried on an affair with a local butcher, longtime residents said. The nanny later joined a group of transvestites called Fantastic Dolls, who, like the many transvestites who remain fixtures of Jakarta’s streetscape, entertained people by dancing and playing volleyball.

This is the newspaper that couldn't be bothered to find anything out about Obama during his college years. Am I alone in thinking that if, oh, I don't know, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had a similar background, The Times might have found that newsworthy years ago?

The 'progressives' couldn't attain change through Obama. Now it might be time for more drastic measures. The Blaze has the scoop:

“Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for revolution?” Dylan Ratigan asked yesterday on his MSNBC show. His unequivocal reply: “The answer is obviously ‘yes.’ The only question is, ‘how to do it?’”

So what kinds of abuses are we obviously going to rise up against? “Wrongful wars,“ ”corrupt economy,“ ”special interest industries,” “the political system itself,“ and ”gerrymandering.”

“To clear our dire problems may require even more drastic solutions,” he said. While introducing his cartoonist guest, Ratigan says those solutions might include “violence or at least the threat thereof.”

Take a look at the MSNBC segment in question. Are these liberals really weighing violence as a viable solution to their problems?

On Bellum, an interview with Amb. Ryan Crocker, who worked hand-in-hand with Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, defeating the counter-insurgency:

The demise of the nation-state has been predicted for decades. But certainly as one looks at the Middle East region it is very much alive and well. It is striking to me that although the borders of many modern Middle Eastern countries are the result of decisions by colonial powers with which the peoples of the area had nothing to do, nonetheless they have been ready to fight and die to preserve the sanctity of those borders....No Middle Eastern borders have changed [since early in the twentieth century]. National identity within the post-World War I constructs that were determined by the colonial powers have nonetheless been absolutely solid.

The death of the nation-state. Yet another concept so obviously out of keeping with the facts that only intellectuals can believe it.

I'm an amateur investor. Pretty much as amateur as they come, really, because I don't have much money to work with (which really limits the options). I've always been tempted to diversify my portfolio with a gold-based ETF or mutual fund. But every time I look into it, I'm discouraged by how high the price of gold already is. It can't keep going up forever, can it? And I don't want to be the sucker who buys into gold just before prices plummet. The last time I thought about investing in a gold-based financial product, gold was around $900 an ounce. Now it's over $1400 an ounce.

But gold is looking awfully bubblicious, muses Megan McArdle:

In the wake of the Fed's decision to do even further quantitative easing, a decision which has invited criticism from China, Russia and the Euro zone, gold has now shot above $1400 an ounce. Perhaps I'm too ready to call bubbles in assets, but this sure looks like one to me.

[...]

The whole idea of gold as some sort of unique store of value is badly flawed. It doesn't make a particularly good currency, and it also doesn't make a particularly good investment. Except when investors are panicking, its price tends to be driven by supply and its industrial and jewelry uses, which means that it's an excellent way to lose money by buying when you're panicking and then having to sell out as it's on its way down. Given that the price has already risen more than fourfold from a decade ago, this looks particularly likely right now.

It's not that quantitative easing may not cause inflation--it might. In fact, that's sort of the point; the Fed wants a little more inflation in the money supply, in order to ease the unemployment rate. But consider how much inflation there would have to be for this gold price to make sense...

Any professional (or less amateur, at least) investors out there in the Ricochet mosh pit that care to opine about gold? Is gold the next bubble, or is it an investment that will pay off in the long run?

From the New York Times:

The defendant, Steven J. Hayes, sat motionless at the defense table as a court clerk read, again and again, the jurors’ findings that Mr. Hayes should die for joining in the July 2007 home invasion that led to a night and morning of unimaginable terrors, of sexual abuse, baseball-bat beatings and flames, in the bucolic suburban town. Only one person has been executed in the state since 1960.

The crime was savage--beyond savage; evil--and Hayes's guilt was never in doubt.

Has the jury done right? I'd be particularly interested to learn what my friends Richard Epstein, John Yoo and Bill McGurn have to say. Legal scholars, Richard and John will have given a lot of thought to Supreme Court cases on the death penalty over the years, as also to the practical aspects of the penalty. (Hayes's appeals will take years, costing Connecticut taxpayers millions.) Bill McGurn? He's a learned Catholic, no doubt aware that Bishop William Lori, in whose diocese (if I'm not mistaken about the boundaries) the murder took place, represents one of the Church's--and the nation's--leading advocates for abolishing the death penalty outright.

Richard? John? Bill?

Michelle Obama's handshake is in the news again. Two years ago it was the "terrorist fist jab" faux controversy. Today it's Tifatul Sembiring's unfortunate photo op.

Tifatul Sembiring is described by media as a "conservative" (defined as what, I wonder) government official in Indonesia. He is the country's Minister of Communication and head of the Prosperous Justice Party.

He has a goal of cleaning porn from the Internet (there's porn on the Internet?) and a penchant for blaming natural disasters on a lack of morality, a la Jerry Falwell and Ted Turner.

He is also known for such Muslim piety that he vows never to touch a woman to whom he isn't related (because, you know, women are SO un-pious!).

Today he was caught on tape grabbing a big ol’ fistful of Michelle Obama's lovely hand.

Caught in this Islamic Fundamentalist faux pas, he did what any real man of honor would do: He blamed the girl. Nice job, Sir Galahad. He is claiming that he tried to avoid being touched, but the first lady imposed her will on him by holding her hand out too far.

I guess the camera pointing at him at the moment of the handshake is an evil, Western camera with the power to alter images as it records them, because it certainly looks to me like he willingly took Michelle Obama's hand into his own. Watch the video at about 1:10 seconds in and keep your eye on the shorter man. Tell me what you think.

Just recorded an Uncommon Knowledge interview with--and I'm not making this up--His Serene Highness Prince Hans Adam II, Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein. The interview won't go up on the Internet for another ten days, but, in the meantime, a few impressions:

• Discussing his book, The State in the Third Millennium, I opened with this quotation:

The United States and Europe “have to free the state from all the unnecessary tasks and burdens with which it has been loaded during the last hundred years, which have distracted it from its two main tasks: maintenance of the rule of law and foreign policy.”

Every word of that, I said, could have been written by Sarah Palin. The prince laughed, then remarked that he'd be quite happy as a member of the the Tea Party. And he meant it. Over and over again--particularly in addressing the need to roll back the welfare state--the prince sounded just like Sarah Palin or Rand Paul.

• When we Americans talk about taking the long view, we ordinarily mean thinking in terms of a decade or two. The prince? I asked about the pressures Germany has been placing on Liechtenstein to change its banking regulations. The prince began his answer by saying, "We've had problems with the Germans ever since the Holy Roman Empire."

• I'd forgotten how refreshing it is to talk with a European who appreciates the United States instead of resenting it. Hans Adam noted that American soldiers had liberated his wife's family from a concentration camp, adding that he considers it essential for the United States to remain the world's superpower.

A fascinating mind--and a funny, warm, completely enjoyable man. Thomas Jefferson would have disapproved, but I couldn't help thinking that if George III had been more like Hans Adam II, things might have gone very differently.

Anyone think we’ll get an answer on the Mystery Missile? A day after the projectile was spotted off Los Angeles, we don’t know anything, except that it probably wasn’t carrying Tintin to the moon. (They launched from Syldavia.) The speculation is fascinating, though.

1. It’s an airplane contrail, seen from an unusual angle. If you tilt your head to the side so your cheek is on your shoulder you’ll see that the contrail actually goes straight

2. Oops my bad: It was one of ours, shot off by accident and no one’s ‘fessing up because they’re still toting up how many careers will end

3. Take this, Commies: it was an intentional launch, meant to show our foes we have the power to launch ICBMs from underwater. That was the theory of the fellow in the LA news video. This seems unlikely, because A) duh of course we can do that, and B) it would make more sense to do it closer to their shores than ours, no?

4. Amateur rocketeers having a lark. Possibly. But if you get together with your buds for a fun-filled evening of sending rockets screaming into the sky belching smoke, you might think “hey, should we tell anyone? Because maybe there’s like planes up there.”

“Nah, bro, what are the odds? You worry too much. Let’s light this candle!”

5. An enormous flaming unfurled finger from the Norks. We've got Slibems, yes we do! We've got Slibems, how 'bout you? If I had to bet, I’d say it was these guys. It seems like just the sort of stunt they’d pull - and by “stunt” I mean firing rockets over someone else’s territory while screaming 24/7 about how we’re their mortal enemy and their entire military stands quivering on tip-toe ready to kill us. One of these days they’re going to hold a nuclear test on a minor Hawaiian island, and we’ll have to start taking them seriously.

On the road, trying to sell a couple of books—the Willy Loman of suspense fiction, that's me—which is why I haven’t been able to post much. In Nashville yesterday where I talked to an awful lot of people who’ve lost their jobs, who are working two jobs to keep going, working two lower level jobs when they used to do better. Some of this is because of last May’s flooding, which economists say cost the city a year’s worth of economic activity. All the same, something about talking to these folks and then turning on the TV to see President Me poncing around Indonesia with a bazillion dollars worth of our money makes my stomach twist. It’s just bad form is all, and speaks to me of his lofty indifference to the man in the street. Take his speech—quoting from memory—“Much has been made of my returning to the scenes of my youth…” I haven’t made much of it. I don’t make much of it now. I couldn’t give a rat's whisker about the scenes of his youth. I would just like to see him pluck his head out of his own self-regard long enough to implement some basic economic measures—less government spending, leaner, smarter regulations—so that the people who have the drive and self-reliance to work two more real jobs simultaneously than Obama has ever held in his entire life can start to build our country back up again.

Speaking at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington Sunday on the “Future of Journalism,” National Public Radio President and CEO Vivian Schiller said she takes calls for defunding NPR “very seriously,” while stressing how important government funding is for public broadcasting, especially for NPR’s member stations. She also recognized there’s a possibility that, with the new GOP majority in the House, those calls for defunding might be renewed.

“If defunding to public broadcasting were to occur, it would be devastating to public broadcasting. That’s a fact,” Schiller said.

After Schiller fired commentator Juan Williams several weeks ago for comments he made about Muslims on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” calls for defunding NPR erupted again.

“Almost all federal funding goes to member stations,” Schiller said. “Very, very little of it goes to NPR, but a lot goes to stations.”

While NPR headquarters only receives about 1 percent of funding from tax dollars, member stations receive about 9 percent of their funding from tax dollars, Schiller said. She said that the 9 percent NPR member stations receive from taxpayer dollars is essential for them to stay on the air.

“For small stations, and even for large stations, that’s a big chunk of their revenue,” she said. “It’s been a critical part of keeping those stations vibrant and, so, we take these calls for defunding very, very seriously.”

Continue reading at dailycaller.com.

Word is that Joe Manchin, the newly-elected Democratic senator from West Virginia, is mulling over a party switch.

He ran as a conservative -- and is in fact probably seriously to the right of Mike Castle, the Republican congressman who lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware primary -- but everyone isn't convinced he's all that conservative.

Still, it's interesting horse-trading. From The Atlantic Wire:

Joe Manchin is still a West Virginia Democrat. But he may not be one for very much longer. Fox News's Chris Stirewalt reports that Republicans are pushing hard to lure him to the other side of the aisle, where his political views may be a good fit and—more importantly—where he can get support for his pet project: a coal-to-diesel fuel plant. Apparently stalled under Democratic leadership, the plant would be "big money for the state's coal producers" and could be just enough to tempt him to join the Grand Old Party. Manchin's team, for now, has said that if his own party isn't "receptive" to his platform, then it may leave "possibilities" open. Republicans currently need three Senators to cross over to reach a 50-50 deadlock.

But there's another way to look at this:

Remember: In a GOP Tidal Wave He Was Elected as a Democrat, and that is no tiny feat, notes James Joyner at Outside thrae Beltway. "While I certainly don’t blame the Republicans for trying, a party switch on Manchin’s part would be unseemly at best. His state’s voters just elected him as a Democrat, in what was a Republican wave election nationally. In my ideal world, all politicians contemplating a switch would hold themselves to the Phil Gramm standard and resign their seats and run for re-election as a member of the other party."

I agree. The guy was elected as a Democrat. He should stay a Democrat. Coal plant or no.

The Congressional Black Caucus states as its vision "a world in which the black community is free of all disparities and able to contribute fully to advancing the common good." Traditionally the CBC has been hostile to racial diversity -- they openly denied admission to applicants Rep. Steve Cohen and Rep. Pete Stark based on the color of the applicants' skin -- as well as to ideological diversity:

CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)...told The Economist that, while the group is technically bipartisan, it also "has an agenda."

"Our agenda is about lifting people out of poverty, providing middle-class tax cuts, supporting climate-change legislation," she said.

But the CBC is about to experience a dash of diversity, whether they welcome it or not. Last week, Allen West of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina -- both black Republicans -- were elected to serve in the House of Representatives. While Tim Scott is not sure whether he'll seek membership in the CBC, Allen West is looking forward to shaking things up in the group:

"I plan on joining, I'm not gonna ask for permission or whatever, I'm gonna find out when they meet and I will be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus," West told WOR radio after his victory last week. "I meet all of the criteria and it's so important that we break down this monolithic voice that continues to talk about victimization and dependency in the black community.

"We've got to turn this thing around, and I think it's time for some different voices to be in that body politic."

Retired Lt. Colonel Allen West will be one dissenting voice among a group of over 40 uniformly liberal voices, but he's demonstrated himself to be an intellectual heavyweight and a force to be reckoned with. I look forward to hearing about his progress with this group.

For years there has been talk of providing a UN Security Council—its composition a hold-over from the postwar victorious allies— seat for a Australia, Brazil, India, Germany, or Japan, based on population, or economic or strategic clout. India has the best case—given its reformed and booming economy, its new prominence, a 1-billion-person population, and its wary relationship with China. But while Presidents like to make such gestures abroad, they should first decide whether the Council itself a zero-sum game or not; i.e., why is France on the Security Council, given that the EU has two seats when Britain is counted, and neither its population, strategic profile, or economy seal the case. I don't think a council of, say, ten permanent members is going to quite work.

Politically, Obama's call for India to be made a permanent member of the Security Council made good sense as a sort of mea culpa offering. Obama has come under criticism for not appreciating the key role of English-speaking, democratic, pro-Western India, and his talk of protectionism and outsourcing, along with nonchalance about traditional notions of deterrence and balance of power, and naiveté about the connection between radical Islam and terrorism, has worried Indians.

Then, fairly or not, there is a sense, here and abroad, that the President goes out of his way to use deferential language about our enemies (cf. his characterizations of Iran, his word-slicing about jihad, his soft-gloves approaches to Russia, etc.) not accorded to either our friends overseas (cf. the treatment of Britain, Israel, or, yes, India) or fellow Americans at home (the rich who junket to Vegas and the superbowl, the limb-lopping doctors, the "enemies" who oppose illegal immigration and want to lock up those on their way to "ice cream", the fearful who opposed the Ground Zero mosque, and the stupidly acting, stereotyping police, etc.). That is a bad habit the President must work on, and it either reflects a Pavlovian reductionist idea of 'Bush's friends suspect, his enemies misunderstood' or sort of ossified 'oppression studies' dogmas that were in vogue at places like Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard during Obama's sojourns there. India, for example, got a more critical lecture about its human rights record toward Burma than did Ahmadinejad, when one-million protestors were sent scurrying from the streets after a fixed election.

Obama was right about Burma, but we need to see the same sort of hectoring accorded to Cuba, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Venezuela, etc. Otherwise, how can you promote human rights abroad through criticism of our allies, but not extend even sterner lecturers to our rivals and enemies? This is a surreal reversion of American foreign policy of the last half-century when the liberal critique was that we gave passes on human rights abuses to our allies and harped on the abuses of our enemies. I never imagined a President would reverse the protocol. But Obama somehow has.

Given all that, yes, please extend to India an offer of help with a Security Council seat.

BY CHRIS MOODY

For House Democrats, 2011 is likely to be the year of the progressives.

The midterm elections largely purged the party of moderate Blue Dogs, meaning that for the first time the Congressional Progressive Caucus will represent more than forty percent of Democrats in the House. There’s no question Democrats are now a progressive party. The only problem: nobody can agree on what the word “progressive” actually means.

And not for lack of trying. While many have tried to define the term — John Podesta of the Center for American Progress wrote an entire book on the subject – no consensus has emerged. Call a dozen different self-described progressives, and you’re likely to get as many different explanations of what a “progressive” is.

“I’m not sure what the definition is,” conceded James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change. “I don’t love the term.” Rucker co-founded his organization with former White House “green jobs czar” Van Jones, so there isn’t much question about where he stands politically. But the term still strikes him as opaque. “I think it’s kind of the new ‘liberal,’” he said.

Ambiguous? That may be the point. “People use the word ‘progressive’ these days in part because the word liberal has been discredited by the right,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, a Washington-based non-profit that touts itself as “the strategy center for the progressive movement."

Hickey, whose group hosts one of the most prominent annual gatherings of liberal activists in the country, added that there is more to the term than just a rebranding effort. “‘Progressive’ connotes that element of economic populism and the little guy up against big corporate forces that liberalism does not,” he explained.

“Progressive” may connote standing up for the little guy, but an awful lot of big guys have suddenly appropriated the term. When asked in a debate during the 2008 presidential primaries if she considers herself a liberal, Hillary Clinton said she prefers “the word progressive” because liberalism “has been turned up on its head and made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government.” In October, the President of the United States himself told a group of bloggers that he considers himself a progressive. The Center for American Progress, the progressive movement’s brain trust in Washington, now has a budget of around $25 million.

So what does it mean? Some progressives contend that progressivism is a distinct subset of modern liberalism. Others say that it’s a set of beliefs separate and apart from liberalism – indeed, beyond the traditional “liberal versus conservative” divide.

If you’re confused, you’re not alone. Even within left-wing circles, the debate rages. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and Glenn Greenwald of Salon got into a heated discussion last Friday after O’Donnell accused liberals of hiding behind the term. He went on to suggest that the re-emergence of the word “progressive” was nothing but a mere marketing ploy.

“Glenn, unlike you, I am not a progressive,” O’Donnell said on the “Morning Joe” program. “I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay?”

Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta spent almost 250 pages working to explain the difference between liberals and progressives. In his 2004 book, The Power of Progress, Podesta argued that progressivism values pragmatism over ideology. “Progressivism…is less theoretically developed and more hands-on in its approach,” Podesta wrote.

President Obama seemed to espouse this view in his 2009 inauguration speech when he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” John Halpin, who directs research at the Center for American Progress, echoed Podesta’s definition. “[P]rogressives believe the typical liberal-conservative fight over big government versus small government misses the point,” Halpin wrote, also in 2004. “We want to focus instead on finding the best solution – public or private – to a given problem, a proven approach that marries American pragmatism and our history of taking all challenges head on.”

But despite the certainty of these claims, the fine points still seem lost on leaders within the movement.

“I consider myself a progressive, but I don’t know what would distinguish a progressive from a liberal,” James Rucker said.

“Generally it’s interchangeable,” Roger Hickey added. “Progressives are a little bit more populist about the economy.”

When asked what he considers the difference between liberals and progressives to be, “progressive hero” Rep. Alan Grayson, the recently defeated Florida Democrat, replied merely, “I don’t know.”

Asked to define the term, Grayson described decency itself. Progressivism, Grayson said, is “the same impulse to be good to your fellow man that has been animating people for over 3,000 years. People have understood the need to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and to heal the sick. After 3,000 years that job is not done. So we keep at it. Progressivism is rooted in human nature. When people see other people in trouble they want to help. Progressivism is the objective manifestation of that impulse in politics.”

So what does that make liberalism? At this point, it’s not clear.
(This article originally appeared at Daily Caller)

But while we're talking about a certain three letter word, I thought I'd point out the latest in industry news: men who make more love also live longer, healthier, and more maritally faithful lives. This from the country of amore:

Italian medical researchers carried out a series of studies as part of the conference, and found that a healthy sex life means fewer cardiovascular problems for men.

The investigation was carried out by the Italian Society of Sexual Medicine who are holding their annual congress in the city of Modena.

Dr Emmanuele Jannini, coordinator of the research, said: "What was evident from the research was that men who had active sex lives and were faithful to their partners had fewer cardiovascular complaints and lived longer.

"Increased sexual activity produces more testosterone, which leads to less depression and a better cardiovascular performance which means an improved metabolism."

Via Hot Air.

I travel a fair amount. Last year, after the publication of my books Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty and Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, I was on the road all of the time. This year – thanks, I suspect, to the delayed effect of the recession on academic budgets – I have had fewer invitations, which is, frankly, a relief. It is good to be home with my family, and I am enjoying my teaching a whole lot more.

In early September, however, I flew to Washington, DC to attend the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Washington, DC. After a day or two, I delivered a paper on Aristophanes, and the next morning I took a taxi to Reagan Airport to catch a flight back to Michigan.There, for the first time, I was subjected to a full-body scan by what I took to be an X-ray machine.

I found myself asking myself: Is this safe? Will it dramatically increase my chances of getting cancer – especially, if these scanners are introduced into every airport, the economy picks up, and I find myself traveling more frequently?

I have recently read reports suggesting that the danger is serious, and I gather that the airline pilots are up in arms. Is there anyone associated with Ricochet who can tell me whether we should all be alarmed?

If so, we should make a fuss. The entire rigamarole that we are made to undergo at airports in the name of security is rooted in a refusal to acknowledge what is obvious to anyone with half a brain – that, for all practical purposes, terrorism today is an Islamic phenomenon and that security screening with an eye to the religion of travelers would be a rational policy.

It is one thing to put non-Muslims through the inconveniences to which we are now subject and to do so in the interests of not subjecting innocent Muslims to humiliation. It would be another to put us for such a purpose in danger of losing our lives. It would be easy enough for the government to issue to frequent travelers who have undergone a thorough security check and are not Muslims an identity card allowing them to bypass the scanners.

Here is a related question that some journalist should pursue. Are Senators and Congressmen who fly out of Reagan Airport subjected to full-body scans? There is, as Samuel Johnson once observed, nothing that concentrates the mind like the prospect of hanging.

Some Texas lawmakers are considering it:

Less than an hour after the period began for filing bills for consideration in the 2011 Legislative session, State Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball), a leader of the newly muscular conservatives in the Legislature, filed an 'Arizona style' measure that would crack down on illegal immigration, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Riddle says her measure is a response to what she says is the escalating violence caused by Mexican and Latin American gangs in Texas...

The measure would be similar to Arizona's controversial SB 1070, in that it would require that local police work with federal immigration officials in determining the legal status of a person who is in their custody.

"If that individual is already being detained, because of another crime, then that officer can inquire as to one's immigration status," Riddle said...

Republicans will hold 99 of the 150 seats in the Texas House when the biennial session is gaveled into order January 11th, the largest GOP majority in the Texas House in 140 years.

But I don't think an Arizona-style immigration law is in the cards for Texas. Recently reelected Texas Governor Rick Perry, though no softy on immigration, has spoken out against the Arizona law:

I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas...Some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe.

Like Riddle, the Texas state rep who wants to crack down on illegal immigration, Perry is worried about "spillover violence" along Texas' 1200 mile border with Mexico. But his mantra on illegal immigration has always been "secure the border" with more federal troops.

Perry, who is in his third term, is the longest serving governor in Texas history. There's been some speculation that he may run for president one day, though he denies it. Whatever his long term political ambitions are, if they are in elected politics, he will need the support of Hispanic voters--and of his traditional base. A majority of Texans support the Arizona immigration law, while Hispanic voters oppose it. But will his base leave him for speaking out against Arizona-style immigration reform? It hasn't so far. Will Hispanics leave him? They very well may.

This is vile even by UN standards.

The board of UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has decided that Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs -- both of which are ancient Jewish holy places -- should be removed from Israel's list of national sites. And that's not all. According to UNESCO, Rachel's Tomb isn't Jewish after all, despite millenia of history. Its name should accordingly be changed to the Bilal ibn Rabah mosque -- a demand the Palestinians manufactured, in the teeth of all historical evidence, in 1996.

You might be interested to read the horrified protests of Nimrod Barkan, the Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO. You can't, though. They've been expunged from the record.

The original instigator of this grotesque insult is Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was quoted in the Saudi press in March as saying that Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs “were not and never will be Jewish sites, but Islamic sites.” Obviously they were taking notes on First Avenue.

Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu issued a rather understated reply to UNESCO: "It is unfortunate that an organization that was established with the goal of promoting the cultural preservation of historical sites around the world is attempting due to political reasons to uproot the connection between the nation of Israel and its cultural heritage." Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon announced that Israel will cease cooperation with UNESCO, adding that "We should see the organization's decision to remove the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb from the list of Israel's national sites as part of Palestinian escalation in international organizations."

This act by UNESCO is more than a slap in Israel's face. It's a declaration of war. Even I, secular Jew that I am, understand that Rachel's Tomb -- Rachel's Tomb, for God's sake! -- is a beloved ancient Jewish site, inseparable from our history. The Jerusalem Post explains:

Rachel’s Tomb is located on the northern outskirts of Bethlehem some 460 meters south of Jerusalem’s municipal boundary. The site has been identified for over 1,700 years as the grave of the Jewish matriarch Rachel. The copious literature of Jewish, Christian and Muslim pilgrims identifies and documents the spot as the place where Rachel is buried.
Many generations of Jews have visited the place for prayer, requests and entreaties. The site has become a sort of Wailing Wall to which Jews come to pour out their hearts and share their troubles and requests with the beloved matriarch, hoping to find solace and healing. Jewish tradition attributes unique and wondrous qualities to Rachel’s tears, and visitors to her grave ask her to cry and pray on their behalf.

For centuries, Arab Muslims -- while demanding protection money to keep the site in good repair and extortion for Jewish access to it -- explicitly acknowledged that Rachel's Tomb is a Jewish holy place. That all changed during the 1990s, though, when the Palestinians -- no doubt sensing a receptive audience abroad -- began to refer to the tomb as a mosque. The Muslim religious authorities adopted the name the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in 1996, and it "eventually took root in Palestinian national discourse."

A trumped-up case of self-serving historical revisionism? Sure. But if it's what the Arabs want, it's the gospel truth. At least according to the UN.

[image from Flickr gallery קבר רחל אמנו]

This evening, my roommate (the creative genius behind the design of the Ricochet twitter page) and I watched George W. Bush’s interview with Matt Lauer. An ardent critic of President Bush, my roommate was surprised by how likable and warm Bush seemed. She was also intrigued by how little significance President Bush ascribes to criticism of his person and his actions.

The interview revealed Bush to be a relatable, reflective, sympathetic man with the maturity to acknowledge his faults and the humility to accept the blame for his mistakes.

I was especially moved by the tenderness with which Bush spoke about his father, his lingering sadness over being accused of racism by rapper Kanye West, his conviction that he did all he could to protect the American people after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and his desire to fade into anonymity once he's finished his book circuit.

I just got back from playing the Fun Fun Fun Festival in Downtown Austin and I brought my wife there for her first time in the State Capitol. I've bragged about how much fun Austin is to her for years. When she asked why is this place so much fun I had fun telling her that "a lot of it is why we vote for Republicans dear." (I assume she votes for Republicans.)

Never is the value of states' rights vs. a strong central authority more clear than when you're playing a wild music festival in a park in the middle of a Texas city. There are just less rules against fun in this state than there are in most. 6th street is raging and there are very few cops needed. There seems to be an unspoken agreement among revelers not to "blow this."

There are broken bottles cemented to the tops of walls as security. Why not? There are make shift food stands coexisting with "not over regulated" traditional restaurants. Here in California, the food trucks are at war with the over regulated and over taxed traditional eateries.

No one's freaked out about booze. No one's freaked out about guns. The Sunday mass I went to at St. Mary's was packed to the brim. The artists are thriving. Prices are low.

I heard Gov. Perry on the radio the other day bragging about the huge numbers of businesses moving from California to Texas. Good for them. Competition for buziness HQs is a healthy way to get sates to recognize that freedom leads to prosperity. What am I doing in California? My family's here, and we're close. But the government can only push people so far. And do the punks and the artists get this? No. But maybe some day.

Fun Fun Fun Fest featured MGMT, The Hold Steady, Bad Religion, The Descendants, Weird Al, and my lucky band, the Vandals, this year.

Assuming this entry from Fox Nation is not satirical, and you can check the transcript of the actual interview here, President Obama made some incredible statements on his '60 Minutes' Interview. Just look at the top four, with a comment or two of mine following each:

4. “I don't think I was naïve. I just think that these things are hard to do. You know, this is a big country.”

Translation: "I over-promised and under-performed, but I can't be blamed for either because this is a tough job. Oh, yes, but I take full responsibility, as long as you don't blame me for any of it."

3. “…there are more efficient ways to recirculate dollars out there and get people to spend. I mean unemployment insurance, most economists will tell you, is probably the single most important thing we can do to improve the economy.”

I mentioned this in a column the other day with incredulity: he believes that extending unemployment insurance ad infinitum is not only the moral thing to do (even though it creates a disincentive to work), but is very beneficial for the economy. This guy is an unqualified Keynesian, demand-side zealot. Never mind that you're taking money from other people who won't have it to save, spend or invest to give it to others. Just increase consumption and all will be well. Never has worked, but liberal theory says it does, as well as liberal revisionist history, so it does.

2. “We still we've got a couple of trillion dollars worth of infrastructure improvements that need to be made around the country.”

Putting aside the abject casualness of his contemplation of spending yet a couple more tril, do you remember his recent quest for a new stimulus bill in the amount of $50 billion for infrastructure projects, even though one of the selling points of the first stimulus bill (amounting to about $868 billion) was planned infrastructure improvements and only seven percent ended up going toward infrastructure? $868 billion didn't stimulate the economy, but we're expected to believe approximately one eighteenth of that amount ($50 billion) would? We need a couple of tril for infrastructure but he's asking for $50 billion? Is he so cynical with our money that he'll just say anything whenever it suits him? This is really Monopoly money to him. Worse yet, the expenditure merely causes Monopoly debt. It's as if it's not real to him. You can't tell me he has the slightest concern about increasing this nation-destroying debt -- even now. Even now, after the public spanked him into next week on November 2. He's not serious enough to be president -- intellectually or emotionally. The only other plausible alternative is that he's doing this damage on purpose. Oh boy, let's not go there.

1.“…when you're campaigning, I think you're liberated to say things without thinking about, "Okay, how am I gonna actually practically implement this."

Another example of just how brazenly cynical he is. Can you imagine a Republican president or national political figure making such a statement, revealing that it is liberating to be able to just make things up without fear of accountability. Another damning admission. He obviously has been so coddled during his life, at least his adult life, that he must not even realize how reckless and callous some of these answers make him look. Then again, he is the guy who, during what should have been a solemn moment leading up to the memorial tribute to the Ft. Hood massacre victims, gave a bizarre "shout-out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow.

Over on Dave's Buttoned-Up Mind, a really lovely post recently appeared about "taking the plunge to pay to comment on Ricochet."

For the longest time, I read Ricochet on and off, but never wanted to pay and comment. I thought "I can't keep up with these people. There is so much thought and intelligence behind almost all of their posts (both contributors and current members) that I'll look stupid next to them. Is it really worth $3.47/month when I'm going to be too intimidated to leave a comment?"

[Finally] I decided that I wasn't going to be intimidated anymore. That's the main purpose of this blog.

Sure, my posts may not have the wit of Mark Steyn, or the deep thoughtfulness of Victor Davis Hanson.

But I did have something to contribute. My thoughts are valuable. And people can pay for the privilege of responding to me just like I'm paying to be able to respond to them.

Dave's post reminded me of a question I used to wonder about during the old days, when I was a speechwriter for the Gipper: What made Ronald Reagan suppose he knew what he was doing? He'd grown up in small towns in the midwest, graduating from little Eureka College. What made him so sure of himself? Eventually, I figured it out: Reagan grasped the wonderful accessibility of American public life. In France, you have to know a thousand years of history and attend one of a small number of elite universities before anyone will take your opinions seriously. In this country? If you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's second inaugural address, well, then, you've got the basics. Government of, by, and for the people means just that--folks like us, reading the founding documents, then measuring events against common sense and our own experiences, and speaking up.

Often enough, I feel intimidated by Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson myself.

But what the heck.

Thanks, Dave. And welcome.

Months before the midterm elections, I wrote here about the Democrat's reaction to their impending loss by comparing it to the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief:

The famous Kubler-Ross stages of grief are: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

I'm a people person. I care about others. So as the hapless, amateur-hour Obama administration lurches from one self-inflicted mess to another, what I really want to know is this: how's the press doing? You know, in the mental health department? How are all of those fawning, lickspittle toadies handling the collapse of their Chosen One?

Good news! They're following the textbook.

And a week after the drubbing, they're still following the textbook. The great Ed Driscoll alerted me to this piece in today's Politico, about which Ed writes:

Back in August, Rob Long explored “The Five Stages of Grief: The Left Wing Now Gets Angry,” at Ricochet.com:

It’s all part of the Kubler-Ross model, the Five Stages of Grief. Now they’re turning to Stage Two: Anger. Angry at the voters, at Fox News, at Obama himself.

Next up: Bargaining. I’m not sure when that’s going to start — probably a few weeks after Labor Day. But as always, what we’re all waiting for is Stage Four: Depression.

Fortunately, help is now standing by for just that eventuality, the Politico reports, spotting “Grief counseling after the wipeout:”

A staffer for a congressional Democrat who came up short on Tuesday reports that a team of about five people stopped by their offices this morning to talk about payroll, benefits, writing a résumé, and so forth, with staffers who are now job hunting.

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

“It was like it was about death,” the staffer said. “It was bizarre.” The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive.

The teams weren’t sent by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Two people have suggested it may have been the Clerk’s Office or Human Resources.

While Tuesday was definitely a major loss for the Democrats, I hadn’t heard it cast in a stages-of-grief way before.

The first rule of understanding American politics is: read Ricochet. It only seems like we're kidding.

BY MATTHEW SHAFFER

On Sunday, October 17, the New York Times reported that NPR had accepted a $1.8 million grant from George Soros’s left-leaning Open Society Institute. To some, it appeared to be a watershed, especially when Pres. Vivian Schiller went on in short order to fire and insult Juan Williams. But in fact, in his politics, Soros isn’t that different from the people who already control and raise money for NPR.

I investigated the political sympathies of every power player on two boards of directors: that of NPR itself, and that of the NPR Foundation, which controls the flow of private money from donors to NPR. I obtained lists of board members from guidestar.com, a website that keeps up-to-date information on non-profits, as NPR was not eager to provide information about the Foundation. I found information about their political sympathies on campaignmoney.com, voterfactory.com, city-data.com, the Huffington Post’s Fundrace blog, Google, and opensecrets.com. The results are presented here. And they are telling.

I found information about all but seven of the 55 board members (50 directors plus the five “public” members of the NPR board). Of these 48 members, nearly all have demonstrably liberal political sympathies, with heavy support for the Democratic party, pro-abortion-rights groups, and environmental activism in particular.

The governance structure of NPR has Vivian Schiller, president and CEO, at the top, with the chairman of the NPR Foundation, Antoine van Agtmael, serving on the NPR board as her second-in-command. Ten managers of NPR’s member stations serve on the board in rotating three-year terms (as these are local journalists, not power players, I left them off this list). The rest of the seats on the 16-member NPR board are filled by “five prominent members of the public selected by the board and confirmed by NPR member stations” — who are supposed to represent the public, according to NPR. The NPR board “sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management, monitors NPR’s performance, and provides financial oversight,” also according to NPR.

Then, there’s the NPR Foundation. Its board consists 50 members plus a chairman — the members being big donors, fundraisers, and others. Anna Christopher, spokeswoman for NPR, says “the Foundation Board of Trustees has no role in programming, news, or the governance of NPR.” But the Foundation chairman has a seat on NPR board of governors, and the Foundation’s control of funds gives them indirect power at the very least. Requests to NPR for basic information about how the NPR Foundation handles donations went unanswered.

Why would almost all these people be liberal Democrats? Anna Christopher says, “We don’t have a litmus test for our board members or for our Foundation trustees.” De jure, that’s surely true: Presumably, NPR doesn’t have an official policy that board members must be liberal. But de facto, they have sure done a good job making their boards members indistinguishable from that of an openly partisan organization.

There are a few exceptions to the rule of unadulterated liberalism among NPR and Foundation board members. Carol A. Cartwright, a public member of the NPR board, carefully split her donations between Republicans and Democrats in 2004 and 2006. Joseph McNay, who serves on the Foundation board, also donates in a bipartisan manner. Foundation board member Lee Rolfe, though usually politically uninvolved, once donated $1,000 to Friends for Mike McGavick (a Seattle Republican). Henry E. Catto, a Foundation board member, has donated only to John McCain — though he donated to help McCain beat Tea Party insurgent J. D. Hayworth in 2010, not to help him against Obama in 2008. Finally, there’s James R. Hedges IV, a Foundation board member, who has split his sparse political donations evenly between George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Bradley. And there, the list of members with Republican or bi-partisan leanings ends.

All the others are overwhelmingly, and most of them are exclusively, Democratic and liberal. NPR Foundation chairman Antoine W. Van Agtmale doubles up as a trustee at the center-left Brookings Institution. NPR public board member Lyle Logan was one of Barack Obama’s major donors as early as 2000 — before it was cool.

The Foundation’s board members have been incredibly supportive of liberal causes. Judy Z. Steinberg has given about $40,000 to Democrats and EMILY’s List (a pro-abortion-rights group) since 2007. Jane Katcher has given Democrats and EMILY’s List more than $64,000 over the past decade. Roselyn Swig has already made more than 40 separate political donations this year, amounting to over $93,000 total. She donated over $100,000 to Democrats and pro-abortion-rights groups in both 2008 and 2006. Sukey Garcetti is director of the Roth Family Foundation, an organization whose “mission is commitment to progressive social change.” Bryan Traubert is one of Barack Obama’s very own White House Fellows and husband of Penny Pritzker, who was the national finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign. The couple hosted a fundraising dinner for Barack Obama in 2008, with a $28,500 price of admission, leading to a Wall Street Journal profile, “Money Maven: Billionaire raises record amounts of cash for Obama.”

The point of compiling this information is not to criticize the members themselves — they are welcome to their political views, obviously. The scandal is the uniformity of the institution as a whole. Its board members also sit on the boards of explicitly progressive advocacy groups, and have given millions of dollars to Democrats and liberal PACs — at the same time that they control the country’s “public” radio network.

(This article originally appeared on National Review Online)

Here's an example of how the Left is attempting to make it normal for children to grow up surrounded by intrusive government regulation. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, birthplace of the Constitution:

The cake, cookies and candy at the school parties you might remember will become a no-no if the state approves new nutrition guidelines.

Parent organizers would have to pick just one sweet treat per party and will be encouraged to order anything else from a menu of healthy snacks from their district's food services department.

The rules would limit the number of parties to one classroom birthday celebration a month, and no more than three holiday parties a year. They must be held after lunch.

The state could withhold or rescind state and federal reimbursements for districts that don't comply. The state could revoke approval for vending machines from offending districts.

At least it's not a federal regulation. Yet.

OK, for the record, I'm not advocating that we sugar-up our nation's children before lunch. But I hope we'd all agree that we should have the freedom to sugar-up our nation's children and the common sense not to do so.

So here's one of those nanny state solutions to a problem -- childhood obesity and poor nutrition -- that isn't likely to solve anything (is childhood obesity truly impacted by classroom birthday parties?) but instead will create layers of bureaucracy to monitor the ingestion of cupcakes on the part of first graders, who, in the Keystone state, may now be forced to celebrate their special days communally so as to limit their intake of birthday treats to a government sanctioned healthy dose of once per month.

Meanwhile, the union-controlled food service department will offer an array of healthy snacks.

In a socialist utopia, it would stink to be a kid.

Online as of today, the first segment of my Uncommon Knowledge interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist (and one of Milton Friedman's closest friends) Gary Becker. I’d urge everyone here at Ricochet to take a look. Why? For two reasons.

Dr. Becker, to name the first, will remind you that we’re not the crazy ones. Administration economists Lawrence Summers (Harvard) and Cristina Romer (Berkeley) spent the last two years telling us that we needed Obama’s gigantic stimulus package and that ObamaCare would contain health care costs, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (Princeton) insisted as recently as this very morning that the government needs to spend more, more, more. Dr. Becker’s reply? In a word, nonsense. The country needs economic growth, he insists, and growth comes from investment and entrepreneurial activity, in particular the formation of small businesses. We need to keep taxes low and government small.

The second reason for watching this interview? In his answers, his method of thinking through my questions--for that matter, in his very demeanor--Dr. Becker demonstrates a fundamental component of free-market economics: humility. Whereas Paul Krugman et al. believe, implicitly, that they know better than we ourselves just how we should all be leading our lives, Gary Becker indulges in no such conceit.

As you’ll Dr. Becker himself put it int he course of this interview, “I trust the American people.”

Apparently, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is already back, after just a two-day suspension. As much as I would have liked him to be in the doghouse for longer, the Economist points out that the whole fracas is somewhat ridiculous since Olbermann's entire show amounts to a massive "in-kind" donation to the Democratic Party. From the magazine's "Democracy in America" blog:

If NBC is worried about impartiality, then why put on a whole line-up of shows without even a fig leaf over the bias? That Mr Olbermann should get the boot for a relatively meagre $7,200 in donations to Democratic candidates seems incredibly silly given that his entire show amounts to an in-kind donation worth millions upon millions to Democratic candidates and interests. If it makes sense to suspend him for kicking a few bucks toward candidates he supports, it makes sense for MSNBC to just shut itself down for producing a transparently partial slate of programmes. . . . I know it's in the interests of big media to pretend money in politics is a huge problem while passing off its own outrageously unequal influence as some kind of noble public service, but who does MSNBC think it's kidding? Say what you will about Fox News, at least it doesn't insult our intelligence in this way.

I agree. I don't ask for unbiased coverage of politics -- I'm not sure such a thing exists -- but I wish people would stop pretending to be neutral when they so obviously are not.

Okay, maybe Ricochet needs to add mood indicators next to posts and comments.

Or maybe just stock "intent indicators." Like, Sarcasm ahead. Or I'm actually starting to get annoyed now. Or I'm steaming hot and shaking with rage as I type.

For all of us who like to think of ourselves as wordsmiths, I think there's still ample room for deep, varied and totally unpredictable misinterpretation.

When I toss something out there in the Rico universe, I am occasionally shocked by the way it's received. Then, when I respond in mock horror, mock irritation, or with mild but still-cheerful sarcasm, people think I'm really horrified or irritated or that I'm a supersensitive snark-ess in a snooty, pristine high tower. But then again, I come to realize I misinterpreted someone else's mood. Other times I sit there wondering, "What did (s)he mean when (s)he wrote that?" Or, "Do they get what I meant there?" Confusing. So I just go and have a cup 'o tea and try to forget about it.

But what if we could enable some sort of color-coded dots next to our comments? What colors? For what moods or intents?

Or maybe we could choose certain phrases from a dropdown menu, like Facebook's "It's complicated" relationship status. Something to replace emoticons, which seem juvenile. (Plus, Rob hates them.)

For the record, I have been on the color green -- ready to go, cheerful, fascinated by other views, open to learning, genuinely curious -- for 99.9% of my time on Ricochet. Indeed, for one post, I started to get yellow (a little cautious) as I read the comments. Then I got fully red (furious), and then that all turned me blue (hurt) for a few days. So I get that some people can shapeshift and get all mood altered. But then others pretend to get hot and bothered.

Does it even matter? Maybe that's what we're navigating here on Ricochet. Workin' it out. Writing our deepest thoughts and strongest convictions -- or best attempts at a joke -- in 200 words or less while remaining civil. I mean, Jonathan Swift didn't use a smiley face after his A Modest Proposal.

I do feel, also for the record, that we all sort of love each other here. (Cue sunshine art.) Am I right?

NEW DELHI -- President Barack Obama backed India for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council Monday, a dramatic diplomatic gesture to his hosts as he wrapped up his first visit to this burgeoning nation.

Obama made the announcement in a speech to India's parliament on the third and final day of his visit. In doing so, he fulfilled what was perhaps India's dearest wish for Obama's trip here. India has been pushing for permanent Security Council membership for years.

"The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate," Obama said. "That is why I can say today -- in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

The announcement brought the loudest applause of Obama's speech. But it does not mean that India will join the five permanent Security Council members anytime soon. The U.S. is backing India's membership only in the context of unspecified reforms to the council that could take years to bring about.

That makes Obama's announcement more of a diplomatic gesture than a concrete step. Nonetheless, it underscores the importance the U.S. places on fostering ties with this nation of 1.2 billion people, something Obama has been seeking to accomplish throughout his time here.

Continue reading at www.foxnews.com.

In his final two months in the governor's mansion, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has a few important loose ends to which he must attend:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is considering a December surprise: a posthumous pardon for Jim Morrison, lead singer of The Doors, for indecent exposure charges after an infamous 1969 Miami concert.

In a phone interview with The Hill, Crist said “stay tuned” regarding the idea of a posthumous pardon for the singer who died in Paris in 1971...

“Candidly, it's something that I haven’t given a lot of thought to, but it's something I’m willing to look into in the time I have left,” said Crist. “Anything is possible.”

Morrison, a native of Melbourne, Fla., was convicted of indecent exposure and profanity after a March 1, 1969, concert in Miami in which he allegedly exposed himself and acted lewdly. He had seen a provocative stage play the night before in Los Angeles and was purported to have drank steadily that day en route to Florida.

Charlie Crist, giving new meaning to 'lame duck'.