Maggie's Farm

I fingered about 1000-words of witty repartee on the pageant, but -- and it's true -- my touch-typing and my other reflexes hit a big delete before I finished. So, if you want to, at least, see what you missed, and not hear a horny wise-guy, you'll have to go to this luscious link. There's also about 150 photos for your menu. My advice: pick one from each column and enjoy the Hooters smorgasbord. Watch the pageant and special features until you go blind, or find a new side of your special other.

The below is from the memory images indelibly on the inside of my eyelids. 

Believe me, a connoisseur, it's far better than the skinnies at the Victoria Secret TV show. And, no veils to hide behind, just all teenie bikinis.

One-hundred were chosen from the 4,000 Hooter girls in 26-countries. Of the hundred, 3 were A-cups, 10 B-cups, and 10 C-cups. Do the math, and if you can keep your mind and imagination from wandering, that leaves 67 --er, 77 -- with a D, who will have to do detention with the teacher. Any PhDs out there to volunteer? Flowers instead of ivy.

The field of dreams was cut to ten, two A-cups, two B-cups, and six Ds for detention, maybe a spanking.  The choice of the four who escape discipline reflects the over-the-hill two cougars among the judges, trying to cut the competition in the wee-drunk hours perhaps.

Five dark hair and five blondes, so diversity rules. Speaking of which, my vote is for equal opportunity, so my id tips for tall, D, Black, LeAngela Davis. (OK, political types, she is probably named after a communist, but I'm willing to be her comrade for this cause.)

Then there were five (and 95 winners at the stage door to provide a shoulder and a Jag to console). An IQ test in bikinis: don't bother listening to the girls, just look interested. (best advice="don't eat yellow snow"; best talent="pour beer and hoola-hoop at same time" -- bet someone will lick the spill)

A special insight. The girls use "butt-glue" to keep their bitty bikini bottom from creeping up and going Indian to wipe them out.

And, my favorite commisar, and the judges', Miss World Hooter, goes to looking great globally, LeAngela Davis. From Columbus, Ohio. I didn't know there was so much booty buried there (though I dug up a golden C there one business trip, probably a groovy grannie by now). Go exploring and dig it.

Here she is:

I haven't been in a Hooters for lunch in about 15 years. Tomorrow, I'm taking my 5-year old chick-magnet Gavin, former champion breast-feeder, to a special lunch.

BTW, last years winner took her support to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet they saluted in every way.

Driving home from errands, I listened to Rush. He said, “Liberalism is socialism is marxism.”  OK, I get that Rush makes his points with rhetorical flourish. And, I get that rhetorical flourish can serve the purpose of arousal.

What I, also, get is that excess in speech or action will most often be counter-productive in persuading most of those on the fence as well as those fewer of contrary views who may be open-minded.

What I, further, get is that excess in speech or action will most often harm oneself in keeping an even keel and integrity of purpose. The feedback loop polarizes oneself, thus becoming less focused and effective, even if self-satisfying to rant, and may even harm one’s meaningful relationships.

The Democrat-run Democracy Corps does some very worthwhile polling. Its latest, 55% of likely voters find ‘Socialist’ an accurate label of Obama. It is, and I’m surprised that more do not think so. “Socialist” is a flexible term in usage, but is recognized as redistributive, at best, and needing or leading to oppressive measures, either at worst or inherent. That is Obama, even if of the imbued ‘60s variety of either idealism or confusion or avoidance about harsh realities.

“Marxism” is more discrete in meaning, not even making more than a feeble nod toward individual liberties.  Marxism, also, is so convoluted in its logic and practice as to have lost any claim to worth, except among the truly loony or self-servingly authoritarian. Professed believers in marxism or self-labelers as marxist expose themselves as so far outside acceptable in the US that only a very few tenure-protected academics might or a very few self-destructive wackos. 

Rush's point is harmed by going too far, unnecessarily, in demonizing Obama. He is dangerous, purposeful, redistributive to the harm of productive, and critical of the US' values and value to the harm of our security and that of allies. Neither, as Rush says, is Obama purposely damaging the US; he really thinks he's not and is improving it by his lights. Obama is, in a sense, worse than a manipulator. Obama is a true believer who marches himself and others forward in blind self-polarization.

But, he's not a marxist, just imbued with the infantile socialism and leftist world view he was and is immersed in, and that is protected from penetration by his chosen similars.

So, I think that Rush went too far, unnecessarily.

Similarly, no far worse, is depicting Obama with a Hitler mustache or such, and such visual demonization. Aside from not true, it cheapens oneself, cheapens truly worse fiends and acts, and is a turn-off that chases away those who otherwise might listen.

If you can’t make a decent argument from facts, and the facts are bad enough about Obama, then become better prepared, but don’t do yourself in and your purpose. Don't be self-polarized, so as to lose sight of the means and ends.

Don’t get mad, get even. Our democracy provides plenty of opportunities to do so sanely and constructively.

Below is the translation from the Chinese government's first-ever White Paper on the Internet in China. Part Three of the six-part document is titled "Guaranteeing Citizens' Freedom of Speech on the Internet."

China Internet watcher Rebecca MacKinnon reports:

I've heard from several journalists and policy analysts (not people based in China, for whom such cognitive dissonance is normal) who at first glance thought they were reading The Onion or some kind of parody site. How, people asked me, can a government that so blatantly censors the Internet claim with a straight face to be protecting and upholding freedom of speech on the Internet? The answer of course is that China's netizens are free to do everything... except for the things they're not free to do.  The list of the latter, outlined in the next section titled Protecting Internet Security is long, vague, and subject to considerable interpretation:

...The Chinese government attaches great importance to protecting the safe flow of Internet information, actively guides people to manage websites in accordance with the law and use the Internet in a wholesome and correct way. The Decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on Guarding Internet Security, Regulations on Telecommunications of the People's Republic of China and Measures on the Administration of Internet Information Services stipulate that no organization or individual may produce, duplicate, announce or disseminate information having the following contents: being against the cardinal principles set forth in the Constitution; endangering state security, divulging state secrets, subverting state power and jeopardizing national unification; damaging state honor and interests; instigating ethnic hatred or discrimination and jeopardizing ethnic unity; jeopardizing state religious policy, propagating heretical or superstitious ideas; spreading rumors, disrupting social order and stability; disseminating obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, brutality and terror or abetting crime; humiliating or slandering others, trespassing on the lawful rights and interests of others; and other contents forbidden by laws and administrative regulations.

Other than that, people are totally free. What's more, the use of the Internet by the people to "supervise" public officials is praised. As long as - in the process of said supervision - state power is not subverted, "state honor" is not jeopardized, nobody is humiliated or slandered, and no "rumors" are spread. The rise of Twitter-like microblogging services is even praised. (Twitter itself is blocked by the "great firewall," though tens of thousands of Chinese Internet users are believed to access it anyway through third-party clients and circumvention tools).

Rebecca MacKinnon is a must read for those who try to keep up on China’s increasing censorship of the Internet.

The Hill, chronicler of doings in the US Capital, left a word out of its report that the “Senate bill to repeal health reform lacks backing from GOP leaders”, the missing word being “yet.”

The report makes clear that the GOP leadership “support repealing the Democrats' health care law and then replacing it with alternatives that lower costs while improving access.”

However, the political question is when to do that, and the reality question is whether it can be done.

Politically, it would probably be useless now. But, all GOPers should anyway sign on to the proposed legislation now to repeal ObamaCare.  It’s already clear that the repeal legislation is going no where under current Democrat majorities in the Congress. To allow the liberal media and politicians to use some GOP leaders’ hesitation in order to denigrate and divide Republicans is as unfavorable to the GOP 2010 chances as being forthright may also turn off a few waverers. But, those wavering who might be influenced are from those usually voting Democrat anyway, and many are likely to return to old habits anyway in the 2010 elections. The polled majority still favor repeal now, 60-36%. So, all GOPers should endorse repeal legislation, now.

Last February, my op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, “No GOP Ideas?: Try These 10” summarized a 2-week earlier blog post of mine, “Republican Health Care Plan? 10-Steps, Post-2010.”  The op-ed emphasized that the 10 could and should be dealt with each as separate legislation, with no harm to the others, instead of in a multi-thousand page omnibus bill that no one understands and that contains much dangerous as the Democrats rammed through Congress.

The blog post, also, pointed out that for 2010 electoral purposes and for reality of getting passed,

Congressional Democrats and the liberal media would use a Republican alternative as an opportunity to shred Republicans as uncaring or not doing enough to meet their visions, and delusions, that there is a magic bullet that solves all real and purported problems.

However, after 2010, there is still a problem, as I wrote:

Washington is still Washington, regardless of party, and lobbies would again kick into high gear to tilt to their own narrow advantage Republican proposals.  Enough Republicans, like Democrat politicians, would be swayed, and Republicans as a whole would be tarred and Republicans’ most energetic base be turned off by smarmy politics as usual in Washington.

That’s why I proposed the 10 discrete improvements, after the 2010 elections, that could be acceptable across the political spectrum, except by those die-hard for universal medical care or  die-hard for no-government-in-healthcare.  You can see the 10 at either of the links above, to the op-ed in condensed form, or more broadly in the blog post.

So, GOP leadership is being political and cagey.  Only Obama and Congressional Democrats are hoisted by their own petard, and I say let them swing.

FYI, last year there was a Republican counter-proposal to ObamaCare, scored by the CBO, that actually reduced federal deficits and average medical premiums. That’s $2.5-trillion not spent by the Democrats to put us all and future generations in smothering debt, and preserve the high quality and access to medical care that over 80% enjoy. The major difference from ObamaCare: the CBO said it would increase coverage for about 3 million Americans, versus for 26 million supposedly with improved coverage under ObamaCare. There may be more we may choose to do, affordably, some of which is in the 10 I propose, but there is clearly no excuse for reducing the quality and access to care of the other 80+%, and of succeeding generations’ medical and fiscal health.

Thanks Anchoress.

Typical: "Nudge on Arms Further Divides the U.S. and Israel".

I never held a firearm before the Marine Corps, and chose not to since Vietnam. I spoke with a Marine Sergeant yesterday, he on the way to Afghanistan, his third tour there and Iraq. He hadn't held one either before the Marine Corps loaned him a rifle, trained him to use it, and he has to protect his country and family back in Ohio. He doesn't know whether he will choose to own one after he returns, serves another 10-years, and retires from the Corps.

The point is that those of us who treasure the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights are not rampant Rambos, but understand that any key right denied is a shot at all our others.

Last week's US Supreme Court defense of the 2nd Amendment wasn't just about our right to own firearms. As InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds puts it:

So in little more than 15 years, we've seen an amazing turnaround on an issue where the "establishment" side had broad support from politicians (in both parties, really) and almost universal support from the media. Gun control now is nearly dead as an issue, and the "establishment" view that the Second Amendment didn't protect any sort of individual right, but merely a right of states to have national guards, did not get the support of a single Supreme Court justice.

So what's the lesson for today? It's that activism matters.

Now the issue on which activists differ from the establishment is the size of government. Politicians (in both parties, really) are pretty happy with big government. In this, they have the near-universal support of the media (now using covert e-mail lists to agree on how to slant their stories).

But if people care about shrinking government as much as gun rights activists care about protecting the Second Amendment, then this situation, too, can see a turnaround.

For the sake of the country, it had better.

Ripped off from The Other McCain.

Party Hearty!

Most Americans, and many abroad, can’t help but choke up as they see our flag floating by in a patriotic parade. But, the 4^th of July isn’t Flag Day, June 14. How many hung out their flag then?

Most Americans, and many abroad, are thankful for the men and women of the United States who stand and fight to keep millions from slavery to thugs. But, the 4^th isn’t just about them. How many Americans at home give their all to support our troops and commitments?

Most Americans, and many abroad, appreciate the freedom and opportunities found by coming to our shores. But the 4^th isn’t Immigration Day. How many appreciate the work, the fortitude, the risk needed to be independent?

Most Americans, and many abroad, say they’d fight for freedom. But, the 4^th isn’t about physically fighting. How many stand up in public, regardless the consequences, and in their spoken and published names demand respect for our rights?

Most Americans, and many abroad, take the 4^th as just another holiday. But, the 4^th is about not taking a holiday from the responsibilities of a free people. How many rededicate themselves to being and helping others be free?

In 1776, most in America were not supporters of the Revolution that dramatically changed and improved the lot of future generations here and abroad. Even among the supporters, most were sunshine patriots and few Winter Soldiers.

To the few stalwarts we and the world owe more than can ever be adequately given, and indeed few were or are given what they deserve. But, the stalwart don’t seek material rewards or comforts. How many are so at peace with themselves by just being there in full devotion and exposure to stand up?

Most Americans, and many abroad, know all this. But, too few live it, every day, in every way. How much more secure and peaceful and at ease would all be if more did?

We aren’t free and independent because we remember, respect or celebrate it. We are only free when we practice it at every opportunity and calling and contribute to others’ realization of it.

The first battle isn't on some distant shore or with our neighbor. The first essential fight is with our own rationalizations of retreat from being an American, the exceptional.

If there's a tear to be shed, it's for ourselves when we haven't been an American. If there's a tear worth shedding, it's in gratitude to ourselves that we have and have taken the opportunity to be an American.

The stirring words and actions of past times are inspirational. The words and actions of today are the reality of whether we actually are inspired.

Fox reports, " 'Girls Gone Wild' Creator Joe Francis Engaged to CBS Entertainment Reporter Christina McLarty -- niece of Mack McLarty, former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton -- while vacationing in St. Tropez. But it will not be a traditional wedding."

We look forward to seeing if the bride's dress meets the "Girls Gone Wild" standard:

The New York Times' report on a study by some Harvard students tortures the facts and the reader with root omissions.

I posted a Comment to the NYTs report, as follows (cut-and-pasted from the "preview" that awaits the NYTs to decide whether to publish it or not):

I just read the Harvard students' report. It is carefully done. BUT, it rests upon several false assertions, not enumerated in the study: First, it fails to mention that the term \"waterboarding\" originated in 2004. Second, it asserts that the history of the technique of interrogation is coterminus with \"torture\" outlawed by preceding laws, conventions and directives. The former applications of let's call it water torture were more severe in duration, application and laxer in supervision and frequency. And, one must remember that the US used it in only three cases upon trained high-value resistors to interrogation who, then, revealed valuable, life-saving intelligence, to no lasting ill-effects upon their health. Even President Obama's executive order banning \"waterboarding\" implicitly excludes our civilian CIA when necessary and authorized. The named major newspapers often, usually indeed, made the same sensationalist errors as the Harvard students, but insofar as they explained the technique or added correct adjectives and adverbs should not be faulted. -- The author of this article about the Harvard students' study, BTW, doesn't provide either a link to the study, for readers to examine it, nor does he even attempt to provide needed context, instead writing his and the students' assertions as legitimate in itself.

If you want to weigh in, go to the Comment link above or to the NYTs report link. Of course, be succinct, informed, and direct to matters of fact. 

For those of you who don't know about Allen West: here's the website of his campaign for Congress. You will also get many insights at the other videos of him at Youtube.com. After tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, West is a retired LtCol, after which he taught high school. West's clarity, sanity and decency - delivered with rare oratorical skills - shine through the foggery that masquerades for most politicians' thinking and masks their evasions. We need West in Congress, no matter where we live. West is "We the people..." Go to his website and contribute. you'll be contributing to yourself.

BTW: Here's an annotated copy of our Declaration of Independence. It started our successful experiment with respect for the rights of "We the people...", and it is worth re-reading for those who want to continue living under our dependence on inherent rights and independence and resistance to any who dare trample them. Also important is to re-read the resulting Constitution, which begins:

The alternative:

This works better and faster than pandering to crybabies and others who don't take responsibility. At several distraught junctures in my life, the advice, "So, change it," worked quick and well.

In preparation for a fun and patriotic 4^th of July, I’ll share with you two of my secrets to a BBQ that is a real pleaser.

First, let your properly unattired significant other, friendly neighbor, or other local hottie do the BBQing. Then, everyone will have patience waiting for what comes off the grill. That, also, leaves time for more beer.

Second, not that you'll care what she serves you, use this Jackie's Oklahoma Style Barbecue Sauce.

It’s the real thing, Oklahoma-style, not adulterated nor wimpified nor commercialized, so authentic you’ll wonder why anyone left the dustbowl in the ‘30s.

A friend and co-worker’s wife made this at home from her family recipe. Everyone who tasted it drooled in delight. (No, that’s not her photo above; we couldn’t persuade her to reveal her secrets.)  In the early ‘80s, they figured out how to bottle it for others. (That took about a year of trials and errors, ‘til getting it just right.) Whenever I’d be in the San Francisco Bay Area, I carried back a case or two. Now, it’s in my local San Diego area Stater Brothers supermarket, and I tout it to anyone walking near the BBQ sauce aisle.

That makes for interesting conversations. One, it beats a chick-magnet puppie. Most women look for ways to please, and/or love to cook. Two, most fans of the yellowish, sweeter Southern-style BBQ sauce are quickly converted to becoming Okies, like myself (an Oy Vey Okie). That makes for swinging soirees in the aisle, or later.

For those of you who want to yelp with slobbering joy, here’s a few testimonials.

For those of you who want to try the real deal, here’s a place where you can order a jar of the taste of hog (or whatever your meat) heaven.

For those of you who just like to drool, our BBQ mistress above welcomes you to her hot sauciness.

For those of you who just want to argue their personal favorite BBQ sauce or recipe, the Comments await your personal slobbering.

For over twenty years, I’ve been a scrupulous, multi-credentialed independent health care consultant and broker. I and others who actually know anything from the experienced, practical and studied perspective have warned that the medical loss ratios built into ObamaCare are dangerous to the quality and costs of medical insurance.

Medical loss ratio measures the percentage of premiums paid out in claims and for quality improvement. Just paying out more on claims does not reduce costs nor improve quality. Duh!

I wrote about this last April, that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) said that ObamaCare’s medical loss ratios were within 5% of nationalizing the health insurance industry, so the Congressional Democrats who rammed ObamaCare through kept the medical loss ratios just below the 90% at which the multi-trillion dollar costs of outright nationalization would have to be counted by the CBO. What we got is a sham, nationalization masquerading – bad enough – as a highly regulated utility.

The CBO and the American Academy of Actuaries both pointed out that medical loss ratios are both misleading and can easily be contradictory to restraining costs or improving quality. This is particularly so when the formula is drawn too narrowly or ignorantly. Politicians' soundbites and regulator rampagers fit those categories of malpractice.

The largest insurance companies were at least half-way in bed with ObamaCare, looking to their own preservation, but now both they and brokers and the public are impregnated with a problem baby.

As during the HillaryCare debates, health care consultants and brokers are in the lead in trying to get sense into the examining room. We are virtually the only organized groups really fighting to keep government quackery away from your health. Sure, our already low commissions are in play, but so is your ability to have knowledgeable, independent guidance through the thickets of medical insurance and coverage.

The Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the National Association of Health Underwriters, and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors  have joined to plead to state insurance commissioners and medical insurance companies:

But “we fear the adoption of a narrow and static definition will adversely impact spending on certain important health plan activities,” the groups say.

In many cases, moves to reduce costs improve quality, and moves to improve quality reduce costs, the groups say.

“The definition of ‘activities that improve health care quality’ should be crafted in a way that recognizes this,” the groups say.

Activities now shut out of the definition include utilization review, fraud prevention activities, and network management, and those activities “are essential to maintaining and improving the quality of health care that clients of our members receive on a daily basis,” the producer groups say.

“Our members know firsthand that less utilization review, fraud prevention, and network development means lower quality health care for their clients – in addition to higher costs,” the groups say.

But, hey, ObamaCare is not really about reducing costs or improving quality; it’s primarily about grossly enlarging government and its control of the economy and our lives.

If you care to weigh in on drawing the formula for medical loss ratios in ObamaCare to be more reasonable, you can write to Ethan Sonnichsen, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the umbrella for the states' insurance commissioners) Director of Government Relations at his email  esonnich@naic.org .

Oh Yeah: This Mass. pre-experience of ObamaCare should help increase the medical loss ratio, pay large claims for those who dip in to coverage then stop paying premiums.

The number of people who appear to be gaming the state’s health insurance system by purchasing coverage only when they are sick quadrupled from 2006 to 2008, according to a long-awaited report released yesterday from the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

The result is that insured residents of Massachusetts wind up paying more for health care, according to the report. …

My local newspaper has the following this morning. Rulers rule, people suffer.

-- South Africa sees jump in circumcision deaths:

…39 young men died in the last month after undergoing the rite of passage into manhood….and that more than 120 young men are in hospitals nursing their botched wounds….The procedure is performed outdoors by a traditional leader who uses a spear to remove the foreskin. – Associated Press

Well, Duh!

At my younger son’s bris (that’s the Hebrew word for the Jewish circumcision) 8 days after birth performed by a mohel (that’s the religiously trained and vetted circumcisor), who was also a pediatrician, our guests included several Gentiles. I wish I had a camera aimed at them, as they all together scrunched their eyes and reached for their groin area.

I was walking down the main street in town looking for a watch repair shop. Finally, I saw a store with old watches hanging in the window. I entered, but the man there said he didn’t fix watches. “I’m a mohel. What do you expect me to hang in the window?”

-- Street peddlers eyed in inflation battle:

Venezuela’s government said Tuesday it will make street vendors freeze their prices, threatening violators with fines, confiscations and even jail.

Marxism in the streets of Venezuela is hardly like “power to the people”!

Chavez probably lost at three-card monte.

-- Supreme Court nominee faces another day of questions:

…But we get no answers from her.

Sorry, but the only illustrations I could find are too disrespectful. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but they do make a Supreme Court justice.

P.S.: Thanks to the kind reader who just sent me this illustration:

New York State is typical of spendthrift states teetering on the hole they've dug of big deficits, looking for more taxes to fill the hole into which tax dollars are thrown.

The latest:

Many nonprofit organizations in New York are deeply concerned they will lose significant contributions from wealthy donors if a pending state budget proposal becomes law. The proposal would reduce the charitable-contribution deductions allowed for individual donors who are “high earners.”

Gov. David Paterson and the state legislature are in a bitter battle as they try to finalize a budget during the bad economic times, but they apparently have agreed on a proposal that would allow the approximately 3,500 New York taxpayers who earn more than $10-million annually to deduct on their state tax returns only 25 percent of their charitable contributions rather than the current 50 percent.

Yes, there’s this, for many donors, self-promotion ranks above helping the needy:

In New York, Arts Trump Social Causes for Philanthropic Recognition: Large donations to institutions such as the Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the New York City Ballet are well covered in the press, and serving on major arts boards can raise members’ social standing and improve business ties, Crain’s writes. By contrast, when the New York investment managers Fiona and Stanley Druckenmiller, who focus on medical and economic charities, ranked No. 1 on the latest Chronicle of Philanthropy list of top givers, “many in the city's nonprofit world wondered, 'Who?’”

Experts say the city's elite put great value on major arts institutions, and gifts to such organizations garner public attention because they are often landmarks frequented by residents and tourists, unlike new hospital wings or university buildings.

Yet, as the official tabulation of income taxes paid in New York shows, (page 5) of $29.6 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2007, 49% came from those with income above $500,000, about 1% of taxpayers, and their deductions were 8% of the tax deductions claimed by all taxpayers.

The well-to-do are more than contributing their part to the NYS government largesse with taxpayer funds.

But, according to the tabulation of the top US contributors to charities for 2008,due to the economic downturn their charitable contributions have fallen:

[T]he number of wealthy people making big gifts has shrunk. A donor needed to part with just $16.2-million in 2009 to qualify for The Chronicle’s list. In 2008 that number was $30.5-million; and in 2007 it was $39-million.

So, tell me why and how New York State driving its golden geese out of state will benefit the needy or the art-starved in New York State.

So, tell me how higher taxes will incent the most productive to invest more or earn more just in order to have more taken away.

So, tell me why higher taxes will not lead to lowered prosperity and thus to lower tax collections and charitable contributions, most of which goes to help the real and supposedly needy.

So, tell me whether adding more government-sector workers, at higher pay and benefits than among private-sector workers, the private-sector workforce shrinking, is really the priority of liberal nest-feathering politicians.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds posts:

HOPE: Consumer Confidence Plunges In June. “Recovery Summer, or Recovery Bummer? Economists are beginning to wonder whether we’re heading into a double-dip recession, or whether the first one ever really ended.”

To which this bottom-line economist adds:

Glenn Reynolds added this bit of observation:

Anecdotage: A woman who works at a local used bookstore told me they’re not selling nearly as many hardbacks as they used to — people won’t spring for them any more, even at the reduced prices. That doesn’t sound like a recovery to me.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 12:52 pm

Perhaps better marketing would help:

My former wife worked in fancy dinner houses for decades. She had the best economic indicator: the size of tips. She also received better tips with an extra blouse button open.

Which would you rather see, Jack Nicholson's man-tits or his playmate's?

A. Jack's

B. Playmate's

C. None of the above. (In which case, take a lesson from the Buddha, below.)

Ron Radosh, as well as other knowledgeable or honest critics, recognize the “travesty” of “Oliver Stone’s new documentary,  South of the Border, his ode to Hugo Chavez and South and Latin America’s new quasi-Marxist and not so quasi dictators.”

For some background into useful idiot Oliver Stone’s “standard far-left narrative that is part of a long line of propaganda films, a modern American version of the old agitprop”:

From the BBC report and from Robert Service’s bio of Trotsky, will the real Chavez and Trotsky please stand up or be excused by ignorant fantasist rationalizers of tyranny?

This morning I saw my son off to sleepaway camp. The mother of my son’s seatmate on the bus and I met and spoke briefly. It turned out we have family (all Jewish) and other friends in common back East.

She was in law school with Obama at Harvard.

She says that Obama was not particularly “political” at that time. [My thought: probably unnecessary as most there likely agreed on most things.]

She says that Obama is not an anti-Semite. [My thought: So what if he hires “court Jews”, hangs out with real anti-Semites, and even for – in his opinion – the best of reasons weakens Israel.]

She says that Obama is a good listener. [My thought: So what, if he only listens to those who agree with him.]

She is an Obama-loyalist, only offering the criticism that he is “indecisive.” [My thought: Only indecisive while trying to figure out how to get away with weakening allies or national security, or propel the US into further debts, enlarge government intrusion into and control over our lives, and undermine free enterprise.]

Yesterday, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds linked to my serious post, and today to Bird Dog's recipe for a cocktail.

The traffic coming from Instapundit is far higher for Bird Dog's post. We also get much traffic from our more salacious posts.

Now, if we can combine the serious with the lighter fun of life we'd all learn more:

 I'll drink to that.

The Left, of course, and the usual fickle conservatives with more ink to expend than practical experience or judgment, have taken the McChrystal affaire and the difficult Afghanistan situation as a new opportunity to exhibit their emphasis on bloviation and lack of spine under difficult challenges regardless of impact on real persons’ lives.

What is notable, however, is that during the discussions of the relief from command of General Stanley McChrystal, most conservatives and professional military leaders came down – even with much misgivings – in favor. Military decorum and civilian control are primary, they affirmed.

Still, while not challenging civilian control of the military, what is missed is that our military’s current rulers have a long record of disrespect for the military and open antagonism to the missions to which we have sent them to struggle, all paying extraordinary sacrifices while politicians and most of the homefront focus on feathering nests.

Such as Andrew Bacevich, not missing yet another opportunity for another way to express his repeated defeatism and antagonism to firm foreign policy, laments instead:

Long wars are antithetical to democracy. Protracted conflict introduces toxins that inexorably corrode the values of popular government. Not least among those values is a code of military conduct that honors the principle of civilian control while keeping the officer corps free from the taint of politics….But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.

Usually sensible Eliot Cohen puts the issue in a broader light:

Today, in the midst of the conflict, we cannot achieve the detachment that military historians writing 50 years from now will have. But we can at least cling to some basic principles in explaining our wars to ourselves.

The first of these is that the civilian leadership is always -- always -- the responsible party. It is responsible for choosing the war, responsible for the strategy, responsible for the military leaders it hires or fires, responsible for ultimate success or failure. It should never be off the hook. The second is the recognition that military institutions and their leaders are radically imperfect. The leaders vary in quality; few have all the attributes required to win, particularly in an era made more complicated by continuous news cycles.

Jules Crittenden, who has actually been to combat and deeply studied war, gets to the point, reminding generalizers of nonsense:

Given the governing party’s preference for strategizing by poll, and the president’s own ambivalence toward winning, there is little reason to be encouraged that he will hang tough in Afghanistan, see to U.S. national security interests there, and give democracy, women’s rights, civilization, that kind of thing a chance, plus render American sacrifices meaningful. Except for one key factor, vanity, which may be a reason for hope in this situation, the one thing that might compel the president to persevere on a foreign field of battle, especially now that the unassailable Gen. David Petraeus has his back.

President Obama, his civilian yes-men from the Left, and politically-chosen military advisors may have triumphed  - even rightfully - over the disrespect, deserved, openly expressed by General McChrystal and his staff. But, their record of disrespect for the military, its professionalism, and its life-and-death existence does not earn them any pass on their continued muddled confusion or purposefully dangerous weakness.

In WWII the US fielded a mostly draft military. In Korea and Vietnam, draftees filled the ranks. Today, we field a superbly professional voluntary military. The Obamaites, and the fickle conservative pundits, should feel lucky they have a professional military that restrains itself. Draftees and their families would never tolerate their heartless, gutless toying with their lives. That would be a real popular and military uprising.

Ezra Klein’s juicebox-level of Leftist propaganda-feed group-think journalism and the defenders of General McChrystal’s crew of wisecrackers as being abused by the Rolling Stone’s reporter have something in common: Neither are willing to stand in public behind the truth that anything that passes from one’s lips is public property.

Yes, if one explicitly says to another “Private” or “Secret” or “Do not quote”, that might be respected. And, it might not. If you don't have discretion or maturity, why expect that of others who also may not or have interests other than covering up for your lackings?

And, if one says to oneself that anything I say should be properly stated and reflect my views, and I will either stand behind it or explain why and how I was wrong or off-mark, then one is acting with integrity to oneself and others.

To feel otherwise is immature and irresponsible. It is an abuse of one's public position to not be forthcoming and transparent.

This is particularly so when entrusted with the ears of millions of Americans on important public issues, or the fate of millions of Americans and allies’ lives.

In my garage, I have boxes full of literally thousands of published pieces I’ve written during and since college. That’s 46-years of comment and analyses. Many, most?, are easily available on the web. I'm also surprised at how many correspondents have archived my emails, when I haven't. If any want to publish them, have at it.

I said it. I stand behind it, or will answer for it.

But, I will not hide behind some notion that I can be allowed to deceive or excuse or cry when someone quotes me.

But, then, I am not a careerist feathering my nest by expecting tolerance for having a lack of respect for myself, for others or for my responsibilities and ethics, and thinking I have some sort of right to be deceptive or a manipulator.

Be an adult, be a professional, or get the hell off the stage, or be exposed for a child playing with other people’s lives and too self-concerned to admit it.

We need more public and private integrity, straight-talk and standing behind it, openly, not less or any more excuses for being immature kindergartners playing with other people's trust or lives.

P.S.: An earlier version had "kindergarden" and "kindergardners." Now corrected for proper, Germanic-root spelling. - Thanks Glenn.

At the doctor’s office this morning I picked up a magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review, of course dated November/December 2009.

An article caught my eye, How Did Israel Become A People?, by Abraham Faust, based on his book (hold on for a doozy of a title) Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (2007) which won the Biblical Archaeology Society Award for Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology.

Briefly:

The “Israel” that is mentioned in the Merneptah Stele [13^th Century B.C.E.] is indeed the “Israel” of the Iron Age. And it can be identified archaeologically. The rich archaeological database, and its analysis with appropriate tools, allows us to trace the Israelites and to decipher many of the internal and external processes that characterized the group from the beginning of the Iron Age onward.

So much for arguments about Jews being a recently externally imposed colony on historically Arab land. The peoples in Israel at the time of the 13^th Century B.C.E. were Israelites, Canaanites, long gone, and then Philistines, from elsewhere in the Mediterranean, with some Egyptian invaders for a time in between.

Faust promises another article about the development of Israel’s Jewish religion.

I’m going to be returning to the website of Biblical Archaeology Review,  as there appear to be many interesting, scholarly articles and book reviews from various religious and academic viewpoints.