Though I screw it up as much as the next guy, I really care about our language. I know it evolves, but I like to think there's some guiding force on high that cares for it and keeps that evolution from spiraling out of control. But, in these days of texts and tweets, there's little doubt the process has accelerated. In fact, there's evidence it might be too late to save it. This piece in Sunday's Washington Post reflects my sadness at its passing.

Trial lawyers say the darndest things. In recent years, they've been pushing the theory that US corporations should be liable merely for doing business in countries with bad human rights records -- even if the corporation does not itself commit any human rights violations.

The legal basis for this shakedown is the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a law passed in 1789 that allows foreign individuals to sue for injuries sustained from a “violation of the law of nations” anywhere in the world. For about 218 years, the statute was regarded as a remedy against individuals in the US who had committed atrocities abroad. But a few decisions from the last decade suggested that corporations could be liable for "aiding and abetting" foreign evil-doers. This theory feeds lawsuits that, for example, now seek to hold US multinationals liable for injuries caused by the apartheid regime. Such lawsuits have been championed by many liberal lawyers, including Harold Koh who is now a legal advisor to the Obama State Department.

Now the Second Circuit has ruled that ATCA can only be used to pursue claims against individuals, not against corporations that allegedly "aided" foreign governments by doing business abroad. If this goes to the Supremes, let's hope they affirm. It would be nice if corporations could invest abroad without having to get advance permission from Amnesty International.

And besides, given the Administration's own human rights "self-assessment," shouldn't US corporations refrain from doing business in the US?

Here at Ricochet, we've circled back a few times to two apparently unrelated questions: What's wrong with Time magazine? And: Why don't we care more about the dire situation in Pakistan?

Today, via Ricochet member Pascal, we have something resembling a single answer:

This is probably the type of polling result that drives the political elites batty:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

Among the Political Class, however, 68% say their views are more like Obama’s, while 63% of Mainstream voters describe their views as more like Palin’s.

Political class defined here.

If you use the GPS navigator on your smart phone, and take the phone with you into the restroom, always ensure that the volume is down, lest your time in said restroom be interrupted by a female voice emanating from your britches telling you to, "make a u-turn now." This travel tip is brought to you by this idiot. We now resume our highly intelligent conversation.

Michael Barone posted a piece this morning on a subject that you will not find explored anytime soon in The New York Times or on MSNBC or CNN. In it, he looks at the recent primaries in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC, and what he notices is this. In all three places, the public-sector unions – intent on keeping civil-service salaries and pensions high and accountability low – have won primary victories that set them at odds with what we, with an eye to yesteryear, might call “the limousine liberals” – the well-to-do who have swelled the ranks of the Democratic Party in recent years, the folks who pay high taxes and want excellent service for themselves and for the rest of us in return.

To his analysis, one might want to add this. In 2004 and 2008, the Democratic Party scored dramatic victories in areas populated almost exclusively by the filthy rich. Right now, the leaders of that party are insisting that it is both necessary and just that the taxes of those who invest in dividend-paying stocks and who take in more than $250,000 a year be jacked up dramatically. My bet is that the coalition that brings together African-Americans of all sorts, other Americans dependent on government largesse, the public-sector unions, and the affluent cannot be sustained – not, at least, in a time of slow growth and massive unemployment.

Emily just pointed out Jonathan Chait's piece on Boehner, which ends with the words, "If anybody wants to start up a Republican establishment Dead Pool, I'm picking Boehner."

It's definitely Ricochet's responsibility to host that competition. Our bookies are standing by. Enter your bets.

In The New Republic on Friday, Jonathan Chait predicts that House Minority Leader John Boehner is "one gaffe away from being deposed and replaced with somebody more willing to indulge Tea Party fantasies." NPR this morning featured a similar story.

Why? First, Boehner rejected the notion of a GOP government shutdown--should the Republicans take over in November--a notion which certain Republican congressmen, like Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland, have called for. Politico reports:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) rejected the idea that Republicans will shut down the government if they come to a legislative impasse with President Barack Obama, even as some conservative activists have predicted and even pushed a shutdown next year.

“Our goal is to have a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government here in Washington DC. Our goal is not to shut down the government,” he said.

But according to Chait:

If Republicans want to defund the Affordable Care Act in 2011 -- and it's their highest priority -- shutting down the government is the only way to go. So Boehner is signalling to his rank and file that they have to abandon their most fervent demand.

And second, Boehner said last week that he would support Obama's plan to extend tax cuts for the middle class, but not the wealthy. According to the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader John Boehner says he would vote for President Obama's plan to extend tax cuts only for middle-class earners, not the wealthy, if that were the only option available to House Republicans.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said it is "bad policy" to exclude the highest-earning Americans from tax relief during the recession, and later Sunday he accused the White House of "class warfare." But he said he wouldn't block the breaks for middle-income individuals and families if Democrats won't support the full package.

Is Boehner going to get the boot?

There are many aspects of this story worthy of note, but I'm really stuck on this part:

A bombing suspect who is accused of blowing up a hotel toilet in Copenhagen, along with himself, is a one-legged amateur boxer who was born in insurgency-racked Chechnya and has shown what one scholar calls "highly professional" tradecraft in concealing his identity and purpose from Danish authorities.

I would just like to say, once again, that it would be against the grain of the American spirit to conclude from this that all one-legged amateur Chechen boxers are terrorists.

In the Daily Beast this morning, Tunku Varadarajan defines the Tea Party from A-Z. Some highlights:

A is for anger, the jet-fuel of a movement that Nancy Pelosi, in a rare moment of wit, pooh-poohed as Astroturf (i.e., not grassroots). Tell that to Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate nominee seeking to unseat Pelosi’s confrere, Harry Reid. She is the archetypal Tea Party insurgent: she checks all the ideological boxes, but would you have her home to dinner with the kids?

B is for Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, the two gaudiest Tea Partiers in the American media, and for Scott Brown, the Massachusetts senator whose astonishing election to Ted Kennedy’s seat in February was the earliest indication that the Tea Party amounted to more than just a rabble of birthers (although it does, to be sure, have in its ranks more than a few who believe that the president’s birth-certificate is an immaculate deception).

C is for caricatures, which deride the tea-partiers as any or all of the following: racists, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, misanthropes, polygamists, Bible-thumpers, rubes and rednecks.

...

E is for the two things that get every Tea Partier’s blood pressure up: elites and the establishment. The former are, in the movement’s telling, a bunch of unpatriotic, snobbish pantywaists who tend to reside on the East or the West coast; the latter is the source of all political evil, to wit, bailouts, deficits, and the like.

...

G is for Government, which can never be small enough for a Tea Partier, and Tim Geithner, Lord North to Obama’s King George in the eyes of the movement many of whose members believe (erroneously) that the Treasury Secretary has links to the diabolical Goldman Sachs. (Tea partiers’ loathing for Big Government is matched only by their detestation of Wall Street.)

...

P is for Palin, primaries and political purity. Sarah Palin has reigned over the Tea Party like an ideological empress, dictating the course of numerous Republican primaries by giving her imprimatur only to those candidates who meet the terms of her political checklist. Did you vote for bailouts? Thwack. Cap-and-trade? Pow. Without doubt the most charismatic politician on the right, she is also the most polarizing figure in American politics (yes, even more so than Obama).

Q is for quo, status: “The status quo has got to go” (a sign at a Tea Party rally).

...

Z is for the zeitgeist, which in our unhappy nation at present happens to mean, alas—on both left and right—zero tolerance for views with which we disagree

Does he get it right?

Barack Obama once commented that he had a gift. I remarked soon thereafter that in German Gift is the word for poison. I am persuaded that for the Democratic Party President Obama is the gift that keeps on giving.

Consider this morning's New York Times, which reports that "President Obama’s political advisers, looking for ways to help Democrats and alter the course of the midterm elections in the final weeks, are considering a range of ideas, including national advertisements, to cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists, people involved in the discussion said."

Could the Obama administration do anything that would help the Republican Party more than to advertise that the party has been taken over by women and men of principle and that it now stands for something?

When his critics describe Barack Obama as having been a Manchurian candidate, I sometimes wonder whether the mastermind behind his candidacy was not Karl Rove. What goes around comes around, as they say.

UPDATE: Now from Politico we hear that the White House is vehemently denying the truth of the lead story in The New York Times cited above. “The Times is just flat-out, 100 percent wrong,” a White House official said. “The first time Obama’s advisers heard about a national ad campaign is when the story showed up on the Times’ website last night.” Did the reporters at the Times let the cat out of the bag? Is there suddenly adult supervision at the White House. Stay tuned.

Rolling one's eyes at Maureen Dowd is probably just too easy--an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel--so I'll keep this brief. Writing today of the Tea Party, she tosses off this line:

The first African-American president, who wrote in his memoir that he trained himself as a young man not to let his anger show in a suspicious white society, now faces anger on an unprecedented scale from a mostly white movement.

Oh, Maureen, Maureen, my frolicsome little mischief-making leprechaun. You're actually smarter than that, I know. I greatly admired your piece about Saudi Arabia. So I'm sure you actually do realize that white people are in the majority in America--that's why they call non-whites "minorities"--and that therefore any random grouping of Americans would be mostly white.

I'm pretty sure from the way you've phrased it, though, that you're trying to suggest the movement is "mostly racist." That doesn't really elevate the tone.

Here's an example of why those of us who persist in our belief in possible peace with the Palestinians sometimes wonder if we should just throw in the towel and swing right. This is just the kind of slap-in-the-face reality check that makes us wonder whether we really are creating our own starry-eyed narrative, and whether our very optimism is dangerous.

The Palestinian Authority -- not Hamas, now, but our alleged partners for peace -- have just reaffirmed an old law calling for the death penalty for any Palestinian who sells land to Jews. The law describes the sale of land to us as an act of "national treason."

Real estate sales to Jews, which were deemed a capital crime by the Jordanians decades ago, had been demoted to a "minor offense" by a Palestinian court. But PA Prosecutor-General Ahmed al-Mughni appealed the ruling, arguing that the act must remain a "major offense" punishable by execution. The PA states that the object of the law is to prevent the spread of Jewish settlements into the occupied territories, a formulation that enjoys vast international approval. Its more insidious deeper meaning is easily elided: that the ultimate object is a Palestine that is Judenrein, or cleansed of all Jews.

Israel has already participated in the ethnic cleansing of Jews from occupied territory by forcibly removing the Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005. That gesture of conciliation was rewarded by a sharp and immediate increase in violence against sovereign Israel from Gaza and a successful power snatch by Hamas. I and other Israelis want to believe that the Palestinian Authority, with whom we're now negotiating, genuinely aspires to peace between the nations. This statement by the PA that those Palestinians who are willing to have Jewish neighbors in Palestine should be shot at dawn does little to encourage our faith.

I think Nicholas Kristof thought he was being really cute when he began his column:

Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.

That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it. (Throat clearing.) I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.

How many problems can you find with this? How about rewriting the actual suggestion -- that Muslims condemn acts of violence committed in the name of Islam -- so that it becomes "Muslims must apologize."

You may or may not find value in the suggestion -- but at least be accurate about what it is.

I also can't stand fake apologies. I've dated men who were unable to apologize or who did this Kristof-style fake apology. I can't stand it. It's unmanly. Apologies should be offered seriously, not as a means to mock people with whom you disagree.

But more than anything, this moral equivalency is just silly. There's the fact that when a pastor of a flock of 30 poor souls set out to burn a Koran, roughly every Christian in America condemned the act -- Including the President of the United States and our Secretary of State. It was almost a condemnatory overkill. When a Seattle cartoonist was forced into hiding and has lost her very identity and livelihood in the face of Muslim extremists, have you heard much condemnation? And that's just when talking about people who haven't been killed in the name of religion.

Or what about the entire premise of the piece? The suggestion that all Muslims are accused of being terrorists and that waves of Islamophobia are ripping through America like 300-million alarm fire?

The prescient Cliff May, a former New York Times newsman, mocked the mainstream media's accusation of Islamophobia in his column from last week. He discusses the media handwringing over one poll that showed 49 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam. The stories declined to note that the figure is up 3 points from the previous poll, within the margin of error. If there has been an uptick, he writes, maybe it has something to do with the recent attacks or threats by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Faisal Shahzad, Anwar al-Awlaki and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There's a difference between having an unfavorable view of a given religion and bigotry. Kristof would be well served to learn that difference.

Afghanistan goes to the polls next week. According to the NYTimes, it's not going to be the cleanest election ever:

How much does it cost to buy an Afghan vote?

Saturday’s parliamentary elections offer a unique opportunity to ascertain that price — and it is in theory a market with many buyers, as 2,500 candidates scramble for only 249 seats. Afghanistan may be a feudal society in many ways, but it is very much capitalist feudalism (as the Soviets found out to their regret).

Nonetheless, prices are low. In northern Kunduz Province, Afghan votes cost $15 each; in eastern Ghazni Province, a vote can be bought for $18. In Kandahar, they sell their rights for as little as $1 a ballot. More commonly, the price seems to hover in the $5 to $6 range, as quoted to New York Times reporters in places like Helmand and Khost Provinces.

And yet, there's something darkly refreshing about the honesty. Compare it, for example, to the Byzantine corruption of Chicagoland:

Cook County has been a "dark pool of political corruption" for more than a century, a new study by the University of Illinois at Chicago says.

Nearly 150 employees, politicians and contractors in the nation's second-largest county have been convicted on corruption charges since 1957, according to a report released Thursday by the university and the Better Government Association (.pdf)

The 33-page study gives a history of corruption, starting from 1869 when county commissioners were jailed for rigging a bid to paint City Hall. It also details hiring scandals, including some under Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Stroger hasn't been charged with any crime.

In the last 36 years, 31 sitting or former Chicago alderman have been convicted of corruption or other crimes. The last was Ike Carothers (29th), who earlier this month plead guilty to charges he accepted gifts in exchange for his votes on zoning issues.

So here's the question: are things in Kabul getting better or worse? And what about Cook County?

The International Business Times reports Los Angeles used $111 million (its share of the $800 billion stimulus bill) to create or retain 55 jobs, or about $2 million per job. The city's Controller, Wendy Greuel, says she's "disappointed." Shouldn't she be at least very disappointed?

Ricochet member Frozen Chosen made the wise suggestion the other day of abolishing the 17th Amendment, which provides for the popular election of senators. Well, here's a perfect example of 17th Amendment mischief that could have been avoided.

Because of some odd litigation involving the 17th Amendment's requirements for filling vacancies, Illinois has to hold two Senate elections this November. There's the regular election for the full six-year term, the winner of which will take office in January. But the courts say that Illinois also has to hold a special election to fill the remaining 2+ months of Obama's term, i.e., from election day (November) until January.

Burris, who isn't running for the full term has for some reason decided that it is vitally important that he stay in office for those last two months. But he's not on the special election ballot. And so he's trying to enjoin the special election, and he's taking his case to the Supreme Court and from there, I suppose, right on up to Cloud-Cuckoo Land. What's going on? Does he have any particular goal other than embarrassing Illinois Democrats? Doesn't Burris want some time off for the holidays?

It's fun to watch, but now I'm really persuaded by Frozen's suggestion to return to the original concept of having state legislatures appoint senators.

Sort of, but not really.

Everyone has been talking about Angelo M. Codevilla's essay in The American Spectator titled “America’s Ruling Class — and the Perils of Revolution." In the essay, Codevilla contrasts America's "ruling class" with its "country class."

A few days ago, Brendan Bernhard added his two cents to the growing conversation around Codevilla's essay. Bernhard says that we already know who represents the "ruling class" (aka the establishment):

Look at any movie and TV screen, open any newspaper or magazine, and the A-list names and candidates will come tumbling forth like clothes out of a dryer opened mid-cycle.

But what about the country class? Who represents it?

I found Bernhard's answer to be most pleasing: Bob Dylan! Reading Bernhard's take on Dylan ("while Dylan may not be conservative in the conventional sense — he’s sui generis, if anyone is — he is definitely not a member of the “ruling class” as described by Codevilla"), I instantly thought about the conversations we've been having on Ricochet, like Claire's post about talking to reasonable people who disagree with us.

I have no idea what side of the political spectrum Dylan falls on: he's nothing if not enigmatic. But that's what I love about him (aside from his music, which I love too). He's eccentric. One of a kind. He's a partisan for no fools and he slips the stereotypical knot that would tie him to the Left.

Bernhard explains:

In the mainstream media, Dylan’s image is still rigidly defined by the social upheavals of the 1960s, though he rid himself of those shackles when he was only 26. To be precise, he divorced himself from the increasingly leftist, anti-American politics of his own generation when, in 1967, he moved to a house in upstate New York to record the Americana-drenched Basement Tapes with The Band. Soon after that, while free love made love to riots and psychedelic stalks burst from a million brain sockets, he married, started a family, and wrote more good songs, few of which had revolutionary applications, although “Dear Landlord” will surely always have a place in city-dwellers’ cramped, rent-obsessed hearts.

As Bernhard continues his column, his description of Dylan left me with an asymmetric picture of Dylan performing at a Tea Party rally:

Dylan is an old-fashioned patriot who wears cowboy hats, loves Texas as much as Greenwich Village, and spoke warmly to Rolling Stone of George W. Bush, whom he’d met when the latter was governor of Texas, while also wishing President Obama well.

Though Dylan is of the country class, I don't think he sympathizes with political activism of the tea partiers, or of the left for that matter (But it's still fun to think about him at a tax day protest, singing, “You don’t need a weatherman / To know which way the wind blows.”)

He once told a critic, for instance, "Me, I don’t want to write for people anymore--you know, be a spokesman. From now on, I want to write from inside me …I’m not part of no movement… I just can’t make it with any organization…”

Shouldn't that be what we all aspire to--to being individuals, rather than automatons? Being part of a movement, an organization, or a party can lead to group-think, a toxin that traditional conservatives have always loathed.

For rolling like a stone down his own path, I categorize Dylan as a reasonable, if erratic, person who may, and probably does, disagree with me and you, and each one of us, on various points. And a good thing too. How boring would this world be if we didn't all disagree with each other at least some of the time?

Michael Bloomberg, “New York’s billionaire mayor” as the New York Times puts it, is campaigning for the election of moderates in November. As we all know, nothing will check the most tendentiously leftist executive and legislature in American history like a good dose of preemptive compromise.

[Bloomberg] is supporting Republicans, Democrats and independents who he says are not bound by rigid ideology and are capable of compromise, qualities he says he fears have become alarmingly rare in American politics.

No “rigid ideology” is binding this politician, “who started out as a Democrat, then became a Republican and later an independent”. Bloomberg’s fetters are billions of dollars of bubble wrap cushioning any collision with reality. Consider, in apparent obeisance to some sort of Law of Conservation of Sanity, Bloomberg will be campaigning for Meg Whitman—supporting her gubernatorial run to restore fiscal rectitude to California—while also hosting a fundraiser for Harry Reid, who as Senate majority leader has done more to wreck the finances of the United States than any other senator in living memory.

After discussing other candidates he is backing, the White House’s recent efforts to solicit his advice and court his approval, and his own restless quest for something to do after City Hall, Bloomberg sums up his political philosophy thusly: “It was a good time to be a Democrat at one point, and it was a good time to be a Republican at one point. Today, it’s a good time to be an independent.”

Profiles in Courage this isn’t.

Explain to me again why Republicans need Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Jeffords—oh, and Mike Bloomberg—in order to beat back the Left?

All this talk about whether to extend or repeal tax cuts reminds me of one of the worst aspects of the tax code. I think it’s done more to confuse the issue of who’s earning the money and who’s entitled to it than any other tax regulation. It’s also freed the hands of big spenders in government without any real accountability. I’m talking about the mandatory withholding of taxes that began in 1943.

Think about it. You earn money, but you never see it. You never touch it. You never earn interest on it. And you certainly never spend it. It goes directly to the government, and, while making the payment a little more “painless”, it feeds the notion that the money belonged to the government in the first place. Salaries become more theoretical than real, and the amount withheld becomes factored into your thinking. In other words, your take-home pay, for all practical purposes, becomes your salary.

Imagine, however, having to sit down once a week or once a month and write checks to the state and federal governments. There would be several immediate benefits. First, workers would have a greater sense of how much of their money is being spent, and they would almost certainly keep a closer eye on what their leaders were doing with these funds. Second, government would be forced overnight into having to be more accountable to taxpayers. No longer could officials hide behind withholding and pretend the money was theirs to begin with. And third, the money could be invested and spent in the private sector before having to be sent to the state capital or to Washington.

This strikes me as a winning issue for a candidate, because the only counter-arguments are that taxpayers can’t be trusted to send the money or are too irresponsible to manage their money; not exactly arguments that would be attractive to voters. But what about taxpayers who like the current system? Maybe they don’t want to bother sending checks or maybe they like the false sense of thinking they’re getting a gift when the refund check comes. Fine. Then make withholding voluntary.

Somehow, we’ve got to rid governments of the notion that money earned belongs to them. It belongs to us, and we agree to pay a certain portion of our earnings to maintain local, state and federal services. Taxes are a necessity. I don’t think most Americans begrudge the notion of taxation, but there is a growing distrust and disdain of the system. Perhaps that attitude could change if governments started trusting their citizens. Let us have our own money, and let’s agree on how much you need to operate, and we’ll send it to you. Withholding money is the way you’d deal with children. But maybe that’s the point.

More By Pat Sajak:

Lowering The Bar On Disappointment

Global Gobbledygook

One Simple Question From the Left

Here's the weekend's news from Turkey, and here's the part that has me thinking:

IRANIAN VP: "TEHRAN WILL PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS FOR TURKISH BUSINESSMEN"

Tehran will eliminate all hurdles facing Turkish businessmen doing business in Iran, said Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi yesterday. Speaking at the Turkey-Iran Business Forum organized by Turkey's Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK) in Istanbul, Rahimi said that Tehran is eager to facilitate Turkish business operations in Iran. "We should support this," he explained at the forum, also attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "If you ever encounter a problem in Iran, please don't worry. We will remove all obstacles in line with our President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad's directives. We have no better friend than Turkey in today's world. Turkey indeed is a country of utmost importance for Iran's security, even economically." He added that both sides resolved during Erdogan's visit to Iran last year to boost the trade volume to $30 billion. Erdogan, for his part, said Ankara and Tehran should establish a free trade mechanism similar to the one between Turkey and the European Union. Erdogan added that the two countries should conclude talks on a preferential trade deal as soon as possible and that bilateral trade would reach the $30 billion target within five years.

Ricochet readers, being unusually well-informed about Turkish politics, will appreciate the Never-Never-Land I-can't-be-reading this feeling inspired by the juxtaposition of that headline with the one directly below it. But that's not my point, at least not for right now. I'm just wondering about a few things.

1) How seriously could this potentially undermine the entire sanctions regime? Is it reasonable to imagine that Iran could simply re-route a substantial part of the targeted sectors of its import/export economy through the Turkish border, or will the effects be marginal because this is logistically too challenging?

2) Doesn't Title 2, Sec. 303 of the Iran Sanctions Act imply that Turkey should be designated a "destination of diversion concern" and that therefore exports to Turkey should be restricted? Is this being discussed seriously? I have seen no discussion of this point in the news. Google search turns up nothing.

3) Shouldn't the Turkish banks financing these transactions be investigated as money-laundering entities? Are they under investigation for this by the Treasury?

It seems to me the entire sanctions package is a joke with that border wide open and no Turkish cooperation in enforcing inspections. As it is, Turkish customs agents are among the most corrupt actors in the government, and they're not under the slightest pressure--obviously--to keep a close watch on that border.

That said ...

The Turkish government, when pressed, will reply that "sanctions don't work."

There is a huge academic literature on this subject. I haven't mastered it. But it does seem to point toward just that conclusion: Sanctions don't work. The cases in which they have worked, if ever, are not relevantly similar to this one.

This may be ignoring the real political point: Any military action would have to be predicated on the argument, "We tried everything else first." But if that's the real point, perhaps it doesn't matter if the Turks are doing brisk trade with Iran. (Of course, there are other excellent reasons to be worried about the growing closeness in that relationship, but let's separate those from this one.)

I've heard reports, from Iranian refugees here in Istanbul, that the sanctions are causing real hardship in Iran. That doesn't mean anything--the point of the sanctions isn't to harm the Iranian people, it's to slow or stop the nuclear program. I have no idea whether that's being accomplished.

It's idiotic to criticize the Turks for undermining our policy initiative simply on the grounds that they should back us up, right or wrong.

Are they right?

Hamas has put together a rouse-the-troops video depicting the "liberation" of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, complete with the fiery destruction of the High Court of Justice, Palestinian cars zooming down a main Tel Aviv highway, and the takeover of Channel 2.

I think this was supposed to be scary, but it's so silly that I found it weirdly reassuring.

I'm trying to make sense of the following story from The Hill:

The Tea Party is expected to announce that former Rep. JD Hayworth (R-Ariz.) will become a national spokesperson for the movement, a source close to the matter told The Hill.

Despite Hayworth's unwavering support of tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush and seeking to permanently end taxes on capital gains and estates, the Tea Party earlier this year did not back his bid to unseat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Hoping to glean some clarifying details, I scrolled through the comments sections. Only more confusion. One reader asks,

Who is "The Tea Party" and who is going to make this announcement for "The Tea Party"?

Another reader dismisses the story altogether:

Whatever. Everyone knows there is no "party leadership" to make such an announcement or even the decision.

And lastly:

I am Tea Party and the only spokesman I/we need is the ballot box!!

I'd be disappointed to see the Tea Party go the way of trying to build itself into a third party with its own establishment, but I can't decipher whether that's what's going on here. Be on the lookout for more details.

Obama has his heart set on having Elizabeth Warren run his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I can't comment on Professor Warren's qualifications, but I do know that her appointment requires Senate confirmation. The reason I know that is because the Dodd-Frank Act says that the Director of the new bureau shall be appointed by the President "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Which also happens to be the constitutionally-prescribed method of appointing "Officers of the United States."

But apparently the administration doesn't think they can get Warren through the Senate. So instead Obama has appointed Warren to a position that is technically a subordinate role within Treasury, but which is intended -- as Obama himself made clear -- to run the whole shebang.

How outrageous is this? So outrageous that the editorial boards of both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have run almost identical editorials lambasting the administration. Again, I have no particular brief against Warren. But I do wish that our Law Professor-in Chief would take a stab at obeying the law, especially a law for which he claims paternity.

Anyone from Ricochet attend the Army game today? We've just returned home after almost 12 hours at West Point, where the family celebrated my father's 75th birthday and my nephew's membership in the West Point Class of '14.

It was a sunny September day on the Hudson, and Army even won. We tailgated by the Plain. No one locks his car, and you leave all your stuff out even when you go to the stadium for the game -- cameras, wine, cell phones, etc. -- without a second thought. We have a friend who is on the faculty, who introduced us to some of his friends: every one in his or her 30s, and every one having had best friends who never made the trip home from Iraq or Afghanistan. All my children and my nieces and nephews looked at their plebe cousin with awe and wonder, sensing something different about him.

For me it was just an overwhelming sense of gratitude: for the place, for my nephew, and for knowing that he is among other young men and women of character. I left the Plain just grateful, with a keen sense of how inadequate that gratitude must be.

Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys. Don’t let ‘em pick guitars and drive them ol’ trucks. Make ‘em be doctors and lawyers and such. - Willie Nelson

Cape Girardeau, MO: Perhaps the best time to be a trucker is between the hours of 1 and 7 in the morning. At least that’s when I enjoy it most, when it’s peaceful and you can be alone with your thoughts. Leaving West Memphis, Arkansas at 1AM this morning, I wound through all 10 gears before putting The Beast on cruise control on a long stretch of two-lane highway.

The darkness, made thicker by a light fog, was broken only by a red moon floating just above the tree line. Aside from a brief exchange of greetings on the CB with another trucker headed the opposite direction, it was just me and the darkness on the highway. 　After what seemed like an extended time of seeing only the silhouettes of trees and the rapid-passing highway lines, the blackness that seemed to nearly engulf me was pierced by the lights of a nearby little town. Driving into the place, I felt a strange comfort at the fact that I was again around other people. There is something about being utterly alone that makes the eventual presence of others, even when they are unseen, reassuring somehow. That is, until one of the local specimens pulled out in front of me. I was the only other vehicle around for 15 miles, yet this dunderhead had to pull right out in front of my semi. That was when I remembered Mark Twain’s observation that, after all, Man was made at the end of the work week, when The Almighty was tired.

After my 3AM “live load” appointment was complete, I began making my way north and decided to try some classical music via the smart phone, but I fell short again. Another baritone opera singer, only this one sang with a twang, and just sat there on the melody, barely able to move a note or two without hurting himself. Imagine Tennessee Ernie Ford on valium. My taste in classical music can now be summed up as, “If it ain’t Baroque, fix it.”

The sun was like a red ball of fire peaking over the horizon as I switched to country music and heard Willie Nelson’s song, quoted above. I’ve often wondered if truckers are basically modern-day versions of cowboys, moving goods from one end of the country to the other. As a breed, we’re a restless lot, an independent and cantankerous group from all walks of life. Some of the truck stops have an almost “wild west” kind of atmosphere. Inside the restaurants, drivers refer to the waitresses as “ma’am,” they hold the door open for ladies, and often times address each other as “sir.” But outside the truck stop, any number of questionable professions might be pursued even as the more rowdy ones get on the CB radio and try their best to start fights in the parking lot.

If you think the conversation on Ricochet has been a bit raucous of late, tune in to a CB radio sometime. At a dizzying speed, the conversation goes from highway updates, to jokes, to fights, and back again. In the midst of a traffic jam a few weeks ago, I heard the following exchange:

“Did anyone see that little lady in the red car?”

“You mean the red Toyota?”

“Yep.”

“The girl with the green skirt?”

“Yep.”

“With the skirt hiked up a little on one leg?”

“Yep, that’s the one.”

“No, I ain’t seen her.”

“[expletive, expletive, expletive, and expletive some more]”

One old Red Simpson song describes us as a bunch of, “…double clutching gear jamming coffee drinking nuts” and I’d be hard pressed to argue the point. But the one constant that I notice as I travel across the country, is the presence of patriotic themes on the rigs. James Lileks noted the same phenomenon recently. Part of that is due, I think, to the preponderance of veterans in the industry. But a sizeable portion of it is due to the simple fact that many of these hard working men and women just love their country. For those of us in the industry, America is our office. The fiery rising sun, the jutting mountains, the cities that sparkle like jewels in the night, …it never grows old.

Perhaps it’s the fact that we get to see so much of the country that inspires the patriotism. Perhaps it’s the reward of an honest day’s labor and the expectation (though dwindling) that we will be able to build a better life for our children and grandchildren. Many of us can’t make it to Tea Parties. We’re always on the move, and truck parking is scarce anyway. But many of us are there in spirit, working and praying for the success of the American Dream; the idea that we really can take care of ourselves. Perhaps on just this one song, Willie got it wrong. Mamas, there are worse things your babies could do than grow up to be cowboys. 　

There are a lot of attractive candidates on our side who might run for president. I'm a Mitch Daniels man, myself.

But does anyone doubt that a President Chris Christie would be....at the very least a huge amount of fun?

I'm a little late to the party on this one--I must have missed this item while I was traveling. Apparently, the White House has warned insurers against rate hikes.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that some carriers are asking for total premium hikes topping 20% starting this month, and the carriers are attributing one to nine percentage points of the increases to new benefit mandates in the law.

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Ms. Sebelius wrote. "We will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections."

Adam Freeman has already noted the creepiness of Kathleen Sebelius's threat to put insurers who criticize this law out of business, as has Peter Robinson. But the implications of the policy are even more appalling. Has no one explained to the Obama Administration what happens when you impose price caps? It leads--every first-year economics student knows this--to rationing.

It's not so much the indifference to the basic laws of economics as the proud flouting of the indifference that pushes me over the edge.

Ah well, let's try to make the best of it. Welcome, rationing! I love neo-revisionist communist revival chic. Bring on the bread lines!

The transition from "global warming" to "climate change" wasn't a matter of shifting weather patterns; it was merely shifting terminology. Global warming skeptics were gaining ground, particularly given the lack of global warming. Climate change made more sense, because it would be awfully tough to argue that the climate doesn't change. (Earthling to extraterrestrial tourist: "Hey. if you don't like the climate here on Earth, just stick around for a few minutes.")

Now the White House science advisor (what, no Science Czar?) is suggesting we move to a new, even more alarming phrase: Global Climate Disruption. As Count Floyd used to say on SCTV's Monster Chiller Horror Theater, "Ooooooooo, that's scary, boys and girls!" Still you wonder if this neologism is sufficient to galvanize public support for a massive government takeover of...well, anything that's left to be taken over. "Disruption" might be too weenie a word. How about "Climate Death" or "World Climate Obliteration"? Whatever they finally decide to call it, I hope they can figure it out soon. My New Age neighbor is tired of changing bumper stickers on his Smart Car.

I laughed and laughed this morning, when I read this headline in the Washington Post:

Was politics behind the government's decision to preserve the UAW's pensions?

Well, that is a puzzler, I guess, for some. The question just occurred to them, of course, but they do a great impression of the plodding Inspector from all of those old English mystery novels as they try to figure it all out. Here's how they put it together:

IT IS ONE of the enduring puzzles surrounding the bailout of General Motors: Why did retired salaried personnel of a former GM division, Delphi, receive a fraction of their promised pension benefits, while Delphi's retired hourly personnel, members of the United Auto Workers, got 100 percent, paid for in part by the "new" taxpayer-supported GM?

Was it really an "enduring puzzle," fellow members of Ricochet? Be honest: how many of you struggled to puzzle out why the Obama administration would carve out a special -- and ruinous -- dispensation for Big Labor? How many of this happy community just can't figure out how union campaign contributions work?

It's fun to watch them sift the clues. Sort of like when I toss the tennis ball into the ocean, and my dog leaps in to retrieve it. Sometimes she gets all turned around in the waves and loses sight of it, even when it's right there, right under her nose!

In describing the account of the GM bailout by Obama's Car Czar Steven Rattner, in his new book "Overhaul," they jump into the ocean, then suddenly get lost:

In Mr. Rattner's account, GM did suggest, quite reasonably, that the UAW accept a pension freeze and switch from defined benefits to an IRA-like plan. UAW officials refused even to discuss it -- and the auto task force went along with the union, because, as Mr. Rattner describes it, "attacking the union's sacred cow . . . could jeopardize the process."

I love that phrase: "jeopardize the process." The process of what, exactly? The process of becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Labor?