I've made the case that Turkey is of critical geostrategic significance to the United States. But even were it not, this is the most compelling courtroom drama since O.J. Simpson was arrested.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. And what if the plans to bring down the AKP through a military coup, supposedly drawn up in 2003, make reference to a hospital by a name it wasn't given until 2008?

This article--a riveting examination of the forensic evidence in the so-called Sledgehammer case--was published on September 27. The authors are relatives of one of the key defendants. They note the multiple anachronisms in the alleged coup plans:

The documents purporting to be original military plans from 2003 contain references to entities that did not yet exist and future developments that could not have been known at the time. It’s as if a text pretending to date from 1970 referred to Diana Spencer as Princess of Wales—a title which she acquired only in 1981—or mentioned her car crash decades later. Hence, to any but the most jaundiced eye it is obvious that the incriminating documents were authored not by the military officers on trial, but by others many years later.

Anyone, they remark, with a few hours to spare can verify this. So who do they think is behind the framing of the defendants? They don't know, but they do note this:

In a recently released book by a distinguished police chief, Hanefi Avcı, much light has been shed on these machinations. Avcı claims that followers of Fethullah Gülen—the influential US-based spiritual leader—have formed a state within the state, effectively wresting control of the national police and large parts of the judiciary. (The Gülen movement is independent from the AKP, but the two have long been closely allied.) Gülenist police officers and prosecutors are targeting their perceived opponents, Avcı writes, using illegal wiretaps, selective leaks to the media, judicial manipulation, planted evidence, and fabricated documents. He describes the organization of the Gülenists within the national police in some detail, even naming the imam who allegedly runs the network. Avcı does not discuss the Sledgehammer case in detail, but leaves no doubt that he believes the defendants have been framed.

On September 28, Hanefi Avcı was arrested, accused of collaborating with terrorists.

If the plot gets any thicker, it will collapse upon itself like a black hole. But this isn't fiction. It's real.

Not that I'm a scaremonger or anything, but this sad image had me gazing for a long time:

Economic policies have consequences.

(Via Alan Jacobs.)

Mike Mandel is an economist with a terrific blog, Mandel on Innovation and Growth.

In a recent post, he talks about one way to measure the health of an economy:

The earnings of young college grads–that is, mean earnings for full-time workers, ages 25-34, with a bachelor’s only.

I consider these workers to directly reflect the health of the U.S. economy. If young college grads are doing well, that means there is a demand for high-skilled labor, and there’s an incentive for young people to get an education. But if young college grads are doing poorly, wow … that economy is not on a sustainable path.

The graph at the right tells the story. College costs are rising -- as is the indebtedness of college grads -- but the real earnings of young college grads has been declining since 2000. And if you just look at the numbers since 2006, there's a pretty scary acceleration of that trend.
Something's wrong with what we're teaching college students, or how much we're charging them, or how stagnant our economy has become, or how an opportunity society became a sclerotic, slow-growing behemoth.
Smaller paychecks for college graduates means smaller payroll taxes, too. And with fewer young people supporting the Social Security benefits of more older people, this is what ancient Chinese economists used to call "The Ruinous Curve."
I guess there are a lot of possible solutions to this. But I'm not hopeful we'll all be willing to do what it takes.

I think the world needs cheering up. I think it's time to end the mystery and answer the question: How exactly did I wind up in Istanbul with seven cats?

You can start the story here, and you can continue it here, and if you're not cheered up after that, you're beyond consolation.

How does it end? No idea! David and I split up--you could kind of see that coming--which spoiled the natural dramatic trajectory of the story, but we're still friends. We'd finish writing the book together if we ever found a publisher.

The cats are happy and healthy, so am I, and even if the entire planet is doomed, I plan to keep having a great time on it until the very end.

I recommend you all do the same.

Man-oh-man, is the world is the world pessimistic or what? Is there no one out there who sees anything in our future but anarchy, starvation, ruination, the end of America, the collapse of the West, and the ultimate nuclear annihilation of every living being save the cockroaches? Paul B. Farrell is hot on the heels of Conrad Black in this week's "Top Grumpy Old Guy" contest:

Here’s the timeline:

Stage 1: The Dems just put the nail in their coffin by confirming they are wimps, refusing to force the GOP to filibuster the Bush tax cuts for America’s richest.

Stage 2: The GOP takes over the House, expanding its war to destroy Obama with its new policy of “complete gridlock,” even “shutting down government.”

Stage 3: Obama goes lame-duck.

Stage 4: The GOP wins back the White House and Senate in 2012. Health care returns to insurers. Free market financial deregulation returns.

Stage 5: Under the new president, Wall Street’s insatiable greed triggers the catastrophic third meltdown of the 21st century Shiller predicted, with defaults on dollar-denominated debt.

Stage 6: The Second American Revolution explodes into a brutal full-scale class war rebelling against the out-of-touch, out-of-control greedy conspiracy-of-the-rich now running America.

Stage 7: Domestic class warfare is compounded by Pentagon’s prediction that by 2020 “an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would emerge” worldwide and “warfare is defining human life.”

Color me perky, but me, sometimes I allow myself to hope that if we just get to Stage 4, we'll still have a decent shot at survival.

The Advocate General of the European Union's highest court has declared that insurance companies shouldn't be able to charge men and women different rates for products.

The suit was brought by plaintiffs complaining about men having to pay more for insurance. Advocate General Juliane Kokott didn't deny that insurers charge different rates based on actuarial facts -- women live longer, drive more safely, etc. -- but nonetheless insists that such differential pricing violates the EU's anti-discrimination codes. The Advocate General's opinion isn't binding on the court, but it's likely the court will follow her.

This is what happens when regulation runs amok, and political agendas trump economic reality. But that's Europe. Thank heavens nothing like that could happen here!

Normally, we're not too keen on self-promotion around here, but we happened to be doing some maintenance on our iTunes page today and noticed that some new reviews of the podcast had recently been posted. One in particular caught our attention. We have no idea who you are, Plastic Mummy. But dude, you rule.

Like everyone else in California, I'm dismayed at the state of the state. The massive budget deficit, high taxes and runaway government spending, spreading unemployment, a hostile business climate, and unfunded future pensions are ruining a state that has every natural gift and advantage in resources, both human and natural. Everyone seems to agree that the way the state government works has a lot to do with these problems, but no one is sure how to fix it. I even taught a seminar last semester on reforming the California constitution to explore solutions (more on that another time).

Earlier this week, I was lucky to go to the annual dinner of the Lincoln Club of northern California, which is made up of Republican leaders in the San Francisco area. The Club was awarding its lifetime achievement award to Pete Wilson, the last governor who made state government work (and a proud alum of my law school) -- believe it or not, but when Wilson left office, the state had a budget surplus. Ricochet's very own Peter Robinson interviewed Wilson on how to save California. It was an amazing night: Wilson displayed an encyclopedic command of the policy challenges facing the state.

The one change that he said could restore the state's fortunes wasn't lowering taxes, cutting spending, or eliminating excessive regulations -- though these were all important. He said there was a deeper root cause: the power of the public employees unions. According to Wilson, public employee unions trigger a destructive dynamic. Public employee unions take money from their members and use them for partisan political purposes. They pressure government officials to cut them sweetheart deals, especially through things like job protections and pensions, that don't show up on the bottom line for years. They create a larger and larger interest group that demands more government spending and higher taxes, which drives out private entrepreneurship and swells their ranks even more. Reduce the power of the public employee unions, and you lower the size of government, reduce the costs of the state, and fix the looming pension problem.

So here's my idea, and it applies beyond California. There is no constitutional right for public employees to form a union and to use their dues to pressure the government for more spending and benefits. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote while a state judge, a policeman "may have the right to talk politics but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." Unions only have this right because state government has granted it to them. So how about a one sentence ballot initiative, to amend the California constitution, that simply says that public employees cannot form unions -- and why not do this state by state.

More from John Yoo:

President Obama Is Wrong About the Tea Party

Do We Need Fewer Law Schools?

Just a moment here to note the passing, at 69, of Stephen J. Cannell, the creator of such TV hits as The Rockford Files, The A-Team, 21 Jump Street, The Greatest American Hero and on and on. More importantly, he was a true gentleman, kind, generous and gracious in ways too few Hollywood writers are. His successes were legendary, his griefs largely private but he overcame these too with moral stoicism. He was quiet, though not secretive, about his political conservatism, and told me once that, after years of nothing but kind treatment from the press, the gun-toting, all-American A-Team virtually ruined his media reputation for a decade. My new novel bears what must be one of the last blurbs he ever gave and I'm incredibly proud to have it. A wonderful personality and great guy. Really sad to see him go.

This morning in a Menlo Park parking lot, as I was carrying a cup of coffee back to the car:

STRANGER: Is that a cup of Peet’s coffee you’re drinking?

SELF: It sure is. Why?

STRANGER: Well, you could do a lot worse than to buy Peet's stock.

SELF: Peet’s is public?

STRANGER: Peet’s has been publicly traded for years now. And it’s a great company—truly great. Fanatical attention to quality. Starbucks has opened something like 10,000 stores, but Peet’s has only opened about 150. You won’t get explosive growth in Peet’s stock, but you won’t get the bottom falling out, either. They’re growing the company slowly but steadily, with attention to quality all the way.

SELF: You’ve just given me an education. I’ll look into it.

STRANGER: Do that. Have a good day!

Friendliness, openness, a sense of initiative, and the unspoken, unshakeable assumption that markets are good, useful, and fun. I love this place—just love it.

Written on this, the ninety-third day of the budget impasse in Sacramento.

You probably didn’t notice, but we’re nearing the end of the American Library Association’s "Banned Books Week." You probably didn’t notice because Banned Books Week is culturally irrelevant -- and that’s a shame. In theory, raising awareness of book-related censorship is a great idea. In practice, Banned Books Week has become an exercise in politically correct posturing.

According to the ALA, "Book banning [is] alive and well in the U.S." -- but it's not. If you go to Bannedbooksweek.org you’re greeted by a banner graphic of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; Forever by Judy Blume; The Catcher in the Rye; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak; and Beloved by Toni Morrison. While all of those books have been the subject of attempts at censorship, is anyone seriously concerned about such books not remaining widely available?

Looking at the American Library Association’s list of the ten most frequently challenged books, almost all are challenged on the grounds that they are “unsuited to age group.” That parents want to limit exposure to things that teach values contrary to values taught at home is not surprising.

No one questions the fact it would be considered inappropriate for a teacher to show school children an R-rated movie. Why should a school librarian handing your adolescent a young adult novel full of explicit sex and drugs be any different? The fact is that the young-adult market in particular has become loaded with drugs and sex. Authors defend this as reflective of unfortunate realities, but it’s also true prurience sells. For instance, on the ALA's most challenged list last year was the Gossip Girl series – young-adult novels based on the trashy TV soap about wealthy and promiscuous Manhattan teenagers. I doubt many are willing to defend placing these books on school library shelves on the basis of literary merit.

If as a parent you don’t want tax dollars at school libraries stocking a book aimed at junior high girls about text-messaging accounts of sexually graphic encounters -- which is a rough summary of TTYL, the book that topped ALA’s “most challenged” list this year -- I hardly think that means you hate freedom. (Sample Amazon review: “In the future, robot archaeologists will be sifting through the rubble of a long dead human civilization, patiently searching for the ultimate cause of mankind's extinction. After sifting through the remains of our fallen society, searching through libraries and the streets of ghost towns and the insides of long-dead computers, they will eventually find the horrific shout that set off the avalanche that would destroy us. They will find TTYL. It will be the first time a robot weeps.”)

Banning the publication or sale of any book for any reason is deplorable. But banned books week is increasingly about debates over what’s appropriate for schools and taxpayer-funded libraries. The latter issue is much harder to be indignant about.

Two years ago, Sarah Palin was pilloried for merely inquiring about the process for removing objectionable books at the local library when she was a small town mayor. NEWSFLASH: Libraries pull books off the shelves all the time. Libraries all over the country have yanked Tintin in the Congo of the venerable children’s book series due to its racial depictions. Somehow no one screamed “censorship!” Similarly, the local Jewish community is probably happy your neighborhood library isn’t stocking The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It’s true many attempts at removing books from libraries are motivated by ignorance, political correctness or knee-jerk moralism; I find it incredibly frustrating to see that Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird has popped up on the list again this year. According to the ALA, this year’s objection comes from Canada where some P.C. do-gooder got the book yanked from classrooms due to it’s use of the N-word.

Fortunately, successful attempts to remove worthy books such as To Kill a Mockingbird are few and far between. It’s telling the ALA produces a list of the “most challenged” books rather than the “most banned.” In fact, if you look at the ALA’s list of books that are “banned or challenged” you see that almost always these books involve questions of age-appropriateness in school libraries or classrooms, are just listed as challenged with no further report on what happened, or they were put into a more age-appropriate section of the library.

Regardless, communities are perfectly entitled to set library and classroom standards – within reason – they feel are appropriate. Who else should set such standards? That parents want a say in whether the material being taught in public schools has always been the case. Such complaints do not amount to “book banning.”

Further, framing the debate in these terms neatly sidesteps very real and pressing issues of censorship happening now. Yale University Press self-censored a book on the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Random House purchased then declined to print The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel about one of Mohammed’s wives, fearing Muslim retribution. In 2008, offices of the book’s London publisher was firebombed. (Note that for all their chest-thumping about “banned books” the ALA has not issued any statement on threats directed at “The Jewel of Medina” that I can find.) Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris just went into hiding with help from the FBI for starting “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and we hear crickets from the cultural elites.

Events like these don’t seem to be a focus of Banned Books Week -- because, well, Americans are such puritanical tyrants! The library in Pataskala, Ohio won’t let kids check out “Mastering Multiple Sex Positions” without parental approval. Sound the alarm! (I’m not making up that bit about the Pataskala, Ohio -- it’s in the ALA’s report.)

While the intent of Banned Books Week is honorable, it would be nice if next year Banned Books Week was about actual book banning for a change.

In his Salon op-ed, "One and a half cheers for American decline," Tom Engelhardt applauds the notion that America is deteriorating both at home and abroad:

So here's the good news: it's actually going to feel better to be just another nation, one more country, even if a large and powerful one, on this overcrowded planet, rather than the nation. It's going to feel better to only arm ourselves to defend our actual borders, rather than constantly fighting distant wars or skirmishes and endlessly preparing for more of the same. It's going to feel better not to be engaged in an arms race of one or playing the role of the globe's major arms dealer. It's going to feel better to focus on American problems, maybe experiment a little at home, and offer the world some real models for a difficult future, instead of talking incessantly about what a model we are while we bomb and torture and assassinate abroad with impunity.

Hope for American decline is the foreign policy expression of the liberal desire for an enforced radical egalitarianism and a government of equality of result at home: the U.S. abroad learns to stop being the nail that stands up and is pounded down to resemble all the others, in UN fashion. Neutralism abroad, statism at home, the US as the EU. Ok—sounds familiar, but facts get in the way.

Even in the worst recession since the Great Depression, 300 million Americans still produce three times the goods and services of 1 billion Chinese, a society that has a rendezvous with environmental clean-up, unionism, suburban blues, an aging populace, a disastrous one-child policy, wary and increasingly angry neighbors, and the contradictions between affluence and lack of personal of freedom. The EU is imploding and worried about a hesitant US that traditionally once had allowed the EU to assume its pretensions under a US military umbrella. The EU experiment reminds us that Greece is no more the model for the world than is a bankrupt state like California one for the United States. A post-petroleum world will radically weaken Russia and the Middle East. In contrast, our singular constitution, values, freedoms, and meritocracy, if left intact, ensure that the United States can easily retain its position of global authority. Decline is not a fate, but a choice, or rather a series of insidious choices on the road to serfdom.

The odd thing is that the Obama corrective for our supposed hubris is already imploding. Trillion dollar stimuli and borrowing did not restore the economy, and as the architects of that policy have now mostly fled, and as the Democrats who voted for Obama's agenda mostly don't want to run on it, Obama himself will have to learn how to entice the engine of American commerce back again—or destroy the Democratic Party with further statism. His foreign policy of "Bush did it" is in shambles. A Mutallab, Maj. Hasan, and the Times Square plot reminded him why, after demagoguing national security, he kept open Guantanamo, expanded Predators and seems to like renditions. The only thing that has changed is that violence in Afghanistan is on page 10 when in Iraq it headlined, Hollywood is making no more movies like Rendition, Salon is not talking about the Guantanamo Gulag, and Michael Moore is no longer writing paeans to "Minutemen" insurgents. I haven't seen a vero possumus presidential seal lately either, and well over half the country is convinced that the downturn was made worse, not better, by borrowing $3 trillion from our grandchildren in the last 20 months.

Our policies toward the Middle East, China, Japan, Europe and India have already quietly dropped the soft-power preachiness, and are returning to those of the mid-2000s, apparently in the concession that the world's dangers both predated and transcended George W. Bush. Ahmadinejad appreciated the President's silence when his goons clubbed Democracy protestors, liked the apologetic videos we sent, but somehow still tells the world we planned 9/11 and Israel will soon cease to exist.

A soon to be nuclear Iran, an imploding nuclear Pakistan, an ascendant and increasingly bullying China don't give a damn whether or not American elites envision or welcome American decline; as in the 1930s, such authoritarians have an agenda, the confidence to see it through, and will stop only if, as in the past, in the 11th hour the Western liberal democracies rise to convince them otherwise. Once upon a time a number of relieved isolationist Americans, circa 1939, pointed to the Depression, the vain hope of the New Deal to get us out of it, the dead-end of capitalism, and told the world, thank god, that we could not afford to worry about Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, given our own economic decline and years of poverty to follow. But the latter three dictators found us anyway, even when we were not looking for them—and in response, a broke and pessimistic America in four years somehow was producing more goods and services than the world combined. Declinism is as old as the United States, as popular among elites who reap the benefits of a capitalist free America as it is rare among those who do far less well, but have far more hope for their childrens' futures.

We forget why after 1945 the United States assumed the burdens of creating a global system of free trade, open commerce and alternatives to Soviet-imposed communism—we alone had the power, economic and military, to rebuild Europe, stop the spread of Stalinism and establish pretty much the globalized world as it has come to be. If we choose to nationalize the economy and ruin it, as Britain did theirs in the 1950s, and if we choose to let the Milosevics, Saddams, and Ahmadinejads do as they please, we don't just get on with our merry lives, happy to stay home, spread the wealth, and watch the world go by. Others will have a say—just watch.

British environmentalists released a very slick looking advert -- written by Love, Actually's Richard Curtis -- in which people who oppose carbon reduction schemes are killed. Beginning with the children.

I don't even want to put the ad, called "No Pressure," in here, it's so distressing. But you can view it here. I actually had a hard time believing it was real. It was as if non-environmentalist extremists were caricaturing the environmental agenda. But Even the Guardian was questioning the wisdom of the ad:

But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask [Franny Armstrong] : "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is."

"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.

Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: "I was very happy to get blown up to save the world."

One of the coolest ancillary benefits of quasi-celebrityhood is that it allows you to approach performers you admire and say hello, not just as another fan, but as a member of the “brotherhood.” It was on that level that I knew Tony Curtis, who passed away the other day at the age of 85. Our paths crossed no more than eight or ten times, but it was always a thrill for me to have even a brief conversation with this man whom I had seen so often on a movie screen as I was growing up.

I mention all this by way of telling an odd little story that starts with this rather bizarre fact: Tony Curtis was the only person invited to my 50th birthday party. Years ago, my wife and I were in a Hollywood restaurant a couple of months shy of my 50th, and she was trying to convince me to have a big party with lots of friends. I protested on the usual grounds, such as my not liking big parties and, even if I did, not having enough friends to populate such a gathering. However, as the evening went on and the wine continued to be poured, I began to relent, and we started putting a list together. Suddenly, Tony Curtis appeared at our table and asked what we were so busy working on. We told him the story, and he said he hoped he would be invited, so I invited him. I took his phone number and said I’d call when we settled on the exact place and date and time.

In the light of the next day, I returned to my resistance mode, and, eventually, we dropped the whole idea and never invited another guest. I also decided I didn’t need to cancel with Tony, because I doubted he was sitting by his phone waiting for my call. I never regretted not having the party, but I was sorry I never got to know Tony Curtis better. He had an amazing career, and his skill as an actor was often under-appreciated. And I’ll bet he would have been fun at a party.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin Responds Part I; Part II

In the October issue of Commentary, Jennifer Rubin writes a powerful and only too compelling article—an elegy for California.

“More than 40 years later,” Jennifer writes of her family’s move to California from the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia, “I still remember the bright sun and palm trees when we got off the plane. California in 1968 was a magical place….” In 2005, fed up with bad schools, dysfunctional politics, jammed freeways, and heavy taxes, Jennifer, now married and the mother of two, got out, moving back East.

Flying over Los Angeles on an annual summer visit, I peer through smog so thick that the coastline is hard to see. It is only three in the afternoon, but the cars are backed up for miles on the freeways, which remain largely in the same state of disreapir that greeted me last year. The state is literally deteriorating before my eyes….California has become…a nice place to visit. But who would want to live there?

Thirty-eight million of us, that’s who. Which means that California still matters. If nothing else, the state is simply too big for the rest of the country to write off or ignore.

Diagnosing California’s woes, Jennifer provides an astute overview, mentioning every important factor—but one. The initiative process has produced a welter of contradictory and unworkable reforms, giving the state a constitution as thick as a telephone book. Proposition 13, which launched the tax revolt of the nineteen-seventies, succeeded in holding down property taxes but had the entirely unintended consequence of removing much of responsibility for public schools from local school boards to give it instead to the bureaucracy in Sacramento.

Public employee unions have ripped off ordinary Californians, negotiating sweet pension deals with politicians only too eager to give the unions just what they wanted in return for their support. Spending has careened out of control. And large portions of the middle class have simply gotten up and left. “Between 1990 and 2000,” Jennifer notes, “2 million more left the state than arrived from other states.” The 2010 census figures will no doubt show an even bigger exodus during the decade that just ended.

The one factor that Jennifer leaves out? Immigration.

The numbers: Since 1970, the Hispanic proportion of the Golden State’s population has more than doubled, increasing from 16 to 37 percent. Overwhelmingly, the newcomers arrived from one country: Mexico. The number of immigrants now in California illegally? By a conservative estimate—a conservative estimate—some 2.6 million, or almost 7 percent of the population.

I’m generally pro-immigrant, taking the view that we ought to be as generous about permitting others to join us as we can be. But that’s just the point. Can we be as generous as we’ve been here in California for the last couple of decades? Surely the numbers matter—surely we must draw distinctions between rates of immigration we can assimilate and rates that will swamp our institutions and culture. For my friend Jennifer, then—and for anyone here on Ricochet who’d care to respond—a few questions:

1. No less a figure than Harvard professor Samuel Huntington suggested that the Southwestern United States, including, of course, southern California, runs the danger of becoming culturally and linguistically more Mexican than American. With Mexicans moving into the state while whites leave California for the interior of the country, is Huntington’s fear being borne out?
2. There’s plenty of evidence that, as Hispanics move into the middle class, they begin voting Republican, following the same pattern as previous immigrant groups. In California, though, the Hispanics that do indeed join the middle class are always hugely outnumbered as the influx of poor Mexicans continues—and, as these recent arrivals begin voting, they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The state that gave us Reagan has now become dark blue. If it’s hard for the GOP to remain competitive—and even if Meg Whitman wins the gubernatorial race, nobody supposes Republicans will win back the state legislature—then it’s hard for California to right itself. Lord knows Jerry Brown wouldn’t stand up to the unions. And then there’s the problem of the White House. With California out of play, the GOP stands at a permanent disadvantage in presidential politics. Isn’t all that too high a price to pay for loose immigration policies?
3. The 2.6 million immigrants in California illegally consume hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public services each year. They pay sales taxes—but only sales taxes. On balance, isn’t it likely that they represent an economic drag on the entire state? “[T]he several million illegal aliens in the state,” Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently, “might make California’s meltdown a little bit more severe than, say, Montana’s or Utah’s.” Isn’t Victor on to something?

They say this is proof that Hillary talk in '12 is for amateurs and pantsuited bitter-enders, but isn't it astounding that right now only 52% of Democrats would renominate their sitting President, with 37% opting for the woman who tried to defeat him? The savvy and reasonable Phil Klein thinks Ms. Clinton ought to keep her powder dry for '16, but -- well, look at it: 2016. It might as well be 2216. Yes, Biden will be "too old" to run. No, nobody expected Biden to run again anyway.

Everyone expects Hillary to run in 2016, because this is the last shot she'll have at the White House. (If you think Bill's getting embarrassing now....) It's not that Hillary has ever shied away from the unglamorous option. It's that Obama put her precisely where she'd be able to do the least harm to his reelection prospects, where she'd least be able to remain in perpetual campaign mode -- and quietly, without even trying, she endures. That's a powerful indication of the structural weakness of Obama's political support, isn't it? And isn't it going to be revealing when these numbers move -- as move they must -- when Obama's progress report is filed in November? How can a Clinton resist?

Last weekend, Chiara “Luce” Badano was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI. Beatification is the 3rd of the four necessary steps to Catholic sainthood. Her parents met with the Pope late Wednesday hoping to thank him, but instead the Pontiff thanked them for bringing Chiara into the world.

Chiara was born one month after I was in 1971 to a truck driver father and a mother who waited 11 years to be blessed with a baby. Chiara died at age 18 from cancer.

Prior to the painful final months and days of her life, Badano was a very typical – if devout – teenager. She preferred sports over schoolwork, excelling in tennis while failing math. She tried to dodge household chores, and she butted heads with her parents about curfew. But her life's actions were also peppered with many small, thoughtful, God-like moments.

Near the end of her life, Chiara refused pain medication in order to more fully appreciate Jesus’ painful suffering on the cross. She chose to walk the halls of the hospital regularly -- an excruciating task for someone with bone cancer -- so she could comfort a depressed drug addict in another room.

Of course, my inadequate summary doesn’t do justice to her life. There’s much more to her, and this profile seems to get at it quite nicely. However, it occurs to me that sainthood, or beatification, is not always only for those who toss aside all wealth to live among the ill and rejected, or even those who make it their life’s mission to share Jesus’ teachings with millions of others. Sometimes it’s the "regular" person with a "normal" life who is infused with a grace that pervades, slowly but steadily, those around them. That inner light – “luce” means light in Italian – does not dim and, instead, causes faith in others to become deeper and more meaningful.

Gen X boasts Kurt Cobain, Tony Hawk, Lance Armstrong, and Jeff Bezos. I’m glad we also have Badano.

It was The Flintstones' 50th birthday yesterday and to acknowledge that, the Christian Science Monitor has, somewhat curmudgeonly, published this story on it.

In the spirit of the annoying person who sitting next to you while watching a movie finds it his duty to explain the scientific impossibility of this scene, or the implausibility of that scene, or the plot gap at this point and that--we all know that person--the Christian Science Monitor's story not only misses the celebratory point of this occasion, but deflates the charm of The Flintstones by highlighting its five dumbest moments. I kid you not. Here they are:

1. The Flintstones smoked. "Few casual fans remember this detail, but, during The Flintstones' first two seasons, Fred and Barney had a taste for nicotine. In this early black-and-white "integrated commercial" at the end of an episode, Fred and Barney tiptoe out of sight to enjoy a smoke – well, not just any smoke."

2. The Great Gazoo. "Why is an alien in a TV show about stone-age humans?"

3. The Flintstones feature dinosaurs. "This is not so much dumb as it is simply anachronistic."

4. The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm show. "They grow up so fast. Hungry for another hit, Hanna Barbera greenlit several Flintstones spin-off shows."

5. Sexism in The Flintstones. "Fred makes it clear that he really does love Wilma and will go to hilarious lengths to please her. But he and Barney regularly share a misogynistic undertone – not exactly a lesson TV should pass on to kids, or anyone else for that matter."

I usually enjoy reading the Christian Science Monitor--but seriously? Chris Gaylord, I don't know where your sense of humor went (or if you ever had one), but please find it immediately. You're being a downer!

Needless to say, "Kids loved The Flintstones" was not one of the more significant observations in Gaylord's piece, as that, I suppose, would have been to state the obvious. Can't wait until the Queer and Gender Studies departments at colleges around the country do their thing to the hapless Fred and Barney.

Speaking of sex, three articles lead me to a shocking religious revelation of Dan Brownian proportions. First, from Scientific American, comes word that semen acts chemically on women to make them happier. (And if any of you guys out there are slimy enough to think of using this as a pick-up line, take it from me, it just ticks them off.) Second, it finally occurred to someone that the steroids women ingest in birth control pills may be doing damage to their brains. And thirdly, Mollie Hemingway points out below and Heather Mac Donald makes the point here that out-of-wedlock births are a disaster for everyone concerned.

Put it all together you get this: the surest path to female happiness is unprotected sex during marriage. This means, if you happen to be a woman, the Catholic church's much reviled teachings on sex are exactly right for you. Just when we thought we had that Pope in our grasp, he vanishes once again beneath the Cloak of Infallibility! Dang.

Yesterday, at a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Ricochet's Rupert Murdoch spoke in favor of amnesty (via The Daily Caller):

News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch said he supports amnesty for “law abiding” illegal immigrants because as legal residents they can help the nation’s economy by adding to “our tax base.” He also said he supports securing the border to prevent more illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

Sure, he's no Stephen Colbert, but he makes a reasonable point that I can get behind--can you?

Does Peggy Noonan read Ricochet?

That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read her excellent column in today's Wall Street Journal. It echoes many of the points our own Peter Robinson made on the site last week in his post, "What GOP Civil War."

Last week, Peter cast aside the mainstream media's narrative about a civil war within the GOP between tea partiers and establishment folk. The real civil war, he explained, is happening among the Democrats:

The “civil war” within the Republican Party, in other words, concerned just one race—exactly one [the Delaware Senate race]—and lasted for all of 48 hours. Contrast that with dissension among Democrats. Over the last two weeks, more than 30 Democrats defied the President and Speaker, refusing—flatly refusing—to vote on the Obama-Pelosi tax hike. That’s civil war.

And here's Noonan:

Everyone talks about the tensions between the Republican establishment, such as it is, and the tea-party-leaning parts of its base. But are you looking at what's happening with the Democrats? Tensions between President Obama and his supporters tore into the open this week as never before, signifying a real and developing fracturing of his party.

....

There is a war beginning in the Democratic Party, and the president has lost control of his base.

By way of example, she quotes Obama's reaction to weary Democrats like Velma Hart and Shepard Fairey.

Mr. Obama, in an interview in Rolling Stone, aimed fire at those abandoning him: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election." The Democratic base "sitting on their hands complaining" is "just irresponsible. . . . We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard—that's what I said during the campaign. . . . But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

Obama has also told these "griping and groaning Democrats," as I wrote here, to "wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative."

How did these "griping and groaning Democrats"--these "irresponsible" Democrats who are "sitting on their hands complaining"--react? Noonan clues us in:

The response from the left was fierce, unapologetic—and accusatory. Mr. Obama had let them down, he'd taken half measures. "Stop living in that bubble," shot back an activist on cable. But Jane Hamsher of the leftist blog Firedoglake saw method, not madness. She described the president's remarks as "hippie punching" and laid them to cynical strategy: "It's about setting up a narrative for who will take the blame for a disastrous election." She said Mr. Obama's comments themselves could "depress turnout."

Take the blame? Disastrous? Setting up a narrative?

This isn't the language of disagreement, the classic to-and-fro between a restive base and politicians who make compromises. This is the language of estrangement. It is the language of alienation.

She concludes, as Peter does, that a civil war is beginning in the Democratic Party. Obama is increasingly fracturing his base, and not at a worst time. While this benefits the GOP, I can't help but wonder, what kind of leader, weeks before a very important election, would use such damning language against his erstwhile supporters? While those disgruntled Democrats won't be voting for a Republican candidate anytime soon, Obama still needs them to show up at the polls this November. I can't imagine calling them names will encourage that.

Kim Jong Un, believed to be 26 years old, has been designated the heir to Kim Jong Il. He's said to be just as vicious and crazy as his father.

On the bright side, Gliese 581g is apparently not too hot and not too cold, and that's just where I'm headed if things get any worse.

Our member Kennedy Smith raises an outstandingly interesting question on Ricochet's Facebook page. He writes:

Say it ain't so! Bayonet training cancelled. I am the very model of a modern armchair general, so would like to hear actual gun-totin' warriors on this. I just remember the bayonet charge by the Highlanders in Iraq, which turned out well. And then there was the cavalry operation in Afghanistan, using it in its proper role, for its mobility. Though can quite understand why there might be more important things to learn.

I say this question is "outstandingly interesting" because, as some of you may know, I moonlight as the least-qualified martial-arts expert on the Internet. And because I'm absolutely not exaggerating one whit when I say I'm the least-qualified martial-arts expert on the Internet, I don't know the answer. But I bet someone here does.

Here's the argument in favor:

“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”

And here's the argument against:

US troops hadn’t launched a bayonet charge since 1951 during the Korean War. And new soldiers preparing for an increasingly violent war in Afghanistan already need to learn far more skills than the 10 weeks of basic training allows, says Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, head of initial entry training and the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. ...

“What’s interesting,” he says, “is if bayonet training is that important and it’s the centerpiece of everything we do, why is it the only place it’s taught is at basic training?

“If it’s that important, you’d think all the operational units would have bayonet assault courses.”

The fact is, there are more important things to teach during a time of war, Hertling adds. In a counterinsurgency fight such as Afghanistan, “You carry an M-4 carbine strapped around your chest,” he says. “You can’t do much with a bayonet.”

So is bayonet training a waste of time in the modern era, or does this decision symbolize the wussification of our military? I'll be pretty impressed if anyone on Ricochet can make the argument in favor from personal experience.

Out-of-wedlock birthrates are rising nationwide, with some four in 10 births nationwide. Some 70 percent of black children born this year will be born to unmarried parents. I'm sure we all know single parents who are doing amazing jobs raising their children. Statistically, children of single parents fare worse than children in two-parent homes.

They are significantly more likely to be physically abused and suffer physical or emotional neglect. They are less likely to have good grades, aspirations toward college, good attendance records or graduation from high school. And this doesn't even get into the emotional or behavioral problems.

Forty-five years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan released a controversial report on the black family that concluded that poverty and social ills disproportionately facing blacks were caused by a horrific breakdown of the family. When that report was released, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was "only" 26 percent, or roughly equivalent to the rate for whites today.

So along comes this "no wedding, no womb" movement to encourage black people in sexual relationships to get married before they conceive children. Now, I could imagine people protesting that the movement doesn't go far enough -- that it should encourage people to get married before they have sex, not just before they have children. But I didn't imagine people arguing that the movement is simple "slut shaming."

Ta-Nehisi Coates at the once respectable Atlantic called it "moist, vague moral populism." He went on to say that life for a single black woman is most likely not hard and "never as hard, as enduring the self-appointed analysts." One of the first things I read from him was his reasoning for not marrying the mother of his children, with whom he lives. It had something to do with the fact that his Black Panther father had many children by multiple women but was one of the most superficial and poorly reasoned pieces about marriage out there. (I should admit that I didn't have a clue about marriage -- or its burdens and benefits -- until I got married, either.)

Monica Potts at The American Prospect writes that the campaign "makes a classic mistake: shaming women for their sexuality instead of asking how to improve outcomes for children of single-parent households." She thinks that stability is the key. Single moms should stay single, married folks should stay happily married. And single parents should be subsidized more. Since, you know, subsidizing fatherless families has worked out so well thus far.

What strikes me about all this isn't the flawed policy arguments so much as the lack of confidence the sexual revolution soldiers have. I mean, it's not like they didn't win. All the elites embrace the idea that sex is about making yourself happy. Apparently everyone has sex outside of marriage. And yet a moral stand of any kind -- even a compromise moral stand such as this one -- must be attacked. It's just odd.

During today's podcast, Rob Long asked me if I am optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects for a genuine recovery and resurgence of America in general and its conservative roots in particular. At least that's how I understood the question. My answer was that I see short term success, starting in November, but that I am still concerned about the long term prospects. I'm still rethinking that answer because it really goes against the grain for me to be pessimistic. But conservatism is ultimately rooted in reality, no? Oddly enough, much of our success may be derived from the apparent Kamikazee mission upon which the Democrats are currently embarking, and if they implode for a generation or so, as Dick Morris suggests, the country's prospects improve by default. So what say you? Are we seeing a fundamental shift back to the classical American ethos of individual liberty, limited government, and strong national defense? Or is this a mere blip on the cyclical path to serfdom?

"We have by far the worst corporate tax system in the world."

So began today's presentation by a Big Four accounting firm tax partner making the case for transferring intellectual property and corporate operations to friendlier climes overseas. I've written about the awful US corporate tax system before, but let's think about the issue from a new angle.

What would happen if we tried some fundamental transformation of the way the United States taxes corporate income?

I mean, corporations don't really pay taxes, they pass these costs along to shareholders and customers. So why not eliminate income tax at the corporate level, levying profits only when they reach the shareholders? This would allow capital to accumulate in a business, fueling job growth and investment, while eliminating today's perverse incentive to favor debt over equity. We all know the dangers of excessive debt at this point, don't we?

A zero-tax regime at the corporate level would encourage every multi-national in the world to shift assets, intellectual property and manufacturing operations into the United States--the reverse of today's "tax efficient" stance.

Net corporate profits would instantly increase by 25 percent or so in aggregate, fueling an immediate stock market boom, with an attendant boost to depressed 401(k)s and underfunded public and private pension plans.

Small businesses would also benefit, incorporating in droves to allow retained earnings to accumulate and fund enterprise growth. Proprietors would only pay income tax on the money taken out of the business as salary or dividends (the tax on dividend income would be raised to equal the W-2 schedule).

I haven't thought this through very deeply, so please help me out. What do you think would happen if the world's worst business taxation regime became the best?

In a Gallup poll released today, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin were found to be the most popular contenders for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination with 19 percent of Republicans favoring Romney and 16 percent preferring Palin. Mike Huckabee came in third with 12 percent of respondents naming him their top choice for the job.

The good news is that there's still a year and half before the primaries! We can expect preferences to change quite a lot between now and then. (Or so I hope.)

A game show host, a truck driver and a governor walk into a bar. No they don't, they join us on the podcast this week: Pat Sajak, Dave Carter, and Governor Pete Wilson. It's a wide ranging discussion from trucking to tea parties to an inside look at the Golden State, both in terms of the election and the future. All that, and the view from Prague.

This week's 100% fat free links:

• Shandy is typically made of beer and lemonade. But you can also make it with ginger.
• Václav Havel's Wikipedia entry.
• Franz Kafka requested in his will that his unfinished novel The Castle be burned before anyone could read it. That didn't happen.
• E.J. Dionne's laughable piece on the roots of a certain community organizer.
• The origins of the phrase tea party (at least in the modern sense) is unclear, but CNBC's Rick Santelli's now famous outburst from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19th, 2009 is recognized as one of the first times the phrase was used.
• Dave Carter's post The Theft Of Your Retirement is legendary around here.
• Pat Sajak's post Accountability for Pundits? sent a chill through the chattering classes.
• We refuse to post a link to Gloria Allred's website.
• Pete Wilson has done just about all you can do in California politics.
• Lileks wishes Governor Schwarzenegger had actually said this in real life.
• Jerry Brown's crushing defeat at the hands (claws?) of the medfly is conveniently documented on Meg Whitman's campaign site.

Music from this week's episode:

• Wake Up by Arcade Fire
• Dani California by Red Hot Chili Peppers

The direct link to this week's episode is here, but we'd really love it if you'd subscribe. Not a fan of Mr. Jobs? Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options.

The Ricochet Podcast is sponsored by the Encounter Books Broadside Series. This week's title: President Obama’s Tax Piracy by Peter Ferrara. Available for purchase and download at EncounterBooks.com.

Well, I'm still poking around all by myself here at RicMinInform, waiting for a memo from La Serenissima (Claire’s currently favored sobriquet). So far all that’s shown up was a crate of ammo. I gotta say these Bulgarian AKs are pretty good. I'm almost down to MOA shooting. And I know people complain about 5.56’s hitting power, but it’s putting some serious hurt into these Aon chairs that Ricochet seems to have bought in bulk off eBay (some of them still say “Pets.com” or “boo.com” or "hotbot.com”).

So, I’ve had a fair amount of staring-out-the-window time, and I've been thinking about the general civilizational despair that seems to grip a lot of people. Me included, from time to time. So, let's all cheer each other up.

Who or what gives you hope that our culture, country, whatever, will be thriving in a couple generations? I'm looking for stuff we can all examine and discuss, so while “my kids” might be your answer, frankly we can't judge if it's exactly those little yard apes who are going to bring the whole thing crashing down, unless you have us all over to your house. And you don't want us coming over. Trust me.

If I had to suggest someone, I'd say the Pope—in a purely secular sense. He seems to see the Catholic Church as a pillar of civilization and is doing his best to broaden and strengthen it at the same time. So it's nice to see that kind of optimism.

Who you got?

Jimmy Carter's been sick in the hospital for the past couple days, so here at Ricochet we thought we'd give the man a few days to recover. After all, it's neither fair nor much fun to kick a man when he's down. But Carter's been released from the hospital and has resumed his busy schedule spewing absurdities about things he doesn't understand. And so it's time to get back to work.

Jimmy Carter: I led the first Tea Party

[I]n some ways my successful campaign for the presidency in 1976 resembled the Tea Party movement of today. We capitalized on deep dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of government officials, especially those who served in Washington.

Thirty-five years ago, the American people were eager for fundamental changes after the embarrassment and lies of Watergate and the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Kennedy brothers, and revelations that the CIA and top leaders had been involved in criminal acts, including murder. As a Georgia farmer, I was considered by many to have no association with these stains on our national character

Jimmy Carter: But my Tea Party was better

Other factors are very different now. Much of the financial support for the "grassroots" Tea Party movement has come from extremely wealthy owners of petroleum and energy companies whose profits depend on preventing strict environmental standards and regulations that promote safety and competition. Another is that a powerful news organization has provided the requisite publicity and promotion for the Tea Party movement.