Last night my wife and I attended a fundraiser at the governor's mansion in New Jersey, Drumthwacket, where the First Lady was honored for her work for children with Down Syndrome. Specifically, the event was held for a private group, Research Down Syndrome. This group focuses on improving the cognitive abilities of people with Down; they have done it with private money; and they are about a year away from clinical trials. The audience was filled with people who have children with Down, and there wasn't a sad sack there: this was about life and hope.

I can't claim to know the Christies, though their daughter is in my daughter's class at a local Catholic high school. But I will say that the more America gets to know this people, the more they will love them. This is a family utterly without pretense -- they don't even live at the governor's mansion -- and awed by the responsibility they have been given. YouTube has made the governor a star over his various confrontations with hecklers. When you see the man up close, you're going to come away even more impressed.

Now all I have to do is make sure the rest of you outside NJ don't draft him for national politics before he's finished cleaning up the mess here!

Ahmadinejad may speak at the UN and say anything he damn well pleases, but not everyone's allowed to listen.

The Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit desk at the United Nations, dispensing with any ambiguity and taking orders directly from the Iranian delegation, forcibly evicted a Jerusalem Post reporter and another journalist who had the temerity to attempt to hear Ahmadinejad's post-General Assembly-harangue press conference.

“We have every right to stay,” Dave said. “This is the United Nations. This is America.”

But this isn’t really America, I thought, as the thuggy guy, hands on his hips, breathed heavily in my face.

This is not America. This is the basement of a multinational complex, where a staggeringly high level of deference is being paid to the whims and fancies of a man being protested against by hundreds outside. This is a place where the regular rules don’t matter, and where regulations and standards are easily trumped by fear and cowardice. This is an underworld.

The woman came over. “I’m sorry,” she said to me. “They know who you are, and you have to leave.”

That’s the problem, I thought as I was escorted out. We all know who we are. We just don’t agree on who has to leave.

I tried. I tried to think up some contrarian reason why, actually, Democrats should be thrilled with their new branding. Well, okay, pleased. Satisfied? Untroubled. At least. At a bare minimum, untroubled.

But I couldn't. Maybe you can. Ready? Go:

There's something both creepy and moving about reading someone else's diary. (Reading your own diary is just plain creepy....)

The Martha's Vineyard Museum has a fascinating on-line exhibit: they've scanned the diary of Laura Jernegan, a 6 year-old girl who set out on a three-year whaling trip with her family in 1868.

It's here, and it's really amazing.

You see her handwriting change as she gets older, and her tone shifts, too. Less wonder, more wariness, which I suppose happens to all of us. There are boat sketches, whaling tales, glimpses of nineteenth century Hawaii, some adventure, and even a mutiny.

It's a quietly heartbreaking picture of family and childhood -- or, should I say, of a truncated childhood and a complicated family, in an unforgiving environment and a dangerous world.

A few weeks ago, I noted with disgust the cover of Time magazine, headlined Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace. I suggested that their editorial line had of late become so frankly hostile to Israel that it would be worthwhile to ask who their advertisers were.

An old friend of mine, with whom I've been arguing about politics literally since I was fifteen years old, wrote to me to object. I'll call him "Red Sean." Red Sean felt my suggestion was analogous to precisely the kind of ugly conspiracy theory I would usually deplore:

My dear friend, I don't think it's wise to question the motives of every news organization that disagrees with you. Take it at face value and dispute it on its merit. Otherwise it gets ugly. It is usually my Jewish friends who get uncomfortable at the mention of the close connection of various individuals in government and media with Israel. Those who point out the close ties are deemed anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. We can't have it both ways.

A fair point. I generally agree that we'd all be well-advised to begin by arguing with an article's facts, not with the ethnicity or nationality of the newspaper's advertisers. In the case of the article in question, there are more than enough facts with which to argue.

That said, media consumers have every reason to ask who's funding the newspaper they're reading or the television show they're watching. News magazines run on advertising, and of course publishers gear content toward the advertisers' preferences, both consciously and unconsciously. This is why you'll never see a fashion magazine running an article titled, "Actually, all that makeup just makes you look shallow, garish and phony."

Is it anti-Semitic to intimate that Jews control the American media? Yes, because they don't. Jews are statistically over-represented in journalism, as they are in all the professions. They're still very much the minority. Most of the major media (what's left of it) is now owned by publicly traded international corporations, who answer to institutional investors and advertisers. They follow the money, not the dictates of the International Zionist Conspiracy, because they have no choice.

Is it anti-Arab to note that the Gulf States are significant advertisers in this media? No, it is not. That's a fact, not a prejudice. Is it anti-Arab to note that the Gulf States have a lot more money for advertising than Israel or other businesses and entities associated with Jews? No, it is not. Again, this is a fact, not a prejudice. The GDP of Saudi Arabia alone is more than twice that of Israel. Financially, the Gulf States have vastly more clout than all the world's Jews put together.

Time Inc. is partnered with ad buyer Starcom MediaVest Group. Among their clients are Coca-Cola, GM, and Emirates Airline. In Starcom's own words:

A wholly owned subsidiary of Paris based Publicis Groupe Media, SMG MENA is present in eight offices spanning the Arab world, from Dubai to Morocco, and is backed by a global network of 110 offices in 67 countries. Its client roster boasts many leading local, regional and multinational companies. SMG MENA focuses on delivering connections that captivate by inventing and mastering engaging touch points, and creating and activating transformative ideas that connect brands to consumers.

The network has enjoyed annual double-digit growth since it launched in 2000. Among its wins in 2008/2009 are Emirates Business, Fox Movies, Hermes, Nakheel, Samsung and Masdar.

SMG MENA has been named the top media shop in the MENA region in terms of billings by RECMA, the leading independent global monitoring and ranking source.

At roughly the time this "win" was announced, this article appeared in Time. I'd say this piece is verging on what in the trade is called "advertorial."

This doesn't mean the Emirates are dictating Time's editorial line, censoring its articles, or controlling the world's media agenda. It just means that Time is a business. These are very rough days for news magazines. Newsweek was just sold for a dollar. Time's editors obviously know they're holding on to their jobs by a thread, and they're human. This has got to make them just that little bit less likely to risk biting the hand that feeds them by running big cover-stories titled "Why the Palestinians Don't Want Peace," or "Is America Anti-Semitic?"

It's neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Arab to ask the question, "What influences trends in media coverage?" But it is anti-Semitic to conclude, "a sinister conspiracy of Jews," if in fact the evidence points right in the other direction.

You feel me, Red Sean?

Attention, Gulf States: I welcome you to prove me wrong. Just put me on your payroll. If you keep the spigot open and let me write whatever I please, I'll take it all back.

I think running an ad like this is a good sign that your campaign is in trouble. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is known for his cautious and subtle rhetoric (e.g. "Republicans want you to die quickly."). He's a first-term congressman in an exceedingly tough race against Daniel Webster. In fact, I think Webster has the edge.

In the ad above, Grayson accuses Webster of refusing the call to military service six times. It pulls out all of these emotional stops -- an old soldier's voice cracks as Taps is played ruefully on a bugle. Only problem is that nothing in the ad is true, apparently. Webster served in the ROTC during college and reported immediately after he graduated -- only to be disqualified for medical reasons. And then the unidentified narrator says that Webster "doesn't love this country."

But other than that, "draft dodger" is a great ad. Oh, and what about Grayson's military career?

He didn't serve a single day.

John Kerry (he of "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot" fame) is at it again. He's figured out why his party is in such trouble. You'll never guess who's at fault.

Here is a question that needs an answer. Who is the greater buffoon -- Stephen Colbert who brought Comedy Central to the halls of Congress to the glee of Nancy Pelosi and her minions, or Joe Biden, who promises that the Democrats will retain their majority in both houses of Congress?

El Diario de Juarez, the main newspaper in Cuidad Juarez, has published an editorial asking the local drug lords just what, exactly, they need to do to stop getting killed:

What do you want from us?

Gentlemen of the different organizations that are fighting for the Ciudad Juarez plaza, the loss of two reporters of this news organization represents an irreparable breakdown for all of us who work here, and in particular, for our families.

We'd like you to know that we're communicators, not psychics. As such, as information workers, we ask that you explain what it is you want from us, what you'd intend for us to publish or to not publish, so that we know what is expected of us.

You are at this time the de facto authorities in this city because the legal authorities have not been able to stop our colleagues from falling, despite the fact that we've repeatedly demanded it from them. Because of this, before this undeniable reality, we direct ourselves to you with these questions, because the last thing we want is that another one of our colleagues falls victim to your bullets.

This is happening just across the border from El Paso. You know, I can see why Americans in that region aren't so eager to throw that border wide open.

Optimists say that it's always darkest just before the dawn. Having watched a fair number of sunrises, however, I've concluded that it's always darkest just before it's pitch black.

It's been a rough week on the road, beginning with the midnight ride of the "Cranky Cajun" (my CB handle), from Memphis to Missouri. The circadian rhythm does not lend itself easily to syncopation, so a bit of downtime was necessary to recover from the nightshift before The Beast and I traveled to Wisconsin, where the weather was cool and I succumbed to whatever flu-like bug is currently making the rounds.

Two very hard days' drive ensued, as I left Wisconsin on Tuesday and arrived in Louisiana the very next day. The final eight hours of that grueling trip were taken exclusively on rural roads that wound and snaked through an endless supply of small towns, decorated with a traffic light or stop sign every 10 yards or so, and a number of local cops waiting to solicit donations to the municipal fund. My left leg, which spent so much time mashing that heavy clutch, is now severely over-developed causing me to walk in circles. Walking from the truck to the truck stop takes longer now and makes me dizzy.

By the time the delivery was made on Wednesday evening, I had run out of hours to legally drive to a truck stop. So I spent that night parked in the dirt on the roadside, and enjoyed a Denti-Moore meal as if it were filet mignon while reminding myself that this too shall pass. But everything has a purpose, as the saying goes. How best to appreciate laughter if you've never cried? How best to appreciate indoor plumbing if you've never spent an evening parked on the roadside? How best to appreciate Texas barbecue if you haven't had Denti-Moore cold?

Friday, I found my reward. On I-20, just north of Tyler, Texas, sits the Texas Best Smokehouse travel center. I just stopped for coffee, but once inside the place, I found a feast for the senses. A large dining area, appointed with large rustic looking tables and chairs, hard wood floors, paintings and animal heads adorned the walls. The unmistakable aroma of hickory smoked food permeated the place as people lined up to place their orders. I couldn't resist so I made my way, in overlapping circles, toward the line. I was ready to order as large a chunk of beef as possible when I noticed a forlorn looking long horn bull perched on the wall. It boggles the mind how a taxidermist could create a look of such complete dejection on a confounded bull, right down to the sulking ears, but it worked. So I ordered chicken instead.

While enjoying the meal, I checked the latest headlines on the magic phone. Steven Colbert testifying before Congress; a DOJ official exposes apparent racial bias in the New Black Panther case; Iran's goofy little dinner jacket is on his annual pilgrimage to New York where he disgraces pretty much everything; unemployment creeps upward while the administration vilifies job creators; and the Commander in Chief demonstrates his commitment to national security by saying that we can absorb another terrorist attack. There seems to be a growing back-log of insults to our intelligence and assaults on our liberty.

The good news is that like a great many other things, this too shall pass. And the voters shall begin administering the elixir in November.

Two related items on two different coasts:

Item: Bedbug infestations are soaring in New York City. It is now the most bedbug-infested city in the United States. But, wait, we're talking about bedbugs? In 2010? Isn't that a little retro?

Item: There's a whooping cough epidemic in Los Angeles. Nine infants have died already this year. But, wait, we're talking about whooping cough? In 2010? Isn't that a little retro?

There's a way, of course, to eradicate bedbugs:

Bedbugs, a common household pest for centuries, all but vanished in the 1940s and '50s with the widespread use of DDT. But DDT was banned in 1972 as too toxic to wildlife, especially birds. Since then, the bugs have developed resistance to chemicals that replaced DDT.

Also, exterminators have fewer weapons in their arsenal than they did just a few years ago because of a 1996 Clinton-era law that requires older pesticides to be re-evaluated based on more stringent health standards. The re-evaluations led to the restrictions on propoxur and other pesticides.

And there's a way, of course, to immunize your children agains whooping cough:

The only way to break that cycle is to vaccinate everyone of all ages, said Dr. James Cherry, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Some doctors relate this recent rise in cases to the parents who have shied away from vaccinating children due to fears, albeit unfounded, that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. Dr. Jennifer Shu, a pediatrician at Children's Medical Group in Atlanta, Georgia, thinks this is a primary factor in the resurgence of whooping cough.

A 2009 study in Pediatrics found that parental refusal of whooping cough vaccination was associated with children's risk of pertussis infection. Previous research had shown a steady increase of parents who refuse immunization in the last decade.

Clusters of unvaccinated people contribute to outbreaks, but in the case of whooping cough, the cycles will continue until a much greater number of people of all ages are immunized, Cherry said.

So we don't use DDT anymore, even though its use would eradicate bedbugs and save hundreds of thousands of lives in Africa. And we don't immunize our children -- at least in Los Angeles -- even though whooping cough vaccine is safe, and a whooping cough epidemic is deadly.

Hey, what's the problem with real world consequences to your bad ideas when you're a smug, snarky, sanctimonious ideologue? Nothing! If you've just killed the kids-only insurance market, that must be the insurance companies' fault - because apparently their assets are a bottomless public good, meant to be dispersed with Santa-like abandon. Oh, wait a minute - if Santa were an insurer, Naughty would be an undeniable pre-existing condition.

Time to remember the wisdom of CS Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

What I loathe most about the left is how fundamentally immoral they are, and how willing to sacrifice real human beings on the altar of their pretentions.

I mean, it couldn't be more of a joke, could it? You've probably all heard by now about Mad Mahmoud's latest berzerkazoid performance at the UN. Thankfully, our delegation did at least do the decent thing and walk out. (Check out the list of countries that joined us in walking out. Good for you, Costa Rica. Haiti, don't call us next time you have an earthquake--although to be honest, I'm not sure the Haitians were even in the hall, they might have gone out for lunch after Préval used the podium of the General Assembly to call upon the world to end the age of greed and dethrone the god of profit, a model that's worked really well for Haiti, obviously.)

Reuel Marc Gerecht, whose prose style I always admire, asks the usual rhetorical questions one asks after whatever characteristic abomination Ahmadinejad has recently committed:

What are we willing to do to stop Khamenei and his Guards from having nuclear weapons? Are we willing to get damn serious about sanctions? Go to the mat with the Chinese, Russians, Turks, Venezuelans, and Swiss who try to augment their trade with the Islamic Republic? Are we willing to start talking about an oil embargo? Are we willing, finally, to support those Iranian democratic dissidents who’ve quietly asked for our assistance? Start the hard and dangerous work that’s necessary to support dissidents in a denied area where transgressions will get them raped or killed? Are we willing to credibly threaten the use of force against Khamenei if he does not stop the nuclear program?

I'll help you out, Reuel: No, no, no, no, no and no. We've got more important things to worry about, like the toilet-paper crisis in California's state parks.

So, the UN continues to give a platform to this foam-speckled, Holocaust-denying freak, who uses it to declare that the United States attacked itself on September 11, and the vast majority of the delegates of the assembled nations nod pleasantly. Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council issues a stirring denunciation of Israel for its role in the Mavi Marmara fiasco, stressing that Israel’s attack “constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.” Any mention of recent reports indicating that Iran is financing the IHH? Nope. How about this little item?

At the end of the interview Karimi stated that IHH was inspired by the ideology of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He said that IHH operatives told him they believed in Khomeini’s famous dictum, that if each Muslim threw a bucket of water on Israel, it would be erased.

Any mention? Nope!

Oddly, as Turkish columnist Bulent Kenes notes, the report of the Human Rights Council was not well-received by the Israelis. Kenes is deeply concerned for the fate and the soul of Israel, which, he worries, is in danger of succumbing to a "morbid mentality."

What happened to the famed “Jewish intelligence” as Alaton put it? To where will this deep-seated paranoia, insecurity, inferiority complex and insanity lead Israel? I pray to the single God to whom Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that He restore sanity and a sound mentality to Israel.

I am sure Israelis are deeply grateful for his prayers, one and all.

I really do think it's time for Stephen Colbert to get involved and bring some measure of seriousness to this whole business. The West needs to display its resolve. Send in the A-team.

In a shrill and ill-advised spasm of audaciousness born of desperation, Democratic politicians and their enablers in the press have apparently decided to try to demonize untold millions of voters as they attempt to invigorate their demoralized base. You see the stories: those scary, extremist tea partiers are taking over the GOP! And that strategy could become a central part of the remaining campaign.

Politics has always been a tough game, and it’s nothing more than business as usual when candidates call each other names and engage in over-the-top character assassination. However, I can’t remember a time when there’s been such a coordinated effort to marginalize and impugn the motives of so many of this nation’s citizens.

I’m not sure how they plan to balance their oft-heralded concerns for the middle class with their attempts to paint so many of its members as ignorant racists, but it’ll be fun to see them try. Then, in a breathtaking display of obtuseness, they can express their post-election puzzlement over why these same voters have deserted them.

The Left seems to be doing its best to turn the upcoming wave into a tsunami.

>

More from Pat Sajak

English Language, R.I.P.

Lowering the Bar on Disappointment

Ten Questions for Truckers

Withholding Power

So the question that instills angst in my NYU law students is whether the state can require them to donate 20 hours of pro bono work as a condition of obtaining a license. The laudable motive is to supply additional assistance to indigent people who need lawyers but cannot afford them—a condition that often exists in good times as well.

The uneasiness stems, I think, from this proposition: there is no limiting condition to the idea, such that if 20 hours is a good idea then 100 hours is a truly great idea. Any principle that does not reveal its limitations is likely to be fundamentally flawed, as this one surely is. The flaws in my view have serious constitutional dimensions.

Let's start at the beginning and note that the state, when it licenses, exercises a form of monopoly power. There is only one state, and there is no one else in the jurisdiction to whom the fledgling lawyer (or experienced lawyer from another jurisdiction) can turn. No private party is allowed to exercise that power as he or she sees fit. In all cases there are two obligations: nondiscrimination and reasonable terms. The former is likely satisfied, but the latter is not. The key question is why the state has the power to license in the first place. The correct answer is that the system of licensing is intended to protect individuals from those actions, which if completed, would give rise to a valid claim for redress. Fraud, incompetence and dishonesty fit that bill. But in a classical liberal society redistribution is not one such end, for it knows no limits. Hence the correct view tests all licenses against those permissible ends. There is much to say about modern licensing that indicates that it is pointless or overbroad. But this extension goes beyond the pale. The state is not a part owner of my labor or of any young attorney, but it is asserting that kind of lien over labor with this particular proposal.

Does this mean that there is nothing that the state can do to help the poor? Two answers are possible. One (which is actually more attractive than is commonly supposed) is no. Redistribution is not the function of the state, period. It leads to a system of beggar thy neighbor until the productive forces are overwhelmed by the redistributive ones. Think of health care.

The other is more modest. Yes it is permissible, but it is a social obligation -- not one tied to this or that profession. On this view, those who vote for the restriction have to pay their fair share. They can vote a general fund to supply legal assistance, and then pay lawyers contract wages to help poor individuals. That is surely a better alternative, and it leads, of course, to efficiency gains. As John Yoo noted to me, why have a high powered lawyer do poverty work for which he or she is manifestly incompetent. I would never trust myself in any small claims matter. The implicit mismatch of labor to task is a real practical objection to this proposal. Indeed it is endless gimmicks like this one which has led to the implosion of the labor market in the first place.

Our friends at Powerline -- along with Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and John Nolte over at Big Hollywood -- wonder if maybe today's flashy and splashy (and pointless) congressional appearance by Stephen Colbert was designed to steal the media oxygen from another set of hearings down the hall. From Big Hollywood:

I completely agree with Glenn Reynolds that having this idiot Colbert testify was nothing more than a Democrat stunt to take the media’s eye off the very real and important testimony also taking place today regarding the Justice Department’s racism scandals. So the more cringe-worthy and embarrassing Colbert’s appearance is, the better. Naturally, the MSM will be all too willing to play along. They fully understand how damaging the DOJ Black Panther case is to the Obama Administration and have no desire to come anywhere near covering it.

Former Department of Justice voting rights section chief Christopher Coates testified today about the decision to drop the investigation into allegations that members of the New Black Panther party physically intimidated voters on Election Day, 2008. He was pretty clear in his testimony. From the Daily Caller:

Coates discussed the NBPP [New Black Panther Party] case in great detail ... saying that the reason for the case’s dismissal was hostility within the division against prosecuting cases that involved a white victim and minority defendant.

“[A] large number of the people who worked in the Voting Section and the CRD (Civil Rights Division), and many of the liberal private groups that work in the civil rights field believe, incorrectly but vehemently, that enforcement of the protections of the VRA (Voting Rights Act) should not be extended to white voters but should be limited to protecting racial, ethnic and language minorities,” Coates testified.

Under the George W. Bush administration, the Justice Department pursued the NBPP case. Last year, under the Obama administration, the department dropped the charges — the single caveat being that one of the NBPP members never carry a weapon near a polling place again.

I can see why the Democrats don't want us to talk about this. I understand perfectly why they'd rather have us talk about Stephen Colbert and the circus down the hall. And it's no surprise that the media -- ever compliant -- prefer the Colbert story, too.

But before we're drowned out by Colbert 24/7, it's worthwhile to ask: does anyone have even a shred of doubt that if this had been a Republican Department of Justice, if the races were reversed, that Christopher Coates would be the new "it boy" of the media liberals? In that case, the entire episode would be a six act play -- testimony would extend over several days, it would dominate the nightly talk shows, they'd pre-empt the soaps, heads would roll, special prosecutors would suit up, there would be talk of jail time.

Instead, what do we get? A meaningless sideshow. A collective yawn from the media liberals. More toadying, lickspittle, compliant behavior from the reporting and chattering classes.

If you do the math, you'll see that I'm awake at two in the morning. This is because I was woken up by a mosquito, upon whom I just waged a severely bloody battle. The good news is that I won. His corpse is now a crimson smear on my wall, where it is sending, I should hope, a demoralizing and terrifying message to his friends. Let no mosquito doubt my steely resolve. The bad news is that I won by grabbing the first book I found near my bed and smashing the malefactor into the wall. That book happened to be a book I like. My ancient copy of Bonfire of the Vanities is now defaced with a mutilated mosquito-corpse.

I've been looking at the bloodstained book with some regret. It seems sad and disrespectful. I comfort myself with the thought that it wasn't a really sentimental book, however. I would feel just terrible if I'd used my signed copy of Just in Time: Inside the Thatcher Revolution.

Not being able to get back to sleep, I thought I'd put the question to the crowd: Which book in your collection would you never use to kill a mosquito, no matter how long the thing had been buzzing in your ear and no matter how badly your ankles itched? I think I draw the line at anything signed, anything that was a gift, books about Margaret Thatcher, books my father wrote, anything by Borges, and the sacred texts of any major religion. I wouldn't use a book of poetry, I don't think, but I guess it depends on the poet.

That said, I wasn't really thinking when I did it. I was in a rage. I'd like to think I would never have used a copy of Downing Street Years, but I don't know--deep down inside, I know my head wasn't right when I did that. Something took over me. The devil, maybe. I was like a machine. All I could think was kill, kill, kill.

I have to admit, if only to myself, that had my signed copy of Faith and Power been closer to the bed, it might have been at risk.

I want to single out the latest from David Brooks for three reasons. One, after reading a Brooks column, I always have something that feels worth the trouble of saying. (That's just not true enough of enough newspaper columnists.) Two, in this column, Brooks holds forth on something that sounds a lot like my call for a return to maturity -- he uses the word 'responsibility.' Three, despite hitting home time and again with remarks like these --

the decay expands well beyond Washington. Teachers don’t really control their classrooms. They have to obey a steady stream of mandates that govern everything from how they treat an unruly child to the way they teach. Doctors don’t really control their practices but must be wary of a capricious malpractice system that could strike at any moment. Local government officials don’t really govern their towns. Their room for maneuver is sharply constrained by federal mandates and by the steady stream of lawsuits that push them in ways defying common sense.

-- he caps it all off with this:

It’s about giving teachers, doctors and officials the power to actually make decisions and then holding them accountable.

God help me, who is it who can give these important folks "the power to actually make decisions" -- ? Isn't the whole point that this power can't be given -- it can only be taken away? Sure, even our reigning pop psychologists have a point when they tell us that well-meaning experts can 'empower' us by hooking us up with convenient clues about how to be more effective at this or that task. But the analogy from the helping professions breaks down when applied to the very institutions that are actively undermining the authority of mature people to take charge of the world around them, and overcompensating for the shortcomings of the immature in apparent pursuit of the perfection of the precautionary principle.

These institutions, pretty much across the board, are regulatory, whether public or private. It's no wonder that big business and big government oftentimes have powerful interests in working hand-in-glove to make regulatory legal regimes airtight, ubiquitous, and intimate. When newspaper columnists and others on the left freak out over the right's ostensible obsession with 'deregulation,' what they're missing is that our whole concept of legal regulation has been shifting for decades -- away from the kinds of regulations that presume maturity, and toward the kinds that presume immaturity.

One of the basic elements of maturity is the competence to exercise effective but circumscribed power in accordance with sound judgment. Viewing our problems through the lens of 'empowerment' and 'disempowerment' might not always presume immaturity, but it sure seems to endorse the basic frame of reference of those who do.

In what must be a first for a Chicago Democrat, at least one dead constituent is working against President Obama's reelection prospects. Consider Mr. Donald Charles Unsworth, who passed away aged 78 on September 6, 2010 surrounded by his large and loving family. The obituary describes a remarkable man--Air Force veteran, police officer, and successful small businessman. But the close of the piece reveals a steely family resolve to advance the cause of liberty:

The family respectfully asked in lieu of flowers that memorial contributions be made to the American Cancer Society or to the campaign of whoever is running against President Barack Obama in 2012.

This is not just another mid-term election. Donald Unsworth, RIP.

Big Government's Andrew Breitbart joins us and we cover the panoply of conflicts that seem to follow Andrew where ever he goes. A brief list: Most of Twitter, the folks in the parking lot of the Sears Center, Glenn Beck, Shirley Sherrod, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Harvey Fierstein. And that's just in the first ten minutes. We also talk about the Tea Party, the mid-terms, and we get a valuable lesson in crowd control.

And now, more bullets than a John Woo movie:

• Andrew confronts the protestors at the recent Right Nation 2010 rally.
• Before reading Andrew's Twitter feed, please send the children out of the room.
• Andrew discusses the alleged use of the N-word at the Capitol on Hannity.
• Listen in as Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton does a little fund raising in her spare time.
• "Back and to the left" is a line from JFK, Oliver Stone's fictionalized account of the Kennedy assassination.
• Wikipedia's collection of links and background on Shirley Sherrod's speech and subsequent resignation.
• You may not recognize Shepard Fairey's name, but you have seen his work. Sorry Mr. President, he's just not that into you anymore.
• Where it all started: Andrew's book Hollywood, Interrupted.
• While you were sleeping, Rob Long was hard at work discussing Lindsay Lohan on Red Eye.

Music from this week's episode:

• Wake Up by Arcade Fire
• Life During Wartime by Talking Heads

The direct link to this week's episode is here, but be a pal and subscribe. Don't care for iTunes? 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: Obama and America's Public Sector Plague by EJ McMahon. Available for purchase at EncounterBooks.com

Hotline had an operatives poll about best campaign themes for Ds and Rs. At least among the Rs, these must be the same folks who thought PA-12 was a shoe-in. Obamacare, not surprisingly, doesn't even show up on their radar.

But as I explained in NRO on Tuesday, IWV's survey shows health care the top intensity issue among Independents (48% say that even if they agree with a candidate on every issue, they won't vote for him if they disagree on that), and government spending, while hugely important, is as much or more a values issue now about what kind of government we're going to have, whether personal liberties are protected, and whether the individual or the government is more to be trusted.

Obamacare is just that kind of values-marker -- and its a campaign conversation we should WANT to have.

Indeed, just for that reason, it's important to create a mandate around the issue of repealing and replacing Obamacare, as well as taking all the interim steps to defund and deauthorize it -- please help by signing and then sharing The Repeal Pledge.

Despite Obama's disapproval, I'm packing up to head to Las Vegas for the weekend to visit a few old chums. Maybe I'll run into a horde of federal government employees who are there attending a conference on how to burn through taxpayer dollars. Instapundit writes:

Remember when Obama said it was wrong for corporations to send people to Vegas? Investigation: 140 Census Bosses Took Vegas Trip. “The trip cost an estimated $100,000 in airfare, meals and hotel costs and is coming under withering criticism from a Colorado congressman.” Spending restraint, like taxes, is for the little people.

If I see any government bureaucrats -- I'm sure they're easy to spot -- I'll snap a few photos and post them.

Say what you will about the Democrats, they never ever break ranks. While Republicans continue the fratricide over Christine O'Donnell's questionable taste in high school dates, Nancy Pelosi just loves Stephen Colbert's appearance--in character--before the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration.

“Of course I think it’s appropriate. He's an American, right? He came before the committee. He has a point of view. He can bring attention to an important issue like immigration. I think it's great.”

Methinks the majority party is a wee bit unconnected from the concerns of the average voter.

On November 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, which if passed would legalize the possession, sale, and taxation of marijuana.

Recently, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California's largest union, came out in support of Prop 19, claiming that the measure would raise revenue that would "help prevent cuts to healthcare, home care, education and services for children families, the elderly, and people with disabilities."

Feeling highly irritated by the SEIU's defense of Prop 19, our now irrelevant Governator, writing in today's LA Times, decried the measure as a "flawed initiative that would bring about a host of legal nightmares and risks to public safety" that would "also make California a laughingstock." Not exactly a compelling case, but since I'll be voting against the initiative in any case, I could care less about Schwarzenegger's take on the matter.

What I found more remarkable is that Schwarzenegger used at least 90 percent of his column to lash out against the SEIU:

Getting a handle on pensions would preserve far more jobs and prevent many more cuts than legalizing marijuana, and it would do so without the legal complications and safety risks inherent in Proposition 19. Yet for the past year, the SEIU's leaders have been fighting tooth-and-nail against common-sense measures to rein in a debt that is unsustainable and is severely affecting the state's finances.

Indeed, California is suffering from a series of irresponsible decisions by SEIU-backed politicians, who have guaranteed huge retirement benefits to state workers without setting aside the money to pay for them. Because of this, we have $550 billion in unfunded retirement debt that is costing us $6.5 billion this year. Without reform, that unfunded debt will double in cost every 4.5 years. A single bill the Legislature passed in 1999 (SB 400, which retroactively boosted state workers' pensions without a way to pay for it) is now responsible for about $2.5 billion of this year's deficit. State pension costs for CalPERS are more than 2,000% higher today than they were 10 years ago, and that's not a misprint.

Of course he's right, but this is too little, too late. Had Schwarzenegger had the spine to stand up to the unions seven years ago, when he first assumed office, perhaps he could have achieved what Chris Christie is achieving in New Jersey. But as a final parting shot, I suppose Arnold could have done worse.

Meaning, why do they so reflexively vote for the Democrat? Even now, with the economy in the tank, they're still a pretty solid Democratic block. Some of that, I'm sure, has to do with the debate over illegal immigration. There's probably no way around that. But the economic issues -- and certainly the social issues -- would seem to benefit the Republicans.

Joel Kotkin, in New Geography, asks the question this way:

Today, of the 10 most economically “stressed” counties, seven are majority or heavily Latino, according to The Associated Press.

Theoretically, Republicans should be able to take advantage of this situation. But not with the party’s increasing embrace of its noisy nativist right — evident not only in support of the controversial Arizona immigration law but also in the strong move against “birthright citizenship.” This makes the prospect of earning back President George W. Bush’s 40-plus-percentage-point support difficult at best.

Thus, Latinos remain allied with Democrats whose policies inhibit the growth of construction and manufacturing jobs. This dichotomy puzzles many in the business community.

“You have all these job losses in Latino districts represented by Latino legislators who don’t realize what they are doing to their own people,” said Larry Kosmont, a California business consultant. “They have forgotten there’s an economy to think about.”

Despite that economic logic, Latino Democrats mindlessly follow liberal Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who represent largely white, affluent white-collar constituencies on issues such as cap and trade and federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Whatever the intent, these policies are likely to further decimate blue-collar employment in Latino districts.

Is there a way to get this fast-growing group to vote for free-market policies? Is there a way to win Latino voters -- without surrendering on the crucial need for border security? How do you talk about the free market, about entrepreneurial capitalism, about a low-tax high-opportunity society, and about border security without turning Latinos off?

I'm about to head out of Chicago where yesterday I gave an address to a conference of young pastors and other creative Christian types, mostly evangelicals. I don't have a lot of time to write, but I have to say: regardless of where I agree and disagree with them, these people are (along with maybe the tea partiers) the single most misrepresented group in the country. Taken as a whole, they are largely cool, sweet-natured, open-hearted, intelligent and thoughtful. The fact that the news and entertainment media routinely pick out the most small-minded and bad-tempered of them to represent the whole is despicable. If we picked the worst journalists to represent the news media, Katie Couric would be anchoring a major evening news program and Maureen Dowd would be writing a column for the New York Times, which is absurd. By the same token, if we only allowed the meanest, most shallow, most ignorant people in the country to make movies... hey... waaaait just a minute...

On a related note, Gallup reports that trust in the legislative branch has fallen to a record low of 36%--that's down almost ten percent from one year ago.

A record-low 36% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust and confidence in the legislative branch of government, down sharply from the prior record low of 45% set last year. Trust in the judicial branch and trust in the executive branch also suffered sharp declines this year but remain higher than trust in the legislative branch.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, whom reality can escape sometimes, is going around saying:

I guarantee you we’re going to have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. I absolutely believe that...On November 3 . . . there will be in Washington, D.C., a Democratic majority in the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate

This video clip, which I saw a few days ago, has stuck with me. Other than the fact that Wolf is still madly in love and it's so nauseatingly obvious on his star-struck face, I am fascinated by Clinton's new diet success. He does look pretty good, don't you think?

A few folks on Ricochet, if I remember correctly from previous threads, are Atkins-type diet fans. I know Claire and Clinton are probably on the same page. I suspect Rob goes for high cuisine in all its forms. What about you? What food plan works for you? What doesn't?

After making light of immigration and labor issues on his show "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert has been asked to testify on the Hill today before a House subcommittee on immigration--in character!--as an "expert" witness. Suffice it to say that Fox News, and Republicans on the Hill, are not happy.

Sure, it's a poor use of Congress' time and taxpayer money--and it makes a mockery of our leaders in Washington--but if you've ever sat in on committee hearings, and I have, then you'll know that about 99% of them are pointless wastes of time. Hopefully this one won't also be boring.

I'm with Daniel Larison on the Mourning in America ad. I don't want my government to care about me. I want my government to stay out of my way and do its very limited job competently. I'm just not interested in my government's emotions.