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.

Facing a retrial on 23 counts of corruption, ex-governor Blagojevich has found the perfect way to show potential jurors that he's actually a crusading reformer, namely, a guest appearance at the Wizard World Chicago Comic Convention 2010 (h/t Kevin Underhill's "Lowering the Bar" column at Forbes).

Here's Blago sitting at the wheel of the original Batmobile. He posed for photos, hung out with original Batman Adam West, and sold autographs for $50 a pop (replenishing that defense fund!).

It's worth remembering that not so long ago, the President used to have weekly strategy meetings with this guy. But then again, he also went to Rev. Wright's weekly sermons.

As if global politics weren't turbulent enough, the Obama administration better start thinking about impending dynastic successions in two different but very dangerous places. Read this Economist article for a brief rundown on Egypt, where dictator Hosni Mubarak is mortally ill and laying the groundwork for a transfer of power to his sun Gamal. Egypt is widely regarded as the most important country in the Middle East, and while Mubarak is no democrat, he has kept the peace with Israel and fought jihadist terror. It's not only his son jockeying for position, however. The Muslim Brotherhood is an important force in Egyptian politics, and it may make a play to rule if it sees an opportunity. Meanwhile, Egyptian democrats like Ayman Noor and Mohamed El-Baradei are also in the mix.

Then there's North Korea. Kim Jong-Il's slave state is on the cusp of meltdown. (Read Barbara Demick's excellent New Yorker article on Kim's disastrous November 2009 currency "reform.") Kim has traveled twice to China in recent months, perhaps introducing his Chinese patrons to his son, Kim Jong-Un. Noko watchers say the elder Kim will designate his son heir at an upcoming party conference. But will the North Korean military, political, and intelligence establishments accept a third Kim as god-king?

The White House has a full foreign-policy plate already. Is it ready for a second helping?

Read Shikha Dalmia at Forbes:

The General Motors IPO, the second largest ever, is arguably this decade's most hyped financial event. But it might also turn out to be this decade's biggest financial fiasco. Its timing is driven not by the financial needs of the company-- or the interests of taxpayers who are poised to get royally screwed--but the election-year needs of the Obama administration.

[...] potential investors are likely to take a dim view of the company's prospects right now, making it nearly impossible for taxpayers who still have somewhere between $40 billion to $60 billion "invested" in it to come out whole. For that to happen, the Treasury's 304 million of the company's 500 million common shares would need to average $131 to $197 per share, notes Brad Coulter director at O'Keefe & Associates, a Michigan-based corporate finance firm. That would put GM's implied valuation at somewhere between $65 billion to $98 billion.

To understand just how absurdly high this is consider that Ford Motor Company, whose earnings are expected to be six times those of GM, has a market value of only $40 billion. "There is no rational reason for investors to choose GM relative to Ford right now," notes Francis Gaskin of IPODesk.com. But even if investors valued both companies the same that would still represent a 50% loss for taxpayers. It was always unlikely that taxpayers would ever recover their entire investment, but a more auspiciously timed IPO might at least have limited their losses.

Tonight, in his Oval Office address on the Iraq War, President Obama will studiously avoid one very tarnished phrase. But, as Dalmia notes, if actions speak louder than words, the GM IPO makes for one very large MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner. Quite the backdrop for a prime time address.

It's still early, yet, but it's not that early. There's something happening, here, and what it is is pretty straightforward: the Democrats in Congress and the White House are not very popular, and they are not very popular because of their policies. Yesterday Diane noted Gallup's new poll showing a ten-point Republican lead on the generic Congressional ballot -- the largest such margin in history -- and Rasmussen's finding that voters trust the GOP over the Dems on all ten of the issues regularly tracked by the polling shop. But wait -- there's more.

* "[T]he gap between registered and likely voter polls this year," writes Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, "is about 4 points in the Republicans’ favor — so a 10-point lead in a registered voter poll is the equivalent of about 14 points on a likely-voter basis. Thus, even if this particular Gallup survey was an outlier, it’s not unlikely that we’ll begin to see some 8-, 9-, 10-point leads for Republicans in this poll somewhat routinely once Gallup switches over to a likely voter model at some point after Labor Day — unless Democrats do something to get the momentum back."

* One of two Republicans -- compared to only one of four Democrats -- are "very" enthusiastic about voting in November. The GOP's advantage is the largest of the year. (Gallup)

* One of three likely voters polled say the country is headed in the right direction. Almost three out of four independents say the country is on the wrong track. (Rasmussen)

Here's a visual aid to put that in perspective:

If bad right track/wrong track numbers are the kiss of death for a party in power, trend lines like these are akin to a makeout session with the grim reaper.

Look way back at the very beginning of the graph, in the top left hand corner. See that 70% wrong track reading? That's right: we have yet to reach the upper limit of our national disgruntlement. Republicans would do well to guard against peaking too early. But this kind of deep dissatisfaction doesn't look like a peak.

Last week, a decrepit Kim Jong-il took a midnight train from North Korea into China, where he met with Chinese president Hu Jintao in the northern Chinese industrial city of Changchun.The trip had two probable motives. The first was to avoid having to meet Jimmy Carter, who was in Pyongyang to free an American citizen. The Dear Leader can be forgiven his desire to skip an encounter with the world's most irritating man.The second motive was probably to introduce his son and heir, Kim Jong-un -- dubbed Youth Captain -- to his Chinese overlords. After a long struggle, a consensus has emerged: Kim Jong-un is the new Kim on the Block. So what do we know about the Youth Captain? Not much. A photo of him as a boy is on the right. Other than that, you know, the usual. From the Chosun-Ilbo:

Those who knew "Pak Un," the name he used at the Swiss school, say he was indifferent to political issues and never made any anti-American comments. He worshipped basketball players in the NBA. A friend who visited his apartment at #10, Kirchstrasse, Liebefeld, recalls that Kim had a room filled with NBA-memorabilia.

In class, Pak Un was generally shy and awkward with girls, but he became a different person on basketball court, according to his classmates. "A fiercely competitive player," said classmate Nikola Kovacevic. "He was very explosive. He could make things happen. He was the playmaker."

Kim also had a collection of Nike sneakers. "We only dreamed about having such shoes. He was wearing them," recalled Kovacevic, who estimated the price of each pair at around US$200.

Shy and awkward with girls? Loves basketball? We can work with that, right? May I suggest Special Envoys to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kobe Bryant?

There's a new book out that changes everything. Just listen:

Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.

How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative and brilliant book.

Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. [...] The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

Polyamory: the last refuge of a socialist. In an era when radical egalitarianism has been intellectually discredited as a political program, good old sex is there to fuel the emotional fantasies of the frustrated leveler. We're hardwired to share everything! Exclusivity is a social construct at the most fundamental level -- that of our own bodies! Take that, Aristotle! Over to you, Megan:

Lifetime monogamy may not be the evolved human template. But I'm pretty sure that carefree polyamory isn't either. And at some level, who cares? Rape seems to be pretty "natural", but I'd still like to build social institutions that fight this "natural instinct". The book might have been thought-provoking, but so far, in trying to prove too much, they end up proving nothing at all. And the "I bet you didn't know about . . . bonobos!!!!" tone is incredibly off-putting.

Look: since the time of the prophets and the philosophers we have known (no need for scare quotes) that we humans are naturally apt to fantasize simultaneously about natural and unnatural things. There's something exciting about purposefully imagining a conflation of what's natural with what isn't. What else, to provide a chaste example, is the human longing for flight? It seems to me safe to say that our nature is eminently compatible with a monogamous sexual order, but that our nature doesn't dictate any sexual order, monogamous, bigamous, polygamous, or anything else. Our nature as human animals is to want to eat our cake and have it too when it comes to order of any kind. We want the benefits of compliance when we want them, and we want the benefits of noncompliance when we want those, too. This isn't the first time that the fantasy of sexual socialism has led progressive crusaders to run up the banner reading Eros Lo Volt!, and it won't be the last. But it's time we stopped taking them seriously.

One of the favorite topics for left-leaning reporters is the deep and crippling rift splitting apart the Republican Party.

I mean, it must be one of their favorites, because they trot it out all the time. Go ahead: Google deep rifts in the Republican party or split in the Republican party for a sample. The left seems awfully concerned about the Republican party's unity.

Of course, it's all fantasy and wish-fufillment. They spin themselves into a cozy cocoon with visions of rifts and splits and civil wars on the right, none of which have ever erupted.

Meanwhile, as the always witty and insightful Russ Smith points out on Splice Today, it's the left that's falling apart:

There’s a bounty of disharmony on the left, but a few pieces stick out, as former brothers-in-arm are now in opposing camps: David Corn and John Judis, for example, fret that Obama has blown, at least for now, a unique opportunity; on the other hand, E.J. Dionne and Jonathan Alter, represent the faction who simply can’t believe Americans are so dumb that they can’t comprehend the astonishing progress Obama has made in his first term, even if it hasn’t been communicated in the most efficacious manner.

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

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

Stage Five is Acceptance, but I'm not holding my breath for that one.

More from Rob Long

Sarah Palin or Jan Brewer?

Imagine If Bush Had Done This, Part 9,623

New Nork Ruler: Loves Basketball, Shy With Girls

The Midterm Elections: Animated. In Chinese.

Via Dave Weigel, who remarks, rightly: "Interesting." Here's Huckabee's video. Why the thanks? "In taking on the federal government’s new health care law," Huckabee tells Cuccinelli, "you are doing what’s right. I appreciate your efforts on behalf of Virginians and all Americans who are frustrated with this unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s powers."

Is it a simple stunt? Maybe it's a stunt and a nice idea, too. That's the fun thing about politics. One thing is certain: Huck '12 speculation? Fueled.