At St. Mary's College, in the leafy East Bay environs of Moraga, California, Barbara Boxer debated Carly Fiorina for the first time. Demeanor and poise are not everything (recall George W. Bush's whiny and put-upon debate performance that gave the world "Bein' President is hard"), but tonight, the contrast spoke volumes. Boxer, the pampered incumbent, came off as worn out, catty, and flustered. Fiorina, the underdog who beat breast cancer last year, was poised, razor sharp, and focused. The types here fit the prevailing political stereotype: on the one hand, government elites, habituated to comfort, who respond to serious challenges with annoyance and condescension; on the other, enterprising individuals, from the unforgiving real world, who step up to the plate when the times demand high performance.

Thematically, Boxer circled Fiorina's record at HP -- specifically, how she shipped jobs overseas. Fiorina returned again and again to Boxer's lackluster record -- drawing a portrait of a polarizing, ineffective, almost fatuous Senator who gets nothing done. The Fiorina campaign was quick tonight with some debate fact checks. Two key items: (1) Senate Democrats wrested control of Boxer's own climate bill away from her, putting the relatively less partisan John Kerry at point. (2) Among only 14 Senators, Boxer voted against the war funding bill that inspired Joe Biden to speak these words:

• “So what did some of my colleagues say about why they voted against the money? They said they voted against the money to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there.” (Remarks At The Iowa State Fair, Des Moines, IA, 8/15/07)

• “I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That’s the right question. This isn’t cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops.” (NBC, “Meet The Press,” 9/9/07)

Burn. The facts speak for themselves, but the visual and attitudinal contrast between Fiorina and Boxer made for a picture that speaks to the whole momentous national question confronting us in November.

Looks like the Obama administration is patting itself on the back for a decline in illegal immigration numbers. From Politico:

The Obama administration is touting an independent report released Wednesday that shows that the number of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. fell by nearly 65 percent in recent years.

 About 300,000 immigrants illegally entered the country each year from March 2007 to March 2009, nearly two-thirds fewer than the 850,000 who annually crossed the border from 2000 to 2005, according to the report by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.

An estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. in 2009, an 8 percent decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007. That represented the first significant decrease in two decades, the report said.

When the depression in immigration numbers happens to perfectly coincide with the biggest economic downturn in a quarter century, that isn't a freak coincidence. If President Obama wants to take credit for fewer immigrants, he's obliged to accept the blame for higher unemployment.

Direct Israel-Palestine peace talks begin today, hosted by President Barack Obama at the White House. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas both join Obama to commence what will be the ninth round of U.S.-led Israel-Palestine peace talks over 31 years. Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak will also be present. The process begins inauspiciously, with Palestinian group Hamas claiming the murders of four Israeli civilians, one of whom was pregnant, and Israeli settlers continuing the construction of West Bank settlements despite a U.S.-backed settlement freeze. -- The Atlantic Wire

the murders of the four Jewish settlers near Hebron have unleashed a wave of anger and calls for revenge, with Mr Netanyahu vowing to hunt down the killers. [...] "The message should go out to Hamas and everybody else who is taking credit for these heinous crimes, that this is not going to stop us from not only ensuring a secure Israel but also securing a longer lasting peace," Mr Obama said. -- ABC

Mideast peace talks have become a Sisyphean ritual. Talking about Mideast peace talks? But here we are again, and sure enough -- something must be said, because the interminable situation (large numbers of people want Israel destroyed) is new all over again, in some characteristically ugly way, every time. So here. How can Mideast talks even go on as if Iran does not exist? I suppose there's something tremendously powerful to the idea that they could -- reaching some kind of durable settlement that excluded Iran could lay the groundwork for what could be a tacit agreement among the world's greater powers that Iran will eventually be bombed one way or the other.

But is there any indication at all that Team Obama can make this happen? Even the wire reports convey the problem:

The summit marks Obama's riskiest plunge into Middle East diplomacy, not least because he wants the two sides to forge a deal within 12 months, a target many analysts call a long shot. He is staking precious political capital on the peace drive in a U.S. congressional election year.

There is also the danger that failure on this front could set back Obama's faltering attempts at winning over the Muslim world as he seeks solidarity against Iran.

Reaching an understanding among great powers is important to dealing with Iran, but lining up the Arab world is of huge importance. I understand the desire to accomplish this by hammering out a peace deal -- if that's the horse that's pulling this particular cart. But am I confident? Sadly, no!

Phone numbers are on the way out. From a Techcrunch post by Nikhyl Singhal:

Is it conceivable that one of our greatest inventions, the phone number, is about to face extinction?

Just ask Mark Zuckerberg. Earlier this year, when asked if Facebook would be around in 100 years, as long as Ma Bell has been around, Zuckerberg responded, “I don’t know. But I don’t know how long telephones will be around for.” Will they be around for ten more years? I’ll go even further. It may not even take 5 years for the phone service, as we know it, to meet its demise.

Which makes sense. When you think about a phone number -- a seven-digit piece of code that refers to a location-specific device -- it really does seem outdated and clunky, a relic from a time without more robust and customizable networks, like Facebook. (Or Ricochet, for that matter...) As Singhal puts it:

Compare this to your social networks. You have control over who accesses your information; you have one username and profile that you use at all times; and applications fill in the holes and extend the network’s capabilities to communicate, play games and meet people on your own terms.

On any Facebook page, I can “send a message”, even if we aren’t friends. And I can choose to receive messages from non-friends. The key thing is the network sets up a policy, and I as a user can change this. We don’t have this choice on the phone network today. Anyone can dial my number, and I can’t control it—but I do control my interaction on a social network.

Even now, though, I haven't bothered to memorize a phone number in years. And my home phone rings only a couple of times a week -- and it's never someone I want to talk to, always someone who wants to sell me something. When I call someone, I don't dial a number. I go to the address book on my iPhone and I press a photo.

From California, no less:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.

When was the last time "personal choice" (other than sexual or reproductive, of course) won an argument anywhere in Blue America? What's really sad is that such a small victory for sanity should be so surprising. I fear the road ahead will be littered with attempted lunacies like this, and that we won't evade them all quite so neatly.

Nathan Glazer, in the current American Interest Magazine, laments a paradox: that Barack Obama's rise to the presidency has "coincided with the almost complete disappearance from American public life of discussion of the black condition and what public policy might do to improve it." He then mentions a litany of "black" problems: the high incarceration rate, the near total collapse of public education in the inner city, the abandonment of integration as a worhty ideal, the staggeringly high black unemployment rate, and so on. I suppose he means to cast a barb at white America: you elect a black president and think you are off the hook for the legacy of nearly four centuries of slavery, segregation, and dehumanization. In other words, Mr. Glazer is lamenting the waning of white guilt in the Obama era. This was the guilt that so often animated his academic career, that was central to his public identitiy. Without windy discussions on how "public policy" might improve black America, he feels a little obsolete--as if Obama had stolen his relavance in the world.

I thank Nathan Glazer for this piece. It is rare to find so many of the corruptions of Great Society liberalism represented so succinctly in a single article--and without the slightest irony. My own "race fatigue" stops me from marching through them all. But the elephant in the living room that Mr. Glazer (and post-60s liberalism generally) misses is this: no people in the entire history of the world have been lifted up by a public policy debate over their problems. Public policy has shown itself to be utterly impotent in overcoming the legacy of oppression. Black students did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. By almost every measure there is decline in black America after 40 years of public policy interventions. White guilt always involves white blindness. What Mr. Glazer can't allow himself to see is the futility of government interventions in the uplift of black Americans. Wherever blacks decide to compete and move ahead, they do. When they don't decide, no interventions matter.

Here is what is now starkly clear: black Americans are responsible for their own fate. They always were--even in slavery--and they always will be. Nothing will ever mitigate this--neither white racism nor white guilt. We as blacks have to find our will to compete with all others in the modern world. Public policy cannot give us this or, once we have it, take it away.

DCist has the story with updates. There's a bomb, a manifesto, and an evacuated day care center. Heaven help me, I miss the '90s, but this is a Clinton-era flashback we could all do without. J.P. Freire:

The manifesto of this lunatic in Silver Spring demands that Discovery air shows based on a novel where a gorilla promotes population control.

Here's the real question: Is the press going to call this guy an environmental terrorist?

Three guesses, first two don't count.

Sarah Palin’s scheduled political trip to Iowa this month marks a shift from near silence in the leadoff presidential nominating state to the kind of outreach common among White House prospects. Palin’s plan to headline the Iowa Republican Party’s annual fall fundraiser on Sept. 17 is solely to help raise money for the state party’s candidates, the former Alaska governor’s aides said. And one trip to Iowa is a long way from a successful campaign for the state’s 2012 presidential caucuses, still 18 months away, Iowa party insiders said.

But Palin’s recent overtures to Iowa reveal a change in posture that puts her in a position — like other 2012 presidential prospects already laying campaign groundwork in Iowa — to build goodwill and relationships with influential activists, state Republican officials said. -- Des Moines Register

Idea. Palin doesn't campaign for President. She doesn't run for President. She simply appears. Everywhere. Backing winners. Amassing cash. Drawing crowds. Putting Mitt, Newt, Huck, and everyone else with a quirky nickname in deep shade. People start wondering aloud. Aren't these guys yesterday's news? Weren't these guys flawed candidates last time (or times) around? A wave of resignation sweeps over the low, dull buzz of sneaking desperation: Why not Sarah? She's already -- yes -- the de facto nominee. Nominated by acclamation. None of the other guys are this popular. This ubiquitous. This famous. Sarah is Destiny...who are we to dare to defy it?

Well, that's one attitude. But the bigger and badder Palin gets, the sharper and better a contrast is drawn by the would-be candidates who are new to the game -- you know, names like Barbour, or Daniels...

PS. At the largest venue in Anchorage, on September 11th, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are doing...something.

You can call it what you like -- blue collar vs. white collar; trade vs. profession; making things vs. selling things -- but to me, the clearest way to divide occupations is this:

Do you do stuff with your hands -- like build things or fix things or smash things or screw things onto other things -- or do you do stuff with your mouth -- like sell things or say things on paper or argue things or say things on the telephone?

People who work in the skilled trades mostly do stuff with their hands. People who work in journalism or banking or other "white collar" jobs mostly do stuff with their mouths.

(Yeah, I know: writing is done by hand. But really, journalism and the like are talking professions.)

There are an awful lot of Americans, these days, who do stuff with their mouths. Not so many who do stuff with their hands. And that's a big problem. From the Wall Street Journal:

Even as the economy slumps and unemployment rises, strong demand for power plants, oil refineries and export goods has many manufacturers and construction contractors scrambling to find enough skilled workers to plug current and future holes.
With the shortage of welders, pipe fitters and other high-demand workers likely to get worse as more of them reach retirement age, unions, construction contractors and other businesses are trying to figure out how to attract more young people to those fields.

By 2012, demand in fields like welding is expected to exceed supply.Their challenge: overcoming the perception that blue-collar trades offer less status, money and chance for advancement than white-collar jobs, and that college is the best investment for everyone.

And the always bracing Camille Paglia rings in here, in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Having taught in art schools for most of my four decades in the classroom, I am used to having students who work with their hands—ceramicists, weavers, woodworkers, metal smiths, jazz drummers. There is a calm, centered, Zen-like engagement with the physical world in their lives. In contrast, I see glib, cynical, neurotic elite-school graduates roiling everywhere in journalism and the media. They have been ill-served by their trendy, word-centered educations.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: We need a sweeping revalorization of the trades. The pressuring of middle-class young people into officebound, paper-pushing jobs is cruelly shortsighted. Concrete manual skills, once gained through the master-apprentice alliance in guilds, build a secure identity. Our present educational system defers credentialing and maturity for too long. When middle-class graduates in their mid-20s are just stepping on the bottom rung of the professional career ladder, many of their working-class peers are already self-supporting and married with young children.

And she winds up this way:

In a period of global economic turmoil, with manufacturing jobs migrating overseas and service-sector jobs diminishing in availability and prestige, educators whose salaries are paid by hopeful parents have an obligation to think in practical terms about the destinies of their charges...every four-year college or university should forge a reciprocal relationship with regional trade schools.

I'd love to see that! The Yale University School of Art & Architecture & Plumbing. The Harvard School of Business and Finish Carpentry. The College of Welding and Sociology at Princeton.

During my interview on Uncommon Knowledge, Peter asked me to compare the political climate for Republicans today with that of 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives to recapture the House for the first time in four decades.

For over a year, I’ve observed that the political climate is better for Republicans today than it was in 1994, when I was chairman of the Republican National Committee.  In the summer of 2009, the American people were concerned about jobs and the economy, but all they ever heard Congress and the Obama Administration talk about was healthcare.  Understandably, the American people started getting mad.  And the intensity of this anger and fear is greater and started much earlier than it did in 1994.  People are scared for their country’s future, they’re scared for their children and grandchildren, and they’re scared for their businesses. 

I’ve worried that the anti-Obama sentiment would crescendo too early, but it appears that hasn’t happened.  In fact, you could make the case based on polling numbers, that the political environment has gotten even better for Republicans.  But we cannot assume that means we’re home free.  While I believe that it’s more likely than not that Republicans will recapture a majority in the House of Representatives and win a significant number of Senate and gubernatorial races, we’ve got to keep our foot on the accelerator and take nothing for granted. 

I did my usual snorting and scoffing when I heard about the ACLU's latest lawsuit to enjoin the killing of terror suspects abroad. But is it possible that they're on to something?

According to the complaint, the CIA and JSOC (Joint Special Operations Committee) maintain a "kill list" of individuals whom the US can kill anywhere, anytime. The list includes US citizens. The ACLU appears to concede that the US can kill its enemies in war zones, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But what authorizes the government to summarily kill US citizens on suspicion that they're plotting terror activity? Even if the targets are guilty of treason, the Constitution requires the testimony of two witnesses or a confession in open court.

The ACLU also objects to killing foreign nationals outside of war zones; however, that argument is much weaker. But US citizens? Like my fellow Ricocheterians over here, I have my qualms about the ease with which the government can now send a drone to do its dirty work.

[Ed.: link fixed at 7:47 am]

Related Conversations

LONG > UAVs Can Pick Things Up, Too

YOO > What to Do About Pirates

POULOS > How to Feel About Killer Robots?

Well, no, but John Podhoretz observed "a dramatic shift in tone and spirit for Obama" in last night's Oval Office address that he's inclined to take seriously: "for the first time, [Obama] endorsed the notion of an activist American role abroad and said such a role was good both for the United States and the world."

The fact that Obama was willing to use this nation’s involvement in Iraq — which he had opposed so completely and whose extension in the form of the surge in 2007 he argued against flatly — as an example of what America can do when it puts its mind to it is stunning. “This milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment,” he said.

I grant you that the speech descended into liberal boilerplate in the second half, but that is to be expected; what’s interesting in presidential speeches is what’s new in them. And this was new. And surprising. Bill Kristol agrees.

Dave Weigel sees a pattern emerging. Up in Wisconsin, Democrats are saying that "U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson, a multimillionaire businessman who got into politics via the Tea Party [...] built his business with government industrial revenue bonds; Johnson says it wasn't government money." Meanwhile,

Democrats are doing the same thing in Tennessee, going after another Tea Party-powered candidate, Stephen Fincher, over his farm subsidies.

"The question," Dave asks, "is whether voters see these candidates as hypocrites, as Democrats would like, or whether they throw up their hands and buy the rhetoric" that Tea Party candidates are selling. With 'recovery summer' a costly dud, it's not a very hard sell. Contrast the message at the heart of the Dem's own rhetoric: We're all on the dole now, even our opponents! Anyone who says we can reverse course is really just lying. Bye bye, hope and change, hello petulant inertia!

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles -- UAVs, if you want to sound cool -- are in heavy use in Afghanistan, and not without controversy. Mostly, though, they're about flying around and dropping stuff.

Now, thanks to some researchers at Yale, they can pick things up, too.

This video is awfully cool -- if you ever fooled around with model rocketry or radio-controlled stuff as a kid, you'll love it. And if you're a gadget freak, you'll really love it. I'm both, and I went to Yale, so the whole package has me atingle.

But I also like what this says about warfare, and warfare research: that we're trying to come up with ways for machines to do things that would otherwise cost human lives; that we're developing ways to get to places that are hard to get to; that we're widening the gap between our superior technology and our enemy's; and that our enemies can't hide much longer.

The Global War on Terror can't be won on the battlefield alone. It's going to have to be won in engineering labs, too.

My 100-year-old grandmother has blocked me on Facebook. My brother broke the news to me. "I'm sorry, Claire, but you just post too much," he explained.

On to more important news, the Wall Street Journal is running a fascinating symposium called "What is Moderate Islam" with contributions from Anwar Ibrahim, Bernard Lewis, Ed Husain, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Tawfik Hamid and Akbar Ahmed. All make worthwhile points.

My wife and I have to spend a week in Jerusalem this fall for a business conference. If anyone out there in Ricochet-land knows the city and can recommend any good restaurants, sights to see beyond the obvious ones (Temple Mount, Western Wall, Holy Sepulchre), or unique/worthwhile experiences, your tips will be much appreciated.

Also -- any perspectives on how safe the city is (or isn't)? I'm not thinking street crime here, which I suspect is scarce, but rather the random Hamas-launched rocket or suicide bomber. Are the odds of such a thing happening in a given week greater or less than, say, the odds of Peter Robinson voting for a Democrat?

Incoherent: The president argued that the war had represented a worthwhile cause, asserting that “We have persevered…because of a belief…that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization.” Moments later, however, the president insisted that the war had instead been mistaken: “We have spent a trillion dollars at war…This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.” The president wants to have it both ways, associating himself with the victory we achieved in Iraq while distancing himself from the costs. As argument, this is incoherent. But of course it isn’t argument. It’s cheap manipulation.

Grudging: “The Americans who have served in Iraq,” the president accurately stated, “completed every mission they were given…They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders….Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny….” In other words, we won. Why? Because in 2007, when many, including then senators Obama and Clinton, insisted that the United States should simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving behind a nation reduced to chaos, George W. Bush instead insisted on a new strategy, the surge. Let me repeat that. We won because President Bush insisted on the surge.

Did President Obama extend the courtesy to his predecessor of saying as much? He most certainly did not.

“It’s well known,” President Obama said, “that [President Bush]…and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” Support, love, commitment. President Obama could bring himself to credit President Bush with nothing more than mere well-intentioned haplessness. How shabby. How tawdry.

Disgraceful: After having added $1 trillion to the deficit since taking office, President Obama suggested that somehow the $1 trillion the nation has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade “short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.” Take just a moment to do the math—something of which our chief executive apparently believes most Americans incapable. The cost of the war against radical Islam has averaged $100 billion a year—which comes to one-eighth the size of the President’s stimulus bill, or one-thirtieth of the average federal budget over the same ten years. I have my reservations about the president’s economic advisors, but they know—he knows—that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our economic woes. He was intentionally attempting to mislead us.

“And so at this moment,” the President continued, “as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those [economic] challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad.” At this moment? Why now, exactly? Because until today the war in Iraq so thoroughly consumed his energies? Obviously not. Just look at the energy the man displayed in ramming through ObamaCare. Or is it because the president only now realizes the political trouble he has created for himself? Because only now does he understand that he must make a show of addressing our economic troubles or suffer repudiation in November?

To ask the question is to answer it—and to recognize that tonight the President of United States used what should have been a straightforward, big-hearted celebration of a remarkable feat of American force and diplomacy to pursue instead his own narrow and, it must be said, increasingly desperate, political ends.

Related Conversations

ROBINSON > It Was Worth It, Wasn't It?

ELLIS > Obama's Iraq Fatigue

POULOS > Dismissive, Abrasive, Limp

HANSON > Yes, the War's Still Justified: Part I / Part II

5:04 PM "Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended"

>>President looks very serious.  Hands folded on desk.  Trying to convey confident body language.

5:05 PM " Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not....But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner."

5:07 PM "Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.  As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page."

>>Does this mean that the president will finally stop blaming Bush at every corner?

5:09 PM "We must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists."

>>Ramping up commitment to Afghanistan.  That can't be popular with the base.  But the president can't abandon the good war.

5:11 PM "Over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity."

>>Oops, spoke too soon.  Blame-Bush syndrome is here to stay.

5:15 PM "To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs."

>>Long list of objectives.  Predictably no mention of the essential ingredients to growing the middle class: lowering income tax rates & corporate tax rates.  

5:18 PM "Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar – Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead."

Summary:  This is only the second address President Obama has delivered from the Oval Office, thereby signaling the importance of the message:  We're leaving Iraq.  President Obama seemed to be cognizant of the widespread Iraq-fatigue felt by most Americans, and thus kept the speech was brief and to the point, which is notably very unusual for him.  

The Conversation Around the Web:

NRO > Sen. Inhofe calls Obama's Iraq address "awkward"

Contentions > Jennifer Rubin: Obama From the Oval Office

Daily Beast > Tunku Varadarajan: A Fair and Balanced Address

NY Times > Ross Douthat: Iraq in the Long Run

Over on NRO today, the second segment of the Uncommon Knowledge with the governor of Mississippi, Ricochet's own Haley Barbour.  The Governor's subject?  Politics. Gov. Barbour was chairman of the Republican National Committee back in 1994, the historic year when Republicans captured a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades.  The political climate today?  Astounding enough, the governor contends, it's even better for Republicans.

Take a gander.  Then come back to Ricochet to let us know what you thought.

For those of you who don't have time to read the entire Claire Berlinski oeuvre, I've managed to condense everything I believe into a six-minute segment on Secure Freedom Radio. Fast-forward to minute 43. For those of you who don't even have time for that, here are the highlights:

• Catch me on Ricochet
• Economic freedom is moral
• Pay more attention to Turkey

Green Claire Berlinski is a little bit like Claire Berlinski on Twitter, but better for the planet, in some undefined but very spiritual way. I'm working on making my opinions leaner, meaner and Greener still. I'll have them boiled down to three minutes by the end of the week.

Those of you who are not yet advanced enough to appreciate this level of environmental awareness may of course still opt to kill a tree. Don't feel bad about it, though; as you can see, I'm rapidly offsetting the damage.

This update brought to you by our friend, Robert Stacy McCain:

3:25 p.m. ET (11:25 a.m. local) — After preliminary count of absentee ballots from Anchorage division, Joe Miller leads by a 1,325-vote margin, with 48,051 votes to 46,726 for Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Although this narrows Miller’s lead from 1,668 in Election Day results, it is being interpreted as good news by the Miller campaign, because Anchorage had generally leaned toward Murkowski. Miller’s stronghold is in the Mat-Su Valley, where preliminary results of the absentee ballot count will be repoted later today.

Chalk up another victory to Sarah Palin, kingmaker.

James Glassman’s fascinating article in the September issue of Commentary, “The Failure of the Liberal Econonic Experiment?”, is only partly about economics. The other part is about Jim Glassman’s sense of perplexed surprise.

From June 2008 to June 2009, Glassman notes, output suffered the worst decline since 1946, and from 2008 to 2010 unemployment doubled. The American people should have turned against the free-market policies that were then in place. They didn’t. Americans have instead turned against the interventionist policies the Obama administration has enacted. It’s as if a drowning man, thrown a life saver, spat at it.

When the financial meltdown occurred, it seemed almost certain that Americans would judge that the conservative economic experiment of 1981-2008 had failed. Instead, they seem to be leaning in the opposite direction—toward a conclusion that it was the liberal economic experiment of 2009-10 that has failed.

This conclusion is not being warmly embraced so much as reluctantly conceded….Still, when you consider that a repudiation of free-market capitalism…appeared almost certain when the crisis broke, we should be both humbled and thankful for this strange and constructive turn of events.

A strange turn of events indeed. Conservative policy wonks knew that the life saver Barack Obama insisted on throwing to the American people was a fake, of course, but how were the American people to know? No Republican of national standing decried Obama’s policies. For that matter, you could scarcely name a Republican of national standing in the first place—no counterpart to Ronald Reagan now exists. The mainstream press? The press supported Obama overwhelmingly. You have to give credit, I think, to Fox News and conservative talk radio—but only partial credit. The audience for those outlets numbers in the low double digit millions at the very most.

Which leaves whom? Which leaves the American people themselves.

During the economic expansion of the last quarter century, Americans have developed certain habits. They know how to start businesses and invest in mutual funds. They’ve lost their fear of changing jobs. They’ve learned that new technology makes us richer, not poorer. Whereas FDR presided over a population with large elements that Marx would have recognized as a proletariat—urban, uneducated, largely propertyless—Barack Obama presides over a nation of investors and homeowners. Obama and his economic advisers have their Keynesian theories, but that’s all they have. The American people have actual experience—a quarter of a century of life with free markets and limited government.

Maybe the rejection of Obama’s policies shouldn’t have surprised us conservatives nearly as much as it has. Maybe we lacked faith in our own tenets. Free markets don’t merely produce goods and services. They nurture freedom itself.

An outspoken female governor of a western state. Reviled by all of the right people. Attacked in the press. Takes clear stands on controversial issues. Seems to have lots of real brass.

Sarah Palin or Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona?

As Diane notes in a previous post, Sarah Palin is having trouble convincing people that she'd be an "effective" president, whatever that means. Diane and I agree, I think, that one of the things that has hurt Palin's credibility -- at least it has for me -- is her abrupt resignation from her post as governor of Alaska.

Being a governor matters. A sitting governor can have a huge amount of influence on the national conversation, and the direction of the country.

So, how about an informal Ricochet poll? Who would be a more effective president, Sarah Palin or Jan Brewer?

My vote: Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer.

I don't know why, but Brits write the best obits. From the recent Economist, a tribute to Bill Mullin, the D-Day piper. An excerpt:

He was ordering now, as they waded up Sword Beach, in that drawly voice of his: “Give us a tune, piper.” Mr Millin thought him a mad bastard. The man beside him, on the point of jumping off, had taken a bullet in the face and gone under. But there was Lovat, strolling through fire quite calmly in his aristocratic way, allegedly wearing a monogrammed white pullover under his jacket and carrying an ancient Winchester rifle, so if he was mad Mr Millin thought he might as well be ridiculous too, and struck up “Hielan’ Laddie”. Lovat approved it with a thumbs-up, and asked for “The Road to the Isles”. Mr Millin inquired, half-joking, whether he should walk up and down in the traditional way of pipers. “Oh, yes. That would be lovely.”

Three times therefore he walked up and down at the edge of the sea. He remembered the sand shaking under his feet from mortar fire and the dead bodies rolling in the surf, against his legs. For the rest of the day, whenever required, he played.

It's the best obit you'll read today. Good as it is, the last two grafs are a reminder that writers are sometimes best when they get out of the way, and just tell the tale. Maybe that's why the Brits do obits well.

So Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent out a memo to his employees -- and by definition our employees -- last week, encouraging them all to go to that big rally they held last weekend in Washington, DC. No, not that big rally. The other one. From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama's top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall."ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.

It wasn't exactly a happy, non-partisan celebration:

"[Conservatives] think we showed up [to vote for Barack Obama] in 2008 and that we won't show up again. But we know how to sucker-punch, and we're coming out again in 2010," Sharpton said.

Speakers at the Sharpton rally praised Obama and took jabs at the Tea Party.

"Dr. King gave us a miracle in 2008. He gave us the first African-American president, and we must let them know today that we support [Obama]," said John Boyd, Jr., president of the National Black Farmers Association.

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said Beck's rally "would change nothing. ... We will move right over you."

Education Department spokeswoman Sandra Abrevaya defended Duncan's decision. "This was a back-to-school event," she said.

Back to school, indeed. But imagine if this had happened during in the Bush years. Imagine if a sitting cabinet secretary had written a memo to employees reminding them about a political event -- maybe, and I'm just fantasizing here, a Thank You, Vice President Dick Cheney rally on the Mall.

It would have been a six-act, tear-stained, wailing finish melodrama, with lots of talk of "concern" and "chilling effects" and "coercion" from all of the usual suspects.

This past weekend, Vanity Fair released the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll that finds that a third of adults polled nationwide believe in ghosts, 46% think taxing tanning at a salon is a bad idea, and 76% are just as likely to see Mel Gibson's movies now as they were before he became known for his racist rants. All in all, the poll asks pretty worthless questions. But one question's results are garnering a bit of attention throughout the blogosphere. The question:

Do you think SARAH PALIN would have the ability to be an EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT?

All adults: No = 59%; Yes = 26%; spread of -33%

Republicans: No = 40%; Yes = 47%; spread of +7%

Democrats: No = 75%; Yes = 12%; spread of -63%

Independents: No = 63%; Yes = 21%; spread of -42%

Liberals: No = 80%; Yes = 15%; Spread of -65%

Moderates: No = 70%; Yes = 19%; Spread of -49%

Conservatives: No = 40%; Yes = 41%; Spread of +1%

I tend to agree with William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection on this one:

These Vanity Fair polls are a joke; there are few choices given to the interviewees, there is no depth of questioning, and they mix pop culture questions in with political questions.

But I'm also curious about the discrepancy between Republicans and Conservatives. As Christian Heinze over at GOP12 asks:

Why would conservatives be more likely than Republicans, at large, to doubt Palin's executive abilities?

From Time this morning:

... a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that - for reasons that aren't entirely clear - abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies.

Some of us have known this, however unscientifically, since our early twenties. But it's nice to see the puritanical/nanny impulse in our society butt up against inconvenient facts.... I'm sure it will be just another decade or so before somebody finds "CFLs Found More Harmful to Environment than Iridescent Bulbs." How many times do the know-it-alls have to be reminded -- there are way too many things we just don't know??

As many of you know—especially those of you who plan your social life around the Mayan calendar—the end of the world is coming in 2012. Recently, a hit film simply called 2012 showed the planet cracking up and threatening not only the earth’s nearly 7-billion people, but even worse, John Cusack and his family.

The Mayans—like the Aztecs—were a fairly well-advanced civilization in southern North America. They built great monuments, had advanced mathematical and scientific systems, and, all in all, despite minor issues with things like human sacrifice and slavery, were pretty well ahead of their time.

I don’t know all the arguments for and against, but there are people who believe the Mayan calendar points to the world ending on December 21, 2012. All sorts of websites have sprung up with information on just how this will happen; something about sunspots or colliding galaxies or Rosie O’Donnell getting a new talk show. Whatever it is, supposedly nations are preparing by building secret underground chambers for their leadership and some of their population. Now I’m not smart enough to figure out whether any of this is real, and, to tell you the truth, I’d feel better if the Mayans had been able to predict the end of their own civilization. Still, I'm thinking about fast-tracking my bucket list just in case.

There are some upsides to the impending apocalypse. For example, coming a few days before Christmas, I won’t have to do any gift shopping in 2012. And in the off chance the world doesn’t end, there would still be a few days left to pick up some stuff at the mall. It would also mean the 2012 Presidential election would be our last, so we wouldn’t have to endure to any more political campaigns, and it would also mean the end of the Kardashians.

I don’t mean to make light of the end of the world, but it’s just that there doesn’t seem to be much I can do about it. So I’m just going to try to enjoy the next 28 months or so. After all, if John Cusack survived, maybe I can, too.

A few federal court opinions have been making a big public splash recently by taking surprising positions on how the Fourth Amendment applies to location surveillance. The latest opinion in the line is Magistrate Judge James Orenstein’s decision in In The Matter Of An Application Of The United States Of America And Order For An Order Authorizing The Release Of Historical Cell-Site Information, handed down on Friday. The decision holds that historical cell-cite data — records generated by cell phone providers in the ordinary course of business that indicate which cell towers were communicating with a phone, and thus, the rough location of the phone — are protected by the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement.

It’s only a decision by a Magistrate Judge, and it is not binding on anyone. But it is an extraordinary opinion, in my view: It’s an extraordinary result, reached in an extraordinary way, and based on an extraordinary number of errors. -- Orin Kerr

The question of surveillance and its relationship to the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures has been a huge problem for years. Clearly it is a search to enter someone's house and ransack its contents. It has long been held a search to listen to a phone call or to intercept and read a letter or email. But in Smith v. Maryland (1976), it was held that simply tracking who made a phone call to whom was a form of surveillance that did not involve a search. It was no different from watching someone walk up and down the street, from which it was possible to draw inferences as to unlawful behavior. No warrant was needed. With historical cell-site data, the government in effect learns which communication towers are used to transmit calls from a given call, which allows it to track the whereabouts of a suspect. Something known as the Stored Communications Act restricts the ability of the government to undertake this surveillance to cases where there is a "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing, which is a lower standard than the "probable cause" needed for a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

So the question is whether the continuous monitoring goes beyond that of tracking phone numbers, and I confess that it is hard to see the distinction. A recent District of Columbia case held that placing a GPS device on a car was a search, which is explicable given that there is a trespass to the property of the party whose motion is tracked. Yet that case itself might not survive Supreme Court scrutiny given that the trespass did not allow the government to overhear conversations like the traditional phone tap. It is clear that the issue is headed for higher places. With each new generation of technical advances, the ability to watch over and track citizens increases—along with the need to do both. My sense is that in the end the distinction between fact of communication and content of communication will turn out to be the only workable line. It tracks reasonably well the privacy interests that the Fourth Amendment protections. But it is not the be-all-and-end-all of tests. But then again nothing is in connection with the Fourth Amendment.