brainiac conspiracy

Decision 2008: Meaningless Candidate Trivia Edition

The Baron normally doesn't waste much time on political fluff pieces like this example from today's LA Times, but it got me to thinking: Well, why not? Perhaps we can make some qualitative judgments about these candidates based on their tastes in the arts, music, film, pop culture and the like. Maybe it's the old Liberal Arts major in me coming out again, I dunno. But I wonder sometimes if it's just as easy to judge a candidate's character based on the types of books he reads, or the music he listens to, as it is by trying to decipher his policy positions. So, without further ado, let's dig in. For the sake of fun, we'll score a winner in each category, and we'll disqualify a candidate in each category based on either cultural irrelevance, egregiously bad taste, or excessive pandering, until we narrow down the field to one Democrat and one Republican---our 2008 Dream Team. Here we go:

MUSIC. Candidate Theme Songs:

Mitt: Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation"
Obama: John Mayer's "Waiting on the World to Change",
Ben Harper's "Better Way"
Huck: Anything by the Rolling Stones
Clinton: Celine Dion's "You and I"
McCain: "Gonna Fly Now (Theme From Rocky)", Abba's "Take a Chance on Me" and "Johnny B. Goode" by Chuck Berry
Paul: None chosen.

Trenchant Analysis: Mitt and McCain are both hopeless squares (though Freudians will have a field day with Mitt's title of choice), Obama is cutting-edge hip (at least in this group), Huck's a regular guy, Hillary is a Muzak junkie, and Paul of course wants to do away with music altogether since there's nothing in the Constitution about it.

Loser? McCain makes a strong case for expulsion, but if I absolutely had to banish any one of these musical acts to Pluto . . . sorry, Hillary, you've been voted off the Bellagio.

Winner: Obama gets points for actually listening to contemporary music, but for sheer timelessness, it's Huck by a country mile. One wonders, however, how this mighty man of God can get through Stones tunes like "Some Girls" and "Star Star" without having a crisis of conscience. Sympathy for the . . . What?!?!?

TELEVISION. Favorite Shows:

Mitt: Lost
Obama: HBO's The Wire and ESPN Sportscenter
Huck: The Colbert Report, The Sopranos
McCain: Prison Break
Paul: None chosen.

Trenchant Analysis: Obama and Huck sure know their way around a cable remote, McCain enjoys reliving his youth vicariously through TV, and Mitt yet again provides ample fodder for armchair shrinks. Paul . . . well, y'know, it's the Constitution and all that.

Loser: Prison Break is his favorite show? What, it's occupying the same slot as To Catch a Predator? See you later, John.

Winner: Ron Paul. Who has time to watch TV when you're trying to save the Constitution, anyway?

CULTURE WARS. The Entertainment Industry:

Mitt: "I'm deeply troubled about the culture that surrounds our kids today. Following the Columbine shootings, Peggy Noonan described our world as 'the ocean in which our children now swim.' She described a cesspool of violence, and sex, and drugs, and indolence, and perversions. She said that the boys who did the shooting had 'inhaled too deeply in the oceans in which they swam.' I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies."
Obama: "I would call upon the video game industry to give parents better information about programs and video games by improving the voluntary rating system we currently have. Broadcasters and video game producers should take it upon themselves to improve this system to include easier to find and easier to understand descriptions of exactly what kind of content is included. But if the industry fails to act, then my administration would."
Huck:"I support the writers, by the way. Unequivocally, absolutely. They're dead right on this one. And they ought to get royalties off the residuals and the long-term contracts."
Paul:"[I trust] some of [the media.] But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet."

Trenchant analysis: Almost everyone is out of character here. Based on their respective backgrounds, one would expect Romney's reply to have emanated from Huckabee, Huck's from Obama, and Obama's from Romney. Ron Paul would appear to be more well-adjusted than a lot of his policy positions suggest.

Loser? For sheerly gratuitous pandering, there is no topping Mitt here, and as a lovely parting gift, may we proudly present you with a copy of Halo 3 on your way out the door.

Winner: Paul again. The only one here who sounds even remotely sincere.

STAR POWER. Celebrity Entourages:

Obama:Oprah Winfrey, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Ben Harper, Toni Morrison, Gov. Janet Napolitano (Arizona), Sen. Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Hulk Hogan.
Huck: Chuck Norris.
Paul: WWE wrestler Kane, ex-Baywatch babe Donna D'Errico, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast member Emma Caulfield.

Trenchant Analysis: GOP political endorsements defy rational analysis.

Loser: Tough call to make, but there's strength in numbers, not to mention the support of Baywatch babes. See ya, Huck.

Winner: You don't need to ask, now, do you?

So there you have it: It's Obama vs. Paul in the general election. See how easy that was? Who needs Chris Matthews after all?

---Vitelius

Hey, Big Spender . . .

Well, the Baron's not gonna be able to use this thumbnail very often anymore, so why not trot it out once more? I mean, it's no fun kicking a dog unless he's really, really down, eh?

But here's another twist on Rudydämmerung that lots of media folk have missed: Namely, the inverse economies of scale that historians will no doubt pore over in the future when assessing the fiscal impact of Rudyism. Check out these dollar amounts:

The now-defunct presidential campaign of Rudy Giuliani just filed its year-end financial report, revealing a robust fundraising operation in the final months of 2007. The former New York mayor raised $14.4 million in the fourth quarter and $61.6 million for the year with $12.8 million cash on hand going into 2008.

That's a phenomenal amount of money. And how many votes did his $61 million buy him? Here are the numbers:

Florida: 281,781
Iowa: 4,097
Michigan: 24,706
Nevada: 1,910
New Hampshire: 20,395
South Carolina: 9,494

For those keeping score, that works out to a total of 342,383 votes. Divide $61.6 million by total votes, and you'll realize the Giuliani campaign spent a whopping $179.81---roughly the cost of an iPod---per vote. And if we subtract Florida as a case of "too little, too late," then, well, the numbers really get ugly.

Just for comparative purposes, President Bush got just over 62 million votes in the 2004 election. If he had spent at Rudyesque levels, he would have needed---are you ready?---the amount of $11,162,043,200. That's right, $11 billion. And this assumes no Secret Service overtime billing for walking Judy Nathan's dogs.

Message to the Cali state GOP: If you guys need some extra votes come November, be sure to give the Baron and his friends a call. Or just send me an iPod instead. At least now we know the going rate for keeping us free from Islamofascist Terror™.

---Vitelius

The 12 Labors of Hercules, or Making Small Beautiful

Dan Neil writes about cars for the Los Angeles Times. Most of you have probably never heard of him, but you should. Besides being one of the Times' most perceptive and engaging writers, he's also the only automotive scribe in the history of the cosmos who's ever won a Pulitzer Prize for his work. And a blog entry he posted this week provides ample evidence why. Tackling the overlapping issues of energy independence, gas vs. ethanol, diesel vs. hybrids, hydrogen vs. Halliburton, and all the other talking points in the 21st Century Fuel Efficiency Wars, he gets to the crux of the matter in a single paragraph:

Here is one of the great unspoken truths about the drive for a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet. It will be utterly impossible to achieve energy security or to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions unless we are able to lower the average vehicle weight. It doesn't matter if you're advocating grid-charged electrics, plug-in hybrids, ethanol, or fuel cells powered by a glowing hair from Apollo's beard. None of these technologies works as well as making vehicles smaller and lighter.

And you know what? He's absolutely right. Dan's writing specifically here about the Nissan Cube, a boxy and bantamweight compact that's been on sale in Japan for years and which is slated to make its debut Stateside next year. (Disclaimer: The Baron got a chance to test one of these Cubist contraptions a few years ago, and it was a blast to drive and plenty big inside. And she makes 35 mpg on plain ol' pump gas to boot.) The greater issue Dan raises, of course, has to do with the tastes and choices of the American buying public. As long as we continue to favor Big & Stupid for the sake of Pure Bigness, the issues of fuel-efficiency and energy independence will remained largely unresolved, no matter what kinds of technological breakthroughs the auto industry comes up with in the future (and rest assured, there will be some biggies). Just some food for thought.

--Vitelius

Lessons from the Past Week

The Brainiac blog has been a little light on presidential political stuff of late---and I'll admit to having suffered a bit of primary election fatigue in recent days. But three weeks post-New Hampshire, there are a few things I guess we've learned that maybe we didn't know before:

Hillary Clinton's biggest victories have come in states she didn't campaign in. Does this make her the Dem equivalent of Rudy Giuliani? Not hardly, but then again, she's been dropping national poll ratings to Obama by a point a day for ten straight days now, and it's looking more and more like a probable dead heat between the two by the time Supah Tuesday rolls around next week.

"Poverty" doesn't make for a winning campaign issue, though not the reasons you've been led to believe. The Edwards camp packed it in today after "failing" to "reach the voters" with his message of Two Americas and of the moral imperative of Ending Poverty and so on and so forth and scooby dooby doo. Now, I really do like Edwards, and I think he served the Democratic party well by keeping the issues of unemployment and income inequality on the front burner---and if presidential campaigns were decided by the degrees of graciousness and moral turpitude exerted by the candidates, he wins hands-down. Unfortunately, presidential campaigns are a lot like professional wrestling---lots of pomp and spectacle, preening, posturing, and heavily scripted battles with plenty of eye-gouging thrown in---and sometimes, well, just being a good and moral man isn't good enough.

One thing that certainly hurt Edwards was his own personal vow of campaign poverty----that is, his decision to accept federal matching funds and the spending limits they mandate, which surely hurt his ability to keep apace of Hillary and Obama as they amassed millions in campaign cash, from which they assembled sophisticated national organizations and orchestrated huge media buys. And also, unfortunately, Edwards was hurt by fair and balanced political analysis such as this:

Edwards announced his candidacy in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, redoubling up on his pledge to fight corruption in Washington on behalf of the neglected and needy. But he was plagued by a series of missteps that damaged his image as a crusader for the poor. First came a spate of stories when Edwards built a $6 million home on 100 acres outside Chapel Hill in 2005. Then came an embarrassing disclosure that he paid $400 for his carefully coifed haircut. Finally, it turned out working with non-profits wasn't the only thing Edwards, a former trial lawyer whose estimated personal worth is as much as $30 million, did after the 2004 elections; he also worked for a New York hedge fund, earning an undisclosed sum. When asked about a possible contradiction between his words and actions, Edwards gave the unconvincing reply that he wanted to learn about the economy: "I do think it's important for the President of the United States to have a good understanding of our financial markets, how they operate, where the incentives are, where the incentives aren't." (Emphases added.)

In a court of law, we'd call reportage like this "leading the witness," no?

On the other hand, while the issue of poverty per se may not occupy a high priority among voters this year----and certainly there is polling data to confirm this, which obviously made Edwards' decision to hang his political fortunes on the issue even riskier---there is likely another reason why the issue of Poverty in America doesn't resonate among Democratic voters (and all voters, for that matter) in quite the way it has in the past, as Madison Powers' brilliantly argued essay here reminds us:

The rhetoric of the 1992 Clinton campaign reveals just how consequential the Democratic Party's shift in political emphasis and rhetoric was to become. They discovered the voting bloc made up of those "who work hard and play by the rules." The new "third way" Democrats struggled to win back the so-called Reagan Democrats. These Reagan defectors had complained that the interests of the poor had displaced concern for middle-income voters, but the very language chosen to frame the party's renewed commitments to the middle class had profound and lasting implications for the anti-poverty movement.

In effect, the change in language represented a wholesale capitulation to the Reaganites' favored explanation of poverty as primarily a consequence of morally culpable personal failings and a lack of personal responsibility among the poor. When Clinton emphasized the need to "end welfare as we know it," his clever slogan was meant to signal a greater moral and intellectual affinity to the personal responsibility explanation championed by the right, and, most importantly, the shift in rhetoric was unaccompanied by any real program for ending poverty as we know it.

The response to the fate of the Clinton health insurance plan is another example of how much the rhetorical landscape changed. When the political backlash to Clinton's plan for universal access to health insurance emerged, it came from the insured who feared loss of benefits such as choice of physician. The health care debate from that point forward was transformed. For most of the decade, the cause of universal health care gave way to the patients' rights movement aimed at preserving what the reasonably well-off segments of society already had.

The legacy of the Democrats' strategic political shift away from poverty as a focal concern shapes the options the Democrats have for going forward. To the extent that Democrats once again want to mount a serious anti-poverty agenda, they have to do battle hobbled by the intellectually truncated rhetoric bequeathed to them. Once again, the case must be made for the comparable importance of social structural explanations of poverty. As long as so many Americans are in the grip of the pernicious idea---validated by Democrats themselves---that it's largely the fault of the poor that they are poor, then no new consensus on the need to fight poverty can emerge.

Ahhhh, for the glory days of the 1990s . . .

The Baron may be many things, but a great political prognosticator, he definitely is . . . maybe. A few weeks ago, I picked the Huckster to ride a populist wave of New Evangelical resentment all the way to the GOP nomination in Minneapolis. Turns out my hunch may have been, uhhh, a bit premature. On the other hand, Huck figures to pick up a spoiler's chunk of delegates in the Southern primaries over the next few weeks, and hence could be a major factor at the convention this summer. While he's obviously not going to claim the top spot on the ticket, I am guessing that we haven't heard the end of him yet. He certainly makes an attractive running mate for a certain senator from Arizona who is considered some kind of tax-loving, wetback-hugging liberal by the troglodytes in his own party.

Memo to Bill: Shut the fuck up, and let your wife sink or swim on her own merits. Personally, I'm hoping it's the former.

---Vitelius

Urban Renewal and its Discontents

My my, what American city could this be? A bright shining boulevard gleaming with clean retail storefronts, bustling with pedestrians and scarcely any vehicle traffic? Well, it's no place I've ever seen in the States, but if the powers-that-be in the Baron's hometown have any say, this is La Broadway, circa 2018. Of course, there are complications at play here---namely, the thousands of thriving shops and small businesses that are already there, and their primarily Latino owners and patrons:

The city and private developers have earmarked nearly $40 million to begin the effort this year, hoping to pull the gentrification that has swept much of downtown into the district's main commercial area. They envision many of the movie facades giving way to a live "theater district" forming on the street, with a trolley car system running down its center.

But the revitalization is already creating something of a culture clash. While the downtown development boom has brought thousands of mostly white-collar professionals into lofts and luxury high-rises, Broadway has for decades been the premier shopping destination for working-class Latinos.

Along the rows of bridal shops, discount stores and shopping arcades, some Broadway merchants agree the street could use a face-lift but wonder if the city's plans include them.

Now, in L.A., this can be a very touchy subject. While most neighborhoods in the downtown area fell victim to neglect from the '60s through the '80s, Broadway and its environs was one of the only downtown neighborhoods that continued to teem with culture and street life---Little Tokyo arguably being the only other---in spite of the crime and blight that enveloped it. And yes, most of the street's former pleasure-palace movie theaters have been shuttered for years---or only re-open for tours or special screenings---and the old-line department stores and restaurants either relocated to the suburbs or went out of business long ago, but L.A. Broadway has always been a shopper's mecca, a transit hub, and a place to see and be seen. The big difference between then and now, of course, is that the shoppers' faces are nearly all brown and their native tongue Spanish. Stroll the street at virtually any hour of the day, and it's easy to imagine yourself in the middle of an older district in downtown Mexico City or Guadalajara.

And that's what makes this a touchy subject: Because the Latino community singlehandedly kept Broadway alive and booming for decades while the city largely ignored its downtown resources, any plan for renewal that shuts them out is not likely to go down easy with the locals. It wouldn't seem to help the prospects of our most visible Latino booster---Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa---terribly well either. But sadly, that seems likely to happen:

[Orpheum Theater owner Bruce] Needleman noted that Broadway needs to change to better serve the needs of the more than 20,000 new residents who have moved into downtown lofts and high-rise condos over the last five years. The number of new residents is expected to double as more buildings are completed.

"There are homeowners on this street now. You can't take that away," he said. "And they have demands here; they are living here all the time."

Sigh. Well, guess it's time to head downtown soon for an afternoon on La Broadway before it all ends up resembling a high-rise version of Old Town Pasadena (or San Francisco's Powell Street, or Soho's West Broadway), with the bridal shops and hair salons uprooted by sparkling new Z Galleries and J Crews. Hop off the Red Line at Pershing Square, stroll past Angel's Flight, take a spin through the lovely historic Bradbury Building (which surely won't be touched by gentrification), then hunker down at the magnificent Grand Central Market (think Whole Foods with no air conditioning, marginal sanitation, and rock-bottom prices, and you get the idea), where Ana Maria's still serves up the best tacos de lengua in town, and where Maria's Seafood whips up fresh-caught ceviche like almost no one else can. Nothing lasts forever in our City of Illusions---guess we middle-aged bohos will be hanging out in downtown Fillmore next decade.

--Vitelius

The Edmonds Narrative, the War Economy and National Security

The UK Times Online continues its investigation into the Sibel Edmonds case today with more revelations which, if true, would more or less confirm what many of us in the Tinfoil Regiment have suspected for years---that federal investigations into the War on Terror®, rogue WMDs, and nuclear arms proliferation have been actively thwarted and hopelessly compromised by members of our own government. Ever since the Plame Outing, one can't say that this is terribly startling news anymore, but it provides yet another reason why the hyper-militarized US economy I blogged about the other day is not only an unsustainable drain on our resources as a nation but which, as constituted, poses darker and more ominous threats to the republic's future safety.

Take the Saudis, for instance: It's pretty well established by now that high-level members of the Saudi royal family actively aided and abetted the 9/11 hijackers' operation inside the US during the months leading up to the attacks, and that our own government has gone out of its way to keep this info under wraps. Why? Well, besides the obvious "It's all about the oil" retort, could this little factoid have anything to do with it?

Since 1990 the U.S. government, through the Pentagon's arms export program, has aranged for the sale of $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales program . . . The list of US sellers includes almost all the major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

Exactly. And calling out bad actors with direct ties to terrorists, like Saudi Arabia
---and Turkey, and Pakistan, too---is bound to be bad for business. Not the oil business, mind you, but the military-industrial business which we continue to subsidize to a staggering degree with borrowed money.

Take some time to read Edmonds' essays because, in a nut, they illustrate the most sinister peril that the voracious feeding machine that is our Perpetual War Economy poses to the republic: with its revolving door of public-private partnerships---for-profit contractors, subcontractors, think tanks, and consultant firms who exist primarily to serve third-party clients whose own policy goals may not entirely beneficent---it inherently creates conflicts of interest which can not only compromise, but actively subvert, America's national security goals.

Either way, it is nothing short of criminal that the Edmonds narrative has been virtually blacked out by the US Mainstream Media. Why is this? Why are the Times, the Post and the Journal seemingly so loathe to delve into a narrative for which ample and growing documentation exists? What are we so afraid to discover?

---Vitelius

Perpetual War, The Money Factor, and Ron Paul

Shorter John McCain: To defeat terrorism and win in Iraq, we can never leave:

For us to do what Senator Clinton wants us to do---that is to wave the white flag---I can not guarantee United States security in the region or in the United States.

Shorter Iraqi government flack: Our sentiments exactly.

[Deputy Prime Minister Barham] Saleh suggested that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq indefinitely. "Our expectation is that we would need the Americans in a supporting role . . . for some time to come," he said. Iraq needs America as a guarantor of security to act against "regional predators," he said.

And all but confirmed today:

The U.S. will ask the Iraqi government for the right to conduct combat operations and detain prisoners and will seek legal protections for American troops in an agreement that defines a long-term relationship between the two countries, a U.S. defense official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said those provisions will top the list of U.S. demands in talks with Iraqi officials for an accord that will extend beyond the presidency of George W. Bush.

Well, as the TV commercial goes, How big is your wallet, America?

There's an outstanding essay from Chalmers Johnson online at TomDispatch that broaches a subject that's often too easily ignored by the Progressosphere---specifically, the economic impact of endless war, and of the hyper-militarization of the federal budget. And coming the day after Dear Leader and the Congress agreed to assume another $100 billion in debt so you and I can spend 800 bucks apiece to consume more (probably imported) goods next spring, and the focus of the populace is slowly diverted away from Iraq and towards the sins of subprime lenders and mortgage insurers, it bears a sober reading:

There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, we are keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segments of the American population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures . . .

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call "opportunity costs," things not done because we spent our money on something else.

Look at these annual military spending numbers and ponder them carefully. The disconnect between the US and the rest of the world is simply staggering:

1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion
2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France (2005), $45 billion
5. Japan (2007), $41.75 billion
6. Germany (2003), $35.1 billion
7. Italy (2003), $28.2 billion
8. South Korea (2003), $21.1 billion
9. India (2005 est.), $19 billion
10. Saudi Arabia (2005 est.), $18 billion

And these numbers do not---repeat, not---include foreign military aid, or Homeland Security expenditures, or the Veterans' Affairs budget, among other defense-related outlays.

As Johnson notes, this trend didn't start with the Bush Administration---it has been going on, virtually without interruption, every year since the 1960s, with broad bipartisan support, and precious little dissent, from both our major political parties. The result, of course, has been a nation that sustains over 1,000 military installations with more than 2 million employees in over 60 countries, but which can't find the resources to safeguard its national treasures; which can rustle up billions of dollars in military aid to friendly nations in any given year, yet which cannot afford to subsidize prescription drugs for its own citizens; and which can summon upwards of $100 billion per year for weapons procurement but less than a twelfth of that amount to fund FEMA for an entire year.

Much in the same way that you and I don't purchase a new Camry or Accord unless we intend to drive it, it is virtually impossible for a government to invest so much money---borrowed and otherwise---in such a gargantuan military apparatus over the course of five decades without succumbing from time to time to the temptation to actually use it. After all, how else on earth do you justify such massive expenditures on something that has no practical use? And with a government---really, a succession of governments, the Bush II version merely being the most brazen---that not only defends the existence of a hyper-militarized economy but which proclaims as inalienable our right to drive the machine in any place and any time of its choosing, we have now reached the tipping point of many a great empire before us: costly perpetual wars abroad, consumptive bread and circuses at home, and no way in hell to pay for any of it. The sins of the subprime mortgage market are temporary and can be remedied with simple legislation, but the crisis created by the hyper-militarization of the American economy can never be remedied as long as our government's foreign-policy priorities remain fundamentally unchanged.

And this is what the war in Iraq, and the doctrine of preemptive and perpetual war, really signifies: That is, the complete and total abnegation of all other national priorities, domestic and otherwise, in the pursuit of engorging, exercising, and engorging again the ever-growing military-industrial feeding machine, even to the point of insolvency. After which, one assumes, we merely invade another country and appropriate its resources for ourselves. The 935 lies, the torture chambers, the WMDs that weren't there . . . yes, they're all important too, but the greater significance of hyper-militarization---its effects, and constraints, on our economy---and concomitantly on our welfare as citizens---are of equal, if not greater, import in the discussion of military and foreign policy in the current political climate. We may pull out of Iraq tomorrow morning, but we will still be bleeding dry the resources of the republic unless we revise our thinking about how we spend our money, how we view our position among nations---in brief, about what kind of people, and what kind of nation, we want to become in the 21st century.

Sadly, if you're looking for any current presidential candidate who seems to grasp the inevitable unsustainability of a perpetual wartime economy, you will be disappointed if you're a Democrat. Yes, Hillary and Barack and Edwards will all end the war in Iraq, or so they say . . . but none of them, to my knowledge, has ever delved beyond the surface of the matter and drawn out the connection between the war in Iraq and the the larger hyper-war economy. The only candidate who seems to get it---or at the very least is willing to talk about it---is this guy. From last night's debate:

Just look at what's happening today. The dollar is crashing. And why---and Tim [Russert] there suggests that we think of the economy, but not in foreign policy. You can't do that. They're one and the same. That's where all of the money is going.

We're spending nearly a trillion dollars a year overseas maintaining this empire. And then, there's never been a war fought without inflation and destruction and devaluation of a currency. And this---this is what we're doing today to ourselves, is we're literally spending ourselves into oblivion. But nobody here is willing to even suggest that we cut something overseas. But we have to. (Emphasis added.)

Now, those of you who have read this blog know that I've taken Paul to the woodshed plenty of times, and there is much in the man's record that is abhorrent, retrograde, and arguably racist. And in some truly obscene way, it speaks volumes about the current condition of political discourse and thought in this country that this issue should not be discussed in rational tones by mainstream political leaders but by a certified Unserious Fringe Candidate™. Yet Paul, the man who talks openly and without shame of cutting off arms sales to the Saudis, halting foreign aid for Israel, and closing our bases in Korea, has raised millions of dollars and millions of volunteers despite a near-total lack of a national organization, while unabashed advocates of perpetual war such as Rudy, and Fred, have run out of money and/or gone down in flames. Could there possibly be a causal connection between these events? Are a growing number of Americans getting sick and tired of the constraints of citizenship in the American Empire, rather than in the American Republic?

At least that's my take. We've seen libertarian-type candidates like Paul before, who've advocated pulling out of the UN, going back on the gold standard, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. They typically haven't garnered much support (cf., LaRouche, Lyndon). The fact that Paul has suggests to me that it's his injection of foreign policy into the debate---specifically, questioning America's role as global overlord---that's resonating the loudest amongst the populace. They're the policy points that almost always get him the loudest applause (or boos) at debates, and up to now, they've marked the biggest quantifiable distinction one can draw between Paul and the other presidential hopefuls of either party. Future presidents ignore his message, and his supporters' ardor, at their own---and the republic's---risk.

---Vitelius

Safeguarding Our Heritage, One Tax Cut at a Time

Oh, the irony: on a day when the Bushies and the Congress agree to spend another $100 billion of borrowed money to lard us individually with $600 rebate checks---and boy, won't that make a difference when I'm 50 grand behind on my mortgage payment---comes this. Remember the horror and disgust people felt when we learned, in the earliest days of the occupation of Iraq, that the Antiquities Museum in Baghdad was allowed to be pillaged of its priceless and irreplaceable artifacts as the occupiers guarded the Oil Ministry instead?

Well, guess what? "Stuff happens" here, too:

Looting of fossils and archaeological artifacts from national parks---such as Native American pottery and Civil War relics---is increasing as demand for such items rises on the Internet and the world market, U.S. National Park Service officials say.

Over the past decade, an average of 340 "significant" looting incidents have been reported annually at the 391 national parks, monuments, historic sites and battlefields---probably less than 25% of the actual number of thefts, says park service staff ranger Greg Lawler. "The trends are up," he says.

O tempora and all that. You suppose it's all due to all those lazy and indolent park service employees who while away their hours playing PS2 at the ranger station, counting down the years until they can retire on full pension and why in the hell haven't we privatized all the national parks yet and contracted Blackwater to police them.

Of course, you'd be wrong:

The park service has 1,500 law enforcement rangers and 400 seasonal law enforcement rangers---one for about every 56,000 acres. "We really don't have enough manpower," Lawler says.

You don't say. Wonder how we got to this? We'll cover that, however indirectly, in my next post.

---Vitelius

Your Liberal Media, v6.0

Headline today from from the Associated Press:

Study: False Statements Preceded War

Same story. Headline from the New York Times:

Website Assembles U.S. Pre-War Claims

---Vitelius

Winning Hearts & Minds, One Bankrupted Community at a Time

Hayward, California: $88 million.
Chattanooga, Tennessee: $58 million.
Anchorage, Alaska: $120 million.
Montgomery, Alabama: $68 million.
Lawrence, Kansas: $32 million.
Raleigh, North Carolina: $172 million.
Tucson, Arizona: $155 million.
South Bend, Indiana: $33 million.
Green Bay, Wisconsin: $42 million.
Savannah, Georgia: $49 million.

That's the amount of tax revenues that the citizens in those communities won't have to spend next year on public transit, or school improvements, or road construction, or senior services, or AIDs awareness, or cultural endowments, or police protection, or homeless shelters, or anything else. Why? Because that's the amount of federal tax revenues, broken down on a per-state, per-community basis, that the government wants to extort from you to pay for next year's campaign in Iraq. Check out this map from the National Priorities Project and see for yourself.

----Vitelius

Freddie, We Hardly Knew Ye . . . Not That There Was a Whole Lot to Know

It's official: The Aqua Velva Man® is out of the running. What better occasion, then, to turn back the clock to a happier time, when Earth's Rightful Ruler had already been all but proclaimed?

Chris Matthews: Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . . Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . . Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

The stealth candidacy quickly gained momentum after that:

Matthews: Lynn, let's talk for a minute---because I want to talk when we come back about Fred Thompson. It looks to me---and this is my seat-of-the-pants judgment---he looks like the daddy figure the Republican Party has been looking around for. He looks classic wise man. He has gravitas. He's no Dan Quayle, a guy---when he says something, he's got that Colin Powell feature, where you just sort of trust him. Is he going to jump in this race and take over?

And yes, things looked good for awhile . . . but future political historians may very well point to this Truly Timeless Exchange as the singular moment in history when The Thompson Steamroller---well, jumped the shark, through no real fault of the candidate. Read this carefully and tell me if you would believe this conversation had ever occurred between reputedly responsible grown-ups if you hadn't seen and heard it for yourself on cable TV:

Matthews: Let's talk about gritty New Hampshire. I love New Hampshire. I always brought my kids up there when they were young. It is a state that looks for toughness. [Addressing Pat Buchanan] You won up there. It looks for grit. It looks for the outsider a bit. It's great American state. It's really live for your guy.

Margaret Carlson: The Granite State looks for granite.

Matthews: They are looking for a tough guy who's got a little five o'clock shadow, like you. They're looking for a guy like you, Pat. Here is Fred Thompson going in there. John McCain certainly deserves to be president, based on his contribution to this country over the years, but he ran once. How many chances do you get? And in comes Fred Thompson, looking like the Daddy party, if there ever was a guy that looked like the Daddy party, the Republican. Can he win this thing?

Carlson: He does look like the dad. He has everything that Pat says. He's handsome, he's charming, he sounds like a president, he looks like a president. But Pat says he might not have the fire in the belly. That could help him, not having the hunger. Not being willing to do anything could help him.

Matthews: Gene McCarthy didn't have the fire in the belly. He did all right up there.

Buchanan: He was as tough as he could be. He was a tough guy.

Carlson: It could help him. And, you know, he's smart. He's articulate. He knows his lines. He can hit his mark

Buchanan: I don't think he could wait --

Carlson: Few people could start at -- few people could start even this late --

Matthews: OK, let me ask you this. We're having debates. MSNBC is going to have debates coming up within a month or so. They're going to have debates around the country. Is the season still open for him to get in, right now?

Buchanan: It is open right now, and -- but I think these guys who are saying they are going to wait until September and October may be waiting too long. That's taking a big risk.

Matthews: You think his door is open now?

Buchanan: I think his door is open now, yes.

Carlson: The theme song of Republicans should be "Some Day My Prince Will Come," and they're waiting and they're hoping. And so Fred Thompson is not late at all. His moment is here.

Matthews: Some day he will come along -- so it's Gershwin. Do you think he's coming now?

Carlson: I think he's coming soon.

Matthews: OK. I notice it used to be you had to look like an anchorman to get in the presidency. You needed to have a big thick head of hair. And he and Giuliani and McCain --

Buchanan: He looks like a big truck driver.

Matthews: With a semi behind him.

Buchanan: Looks like a Teamster, sure, a Teamster with -- a Southern guy, a Teamster. He's in from Tennessee. He's perfectly positioned, I think, but the question is, does he get in and does he -- really ready to do battle? Iowa, those things are very hard to do, Chris.

Matthews: OK, you put him up against Hillary in the general election, who wins?

Buchanan: He wins.

Carlson: Agreed.

Matthews: Margaret Carlson!

Carlson: Yes -- no, I --

Matthews: This is treason. Margaret, sisterhood! The sisterhood's at stake here. You're saying it -- you said it so quick.

Carlson: No, everyone -- everyone --

Buchanan: Al [Gore] was on the phone.

Carlson: I don't see anyone in the field now who can -- who can --

Matthews: Billie Jean [King] is on the phone. Billie Jean endorsed [Clinton] the other day.

Carlson: Oh, now that you have the tennis queen on, I'm sure she'll win. No, but the red pickup truck, the aura. He's smart. He has experience. He was -- he did --

Matthews: You know what I like about him? I interviewed him when he was running for the Senate. He was the underdog out in Tennessee, in Nashville. I said, "What hotel are you staying in?" He said, "What hotel are you staying at?" Some local -- we were both at, like, three-star hotels. He comes over, meets me for breakfast, no entourage, not another single person with him. This is when you fall in love with politicians. Maybe it's rehearsed, but -- and I said, well -- I'm doing a column in those days. I said, "What about your divorce?" And he -- "You want me to write about that?" You know, he says, "I prefer you wouldn't." I mean, I just like the fact that he has a little, you know, unhappiness in his past, maybe some, you know, some misbehavior problems, but he just says, you know, "I'd rather you didn't."

Carlson: He would be -- for the press, he would be the new McCain, because he does seem honest and open.

Matthews: The new McCain. John Lieber, are you watching? Margaret Carlson said that. We don't need a new model, we got a McCain!

Buchanan: But they love somebody fresh and new. And he's suddenly getting in the race. The press would love it.

Matthews: Ronald Reagan was right. All the other guys are wrong. Pat Brown was wrong. Everybody was wrong. People like real movie stars. And even though he's not big-time, he looks like a movie star. He's not just some guy that gets his picture in the paper. Thank you very much. Maybe -- maybe we'll get Harrison Ford next time.

Yep, and Chris Matthews was wrong too. "Some Day My Prince Will Come" was written by Frank Churchill, not George Gershwin.

---Vitelius

Thoughts for the Day . . .

I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history.

I refuse to accept the idea that the "is-ness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "ought-ness" that forever confronts him.

I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation.

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

I believe that even among today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow.

I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of man.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.

I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, other-centered men can build up.

I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed and nonviolent redemptive goodwill proclaimed the law of the land. And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid.

---from the Nobel Prize acceptance speech,
Oslo, Norway, December 10, 1964

---Vitelius

L.A. Opera: Tristan und Isolde

Well, it certainly has been a crazy weekend around the castle, what with chess and football preoccupying the Baron's time, but he somehow managed to give politics a rest (am I the only person who couldn't get too worked up over the Nevada caucuses?) and squeeze in some extra hours to take in a performance of Tristan the other night, staged by L.A. Opera in the acoustically-challenged if comfortable Chandler Pavilion. For those of you who love this work, which only seems to get a full operatic staging in these parts every ten years or so, it's definitely worth the price of the ticket, though know ahead of time that you won't be quite getting the most memorable performance for your C-notes.

The big problem in this production of Tristan lies in the principals, who, while certainly serviceable singers, don't radiate much charisma or, dare I say, sex appeal. And given that Tristan is in many ways a four-and-a-half hour exercise in the musical equivalent of coitus interruptus, a lack of onstage chemistry between the star-crossed lovers does not always make for a riveting theatrical experience. John Treleaven sings Tristan this time around, and his stentorian if somewhat reedy delivery tends to divide purists into warring camps who either adulate or revile his performances. I found myself going back and forth with the guy during the evening, and in the end, I gave him some style points for acting (good at projecting vulnerability and anxiety if not eroticism) and German enunciation, which was spot-on flawless. Linda Watson, this production's Isolde, has the pipes but not the persona. Her Isolde commands plenty of respect but precious little desire. One fears, too, that these two suffer by comparison to the principals who appeared in the most recent staging of the Philharmonic's Tristan Project (Christine Brewer and Christian Franz, both world-class Wagnerians), last seen across the street at Disney Hall this past April.

Either way, the production's lack of star power is further accentuated by the supporting cast, each of whom outshines the principals. Juha Uusitalo (Kurvenal), Lioba Braun (Brangane) and especially Kristinn Sigmundsson (King Marke) have big voices and dynamic stage presences, and they all tend to overpower the stars during their scenes together. The pit orchestra under the capable James Conlon performs yeoman's work, if not quite revealing the rich and nuanced textures heard by the Philharmonic under Salonen. David Hockney's sets are, well . . . your appreciation of them is likely to be proportional to your appreciation of David Hockney. I liked the castle/forest props and the arresting use of light in Act II, but the sailing ship in Act I reminded me of something left over from an episode of Pee Wee's Playhouse.

The Baron's grouses aside, even a flawed B-list production of Tristan is likely worth the investment, particularly if you have never seen or heard it before. Like Ulysses, The Rite of Spring, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon or Bitches Brew, it is one of those revolutionary works of the Western cultural canon which simultaneously sets new and unprecedented standards of artistic expression while literally atom-smashing those which have preceded it. It's a work that yields forth new and revealing insights at each sitting---and simply put, it's 240 minutes of the most imponderably and achingly beautiful music ever committed to score. Go see it for yourself.

---Vitelius

The Fischer King

"You don't learn anything in school. It's just a waste of time. You lug around books and all and do homework. They give too much homework. You shouldn't be doing homework. Nobody's interested in it. The teachers are stupid. They shouldn't have any women in there. They don't know how to teach. And they shouldn't make anyone go to school. You don't want to go, you don't go, that's all. It's ridiculous. I don't remember one thing I learned in school. I don't listen to weakies. My two and a half years in Erasmus High I wasted. I didn't like the whole thing. You have to mix with all those stupid kids. The teachers are even stupider than the kids. They talk down to the kids. Half of them are crazy. If they'd have let me, I would have quit before I was sixteen."

---Eighteen-year old Bobby Fischer
to Harper's Magazine, 1962

If you're under, say, 40 years old, you probably can't envision the degree of fame and influence this guy had in his heyday, not only over his chosen profession but in the public sphere as well. It's hard to imagine now, but in the fall of 1972---in the aftermath of the murderous Munich Olympics, with a war still going on in Vietnam and a presidential election in the offing---much of the American body politic was absolutely fixated on a chess match in Iceland, of all things, and all despite a near-total lack of TV coverage, no cable, no blogs . . . Why, it's almost enough to make you wonder how we ever got all our information back then. Well, of course, we simply had to wait a day, or two, or several, and this likely elevated our sense of excitement and anticipation as we all broke out our chess boards and reconstructed the Spassky games, one by one, and tried to figure out how this brash, enigmatic and arguably paranoid American could transform Lenin's lofty "gymnasium for the mind" into something resembling a contact spot---bruising and visceral, with the occasional cruel streak thrown in.

Amongst those who have followed in his footsteps, Garry Kasparov has gained plenty of public respect in recent years by matching wits against a supercomputer, and versus millions of chessaholics via the Internets. But even with generous corporate sponsorship and global multimedia to cover his every fianchetto, Kasparov has never been able to approach Fischer's dizzying celebrity. He wasn't simply a supremely gifted chess player---he was more like a rock star. If you're a football fan, picture a quarterback with the analytical mind of Joe Montana, the arm of John Elway, the maturity of Ryan Leaf and the manners of Jim McMahon, and you have a rough idea of what he was like.

Certainly his intimidating persona, his knack for self-promotion, and his proclivity for outrageous public pronouncements---trash-talking the Soviets, women, and the International Jewish Conspiracy™, not to mention his opponents and the international chess community in general---made for good copy, but in the end, what fascinated chess freaks and newbies alike was not just his mouth but his style of play: aggressive, cold-blooded, in your face, at times inexplicable but almost always aimed at winning the game with the most ingenious and unimaginable combinations---not merely to win, in other words, but to win brilliantly, to break down your will and crush your competitive spirit. And well, that's just not how the game is played by gentlemen, you see, and it's likely the reason why he had millions of admirers, but few if any friends. There's an interesting movie to be made from his life---and no, Searching for Bobby Fischer isn't it---and one wonders how much we will ever really come to know about his last 30 years in the wilderness, at times a recluse, the last fifteen as a fugitive. As psychically untethered and rootless as his later years were, it's a serendipitous irony that he passed away in the city of his greatest triumph, 35 years ago.

For now, the Baron will content himself by breaking out his old board and ruminating over the rarified genius on display in his greatest games. For me, Byrne-Fischer 1963 at the U.S. Championship stands out above them all, a tour de force in which the 19-year old Fischer, down a piece, his center exposed, and playing black from a seemingly neutral position at best, annihilates an experienced international grandmaster in only 21 moves. When the result was announced, most observers initially concluded that Fischer had resigned!

---Vitelius

Georgia on Our Minds . . .

Here in the Baron's hometown, one easily envisions thousands of Angeleno sports nuts besieging their favorite watering holes and Drinking Liberally tonight.

---Vitelius

Shaggy Love Story

Huck, oh Huck, how could you?

Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic. (Emphasis added.)

Okay, Huck, let's get personal here. A little confession being good for the soul and all.
Back in the days of my misspent youth, I wasn't the respectable Baron I am today. Matter of fact, I was a bit of a heller, if you know what I mean, and as a result I've got two broken marriages in my past. I'm not proud of that, mind you, but that's just how it is. I've talked it over with the Lord, and all's forgiven, okay? Anyway, I've also had a few dogs in my life too. One was a brindle greyhound that I had 10 years. That dog and me, we went everywhere together, and we grew old together. And you know what? That dog was a lot better companion than either one of my ex-wives ever was, and I'll bet there's plenty of other good and patriotic Americans who've had the same experience. Maybe with cats, or parakeets, or goldfish . . . well, maybe not goldfish, okay, they're kinda dumb and they don't live very long. But this is one God-fearing American who takes offense----and I mean I'm offended!---by the inference that my relationship to Myrna the Greyhound could only ever be elevated to a state of equivalency to hetero marriage. Utter nonsense. Let me assure you, Huck, our love was pure, timeless, eternal and unconditional---kinda like loving Jesus in a dog suit, come to think of it, and every pet owner in America who's ever had the same experience should make you feel their wrath at the ballot box for this vile denigration.

Now, Myrna went to be with the Lord six years ago, but I tell you what, Mike, there's hardly a day goes by after all these years that I don't think about that dog one way or another, and every time I do, I start to feel my throat getting lumpy and my eyeballs glaze up a little. You think I miss either one of my ex-wives? Hell, I hardly remember the first one's name anymore, it's been so damn long, and the second one, I wish I could forget.

Personally, if I ever do get married again, I can tell you already it'll probably be to something furry, four-legged, and hopefully not drooling too much. This is America, dammit!

---Vitelius

The Top 10 Things You Never Knew About America

This is beautiful. For the geographically challenged among us (i.e., most Americans), from Matt Yglesias comes this way-cool map that breaks down various countries of the world by GDP, comparing them to individual US states with comparable GDPs. Check out the map for yourself, then see if you too can guess our Top Ten list, or even come up with one of your own:

10. Pennsylvanians really are Dutch.

9. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Tennesseans.

8. Few vacation spots cater to sex tourists as does Phoenix.

7. The next front in the Global War on Terror is Arkansas.

6. The next time you receive an e-mail message from the former Finance Minister of Hawaii, delete it.

5. Joe Lieberman supporters show their good cheer by hurling dishes and yelling, "Oo-pah!".

4. You can get a really good massage in North Carolina.

3. Don't Cry For Me, Michiganders! --Mitt Romney

2. Alabama is an existential threat to world peace.

And finally . . .

1. Californians hate America.

---Vitelius

Hucksterism in Theory & Practice, v2.1

Regular readers of this blog---all five or six of you---are likely aware of the Baron's frequent posts on behalf of Mike Huckabee, primarily due to the fact that he at least comes off as a relatively well-adjusted person when compared to the rest of the GOP presidential field. I've tried, half-heartedly at least, to defend his Christian-populist streak, and awhile ago I even tagged him to win his party's nomination next summer.

Then what happens? The Baron leaves town for a few days, the Huckster opens his mouth on God's Law, and it's really, and I mean really, making me look like a bad judge of character, and an even worse prognosticator:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it is a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do---amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Ay yay yay . . . Suffice to say, the Baron doesn't suffer fools gladly, and while I'll not belabor the point at length (the subject having already been blogged to death earlier in the week), I'll officially henceforth withdraw my membership in Huckster's Heathen Auxiliary . . . Mitt, good man, I'm coming back home where I belong.

The last word belongs to Carpetbagger Steve:

I don't care how charming Huckabee is. It's irrelevant whether he can be funny on the Colbert Report. Anyone who believes the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it insufficiently meets "God's standards" is almost certainly living in the wrong country.

Amen. And amen.

---Vitelius

The Bush Legacy

Well well well. Another day, another diplomatic triumph got The Deciderer. Barely back in Washington a day after his courageous parries for the freedom agenda in the Middle East, he ruminates over his latest great and noble works:

"Look, I know I've been accused of being a hopeless idealist. On the other hand, I don't see any alternative, if you believe it's an ideological struggle. . . . And so the freedom agenda is absolutely essential. And the freedom agenda doesn't develop in one man's term of office. It takes a while. My job is to plant the seeds. [The] truth of the matter is that freedom is advancing quite amazingly in the Middle East."

Yep, it sure is:

In two days of raids, firefights and air strikes, the Israeli military killed more than two dozen Palestinians, including the oldest surviving son of Mahmoud Zahar , a leader of the militant Islamic group Hamas , hospital officials in Gaza said.

On Wednesday, an Israeli air strike in Gaza City killed three innocent civilians, including a 14-year-old boy, the Israeli military and Gaza hospital officials said.

Hmmm. Unfortunate, yes, but surely clearer heads will prevail. Like Our Man in Ramallah, for instance:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called the Israeli operation a "massacre", and his allies urged him to walk out of peace talks with Olmert.

Oh. Well, at least our friends in freedom in Tel Aviv are looking out for us, no?

Six days after Bush personally appealed for his support, conservative Israeli lawmaker Avigdor Lieberman abandoned Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's coalition government on Wednesday.

"All negotiations based on territory for peace are a fateful error, an incomprehensible mistake," Lieberman said Wednesday.

Memo to Nancy, Harry, Steny et al: Thank you all so very much for keeping us free from the stain of impeachment these past two years. A grateful world honors your stoic inertia.

---Vitelius

Back from the Break: Odds & Ends

Well, the Baron is back at his bloggers' redoubt, having been away the past few days at his day job. Actually, I was in Detroit for the annual auto show, and one thing I learned about local politics there is that if your name is Mitt Romney, and you saturate the airwaves with enough TV commercials, and they all---and I mean all of 'em---feature prominent images of, and references to, your late father the former governor, you too can win the Michigan primary. Too bad George Romney was never the governor of South Carolina.

But what really caught my fancy was a couple of remarkable things I caught last night on CNN. One of them was a panel discussion on Lou Dobbs' show (which I rarely if ever watch) featuring that paragon of public virtue, Dollar Bill Bennett. The subject, ostensibly, was the Mittster's stirring triumph in the Wolverine State, though it quickly devolved into a free-associative ramble on education, free trade, and GOP values in general. Moral to Bill: Don't put words in the TV host's mouth, and be ready to catch plenty of flak for all the crap you've peddled for the last ten years. It ain't 2001 anymore:

Bennett: The most optimistic and hopeful of the candidates, Lou. Unlike your last segment where you and Roland [Martin] were looking at your shoes about America. You know, I mean---

Dobbs: Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! You'll never see me look down my shoes at America. You may see me try to scrape something off my shoes when it comes to partisan politics, partner, for these candidates----

Bennett: But Lou, Lou, it is America. The notion that you shouldn't go to school and get knowledge because all you've got is a shoeshine job which was said by one of the people on your panel and you agreed with is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Dobbs: What in the world are you talking about?

Bennett: That was what Roland Martin said. Why should we educate and train people? For what jobs? Like shining shoes? That's what he said. Play back the transcript. Education is the key to success in this country.

Dobbs: You said I agreed with any---partner, you know what I think about education in this country.

Bennett: I know---

Dobbs: You also ought to think about the free-trade, faith-based idiots like the Republican party has produced for the past decade in this country who created these job disasters in the state of Michigan and around the country.

Bennett: Well, I thought you---I thought you---

Dobbs: And let's get to the reality here. The fact is the public education system in this country is getting---is devastated. Not only because of the public.

Bennett: I agree, I agree. But do you agree that if you get a good education, your opportunity of getting a good job in America is greatly enhanced? And there are jobs in America. And we go through this---

Dobbs: Partner, I don't look at this---

Bennett: Yes.

Dobbs: I don't look at this in terms of jobs, and although what you're saying is absolutely true, I look at that educaton system for a silly reason. I want everybody in this country to have the same shot at the American dream.

Bennett: I do, too---

Dobbs: Spiritually and physically and materially.

Bennett: I do, too.

Dobbs: But the reality is is they're not getting it, and the Republicans know it. The Democrats know it. And these presidential candidates know it and they're ignoring it, Bill.

Bennett: They're not ignoring it.

Dobbs: Oh, Bill---

Bennett: That's why they're responding in Michigan. That's why they're responding to Romney. How can you say that? I had a hundred calls today.

Dobbs:Right.

Bennett: The people from Michigan are saying they're responding to this message.

Dobbs: Let me tell you how I can say it. The disaster that is No Child Left Behind is a bipartisan program brought to you by President George W. Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy. And it is a disaster, you know it.

Bennett:I don't think it is a disaster, Lou---

Dobbs: We don't have time for a disaster. We don't have time for a 10-year program. These young people need an emergency response now from this government.

Bennett: Do I get a response?

Dobbs: Go.

Bennett: I don't think it is a disaster. I think there are a lot of things wrong with it. It needs fixing, but to tie educational results to funding is absolutely right. That basic principle that established accountability for results, you don't get the money if you don't produce results is right. That thing needs a ton of overhaul. It's absolutely right, but we have been putting billions and trillions of dollars into this educational system with no accountability. That piece you're going to do on Cincinnati is going to show when you tie results to accountability, and when you tie money to it---

Dobbs: We appreciate you anticipating our reporting. But the reality is this broadcast has done more reporting on public education and the prescription for resolution.

Bennett: I know---

Dobbs: And when you say to me that the public education system in this country is about what people make, it's about what people learn---

Bennett: I didn't say that---

Dobbs: And the idea that this country is about an economy instead of a nation, about consumers and workers instead of people and citizens, you and I got a basic division of opinion. (Emphasis added.)

Nicely done. Memo to Dems: Keep this in mind when you're crafting your position papers. The guy is on to something here.

Unfortunately, not long after this came one of the most jaw-dropping, if all-too-predictable, moments I've ever witnessed on CNN, courtesy of . . . well, guess:

Beck: So if history repeats itself and a Democrat takes the White House, what kind of stimulus package should we expect them to pass? Will it help, or in the case like FDR who took the top tax rate from 25 percent to 94 percent during his term, will it make things much, much worse? . . . I have to tell you, I said on my radio show today, I'm beginning to come to a place where---I love my grandfather, but I just want to slap him across the face for liking FDR. I think that was one evil son of a bitch.

Yep. A wealthy man who though government should actually give a shit about poor people = evil son of a bitch. Your Republican Family Values in a nut.

---Vitelius