This Is No Longer the "Little Miss Attila" Blog.

Little Miss Attila—and her minion-Huns—have moved; please adjust your bookmarks accordingly.

A special shout-out goes to Pixy Misa and the rest of the Munuvians, for whom I still retain a huge amount of affection. I simply wanted to try WordPress, and thought that a fresh blog might give me more control over the levels of comment spam I was experiencing.

Detroit and Washington D.C., Together Again.

Iowahawk hits 'em all into a sub-half-inch group with Congress' new car: the "Lemon":

It's in the way you dress. The way you boogie down. The way you sign your unemployment check. You're a man who likes to do things your own way. And on those special odd-numbered Saturdays when driving is permitted, you want it in your car. It's that special feeling of a zero-emissions wind at your back and a road ahead meandering with possibilities. The kind of feeling you get behind the wheel of the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition from Congressional Motors.

All new for 2012, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the mandatory American car so advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design it. We started with same reliable 7-way hybrid ethanol-biodeisel-electric-clean coal-wind-solar-pedal power plant behind the base model Pelosi, but packed it with extra oomph and the sassy styling pizazz that tells the world that 1974 Detroit is back again -- with a vengeance.

(To comment on this entry, go to the new Little Miss Attila Blog.)

Would Someone Please Explain Relativity to Me?

I need to know how it affects the probability that the tiny moth inside my car will eventually leave the Cruiser if I open the windows.

And what that experience might be like from the moth's point of view. If there are any paratroopers who read blogs, they might be able to tell me. (And when, BTW, did we stop using paratroopers for our regular armed forces; do they still have them in Special Forces? They must. Please advise.)

(To comment on this entry, go to the new Little Miss Attila Blog.)

Help the NRA-ILA! And Get a Great Sight!

(That's S-I-G-H-T, for those of you who spend too much time online, or work in architecture/construction.)

Dear Joy:

AR-15s and similar rifles are flying off gun store shelves these days. If you're one of the buyers, here's your chance to put a top-of-the-line red dot sight on your new rifle - and at the same time, help defend all your guns against anti-gun groups and the Obama administration.

Here's how it works: Aimpoint, Inc. and MidwayUSA will donate $100 to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action for every Aimpoint CompM4 electronic red-dot sight package purchased by NRA members from MidwayUSA through the end of 2008.

This is a great opportunity to get an Aimpoint CompM4 at a special price and help NRA-ILA defend our firearms freedoms. The Aimpoint CompM4 is currently used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force as the M68 Close Combat Optic. It is also in service with the Navy and the Marine Corps.

In an extra show of support, MidwayUSA will pay for a one-year NRA membership for every non-member who buys an Aimpoint through this program. So go ahead and forward this message - you can help a friend get a great scope and a free NRA membership at the same time!

This special package includes an Aimpoint CompM4, quick-release mount, spacer for AR-15 or similar rifles, killFlash anti-reflection device and MILSPEC rubber lens covers. The program ends Dec. 31, 2008, so to order your Aimpoint and support NRA-ILA, visit www.nraila.org/aimpoint today!

Vote!

I did!

UPDATE: Of course, I voted "present." Hope that counts.

Sure, This Is Funny.

Not as funny as Scandinavian cartoons that portray the Prophet Muhammad, but funny.

You know what would be really funny? Dressing as Theo Van Gogh, right after his murder; that would be hilarious!

I Do Not Get It.

How could someone hang around the planet for an entire century, working her butt off, and never find gainful employment?

Bonus question: how many typos can you find at the link? The article was clearly a surprise, like the one we ran at my junior high newspaper about our edior/teacher, Carol Jago (then McGonigle). Carol pretended not to know about it until it ran, which was sporting of her. As I recall, the effort was spearheaded by Cindy Rogoway, though I think Sandi Levin was also in on the plot.

They weren't going to tell me until afterward, because I wasn't in the "in crowd." But someone had to proofread the damned thing.

Hat tip: Caltech Girl, who would like to know whether I eat Cheetos. I do not. I have obsessive-compulsive habits, but they do not include fluorescent orange dye.

This Is Not Really Happening . . .

You Bet Your Life It Is . . . "

But sometimes that's a good thing.

Zo! He's Black, by Popular Demand.

He is sooo good.

Draft the Man of Steele!

Um, not Kevin Steele.

I was thinking of Michael Steele. For RNC Chair, that is. Let's face it: we can't even begin to address our problems over the next 2-4 years without tapping one talented guy to clear out the deadwood over there, sharpen our message, bring us up-to-date on technology, and create the environment for us to re-take the Congress in 2010.

After we've done that, we can start looking at the rather awesome assortment of new talent we've discovered across the country, and figure out which two guys/gals are going to lead the charge in 2012 (and which other whip-smart people will be working behind the scenes, and not-quite-behind-the-scenes).

Let's do it.

And . . . I didn't mean this Michael Steele, either:

But that, my friends . . . aw, that is a woman of steel. Don't get me started.

Hey! How about a (Michael) Steele and (Michael) Steele ticket in 2012? And don't give me that "she isn't qualified" baloney! If you can rock and roll, you can be a VP.

And she'd be learning from the best!

Via Insty . . .

a blog about Animation. I scrolled around, saw nothing whatsoever about Freakazoid!, and left.

Trash.

Now this is an animation blog.

Quote of the Day:

"My relationship with your blog is abusive. I am breaking up with it."

Hey; don't go away mad!

Announcing . . .

the "find Joy's other blogs" contest.

See if you can find the other "Attila Girl" locations on the web!

If no one finds them all, I won't post a picture of my breasts.

I'm Afraid There Was a Lack of Clarity About the Job.

I was not informed that working full-time would cut into my blogging routine.

Oh, sure: I know what you're thinking. "Why didn't you do the arithmetic? Take 24 hours, subtract eight for sleep and 1.5-2 for drive time . . . "

I'm telling you, I just didn't realize. There should be some kind of disclosure form or something . . .

So. Blogging light, etc. etc. and so on and so forth. But you are still required to stop over here every day and pay obeisance to me. Preferably in cash.

In a pinch, however, I'll take the traffic.

Understanding the Left

A paper explains why some of them may be misguided, but—as they see it—we are evil.

And D91 of AoS adds his own insights on how to appeal to those with liberal leanings.

Dating Advice . . .

From R. Stacy McCain:

Marriage is a great deal for men, much better than being single, provided you get the right woman. The whole point of dating is to find that one woman. But young men are so damned superficial and selfish nowadays, and caught in a passive-aggressive loop, alternating between callous womanizing and self-pity.

Good women are much easier to find than good men. Over the years in Washington, I'd meet nice young single women and think, "Wow, I really ought to try to introduce her to a nice guy." And then I'd realize, "Wait a minute -- this is Washington, DC. There are no nice guys here."

Guys, let me give you a clue: Your low self-esteem is poisoning the well. You figure that any girl who actually likes you must be a desperate loser. So you ignore or disparage the women who are actually available, while chasing after women who hate you. You are only interested in super-beautiful women, because having a super-beautiful woman validates your own attractiveness. And yet you become angry at her demand that you bring something to the table to validate her.

Do you see the self-defeating vicious cycle you're setting up for yourself? Try this: Just forget about looks. Hang out with some fat chicks and try to learn to enjoy women as human beings, rather than as status symbols or as a means to an end.

Oh, No! Not "World of Warcraft"!

The economy is affecting everything.

HOWLING FJORD - High above the Great Sea, once the site of fierce battles, Valgarde settlement now sits empty. Stung by plummeting real estate prices, Alliance and Horde forces have returned to Kalimdor, leaving behind foreclosure signs and broken dreams. All across Northrend such depressing sights abound. In Dragonblight, Wyrmrest Temple is boarded up, its five dragon shrines covered in graffiti. "Malygos sucks" and other obscenities have been scrawled across the walls by unemployed furbolgs.

And at Icecrown Citadel, once the objective of a massive invasion, empty Pabst bottles and cigarette butts littered the floor around the Frozen Throne. The rune blade Frostmourne was now used to open cans of chili. And the most powerful entity in all Warcraft picked up a canvas sack full of fliers and shuffled off to work.

"Go where the money is," chuckled the Litch King ruefully . . . .

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

Glenn Reynolds

. . . on the efficacy of the War on Drugs.

Uh-oh.

HOLLYWOOD - Long-time UPI White House correspondent Helen Thomas will co-star as the cannibal witch in Dimension Films' upcoming production of Hansel and Gretel. Director Chris Abbott said, "Helen nailed the audition . . . "

Read the whole thing.

Goodbye, Tom Siatos.

We are losing a generation of shootists rather quickly—as well as enduring the early departure of a few, like Dave Arnold and Gary Sitton, who died way too young—one from living too cleanly, from being too good for this world; and the other from living too hard. (And yet he was a magical writer, and a fine human being.*)

(For those who do not know, Thomas Siatos was the editor of Guns & Ammo magazine, and went on to head up Petersen's entire "Outdoor Group," which was quite the empire within an empire, and included Hunting, Handguns, and myriad smaller publications. These magazines are now published by InterMedia Outdoors.)

* I'll pay cold, hard cash for anyone who can catch my literary allusion this time. I suspect I've got you guys stumped.

Monday is Sarah Appreciation Day.

Per the National Federation of Republican Women, apparently. Send those letters in today!

Governor Sarah Palin
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811

Via Double Plus Undead, who remarks to the Ace of Spades "morons":

No sticky, gooey, vodka-stained, hobo-corpse-smelling fantasy fanfic please. This is a lady we're talking about. A lady who probably handles a shotgun much better than you.

The Anchoress

Reposted something she wrote several months ago that seems quite appropriate.

It just seems to me that within those little ideological spheres which are full of ideas, a president must be permitted to listen to ideas and debate them and perhaps even to choose portions of ideas from each position, left, right and center, in order to formulate policies which are best FOR AMERICA, and which address the concerns of all the country, not just “the party,” and which serve the whole citizenry, not just “the base.” The best recipes call for more than one ingredient. The best policies do, too.

If we are determined to shut out whole blocks of people because their thoughts are not ours, their ideas are not ours, their beliefs are not ours, then we’re doing democracy wrong - we’re turning it into something else. And I don’t think the “something else” is necessarily a good thing.

Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was a good and trusted adviser to King Henry VIII, but his faith and conscience took precedence over that fealty. When Rome refused Henry a divorce, Henry broke away and formed the Church of England. More could not go where Henry went, saying at his arrest, “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”

I am by no means comparing President Bush to St. Thomas More, but it does seem to me that part of his problems within his own party stem from a similar attitude: Love him or hate him, he is the party’s good servant, but America’s first. And America’s good servant, but God’s even before that. Or, as I have written elsewhere,

It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.

Those priorities seem like good ones to me, and perhaps in a healthy society, they would be appreciated. But we’re not healthy right now - I doubt anyone would truly suggest we are - and in this society, sadly, the precedence of “the parties” and “the movements” over everything else is disconcerting.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How can an undesirable candidate suddenly become an acceptable, good-faith alternative? I know there is a school of thought that says, “well, that will teach others and they’ll be more loyal to the party, next time.”

But that’s being too clever by half, isn’t it? One of President Bush’s errors was in thinking he could sign a campaign finance reform into law and count on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not meet his expectations.

Signing off on this election while counting on people to “do the right thing” in the next one seems to me equally hazardous and just as likely to disappoint. And it feels a little bit like putting one’s ideology before all else, and trusting in it, alone.

Michele Catalano vs. Jeff Goldstein on Federally Forced/Pressured "Volunteerism."

Goldstein gets it right.

Bass and Drums

"I like writing the songs because sometimes I want to be more than just a timekeeper."

—Hog Beatty

At dinner a few weeks ago with a few bloggers I mentioned that a certain Eminent Blogmistress was married to a bassist, and another web denizen at the table took this to be some sort of shot at her. Which of course it wasn't; in point of fact, the gentleman in question is a charming hottie. But, of course, someone then had to make the obligatory joke: "what do you call someone who knows lots of musicians?"

"Right, right; a drummer," I responded, rolling my eyes.

"A bassist," another blogger else replied.

"Like Paul McCartney?" I should have responded, but did not, because I'm socially inept and slow on the uptake.

As far as I'm concerned, however, it is those two elements—bass and drums—that make rock and roll what it is. And timekeeping is underrated; it undergirds Western Civilization, after all.

What songs rely most heavily on interesting drumwork or bass playing? I mean, beyond "In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida"? When do those two instruments transcend "timekeeping" and deepen the complexity of a musical composition? (Many anthropologists may have to sit this one out: both Count Linguist and Professor Musicology appear utterly indifferent to rock and roll, which strikes me as odd in the same way that I strike others as odd for not "getting" football.)

I listened to War Child on my way home from work last night. As usual, when I have an album in the CD player I let it run a couple of times in succession. (Food usually bores me after a few bites, but music retains its appeal for hours.)

"Queen and Country" was terrific, but "Bungle in the Jungle" still stands out. I mean, I understand that liking the song marks me as a second-rate Tull fan, but I cannot help it: there is certain perfection in the thing. As usual, the flute-playing thrills me, and the violin is exciting. But the bass guitar provides structure and spice.

(If my husband is reading this, I'd just like to request that we put off our argument about Ian Anderson's hatred of organized religion, manifested in the early Tull albums, until the weekend. Is Saturday afternoon good for you? I have to dust and do laundry in the morning, but I have time to squabble in the early afternoon.

P.S. Anderson's concerns, as I read them, had more to do with what he felt were the failures of organized religion to help "the least among us." He was not angry at God, per se, but rather bitterly disappointed at the unfairness of life, and unable to reconcile what he saw around him with orthodox conceptions of the Deity.)

I Accept McCain's Take on Palin and the Campaign Leakers.

I think the critical thing is that it would be physically difficult, age-inappropriate, and culturally alien for him to make that "jerking-off" motion with his hand while the campaign's slimy gossips were being discussed I really think Johnny Mac's point was that they were small people who weren't worth the time and attention they're getting.

The fact is, someone knows who they are, and won't want to deal with them in the future. For the same reasons Red America cancelled its Us subscriptions in droves. For the same reason I'll be letting my Atlantic subscription lapse: life's too short to support—or even spend a lot of time discussing—bottom-feeders.

We don't have to make these people "lepers." They've done that to themselves.

Weird, Creepy, Dangerous, Expensive.

Other than that, Ace points out, Obama's Civilian Defense Corp is a terrific idea.

Even if you aren't a charismatic head-of-state who wants to get around Posse Comitatus, or find a way to coax young liberals into carrying guns, when they would normally be loathe to do it.

By the way, we already do have a civilian defense organization: it's called the militia, and every able-bodied adult who owns a firearm is part of it.

We also have more guns than Obama's pansy-ass armed Americorp will possess; we're better shots, too.

Oh, I dunno: maybe we should give the man the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps it isn't a question of wanting to install an authoritarian regime, with Big O as dictator: perhaps he merely wants a decade-long civil war, red on blue, with massive bloodshed that will make the Civil War of the nineteenth century look like day at Disneyland. (And I mean off-season, with no brutal sun beating down on you, short lines for the best rides, and you remembered to wear your best walking shoes.)

"Let the Free Market Decide How to Destroy Money."

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Via Write Enough.

Light Blogging, Through the End of the Week

And possibly for the next few months, though I don't think it'll take that long. (Mastering the new gig, that is; the job itself will last anywhere from four weeks to four months.)
Of course, between the need to balance this assignment against the demands of my other main client and the need to get some blogging done, it could be argued that I should up my time-management game.

Obama: A Single-Termer?

That's how I've been seeing it, but people from Chicago seem to be more depressed by this than I am.

Finding "Zombie Votors."

This is a fairly depressing thread.

We seem to have some perverse version of the criminal justice system working at the polls: not "innocent until proven guiley," but "a voter until proven a fraud—and then, still a voter."

Read the comments. The best one was that Republicans should start engaging in voter fraud on a mass scale. Only then would it be perceived as an actual problem.

h/t: Insty.

Nailed It: Gay Activists Finally Figure Out How to Win the Hearts and Minds of Middle America

Here we go: interrupt churches during worship with "actions," and disrupt prayer by defiling the altar.

There are people out there who suffer a lot less from any supposed inequality than they do from boredom.

Tips for the truly courageous: try this in a mosque. C'mon. It'll be fun!

Virginia vs. Loving and Gay Marriage

Ah . . . someone has finally brought up Virginia v. Loving in the "gay marriage" debate. That case has definitely been on my mind.

Ultimately, however, I just don't see the analogy as being that strong in the real world: the Lovings were burst in on in the middle of the night in their bedroom in the good-old-boy version of a SWAT-style raid.

Perhaps I am ill-informed, but how often are gay couples separated by force in that manner?

I mean, naturally I see the theoretical link, but those who claim that they are prevented from "being with the person they love" have to be aware that no such thing is happening. I believe the argument boils down to Federal benefits in most cases, and hospital visitation in a handful of states. And a word.

This is not nothing—but neither is it anything like what the Lovings were up against.

The Gingrich-Steele Contest.

Either one would be a breath of fresh air.

Each of 'em has the candlepower to bring sorely needed new ideas to the RNC.

We can't have co-chairs, can we?

I"m All for Volunteerism . . .

But I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer voluntary volunteerism, and there is, indeed, something creepy about some of Obama's proposals so far with respect to children, teens, and young adults.

More "Head-Tilties" ("from 52 to 48, with Condescension.")

Or, as Jim Treacher puts it, "from the 52 I.Q.'s to the 49th State."

Execution by Batton Lash, whose comic site looks excellent.

Via Ace.

The Hunt for Conservative Culture

Libertarianism in the arts, over at Dr. Helen's place.

Happy Birthday, CalTech Girl!

And apparently, it is quite a quite a good one.

I think it rawks that she was born on the same day as the U.S.M.C.!

Happy Birthday, U.S.M.C.

Semper Fi!

More here.

And Yet More on Gay Marriage . . .

Dan Blatt of Gay Patriot, writing at PJ Media:

Whenever state courts mandate recognition of gay marriage, it leads to a backlash at the ballot box. By November 2004, not even a year after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the Bay State’s highest court) handed down the Goodridge decision finding it unconstitutional under the state constitution to limit marriage to different-sex couples, voters in thirteen states enacted constitutional provisions defining marriage by its traditional definition: the union of one man and one woman.

This year, after the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts handed down rulings similar to Goodridge, voters in Florida and Arizona joined those in California and amended their state constitutions.

Following the passage of Proposition 8, Jonathan Rauch, author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, wrote that gay marriage advocates need to rethink “the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public.” Since state courts began mandating gay marriage, thirty states have amended their constitutions to define marriage so as to prohibit recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

In only one state, Arizona in 2006, did voters defeat a popular initiative defining marriage, but that measure was rather draconian as it would have blocked civil unions as well. This past year, Arizona voters approved a less sweeping amendment, limited only to marriage.

It is thus clear that success for gay marriage in the courts leads to a popular backlash. Those serious about gay marriage need to spend more time trying to convince their fellow citizens of the merits of changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and less time making that case to unelected judges.

Thirty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court deprived citizens and our elected representatives of deciding how to regulate abortion, we are still debating the issue. The record of this past week shows that when state courts attempt to deprive citizens of the right to define marriage, citizens will act to overturn their decisions.

What Justice Ginsburg said about abortion applies to gay marriage as well. We need a dialogue with state legislators — and those who elect them. Such conversations may not yield gay marriage this year, or even next, but should lead to state recognition of same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. This has already happened in such states as Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, and even California.

If gay marriage advocates succeed in making a more persuasive case to the American people, then states will start calling those unions and partnerships marriage. It may not happen as rapidly as some would like, but when it does, it will not meet with the backlash that follows court decisions mandating marriage. Hearing a better case for gay marriage and seeing well-adjusted gay couples, Americans will slowly begin to accept a broader definition of this ancient institution.

Read the whole thing. (Just in case, here's the link for the Rauch quote.)

CalTech Girl was just a little more blunt:

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point. Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER. The ballots have been counted. The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you. It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic. Which, as we L.A. folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it. Wipe your tears. Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way. The SMART way. Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you. That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night. Seriously. Do you WANT to play to stereotypes? Do you think that's any way to bring people to your cause? Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad. In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street. Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE. Not whiny, childish idiots. There's a lot of stereotype to get past. This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election. But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general. By everyone. We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another. Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. "only bigots vote yes on 8"). People will vote their consciences. Help them understand what they fear.

And, as Sejanus pointed out on one of my earlier "gay marriage" threads, televising the Halloween parade and pride parades does not necessarily make homosexuality appear less threatening to the average person. I'm not sure what the solution is there, since I do think it's fair for drag queens to party in West Hollywood—there is, after all, the Beastie Boys principle to contend with—but it's a shame that there are cameras there, and maybe showing one's piercings on television isn't the way to go.

At the very least, it means that more outreach is needed, in part to make up for the lost ground.

Jennifer Rubin Gets Practical.

Well, if we don't like losing, what can we do to start winning? We could use some soul-searching, a little new blood. Oh, and—we could stop behaving like assholes (my word; not Rubin's). From her latest at PJ Media:

The Republicans have just taken a beating. They lost the White House, at least six Senate seats, and approximately twenty House seats. They have not a single House member from New England. They have no West Coast senators (other than Alaska). So what do they do?

Well, in the days following the election they engaged in the same petty, irrelevant. and ultimately self-destructive behavior which got them into the political ditch to begin with.

Let’s start with the petty. The RNC spent its time sending out “oppo” memos as word of President-elect Obama’s White House staff picks (e.g., Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod) came out. “Too partisan!” screamed the press releases. “He’s hiring political people!” Oh, the horror! Not many people in the country, other than staffers at the RNC with too little to do, begrudge the new president selecting competent political advisers, especially ones which proved discreet and capable during the campaign. And even the Wall Street Journal editors were not buying the hysteria — correctly noting that Emanuel was a free trader and economic moderate.

Next, we were treated to the sight of a group of old Washington insiders meeting at a Virginia estate to discuss the future of the GOP. This hardly seemed the way to refreshen, revive, and enliven the party. And by shutting out young conservative bloggers, they ensured that the most significant impact of the confab was to start another intra-party fight.

But much of the week was taken up by former McCain staffers, snooty columnists, and unnamed sources continuing the vendetta against Sarah Palin. It seemed utterly incomprehensible why they would want to tear down the favorite 2008 Republican candidate and an able spokeswoman for reform, one who actually still holds office.

Nor did Congressional Republicans fully appreciate the need to clean house. Young Turk Eric Cantor (R-VA) did step into the position of minority whip. But John Boehner (R-OH), hardly the model of reform and innovation, remained ensconced as minority leader. Was this the way to communicate to Republicans and the country as a whole that it would no longer be business as usual? If so, it was a strange way to show it.

None of this suggests that those inside the Beltway appreciate the predicament the GOP is in. The election returns were filled with bad news: Republican lagged in party identification (39-32%), got a fraction of the Hispanic vote (31%), and lost multiple red states (e.g., Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida). Young people are flocking to the Democratic Party. Sniping at the new president’s White House staff, circling the rickety wagons of Washington insiders, and attacking their former VP nominee are not going to ameliorate any of those problems.

There were a few isolated signs of life. Mitt Romney gave an interview which provided a cogent assessment of the economy and outlined sound fiscal policies, without engaging in a trace of partisanship. And a group of young bloggers put forth a game plan for web organizing and communication. These hints of progress and forward-looking thinking suggest that the best ideas won’t be coming from Washington, at least not from the Old Guard of leaders who led the party into ruin.

In the weeks and months ahead Republicans will need to craft a tone which does not reek of excessive partisanship. Republican strategist Todd Harris explained: “In terms of the long-term prospects for our party, the tone we take now is in many ways even more important than the tone we took during the election. The country has spoken and pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama president. We can either learn from our own mistakes, in terms of the things we have done in the past that compelled a center-right nation to elect a liberal Democrat as president, or we can do what some seem to want to do, which is to point fingers, double down on failed strategies and leaders, and continue our decline.”

Unfortunately, from pundits there was too little of the gentlemanly tone which Bill Kristol displayed: “We pledge our support for those of his policies we can support, our willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty, and our constructive criticism and loyal opposition where we are compelled.” Republicans will need to develop an agenda in Congress which distinguishes them both from their own past (e.g., pork barrel spending) and the new administration, should it go down the tax-and-spend road preferred by Congressional Democrats. Will they support a bailout of the auto industry or sound the clarion call about creeping government ownership? Will they oppose a stimulus package filled with pork? In these and many other questions they will need to determine whether to oppose the Obama administration at all costs or try to carve bipartisan compromises.

As for the aspiring 2012 contenders, they would do well to follow the lead of both Palin and Romney. For Republicans who still have jobs, they should perform them well and demonstrate that some Republicans can competently govern and legislate, make bipartisan deals, and remain politically popular. For Republicans who are no longer in office, they would do well to explain, educate, and bolster rather than sneer and back-bite.

My emphasis.

Amen, sister. (Though we do need to talk about this "which for that" verbal tic of yours.)

This reminds me of a Glenn Reynolds observation about the Emanuel appointment:

Emanuel will serve as Obama's hatchet-man and Dr. No, but the main targets will be Congressional Democrats and Democratic interest groups. Obama realizes that he's promised a lot more than he can deliver, and Emanuel's job will be to stave off all the claimants who—as they realize that too—will try to get to him before it's too late. Obama can stay the good cop, while Emanuel will be the bad. Republicans flatter themselves if they think they'll be the focus of Emanuel's attentions; they'll be an afterthought.

Well. That's Over, Then.

Via Gerard.

Bacon Apple Pie!

I'm sorry, but I love this idea. And CalTech Girl got to have it for breakfast today! As it happens, my favorite breakfast is a not-too-sweet pie like pumpkin or apple.

If that slice of apple pie were topped with a bacon lattice, life would be pretty darned good.

I must make one of these. Must.

"Whores Demand Federal Bailout"

Ling Carter, again:

New York City - "Tiffani" wearily peered down a deserted Bronx street, muttering, "A lot of nothing — again." The 29-year-old prostitute hadn't had a trick since the previous evening and wondered how she would support a growing drug habit, a pimp, and the need to update her work wardrobe. "Everyone thinks these Jessica Simpsons last forever," said "Tiffani," referring to her high-heeled ankle boots. "But the seams are splitting and winter's coming on. I need new boots. Where's the damn government?"

Where indeed? RTWT.

I'm Sure It'll Be a Splendid Recession.

Oy.

t's starting to feel like one of those epic nights at the bar in Washington, DC. You know, the evenings where you know you're running up a tab much bigger than you intended, but the bartender has your card, and it's just so easy to order one more round for the gang.

For those too sozzled or bozwozzled to track what we're spending on on bailouts these days, here's a quick tally:

• $29 billion for Bear Stearns

• $143.8 billion for AIG (thus far; it keeps growing)

• $100 billion for Fannie Mae

• $100 billion for Freddie Mac

• $700 billion for Wall Street, including Bank of America (Merrill Lynch), Citigroup, JP Morgan (WaMu), Wells Fargo (Wachovia), Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a lot more

• $25 billion for The Big Three in Detroit

• $8 billion for IndyMac

• $150 billion stimulus package (from January)

• $50 billion for money market funds

• $138 billion for Lehman Bros. (post bankruptcy) through JP Morgan

• $620 billion for general currency swaps from the Fed

Rough total: $2,063,800,000,000

That's a little over $6,800 for every man, woman, and child, or just under $15,000 for each of America's 140 million taxpayers.

Remember—a few billion here, and a few billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

You know what I could go for, just about now? Another Great Depression.

Bali Bombers Now "Carbon Neutral"

Excellent.

Mother, May I Marry Treacher?

Neocon Blonde is looking for single, hot right-of-center chicks to date one of the funniest guys in the blogosphere.

N.B. thinks the woman should be able to cook, but I have a feeling Treacher is flexible on that point . . .

Fight the Palin Smears!

Join Operation Leper, over at Thornton's place:

I pledge to publicly expose and actively oppose all of John McCain's staffers smearing Sarah Palin and will oppose any candidate who hires these people for a 2012 race. These smear artists must become political lepers for the good of the country and the Republican Party.

The P.J. O'Rourke Post-Mortem.

It's brutal, and beautiful.

h/t Hot Air.

Are Some Bigots More Bigoted than Others?

More from Eric on the aftermath of Prop. 8:

By any standard, the conduct displayed by the bigoted gay demonstrators is outrageous, inexcusable, and indefensible. However, speaking as an individualist, I don't think it any more reflects on gays as a whole than it would reflect on blacks as a whole if some angry black demonstrators hurled epithets at gays or Jews. The people who do these things are the ones who do them. That they are in a crowd of demonstrators might reflect poorly on the other demonstrators, but the problem with extrapolating from angry demonstrators to the group they claim to "represent" is that they are rarely more than a small percentage of that population. So, if a half a dozen gay bigots use the N-word at a demonstration, it no more reflects on all gays than something shouted from a crowd at a McCain rally would reflect on all Republicans.

Yes. But it gives me a queasy feeling, like the black-Jewish schism, which has always struck me as so counter-historical, and so unnecessary. And so stupid. Of course, my species is not that bright; I must remember that.

Where I must disagree with Pam Spaulding is with her view that these awful incidents somehow constitute an "escalation of the 'blame the blacks' meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM." She also refers to "the desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat" as "not-so-latent racism in our movement." Well, at least she said "in our movement." Because, at least in my case, I don't see how observations based on a statistics can constitute a "blame the blacks meme."

Statistics are not memes. Saying that 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is no more a meme than saying that 30% of gays voted Republican.

Yup. This next part is pivotal:

As far as blaming or scapegoating goes, while I'm against Prop 8, I'm more or less neutral where it comes to gay marriage, because I'm highly distrustful of government involvement in a minority lifestyle which, like it or not, goes to the heart of human privacy. Gay marriage advocacy is inextricably intertwined with forcing people out of what is called "the closet." The closet (as any regular reader of Andrew Sullivan knows) is said to be at the root of much evil. Therefore, closeted gays need to be liberated -- for their own good and for the good of society. Because of the nature of the hegemonic bureaucracy which surrounds family law, family courts, family services, once gay marriage is established it will inevitably have a spillover effect, and gays who want to live their lives in privacy will be unable to do so. Sure, there will continue to be sexual flings, but once lovers move in together, there will be no way to guarantee privacy, because the state will have created not merely a sense of entitlement, but legal rights of the same sort which customarily flow to heterosexuals thanks to the evolution of family law. There are many gays who want privacy and who live in the closet. While I realize that this is immoral to Andrew Sullivan's way of thinking, I think it's fair to ask, how would they opt out?

Perhaps by simply living together, as heterosexual couples do who don't want to make the ultimate commitment—or who have, themselves, mixed emotions about the institution of marriage?

But your larger point is well-taken: people have the right to privacy. There is a right not to wear one's love life on one's sleeve, and there is a middle ground between being quiet and discreet vs. the type of "living in the closet" one associates with the 1950s in America.

What are the implications to the right to simply to be left alone?

The closet being what it is, though, I don't think this concern is likely to be voiced. I mean, who's going to voice it other than a kooky libertarian theoretician? Angry, in-your-face, "in-the-closet-and-proud" activists. (What this means, of course, is that whatever the extent of the right to be "in the closet," it will remain largely undefended, no matter how many of its immorally discreet members are taking advantage of it. This leaves Andrew Sullivan and other activists are free to blame people who are in "the closet" for almost anything they can think of -- the latest being Prop 8.)

Game, set, and match.

But speaking of blame (and scapegoating), I noticed that in other posts, Pam Spaulding looks at Mormon and Catholic churches and sees them (unlike blacks or black churches) as proper targets of Prop 8 protests. While I don't know what she thinks of angry gay demonstrators chanting "Mormon scum!" (and I do not suggest that this compares to the use of the N-word), she does not hesitate to condemn the Mormons as bigoted:

The amount of hot air and vapid defensiveness from an institution that has a history of bigotry and oppression against black people has earned every second of this bad press brought on by this media exposure and demonstrations. That the Mormons have trained that bigotry onto gays and lesbians families only confirms that the LDS is what is erroneous and it is repeating that sorry history.

Both Catholics and Mormons are accused of calling for theocracy:

These extremist statements and positions are nothing less than a call to establish a theocracy. Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be moved to name this behavior of these institutions for what it is -- and question the tax-exempt status of these institutions.

By that logic, taking a religious position against abortion is also a call to establish theocracy. That is not what the word "theocracy" means.
And if it is "theocracy" to invoke a religious argument against gay marriage, then why isn't Barack Obama a theocrat, as Glenn Reynolds suggested? [In ironic imitation of the left's standard.] I don't think Barack Obama is a theocrat, any more than the Mormons or the Catholics are theocrats. But you can't just draw a line and say that Mormons and Catholics who voice religious objections to gay marriage are theocrats, but Democratic United Church of Christ members who voice the same objections are not.

There's altogether too much bigotry for comfort and too many double standards for comfort.

Absolutely.

And, the clincher:

I can't help notice that completely left out of this debate are Muslims. While an LA Times article in April noted that "U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons" and that "the connection is based not on theology but on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America." Can there be any doubt about the Muslim position on gay marriage? While there are no statistics on the Muslim vote, I would be flabbergasted if support for gay marriage mustered more than the single digits.

Yet Mormons have been singled out as bigots.

That's because it's wrong to bash Muslims, silly: even when they are enslaving women, carving away their genitals, and killing them more or less at whim. Don't you know anything?

The Pam Spaulding post we've been quoting is here.

I read Eric's post yesterday, of course—because he linked me—and considered responding, but was busy / too self-centered / tired. When Glenn Reynolds linked to it again today, though, it reminded me of what a bitchin' guy that Eric Scheie is.

More "Interesting News Items"

Uh-oh. Someone's been sliming Joe Biden:

WASHINGTON D.C. - Best known for verbal fumbles, gaffes, and crazy talk, Democratic vice president elect Joe Biden often uttered quiet, self-aware statements in private. An anonymous aide to the senator recalled Biden saying, "My helicopter was never forced down in Afghanistan by terrorist gunfire. I guess I wanted to appear braver and more experienced than I am. Kinda silly of me, huh?" Terri Ambrose, spokesman for Senator Biden, denied the charges. "What you see is what you get. This lie is an attempt to smear Joe's colorful personality . . . ."

Read the whole thing.

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

A Conversation with Freddie Mercury

After we danced, I told him that it was an honour to meet him, and then stopped myself, "oh, wait."

"What's the problem?" he asked.

"Well, I think you died in 1991. Therefore, even if this dream is taking place as early as 1992—and that's a stretch—you're already dead."

"Don't take it to heart," he remarked. "Anyway, does it really matter?"

"It matters to me."

"My dear," he told me. "You aren't making any sense. It wouldn't make any concrete difference if you'd dreamed about me while I was still alive, because it would still only be a dream."

"I did dream about you while you were alive," I insisted. "You were a big part of my life; I even knew you were from Zanzibar, and was properly shocked when I learned about Mary Austin."

"Doesn't that only prove how little you knew me?" he replied. "I mean, what about all those songs I wrote about her? Didn't that give you some kind of a clue?

"Now you're the one who's being silly," I spat out. "That 'clue' colloquialism won't be gaining currency for at least another decade. Right now, it's 'wake up and smell the coffee.'"

"You're the only person I've ever met who nitpicks in your dreams."

"I'm sorry," I told him. "It's just that I'm rather in awe of you. Except that, well . . . you know."

"Yes, I know: you feel bad about not loving 'Bohemian Rhapsody' as much as you love the rest of the Queen canon. But it doesn't really hurt my feelings; after all, it's your prerogative, and it got to a point where I was sick to death of 'Rhapsody' myself. Besides, you never read Catcher in the Rye, and you're one of J.D. Salinger's biggest fans, just based on his writing about the Glass family."

"It's because he captured so well the life of the intellectual misfit," I remarked. "Anyway, you seem to know a lot about me."

"Don't flatter yourself. Remember: this is your own dream. So what you really mean is that you know a lot about you."

"Fine," I told him, irritated again. "But you shouldn't underestimate self-knowledge."

He laughed. "Oh, I don't. Say, did I tell you I've moved to the country and started farming sheep?"

"Oh, right. Like you're living this Ian Andersen agrarian-type existence, with the salmon and all that."

"No, really. I'm a terribly down-to-earth person. I even cut my hair in 1980."

"Yeah," I told him. "I didn't like that. I preferred it long. And I hated the moustache."

"Well, I don't have it on now," he remarked. "And my hair's long again. But that was your decision. Wasn't it?"

"I am trying for some verisimilitude," I pointed out. "You do have a streak of grey in your hair, and you're getting thin."

"Oh, thanks," he told me. "I love it when people notice that. You're as bad as the bloody press."

"Am I, really?"

"No, not really."

"So maybe this is normal?" I asked him. "Like people seeing Elvis?"

"Elvis is a special case," he reminded me. "People see Elvis when they are awake."

"Does that make him some sort of musical saint?" I enquired.

"Well," he replied, "it certainly means he's transcended some kind of barrier. But I've got to go."

"Why?"

"Because you are about to wake up, and since you're using your cell phone as an alarm clock right now don't want to have to listen to those tinny notes coming out of it."

"Why, Freddie," I told him. "I do believe you're a bit of a snob."

"When did you first figure that one out?"

So he grinned, and then he vanished. And then, sure enough: the cell phone rang.

More Piper Palin!

America's favorite little girl is home again, and putting together her exploratory committee.

Via AllahP at Hot Air.

Hm. "Sheets" Byrd Is Giving Up His Chairmanship.

Is it the age issue, or is he just hesitant to be on the front lines of a government headed up by a black man?

The bad news: he's still in the Senate, and still on his committee.

More on the Putative Black/Gay Divide.

Ta Naehisi-Coates runs the numbers on California's Proposition 8:

Yesterday, I tried to outline a humanistic case against the whole "Teh blackz did us in!" argument. I also linked some math. Now we have better math. The basic idea is that you need black folks to have been about 10 percent of all votes cast on Prop 8 to make a difference. Black folks are one of the smallest minorities in California, making up about six percent of the total electorate, which numbers at about 17 million. At 6 percent, black folks are worth about a million or so votes. There were just over ten million votes cast on Prop. 8. For blacks to cast ten percent of those you would need a turnout of 90 percent in the black community. Lemme repeat that--90 percent. It's possible, I guess. I leave it to you to weigh the odds.

Obsidian Wings reads the stats slightly differently, speculating that black voters may well have reached that 90 percent turnout in the Golden State:

If the following standard analysis assumptions are true the answer is probably a very close ‘no’, but at least one of the assumptions seems very possibly false and with other fairly likely assumptions the answer looks like a ‘yes’.

My assumptions are:

1. that the vote among black people was as reported (69% Yes on 8).
2. that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population
3. that black people represented a share of the votes equal to their share of the population

I further assume that 8 passes with 52% which seems the likely number at this point.

Given each 1000 voters, black people in CA represent 67 of them.

There are 520 Yes votes and 480 No votes for each 1000.

At 69%, Black voters voted 46 Yes and 21 No for each 1000.

If they voted like White voters (55% No) they would have voted 31 Yes votes and 36 No votes.

That would make the final tally 505 Yes and 495 No votes. (50.5% to 49.5%). [numbers very slightly rounded]

But this analysis is VERY sensitive to assumption #3. It appears that black people in CA may have voted in a greater share than that of their representation of the population. Right around 10% of the vote.

That would mean that given each 1000 voters black people in CA represent 100 of them.

At 69% Yes on 8 that would be 69 Yes and 31 No for each 1000. If they had voted like White voters they would have voted 45 Yes and 55 No. That would make the final vote equal 496 Yes and 504 No (proposition loses 49.6% to 50.4%).

Interestingly, at the 10% vote share level, if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss at 49.9%).

Basically, if the black voter share is 10% or higher, the black vote difference from the white vote made the difference so long as the final total is at or below 52%.

This, of course, makes my head hurt; I was an English major. But I do have a couple of suggestions:

1) If we truly want to achieve gay equality, we should be concentrating a lot more on eliminating "don't ask, don't tell" in the Armed Forces than we are on marriage. In fact, in a time of war that notion is likely to have much broader appeal than galloping toward gay marriage at a faster trot than the population at large is ready to do.

In one case, to the casual observer, you have a country so self-destructive that it fires Arabic translators (among many others) for being gay, and you have men and women who serve their country, but are susceptible to losing their jobs because someone might "read" what their orientation is.

I mean, I understand that this doesn't fit the conventional lefty template of treating the military as if it's composed of icky, warmongering spiders and snakes. One might have to treat those murderous soldiers, sailors, airmen/-women and Marines as if they were human beings. (Ick. I need a bath now.)

Seriously, fellow warmongers: if the badasses in the Israeli Army and in Britain's Special Forces can integrate gays, we can do the same thing in the States.

2) Quit trying to use the courts to get this done! Gay rights should be determined through legislative means, rather than handled by judicial fiat. Judges who legislate sensitive moral matters from the bench inevitably create resistance and resentment. It's worth taking a few more years, and doing this the right way.

Less backlash; steady progress.

3) Do something practical, for crying out loud: get a gun. Self-defense is the most basic right of all, and you may not feel like you're at the mercy of public sentiment if you join Pink Pistols, or Second Amendment Sisters. Or take a shooting course through the NRA. Or join Black Gun Owners.

Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society." Yup. And right now we all need to mind our manners a bit more.

* * *

Previously, on "Gay Rights and Proposition 8"—

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

"On Racism and Homophobia"

Oh, Yes. This Is the Goldstein I Can't Get Enough Of.

The CITIZEN OUTLAW!

For every one hour of community service work I give to Obama, I’ve decided to spend two hours tagging Whole Foods stores with ornate graffiti describing, in lurid detail, the secret life of Herbie, the closeted gay arugula.

– Then I’ll use up the rest of my hours standing guard with a crossbow . . . .

I wouldn't recommend a crossbow, though; I'd definitely go for a more traditional design: perhaps a compound bow, or an old-fashioned longbow (for which I know Jeff has the upper-body strength; I've seen his arms).

Over at The Oil Drum,

a nice essay on the history of oil in Alaska—and a reminder that even if we can buy time by utilizing fossil fuels from ANWR, the Gulf, and both coasts—and we must—it's important to move forward with alternative energy sources and alternative liquid fuels.

And there is, indeed, a "gold rush" going on with respect to alternative fuel/energy. The difference is that prospectors in California, Alaska, and the Yukon were not taking concrete steps to improve their country's security and the environment.

Those who are shaping America's energy future are. Yet they will get even richer than the most successful gold miners ever did.

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

On Racism and Homophobia.

Yes; we can all get along. But it will take some effort. There will be equality between gays and straights; let's try not to burn too many bridges on our way there.

Peace between the LGBT community and people of faith is on the way—but it requires each group to respect the other's right to exist, and a commitment to try to stay out of the other's face. Neither group has an exclusive claim upon the public square, and we are all Americans, with the right to live our own lives, free from harassment. I'm not making an argument for living in the an externally imposed closet,* or straightening one's hair for reasons other than personal preference: just that we all calm down a bit and stop trying to force others to live according to our own moral codes.

From Pam's House Blend:

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger." Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Via Prof. Reynolds, who remarks, "my goodness. All this hope, change and unity is getting kind of scary."

It is. We need to step back for a minute.

Let's see what I can do as a bisexual Christian, here. Back to fundamentals, so to speak: first of all, "all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God." Or, as my relatively secular best guy friend puts it, "we all miss the mark; none of us are perfect."

The U.S.A. is committed to religious freedom, but one of the fears among Christians of many types is that "too much equality" of gays will create a situation in which freedom of speech and freedom of religion are compromised. In Canada, for instance, calling homosexuality a sin is regarded as a "hate crime." But Canada does not have a Bill of Rights, and does not guarantee freedom of speech or religion. (Just ask Mark Steyn, or the Free Speech Five [e.g., Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant.])

The bottom line is that it must be considered acceptable for any religious advisor to discuss sin. I had thought we were there: I've certainly listened to homilies from priests that discussed gluttony (one of the Seven Deadly Sins), and yet who appeared to be overweight; it was entirely possible that gluttony was a recurring problem for these priests. Or, perhaps, the condition was glandular. Or genetic.

It doesn't matter; we are equal in the eyes of God. And we are all sinners. So an exhortation to greater moral goodness will always open us up to charges of hypocrisy. Why not? "Everyone is a hypocrite, now and then."

We in the U.S. live under a Bill of Rights that allows us to explore, in our various religious sects, what constitutes "sin." Is smoking a sin? Eating junk food? Smoking marijuana? Those probably all are, if one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But where do you draw that line? Is exercising too little a sign of sloth (another Deadly sin)? Is exercising too much a sign of vanity?

How about drinking? I was raised Methodist, and all four of my grandparents were teetotalers; the risk of alcoholism was considered too great to risk taking a drink. "Every social drinker," my grandmother once admonished, "is suscepible to alcoholism." Except that (1) stress takes a huge toll on human health; (2) there is the admonishment in the Bible to "take a little wine for your stomach's sake"; (3) small amounts of alcohol do clear cholesterol out of the arteries, reducing the risk of heart disease.

Yet as a civic matter, both my physical health and my spiritual well-being are my own, and not the business of the State. This is one reason for avoiding socialized medicine: once the government is paying for my health care, it has a stake in regulating my personal behavior and habits.

What does this have to do with the tension between black people and gay people?

Just this: Barack Obama's platform did not include gay marriage, and it may be that the country is not yet ready to apply that word to same-sex family arrangements. (You will recall that I don't think it's the state's business to label human relationships as "marriages" or not: that is a religious/social function. All any of us should ask is for civil unions.)

So, yes: demographically, black people trend more conservative on issues of human sexuality. But as with all demographic trends, one cannot extrapolate to individuals from that. When I was in Nevada and my friends in Clark County decried the way some of the freedoms in Las Vegas (and in Nevada itself) were being curtailed by the influx of Californians, were they talking about me? No. They were speaking in generalities, and for a variety of reasons Californians are not too popular in our neighboring states—partly because we "bid up housing prices," and partly because we tend to move into other states and then try to mold them into mini-Calis, while retaining whatever characteristics we liked them for in the first place.

(This is not a lot different than New Yorkers moving upstate—or to neighboring states—and then trying to get people in their new towns to stop hunting, or to stop burning leaves in the fall. That's no way to make friends. One should respect the culture one moves into, rather than trying to mold it closer to the heart's desire.)

Prejudice is built into human nature, but it quickly turns evil when it drives us (when it should and when it should not are explored in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, by the way). I don't want to live in a society of either anti-gay or anti-black bigots, so we'd better damned well figure this whole thing out.

There are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage because they regard it as social engineering: an attempt to tinker with matters that are very fundamental to human society. It isn't a vice to go slowly in that regard, particularly given the huge gains that gays have made over the past generation. (I know I'm supposed to say "gays and lesbians," but I've never liked that phrasing: contrary to its stated intent, it feels to me like it deliberately makes women invisible—as if they don't exist, and need an extra word to ensure inclusion. Just one more division, if you ask me.)

It might be appropriate for the "LGBT" community to pause and count its blessings, and remind itself that it, too, will overcome. Slavery was a long time ago; the Stonewall riots, less so. These matters take time.

And there is definitely such a thing as a gay-marriage opponent who is not a gay-hater or homophobe, and I would admonish the Abercrombie & Fitch brownshirts that they have definitely become their own enemy. Socially conservative black people do not necessarily regard them as "faggots," and it is never acceptable to use the word "nigger" as an epithet (unless you've been dared to, or someone around you is trying to make it into a loaded, dreadful term with the power to hurt: in that case, we must remember that words are indeed just words, and recite all the worst terms that might be applied to us so they don't gain more power; some of my readers think I'm a slut, or a whore, or a skanky gash; isn't that cute?).

The choice we made as a society in this past election had to do with a lot of things, but included in that mix was a desire to shatter the race barrier, to get it over with, perhaps, and have a black person lead the free world. I'm glad that the barrier was shattered, though I would have picked a different person to do the shattering.

And at least in California, increased black turnout did indeed make the difference in passing Proposition 8. A paradox, perhaps: or a trade-off. A delay.

When black men were granted suffrage, female suffragettes were understandably angry. They were told by the lawmakers that "this is the Negro's hour," and it was decades before women were enfranchised.

Gays will not have to wait that long.

Now relax; stop the hating. The day will come. I've seen the mountaintop; I really have.

In the meantime, have a smoke. Or a glass of wine.

UPDATE: Insty has another mini-roundup on the gender orientation/race issue here; when "Andrew Sullivan . . . calls for people to chill," matters are definitely on the verge of spiralling out of control. (I won't click on the Sullivan link, of course, and you shouldn't, either; Sullivan has put himself outside the realm of respectable discourse in the past year—and most especially in the past few months, given his relentless attacks on Sarah Palin—on the most frivolous grounds.)

* * *

Other Entries on Proposition 8—

Previously:

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

Subsequently:

"More on the Putative Black/Gay Divide"

"Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others?"

"And Yet More on Gay Marriage"

"Virginia v. Loving and Gay Marriage"

* Phrasing revised in light of Eric Scheie's argument that a voluntary "closet" is a perfectly legitimate choice (see "Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others," above; I stand corrected. Certainly anyone is entitled to live a low-key life, and be discreet about one's love life, irrespective of sexual orientation. But many of those who will be attracted to marriage or civil union are, I suspect, either engaged in or contemplating parenthood (through step-parenting, artificial insemination, or surrogate motherhood—the last of which is, of course, increasingly popular among straights as well).

All of this presumably makes Mark Steyn happy, since he wants to see more babies raised with Western values. Wait . . . that might not follow. I'll have to check with him on that one.

Rick Moran on the Dangers Ahead.

It's a pretty good summary of the reefs we will have to steer around for the next 2-4 years: health care, energy, increased union thuggery/organized crime.

Not a pleasant prospect, but the challenges have to be faced, and those three things together will very likely gut the economy.

It's Never to Early to Start the Self-Parody.

"Office of the President Elect [sic; I guess they don't believe in hyphens]"?

A ".gov" domain name?

And Obama's team is still taking contributions? Is this in case we wanted a head start on the tax burdens we'll be shouldering soon?

Is it even legal to give money to a nascent Presidential Administration?—with or without an AVS on the credit-card processing?

I guess not only do we need to reform "campaign finance reform," but while we're at it we must reform "pre-Administration finance," which no one had even thought about attempting before.

Anyone want to place odds on whether any of this money will end up either 1) helping out Obama's indigent family members (in the U.S. or in Kenya) or 2) going to the school named after him in Kenya, which he has abandoned, and which has been adopted by a blogospheric coalition headed by Baldilocks?

Good for Palin.

She didn't wait for McCain to deliver a smackdown to the idiots from the campaign who are maligning her; she did it herself.

Ling Carter on Wall Street:

The stock market is "behaving like a Federal worker."

NEW YORK - In a disturbing trend, the stock market has begun to call in sick, take long lunches, and behave in a surly manner previously unseen on Wall Street. "This is really creepy," said Dan Stover, senior analyst at Miller Tabak & Co. "Take Monday: bell rings at 9:00 and the market doesn't show up until 9:14, muttering something about car trouble. No one believed it. Then it went out for lunch at noon and didn't come back until 2:20. You could smell the beer a mile away. God help you if you ask what's wrong. The market'll drag its feet and go on a slow down that kills any trading momentum."

Experts speculate that large inflows of federal money into the private sector may have triggered the behaviour.

Hm. I fear that this is funny "because it's true."

Obama Apologizes to Mrs. Reagan.

How funny; I didn't even take any particular offense. Because I never got confused about Nancy Reagan's having done anything more than consult an astrologer: it was an odd thing to do, but once your husband—a lightning rod for political hatred—has been shot, you are bound to become overprotective.

Still, it was a careless moment for Obama, and it was classy of him to call her.

CPAC 2009

Apparently, they've snagged Sarah Palin as a speaker.

Sign up here.

I hope I can go. Unfortunately, I seem to have come down with a bad case of employment, so it would be easier to engineer financially—and harder to swing in terms of time.

h/t: Robert Stacy McCain ("The Other McCain"—the journalist)

"Dear Senator McCain"

Treacher's is, of course, more succinct than mine.

Dear Senator McCain,

I write to you in a spirit of overwhelming gratitude for your service to this country: your heroism, your work in the U.S. Senate (including the bills I disagreed with!), and your hard work campaigning to set this country on a different course.

I recently drove out to Clark County, Nevada, a week before the election to assist in "get out the vote" efforts in Nevada, and stood on the wet grass near the top of Henderson Pavillion in the cold to hear you speak and cheer you on, along with my freedom-loving friends.

On election night, I watched your beautiful concession speech, tears streaming down my cheeks.

I'm terribly grateful for all you've done.

I would, however, like to request that you issue a statement on behalf of Sarah Palin, who is being slimed, once again--but this time by people from your campaign (apparently), who do not even seem to have the guts to identify themselves.

I know you're recovering from a grueling Presidential campaign, but the unseemly behavior of your former team members is a disgrace--and an embarrassment to the GOP. If you could take a few minutes to denounce this behavior, I'd appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Joy W. McCann

Treacher apparently got the idea from DoublePlus Undead, via Down the Ticket.

How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Proposition 8

We're all clear that high turnout among black and Latino voters killed gay marriage in the Golden State, right?

The best roundup on this is probably over at Eric Scheie's Classical Values:

Out Magazine editor Aaron Hicklin has a piece in the Guardian titled "The success of Proposition 8 in California was one negative consequence of Obama's victory" and he does into some detail discussing something that isn't getting much play in the American press—that black voters (many of whom were voting in unprecedently large numbers, thanks to Barack Obama) voted overwhelmingly (70% to 30%) in favor of Proposition 8 (to ban gay marriage in California).

The Prop 8 vote was 52% to 48% , and considering that blacks were 10% of the voters (yet 6.7% of the electorate), and far more in favor of the initiative than whites or Asians, it's quite likely that had Hillary Clinton been the nominee, Prop 8 would have been defeated.

My emphasis.

Well, that is an inconvenient truth. Scheie remarks:

As a libertarian I have had reservations from the start about the wisdom of bringing the state into the bedroom where I never thought it belonged, and I also think a good privacy argument can be made against gay marriage from a libertarian standpoint. To focus on it as a "right" overlooks its misuse as an arduous bludgeon, which could be deployed by vengeful lovers and blackmailers against partners who never sought to be married, just the way marriage laws can be for straight unmarried couples. But my position is a fringe one, as I freely admit. Soon we will all be wedded by and to the state, and all bedrooms will be subject to examination and scrutiny.

It may be a fringe position, but it is my very own. The state should not be in the business of certifying marriages. We might very well need a legal mechanism for creating economic communality—particularly between two people who are not blood relatives, such as two elderly women who live together but are not lovers—but we do not need the state to define the word marriage. We really don't.

In fact, most people seem to have their morality and logic inverted: all anyone should have is a "civil union." It is up to one's church and one's social circle to determine if and when these unions constitute a "marriage."

Via Insty, whom I suddenly realize I disagree with. Eric claims to have found Reynolds' original assertion about gays 'n' guns, but Glenn has reiterated the gist of it countless times. Insty:

It's often struck me that opposition to gay rights, and opposition to gun ownership, have a lot in common. Most people opposed to each are concerned as much with symbolism as with practical effects (you often hear comments prefaced with "I don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to do that") and it seems more an aspect of culture war than anything else.

Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.

I'd say "happily unioned," which is all any of us should be demanding of the State. The rest is just Humpty Dumpty-ism—an endless, unwinnable series of arguments about which words mean what, and to whom, and why.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Well, wouldn't it? And if not, why not?

If you are with the person you love, and you enjoy the appropriate legal protections, what is it to you how others label it? I mean, it's annoying that they assign a different nomenclature, but surely that isn't something that a nice trip to the firing range won't fix, is it? Put some lead in the air; you'll feel much better afterward.

Goldstein:

"Welcome to Hotel Orwell."

The "From 52 to 48 with Love" Site

Uniting Americans.

I think I'm down with this.

Treacher is, however, a bit skeptical:

There's nothing easier than telling the guy you just beat that he should forget the depths you plumbed to do so.

And I forgot to mention the whole deal with, y'know, the last 8 years of lefty rage? It's just become such a part of the scenery, you almost forget sometimes. Plus Obama's voter fraud and credit-card fraud and constant lies about his past and false accusations of racism and the fact that he's already making far-left appointments and he wants to shut down talk radio because he can't handle criticism and all that other silly stuff we all need to get past now because we're going to need to work extra hard to pay for our own oppression. Whoops, there I go again!

Well, yeah: I understand that some of the graciousness-in-victory we are seeing is specifically calculated to keep us from turning on them in the same numbers, and in the same ugly ways, that they have been turning on us. I understand that the idea is to keep Obama Derangement System safe, legal, and rare—rather than let it become the status symbol that a good case of Bush Derangement Syndrome was for most of the past decade.

But the more we can talk across the various ideological fracture lines, the better. If we follow up these cute notes with healthy, respectful debate, we may—each of us—become less ideologically provincial.

Which would be a damned fine thing, in the long run.

We may need a "From 48 to 52 with Cautious Optimism," site, however, so we can ask simple questions like "you aren't going to take our guns away, are you?"

Or: "You're not really going to help Obama find a way around Posse Comitatus, are ya, Bro? 'Cause that's cold, Man."

UPDATE: Slublog— "Thanks, but no thanks."

UPDATE 2: Treacher found the best one, and preserved it for posterity.

Althouse and Reynolds

. . . on the Obama Presidency, "why law professors rule," what it means to have our first black President, and why it's acceptable—even chic—in academia to be wildly left-wing, but not even slightly right-wing.

It's 50 minutes long; go get a fresh martini (or a strong cup of coffee) before you start this one.

I Don't Get It.

Why would people be buying guns right now?

Waxing Emotional:

Dr. Rice is, per Professor Althouse, "emotional" in this clip:

I guess that's emotional, for Condi. Personally, I think she's cutest when she's mad, but that's me. Backbone of steel, that one.

We all feel it. We all do. Even while folks like me, whose parents and grandparents were accused of things like "reading above their station." Sherri Shepherd of The View reminds us why this moment is a big fucking deal.

But after this year, as someone who does read above here station in life, I would sincerely like to remind the American electorate—particularly those of us who have two X chromosomes—that we must vote, to the degree possible, with our heads as much as with our hearts.

I was six years old when Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, but that death has loomed larger over my head than the death of either Kennedy brother.

So we celebrate. And we get to work.

Dr. Helen . . .

tackles the issue of "what is to be done":

I picked up a copy of Michael Barone's excellent book, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 to see what senators are up for re-election. Here is what I found:

Democrats up for re-election—

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)

Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)

Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND)

Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)

Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI)

Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)

Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)

Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)

Murray, Patty (D-WA)

Obama, Barack (D-IL) [and wouldn't it be nice to get a
Rethug into that one?]

Reid, Harry (D-NV)

Salazar, Ken (D-CO)

Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)

Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

Republicans up for re-election—

Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO)

Brownback, Sam (R-KS)

Bunning, Jim (R-KY)

Burr, Richard (R-NC)

Coburn, Tom (R-OK)

Crapo, Mike (R-ID)

DeMint, Jim (R-SC)

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)

Gregg, Judd (R-NH)

Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)

Martinez, Mel (R-FL)

McCain, John (R-AZ)

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)

Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)

Specter, Arlen (R-PA)

Thune, John (R-SD)

Vitter, David (R-LA)

Voinovich, George V. (R-OH)

I wonder if Arnold Schwarzenegger might run against Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat, or if Chris Dodd will survive his ties to the housing crisis? Perhaps if conservatives and libertarians work together to defeat a few Democrats and keep Republicans in place, 2010 will be a more welcoming place for us.

I do know that there are some angry people in Nevada who intend to cause some big problems for Harry Reid in two years. I'd love to see Dingy Harry go, and I do think he's vulnerable.

Boxer is, too. More than she thinks. And I think there are people out there who are getting pretty tired of Chuck Schumer's face.

Organize, organize, organize. The bluer your state is, the more frustrated you probably feel: channel that into action.

The biggest danger to democracy right now, as I see it, is the prospect of open ballots for union voting in the ironically named "Employee Free Choice Act." The Democrats will be trying to force this one through again, and if they manage it they will unleash the ugliest elements of union thuggery, nationwide. "That's the Chicago way."

The Barone guidebook Dr. Smith mentions is available here.

And in case you need to get in the mood, John Sayles's short story collection The Anarchists' Convention might help you get there. Maybe we do need more goddamned conventions!

(Dr. Helen link via Insty. In case you were wondering what it takes to get an Instalanche these days. . . )

Oh, Brother.

I'm getting a lot more search traffic than usual for "Sarah Palin gaffes."

Who are you? Democratic operatives who still see her as a threat, or maverick loyalists who want to pin this debacle on the bitch who breathed new life into your, um, rather low-key campaign?

Let it go, boys and girls. You're just making yourselves look a lot worse.

But here you go. It's one of her worst misstatements ever.

More Zo!

Some words from Macho-Sauce Man:

Via D.C. Thornton, who took care of me for a week while I toiled in the vineyards of Clark County, Nevada, attempting to undo some of the damage my fellow Californians seem to have accomplished in what is still, in many ways, the freest state of the Union.

If need be, the entire Free West may retreat into Utah and Arizona, but I don't think it'll have to: Nevada will go red again. It must.

Thornton says he isn't getting the "Keyes vibe": I kinda feel the same about Huckabee. I'm not a red-meat girl on illegal immigration, but a lot of my political allies are. My problem with Huckabee was his tax-and-spend leanings. I truly understand that there's a lot to be said for a politician who is also a musician—does anyone doubt the impact of Bill Clinton playing the sax, wearing dark sunglasses, on the Arsenio Hall show during the 1992 campaign?—but that is frosting on the charisma cake.

And from the libertarian (if not libertine) side of the party, I'd submit that Rudy Giuliani has every bit as much appeal as Huckabee does; he is a compelling speaker. But he is at the other end of the party—considered a RINO for quite different, largely complementary, reasons.

The trick is to find someone who has charisma—the "delivery system," as Zo puts it—but doesn't carry any baggage that is truly alienating to the base (open support for choice in Rudy's case; immigration and tax policy in Huckabee's).

We need someone who is popular without being a populist, and it turns out to be a taller order than we thought.

I think we do need fresh blood: Palin is a good start, and we know Louisiana is going to lose Jindal sooner or later, for the good of the country (preferably after fixing the systemic problems in Louisiana). But there are a lot of bright people out there, and we need to cultivate their talent, while studying the things Axelrod did right, and continuing to garner wisdom from the old hands on our side, such as Rove and Gingrich; those guys have been through the political wars, and we need to listen to them as we recruit new talent.

In California, the task is drastically different: our party is very bifurcated here, and we need to continue to find people like Schwarzenegger and Riordan who can bridge the divide between the Christians in the Central Valley and San Diego and the Log Cabin folks in West Hollywood, who are "out" in their sexual orientations—but not in their politics.

We might start by getting Tammy Bruce to admit that the letter after her name looks a lot less like a "D" these days, and more like an "R." And by reminding the party's right wing that Goldwater didn't disown his gay son—any more than Cheney disowned his gay daughter. Any more than Catholic voters turned on Reagan because of his divorce, or evangelicals abandoned him for not attending church on a regular basis.

How do we keep the tent big without watering down our message? We do it by focusing on three key issues: security/defense/foreign policy, economics, and civil liberties such as speech rights, privacy, and gun rights (and the seemingly irrelevant right to smoke and eat foods that contain sugar and trans-fats: once we concede to the state that it can monitor our health, we have declared what we are, and are simply haggling over the price).

"Stay safe, and shoot straight."

On the Other Hand,

Iowahawk manages to punctuate our national celebration over racial trancendance with . . . well, a tart word or two:

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.

Read the whole thing; he's over his hangover, and on a roll.

Rove:

It was timing, luck, and organizational prowess that pushed Obama over the edge with a six-point margin:

It is a tribute to his skills that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, won in a country that remains center-right. Most pre-election polls and the wiggly exits indicate America remains ideologically stable, with 34% of voters saying they are conservative—unchanged from 2004. Moderates went to 44% from 45% of the electorate, while liberals went to 22% from 21%.

Mr. Obama understood this. He downplayed calls for retreat from Iraq, instead emphasizing toughness on Afghanistan, even threatening an ally, Pakistan, if it didn't help more to exterminate al Qaeda. Mr. Obama campaigned on "a tax cut for 95% of Americans," while attacking "government-run health care" as "extreme" and his opponent's proposals as hidden tax increases.

What Mr. Obama and his team achieved was impressive. But in 75 days comes the hard part. We saw a glimpse of the challenge Tuesday night. The president-elect's speech, while graceful and at times uplifting, was light when it comes to an agenda. That may have been appropriate, but it also continued a pattern.

Many Americans were drawn to Mr. Obama because they saw in him what they wanted to see. He became a large vessel into which voters placed their hopes. This can lead to disappointment and regret. What of the woman who, in the closing days of the campaign, rejoiced that Mr. Obama would pay for her gas and take care of her mortgage, tasks that no president can shoulder?

The country voted for change Tuesday. But the precise direction of that change remains unclear. Mr. Obama's victory was personal rather than philosophical. The soaring hopes and vague incantations of "change" that have characterized the last 21 months were the poetry phase; a prosaic phase is about to begin.

So we keep our hands clean, and avoid stooping to some of the lows we saw in those who opposed Bush and demonized McCain. And we organize.

Rove is right: in just a few years, there are likely going to be some very disappointed people out there who will be ready to join the "loyal opposition"—or, if Obama takes things too far Chicago—the resistance.

Alice Walker . . .

displays her ignorance of:

• the fact that human beings are omnivorous mammals, and it is in our nature to kill;

• the fact that the Commandment about killing that is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic refers to murder—not mere homicide;

• the fact that children are not as stupid as she imagines;

• what white people think. (Blacks are "killers"? You've got to be kidding. There are vicious people in every demographic, but black men and women of every race are pretty underrepresented among mass murderers; in each case, one has to resort to dictators to create any real balance-of-evil for murder. Serial killers in the West are white men, almost without exception. The history in this country is of black people as victims of white violence. In the past few decades there has been some of the reverse, but that is dwarfed by black-on-black crime.)

• Islamo-fascists glorify not just murder, but suicide, and teach their children from birth that these are both wonderful things, as long as Westerners and Jews are dying along with you, and in greater numbers.

I dunno, Walker: why not suggest that Obama really dumb down the English language in expressing what needs to happen to Bin Ladin? Why not have him use pig Latin? "I will hunt down Bin Ladin, and ill-kay him."

Via Memeorandum.

Infiltrating the Democratic Party.

Purple Avenger's got it all scienced out.

Me? I plan on infiltrating the Republicans, and keeping them away from religious extremism and strange, paranoid theories about Obama.

"Traffic Report?" He Answers.

"I'm approaching Victorville, and all is well. I thought I'd call earlier than I said, so you could crash soon."

"Thanks; I'll see you in the morning, Dear."

"I'll probably be in around 11:00; I'm taking it easy, here. No rush. I'm just listening to music and sipping my McDonald's coffee."

"Good; just drive safe."

I creep into the condo very close to 11:00, kiss him on the cheek, and whisper very softly, my voice overpowered by the sound of his sleep machine. "Don't ever leave me like that again, okay?"

He shifts slightly in his bed, which to me suggests a feeling of culpability—a consciousness of guilt.

"Traipsing across the desert like that for eight days on some quixotic mission to get some old white-haired Senator elected President? For heaven's sake . . . what were you thinking?" I continue, softly.

He denies none of it—damning evidence that he realized from the beginning that it might turn into a huge waste of time.

Hey: everyone is a revisionist historian in his/her interpersonal relationships. I just like to start early.

Missed Iowahawk's Election-Night Coverage?

I think Tim Blair was still in town—but that's no excuse. It's a crazy salad, but I'd scroll down to the point where Burge starts exit-polling the contents of his liquor cabinet.

Even if I'd been home, I wouldn't have thought to do that.

And once I find my headphones, or it isn't late at night, I'll go back to check out his son's guitar video—both of his kids are as talented musically as he is at . . . cars, satire, drinking, and just kind of chilling-without-being-a-douchbag. You know: just Iowahawking. That's what he does, and he does it like no other.

Uh-Oh.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

h/t: Write Enough.

As I Get Ready for the Policy Fights,

and for the struggle to re-build a Small Government coalition; re-work campaign-finance guidelines, and buttress the security/integrity of our polling procedures, I must pause and say that a part of me is gleeful that the "racial barrier" has been broken WRT the Presidency.

This wasn't quite what I had in mind, of course: I wanted someone who looks and sounds like Morgan Freeman, and thinks like Thomas Sowell. I'm sure most of you recall that I tried hard to draft Condi Rice, before she made it utterly clear that she had zero interest in the job (and before A the H and I began arguing whether it was she, or G.W. Bush, who was more responsible for the flaws in our foreign policy lately).

Yeah: Larry Elder, "the Sage from South Central," had to spell it out for me—"no Condi, get used to it"—when I interviewed him two years ago at the Liberty Film Festival. Elder was right. And I know we'd need a crowbar to pry Sowell out of academia, where his approach to economics and his passion for scholarship are desperately needed.

But on a certain level it's still cool to have a black President. Can we have V.F. Blanchard next time? Or, perhaps, the first choice of Desert Cat's wife, Alfonzo "Zo" Rachel of Macho Sauce Productions?

"What Is To Be Done?"

Reynolds has a poll up on how you plan to react to the Obama election, so go vote someplace where you can still have an impact!

His options for "How do you plan to respond to the Obama-Biden victory?"

• [1] With celebration of hope and change!
• [2] With dignity and a determination to be the loyal opposition.
• [3] With Kos-style wild opposition.
• [4] With political organizing and an effort to support and identify better candidates.
• [5] I plan to drink heavily.

So far, 2 and 5 are the most popular approaches, with 4 coming in close behind. I plan to combine 2 and 4.

What I will not do is say "he's not my President." Because he is. This is democracy, and it means we don't always get our own way.

As a practical matter, the man will govern in accordance with his beliefs, and be voted out after four years like Carter was—or he will attenuate those beliefs enough to pose as a centrist, and have a chance at a second term. We'll see.

See? The Economy Is Getting Better Already!

After all, several libertarians/conservatives I know are now in the position of having to pay off some wagers to their pessimistic/Democratic colleagues and friends.

My host, for instance, is taking a co-worker out to lunch today. Lobster.

And I now owe "Steve of Huntington Beach" a meal. Steak, which seemed like a good idea when I was sure my guy would win.

We Are Still Americans

One by Blue Star Beth, thanks John McCain, and Zoey points out that are heads may be bloody, but are still unbowed.

I will support my new President 100%. I will fight, however:

• any gutting of our defenses;
• any risky maneuvers in the Middle East;
• any show of weakness toward Russia;
• most of the new taxes;
• any additional limitations on the Second Amendment;
• any moves toward a "single-payer" healthcare system.

• And if a new paramilitary organization is developed that allows Federal military personnel to go into a state for the purposes of policing that state—in a workaround of / subversion of posse comitatus—I will fight it tooth and nail.

• And if the "Fairness Doctrine" is enacted WRT radio, but not television, I will scream bloody murder; my voice will be heard, one way or the other, because the solution to bad speech is more speech.

Global Warming: Carrots vs. Sticks?

Newt has some thoughts.

I'm Still a Woman with a Mission.

Or two. Or three.

Before I leave the Las Vegas area, I need to:

1) get up early enough to say "goodbye" to my amazing and wonderful blogger-host out here, and

2) play that extra $5 Sejanus sent me, earmarked for what is now referred to as "gaming."

3) Arrive in L.A. before my husband (another lark) goes to bed, if possible.

I am Not Depressed.

Just in a Matthew Arnold-ey sort of mood:

Ah, love, let us be true To one another! for the world, which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

And then, of course, there's Anthony Hecht:

. . . [A]ll the time he was talking she had in mind The notion of what his whiskers would feel like On the back of her neck. She told me later on That after a while she got to looking out At the lights across the channel, and really felt sad, Thinking of all the wine and enormous beds And blandishments in French and the perfumes. And then she got really angry. To have been brought All the way down from London, and then be addressed As a sort of mournful cosmic last resort Is really tough on a girl, and she was pretty.

If you ever wanted to read "Dover Beach" and "Dover Bitch" back-to-back, here's your chance.

One Feels That There Might Be a Potential Contradiction Between the Imagery and the Chorus.

And it wasn't long after this that Jerry left us. But let it pass.

Why Do Black Folks

. . . sometimes end up with the worst damn jobs?

Okay. Heading "Home."

But I am, indeed, going to wear the Mardi Gras-style beads that decorated the table here in the casino's sport-book bar.

Because we fought the good fight.

(At least, most of us did; my jury's still out on certain elements within the party, but I will leave that analysis for another day.)

I'm Here at the, um, "Victory Party."

McCain just conceded.

I'm going to finish my martini, eat my quesadillas, and go back to Gentleman Blogger's home. (Yeah: today I've had a doughnut to eat, plus whatever protein and vitamins were in my fruit smoothie.)

I'm glad I listened to Glenn Beck for a while this afternoon: he pointed out that if things didn't go "our way," we needed to go back—tomorrow—to remembering that this is a Democracy, and "the people have spoken."

No biggie, I guess: we just got Beta'd.

Now This Is a Poser.

Dolly Parton/Broadway vs. Silicon Valley/Google.

Hm.

Via Insty.

Obama Supporter Discovers

. . . that theft is still illegal in this country. At least, it is until January . . .

Release the Tape!

The Los Angeles Times should be ashamed.

"Top Five Reasons Obama Lost This Election."

HillBuzz lays it out.

Election Predictions

Ed Morrissey is "cautiously optimistic":

I think John McCain will win a squeaker over Barack Obama, 273-265, by holding Florida [and] Nevada, and adding Pennsylvania as a trade for Virginia.

I pretty much agree with his map.

In a shocking development, AllahP is . . . less starry-eyed.

Stacy McCain reminds Obama supporters that voting day for progressive Democrats is actually going to be on Wednesday, due to the new system that will help them accommodate the increased turnout in this cycle.

Also, I'd like to remind you that tomorrow is Media Embargo Day, since the exit-poll data will be even more out-of-whack than it is now. It is especially imperative that you observe Media Embargo Day if you live in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones.

The rally at Henderson today drew, they told us, 11,000 McCain supporters. I cannot believe this man's schedule today: seven stops in one day, from Florida to Arizona.

He's Not Fickle.

He's flexible.

By Mary Katherine Ham, via Hot Air.

Actually, It's the People Who Are Foaming at the Mouth Over Gay Marriage Who are Threatening Heterosexual Marriages.

At least, my own: A the H and I nearly had to "step outside" over California's Proposition 8.

Patterico, however, is on my side. I wonder if his wife agrees with him.

And the proprietress of the now-dormant CalBlog is at odds with her own husband over the same issue. Of course, as attorneys they are used to discussing such matter in a dispassionate way.

My own equivalent household debate was not, really, my finest hour.

On the other hand, my husband didn't have play dirty pool by saying, "you really are very kind-hearted" during our discussion.

"I Was Going to Vote for McCain . . .

until you people started calling me too many times. Now that I'm hearing from you at 10:00 on a Sunday night, I'm not voting for him any more!"

Please select the rest of this dialogue from the following:

1) "Actually, Dickweed, it's 8:50. And if you aren't smart enough to set your fucking clock forward, how the fuck do you expect to make it to the polls on Tuesday?"

2) "Wow. That has got to be the most reasonable, compelling argument for selecting a Presidential candidate I've ever heard. Wait a moment; I need to write this down."

3) "Oh, I'm so sorry that due to a combination of computer glitches and possibly misguided enthusiasm by people who actually give a shit about the future of this country, you've gotten more phone calls than you care for. Do you need me to verbally suck your dick before you're capable of doing the right thing?"

4) He hung up rather promptly, putting an end to the call and once again delivering me into temptation: when someone hangs up or is terribly rude, I just ache to program the system to ensure that we will, indeed, call them again. I mean, it stands to reason that if a conversation ends that abruptly, that the line just somehow got disconnected. And if the line got disconnected, that's just like they never answered in the first place. So they should get another call, right?

I was delivering this rationale to one of the volunteer college students, who I had thought would get that it was tongue-in-cheek, when one of the supervisors—a tall, intimidating PUMA—cut in and corrected me. "No," she told us, in no uncertain terms. "That counts as a "refusal to talk," and gets them off the list so they won't waste our time any more."

I looked up at her, smiled and said, "but I'll bet you can understand the temptation!"

No smile in return; after all, I was preparing to lead nice young people down the rosy path to the everlasting bonfire. And there's no getting around that.

Morrissey . . .

has entirely too much fun dissecting a CBS poll.

For your information, Mr. Smarty Pants, they didn't just sample voters to get this result; they also relied on statistical magic fairy dust, which has terrific predictive value.

Indoctrinate U

From Evan Coyne Maloney to Jeff Goldstein.

Am I mistaken, or was there a time when universities promoted . . . actual thought?

Mrs. Palin Dropped by the Office Again Today, with Her Husband.

Not Governor Palin, silly; Mrs. Palin.

Apparently, Sarah's parents were also around, but I think they were in our "annex" or somewhere, keeping up morale among the reinforcements that have recently arrived from Utah, Idaho, and California.

I sort of winked at Todd's mom and dad as I went to the phone bank, having cleverly placed my snack in front of a phone. Someone tried to take my phone away while I was off scoring a script and some call sheets, but I scuttled back and announced in the petulant tone of a seven-year-old that this particular space was mine.

"I spit on it," I told the would-be purloiner-of-call-center space.

Later on, Todd's mom gave me a hug. "I saw you fighting for a spot at the phones," she told me.

"You guys are sweet," I responded. "And someday Todd is going to be First Dude in a different place, under a different set of circumstances."

Several days ago, when I showed up wearing no makeup, threw my hair back in an elastic band, and forgot that when I smile too broadly I show off the crowns in the back of my mouth. I could have gotten a better picture tonight, but one gets exhausted after a while.

Household Hints Shooting Tips from Joy:

1) Move to Nevada—preferably just outside Clark County, which has the virtue of a "shall issue" approach to carry permits, but the vice of handgun registration. (Why does the state want to know how many sidearms I have? What if I need several, because it takes me a while to get around to cleaning one after I've shot it? Or because it's important to me that my "defensive device" match my outfit? Do they make me register every scarf I own? No—they do not.)

2) Do not wear your MBT sandals for shooting. Just because you can adapt and drive in the "rocking shoes" does not mean that they will provide the optimal shooting platform.

And remember those times you went to the indoor range wearing high heels, so you could make sure you were able to defend yourself in business attire? The same philosophy does not extend to a long-stocked 12-gauge over/under, a .454 Casull, an Uzi, or a .50-caliber anti-vehicle rifle.

3) When the stock is too long on the 12-gauge, resist the temptation to forego placing it snugly against your shoulder, putting the stock slightly behind your underarm, unless you want that increased accuracy on a single shell at the cost of cutting your thumb. (And not in that spot in the web of your hand where you still sport very faint "gun nut" callouses.)

4) Before inviting yourself and your spouse to live in your new friends' future desert compound in Utah or wherever (in exchange for helping them to build a road to the property in question), remember to call your husband and check in with him first. Husbands prefer to know about this before you've sealed the deal and started drawing up plans for how far apart the different households' structures will be, how the solar panels will be set up, where the well will be dug, how the defensive perimeter be maintained, and what the patrol rotation will consist of within the various households in the village.

5) Next time, tell your brothers/sisters and arms that, yes—they should go ahead and bring the explosives. It is, after all, the only way to be sure.

6) Shorts are never ideal when you plan on lying prone in the dust to shoot a .50 with a tripod, and never mind that you forgot your jeans on this trip.

Arnold in Ohio.

Stole this from Ace; it's the vid from Schwarzenegger's speech yesterday, to which I already alluded:

Rick Davis Sent Me a Love Note.

After the usual terms of endearment, his confession that I'm his very favorite "nobody" manning the phones "out in the wilds of the desert," he shared the following information with me, under the condition that I keep it in strictest confidence, and not blab it:

The State of the Campaign

If your television is tuned to cable news as frequently as ours are here at campaign headquarters, you have seen the pundits say John McCain and his campaign are done. And, if you've followed this race since the beginning, this is clearly a song you've heard before. I wanted to take some time today to give you some insight on the state of the race as we see it.

An AP poll released this morning revealed a very telling fact: ONE out of every SEVEN voters is undecided. That means, if 130 million voters turn out on Tuesday, 18.5 million of them have yet to make up their mind. With that many votes on the table and the tremendous movement we've seen in this race, I believe we are in a very competitive campaign.

Here's why:

All the major polls have shown a tightening in the race and a significant narrowing of the numbers. In John McCain's typical pattern, he is closing strong and surprising the pundits. We believe this race is winnable, and if the trajectory continues, we will surpass the 270 Electoral votes needed on Election Night.
National Polls: Major polls last week showed John McCain trailing by double-digit margins - but by the middle of this week, we were within the margin of error on four national tracking surveys. In fact, the Gallup national tracking survey showed the race in a virtual tie 2 days this week.

State Polls:

Iowa— Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race. That is why you see Barack Obama visiting the state in the final days, trying to stem his losses. It is too little, too late. Like many other Midwestern states, Iowa is moving swiftly into McCain's column.

The Southwest—It is no secret that Republican candidates in the Southwest have to focus on winning over enough Latino and Hispanic voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to carry them to victory. John McCain has overcome challenges Republicans face, and has made up tremendous ground in these states with these voters. For these voters, the choice has become clear, and you have seen a big change in the numbers. John McCain is now winning enough voters to perform within the margin of error—putting these states within reach.

Colorado—Barack Obama tried to outspend our campaign in Colorado during the early weeks of October and finish off our candidate in Colorado. However, after our visit early this week, we saw a tremendous rebound in our poll position, and Colorado is back on the map.

Ohio and Pennsylvania—Everyone knows that vote-rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been campaigning non-stop in these key battleground states and tonight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pumped up our campaign at a rally in Columbus. Our position in these states is strong and undecided voters continue to have a very favorable impression of our candidate.

Obama campaign faces tremendous structural challenges
In the final days of this campaign

Obama has a challenge hitting 50%: Barack Obama has not reached the 50% threshold in almost any battleground state. He consistently is performing in the 45-48% range. When we look closely at the primary votes, we see a history of a candidate whose Election Day performance is often at or behind his final polling numbers. If this is true, our surge will leave Obama with even or under 50% of the vote on Election Day.

Early Vote—The Obama campaign has promised that their early vote and absentee efforts will change the composition of the electorate. They have sold the press on a story that first-time voters will turn out in droves this election cycle. Again, the facts undermine their argument. In our analysis of early voting and absentee votes to date: The composition of the electorate has not changed significantly and most folks who have voted early are high-propensity voters who would have voted regardless of the high interest in this campaign.

Expanding the Field—Obama is running out of states if you follow a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order, and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.

The Final Barnstorm

On Monday, we will have a 14-state rally, with our candidates crisscrossing the country trying to turn out our voters and sway the final undecided voters. Governor Palin will hit Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Alaska in the final day of campaigning, while Senator McCain will travel from Tampa, Florida, to Virginia, then Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, and Nevada, finishing the night in Prescott, Arizona. The enthusiasm and excitement we generate on Monday will be the electricity that powers our "Get Out the Vote" efforts on Tuesday.

On the Ground

Our field organization has tremendous energy and is out-performing the Bush campaign at the same time in 2004. This week our field organization crossed a huge threshold and began reaching more than one million voters per day, and by week's end will have contacted more than five million voters. Our phone centers are full, and our rate of voter contact is significantly out-pacing the Bush campaign in 2004. We have the resources to do the voter contact necessary to support the surge we are seeing in our polling with old-fashioned grassroots outreach.

On the Airwaves

In the final days of the campaign, our television presence will be bigger and broader than the Obama campaign's presence. The full Republican effort—the RNC's Independent Expenditure and the McCain campaign—will out-buy Barack Obama and the Democrats by just about ten million dollars.

In short: the McCain campaign is surging in the final 72 hours. Our grassroots campaign is vibrant, and communicating to voters in a very powerful way. Our television presence is strong. And, we have a secret ingredient: A candidate who will never quit, and who will never stop fighting for you and for your families.

In these final hours, Senator McCain and Governor Palin are counting on you —they are counting on you to knock on doors, to make turnout calls, to contact your friends and neighbors. Get our voters to the polls, and help John McCain fight for you and for our country. This is our last mission on behalf of John McCain, and I have no doubt I can count on your effort and energy to carry us across the line to victory.

"Thirty Reasons To Vote for John McCain."

By John Hawkins, who has finally come around.