Evita Obama

Some jumpy folks have been examining regulatory proposals, Requests or Information, and comments by Joe Biden and concluded that the Left is planning to "solve" the deficit problem by seizing the billions of savings in the nation's 401(k) plans and replacing them with a government "annuity." Powerline looks at the prospects for such an *Argentinian* turn of events: Are The Feds Preparing To Nationalize Your Retirement Savings?

You can read the Labor and Treasury Departments' Request for Information in the Federal Register. Its main theme is that the private-sector trend is toward defined contribution plans and away from defined benefit plans, and that, for some reason, plan beneficiaries don't choose lifetime annuity products as often as some bureaucrats think they should. So the federal government is looking for ways to promote lifetime annuities.

There are, of course, benefits to such products. There are also drawbacks; most notably, they do not allow the saver to leave money to his children. If you die prematurely, you are just out of luck. In that respect as in others, lifetime annuities look a lot like Social Security. It is not clear why the federal government should be in the business of promoting one form of retirement product over another.

But, while the Request for Information definitely exhibits a paternalistic attitude, it doesn't explicitly say anything about confiscating 401(k) accounts, or about the government taking on the role of annuity issuer.

We have been living through the death throes of the welfare state, as the advocates of Big Government have flailed desperately for two years to keep the whole thing together for a little while longer (at least until the Asian market opens...), but the hits keep coming as nation-states from Greece to Britain to California to the US face mounting deficits and political paralysis.

Sadly for us, the redistributionists are on complete control of the levers of power, which gives them incentive and opportunity to cast about for any nickels or dimes that can keep the money machine whirling. But, seizing 401(k) plans? If that ever comes to pass, we can assume the revolution will begin the following day because seizing people's savings in order to pay off government obligations will be the Rubicon - the moment when the Left's calls for "fairness" and "social justice" will turn to simple theft to benefit the unproductive at the expense of the productive.

It would be an extreme step, and one that could only be justified by World War III. It's hard to believe that even the hardest left American progressive would do such a thing, but we live in interesting times. Powerline concludes:

At this point, I think the best we can say is this: the federal government is desperate for cash, and the biggest untapped source of wealth is the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars that Americans who are now nearing retirement age have saved over their lifetimes. I don't doubt for an instant that the Obama administration would like to get its hands on this money, which would go a long way toward resolving the current government debt crisis. An obvious way of doing so is to take the money now, in exchange for a promise to pay an "annuity" later. The bottom line is that, given what we know about the Obama administration's rapacious appetite for swallowing up private wealth, anyone who has savings should be vigilant.

Words to live by under any circumstance.

Get Bennett

In the wake of Bob Bennet's defeat in the Utah primary, there's been a lot of talk about Tea Partiers claiming their first GOP "scalp," which is an odd thing to say since Bennett was rejected by conservative activists wholly within the GOP. This is yet another example of MSM confusion about the nature of the Tea Parties and the state of play within the GOP, two topics about which the average journalist is functionally illiterate. This report that appeared on CNN before the Utah GOP caucuses (or whatever they were doing) is typical (h/t Redstate):

Bennett and the CNN babe talk about his conservative bona fides and express confusion over why these are not enough for the GOP's conservative activists. Among other things, they name check some Inside-the-Beltway conservative lobbying groups that have endorsed Bennett. (normally, CNN would be chastising Bennett for associating with these sorts of right wing pressure groups...). What else do these crazy conservatives want? they seem to ask plaintively. Well, conservatives would like to see less of Bob Bennett where he has usually been found the last 10 years: sharing the podium with left-wing senators to announce bi-partisan "deals" that gives the Left 75% of what they want. The fact that Bennett voted a particular way on abortion becomes meaningless when he is a consistent vote in favor of the expansion of government.

The CNN babe then goes to talk to a "tea party leader" who says the following regarding the TARP vote that turned out to be Bennett's epitaph:

TEA PARTY FOUNDER: “It’s not a question of how conservative he is, it’s a question of being responsible. And it wasn’t responsible of him to vote for the bailout for failing companies.”

REPORTER: “Should his career end over that one vote?”

TEA PARTY FOUNDER “His career will end over that one vote.”

Yes, that one vote really did matter, CNN babe. Voters have gotten hip to the Senate vote dodge, where Senators explain away a bad vote by saying it was "procedural" or "one of thousands of votes in my _____ years in The Senate." Maybe it's because we've all read Master of the Senate, but we know that those "procedural" votes are often where the action is, and the place where, say, Olympia Snowe will vote a health care bill out of committee because "history is calling" and then vote against it when the voters come calling. Hey, how about just voting against the damn thing every chance you get, rather than clearing the way for its passage?

Anyway, the TARP vote was a rare chance for someone like Bennett to stand in the way of a stampede and instead he chose to go along to get along. The Tea Parties began specifically in response to over spending in Washington in the wake of the market crash. While Tea Partiers can credibly claim to be a movement distinct from Republicans and Democrats, a fair reading of the Tea Party movement has to conclude that it is a conservative/libertarian one. There may be some disaffected independents and maybe some conservative Democrats along for the ride, but most Tea Partiers have a history voting Republican and only became disaffected from the GOP because of guys like Bennett.

The media and political obtuseness on this score is really grating to listen to, and the CNN report about is a perfect example of how clueless our supposed elites are to the concerns of a large segment of the electorate. We hear that voters are "angry," "irrational," and that the Tea Parties are part of a "populist wave," sweeping all before its path. Supposedly voters want the incompatible: more government services and lower taxes. Guys like Bennett and news outlets like CNN love to shrug their shoulders as if to say, "how can we rectify that?"... and then go right back to calling for increased spending for the media emergency of the month. With the exception of the Gingrich/Clinton welfare reform of the Nineties, I can't think of a time when a majority in the Senate or Congress voted in favor of a reduction in spending. It's so much easier to talk fiscal restraint back home, and then convince yourself that obstreperous activist groups in DC represent some sort of popular groundswell for increased spending.

Bennett and others may be conservative, but they have also been useless because they have enabled the increase of the federal government to the point where its very sustainability is coming into doubt. Yet, he is baffled as to why people are so motivated to oppose him. I fear there are a lot of GOP representatives out there who are similarly obtuse.

Before the Flood

Via Naked Capitalism, here's an entertaining article from Der Spiegel about the "dramatic" breakdown in talks at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Long story short: the Europeans had put together a "green" treaty that they thought would Save The Earth, but the Chinese and Indians would not go along with it because it would involve curtailing their economic growth just when it was getting started (with the Euro-weenies still living well off of 200 years worth of development). The impasse was lifted by Barack Obama who suddenly walked out of the meeting, joined an impromptu caucus of the BRIC countries, and drafted a meaningless agreement that would do nothing for the climate (that is if humans could negotiate the problems of the planet away), leaving the Euros to huff importantly about how they were only trying to save humanity. Some of this stuff is classic: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit

There were still two important placeholders, X and Y, in the draft agreement. They marked the spots where the percentage targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, for the industrialized nations and emerging countries respectively, were to be entered. "We cannot go over and say nice things but x and y wait please one year or so," Merkel said. The German chancellor was determined to secure a commitment from China and India to participate in the climate protection efforts.

But China and India were unwilling to make that commitment. Behind the backs of the Europeans, they had apparently reached their own agreement with Brazil and South Africa. "We have all along been saying 'Don't prejudge options!,'" said a representative of the Indian delegation*, prompting Merkel to burst out: "Then you don't want legally binding!"

This, in turn, prompted the Indian negotiator to say angrily: "Why do you prejudge options? All along you have said don't prejudge options and now you are prejudging options. This is not fair!" Chinese negotiator He Yafei stood by this remark.

British Prime Minister Brown, speaking in a sonorous voice, tried to mediate. "I think it's important to recognize what we are trying to do here," he said. "We are trying to cut emissions by 2020 and by 2050. That is the only way we can justify being here. It is the only way we can justify the public money that is being spent to do so. It is the only way we can justify the search for a treaty."

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pointed out that it was the Indians who had proposed the inclusion of concrete emissions reductions for the industrialized nations in the treaty.

But India had made an about-face within hours and was no longer interested in his own proposal. An unidentified member of the group was outraged, saying: "I am surprised that our Indian friend would say that an amendment by the Indian environmental minister this morning is no longer there. This is a breach of process."

Merkel took one last stab. The reduction of greenhouse gases by 50 percent, that is, limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, was a reference to what is written in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. Then she directed a dramatic appeal at the countries seeking to block the treaty: "Let us suppose 100 percent reduction, that is, no CO2 in the developed countries anymore. Even then, with the (target of) two degrees, you have to reduce carbon emissions in the developing countries. That is the truth."

Of course, Chinese negotiator He Yafei knew perfectly well that Merkel was right, which was precisely why he could not possibly agree with her proposal. It would have meant that China was required to check its economic development. Double-digit growth figures would no longer be an option for the Asian giant.

The Chinese diplomat refused to give in to the Europeans' demands, saying: "Thank you for all these suggestions. We have said very clearly that we must not accept the 50 percent reductions. We cannot accept it."

This was the point where Sarkozy, who had had enough, accused the Chinese of hypocrisy. As one of the attendees recalls: "There was a sense that we had reached a logjam, an abyss."

What a bunch of loons. These are the 21st century's equivalents to the Reagans, Thatchers, Kohls, Mitterands, Ghandis, and Dengs of my youth. Imagine that, while the financial crisis was still at a low boil, the leaders of the developed world were arguing over how much they should hobble their own economies for the sake of ephemeral problems with climate change.

I'm sure Obama would have loved to emerge from Copenhagen with a treaty ("Nice Weather For Our Time") to wave around, but give him credit for quickly reading the mood of the room, getting out of there, and getting in with the side with real economic power. The folks at Der Spiegel don't seem to agree, as this bit of editorializing makes clear:

Finally, the politician spoke up whose claim to being the most powerful man in the world would soon be based solely on his many nuclear weapons: US President Barack Obama. By that point, hardly anyone in the room dared to even bite into the soggy mozzarella sandwiches that were constantly being served.

You have to love the xenophobia on display here. Of course, America is again to blame for arrogantly agreeing to destroy the planet, but China and India are clearly the objects of a subdued racial antagonism for their role in derailing the Summit. What's next, a trade war over tariffs disguised as carbon credits?

Low Spark of High Heeled Boys

Are you ready for another "ground breaking" San Francisco politician? Meet Teresa Sparks, candidate for District Six seat on the Board of Supervisors, and possibly the first transsexual on the Board: Long Road To Acceptance For Man Who Became a Woman

He was a family man and a guy's guy, running companies and keeping the wife and kids in million-dollar homes. He collected cars, souped up his pickup truck and wore diamondback snakeskin cowboy boots when riding his Harley.

Then one day in 1997, he gathered his children near the family home in Kansas and delivered the news: He was going to transition into a she. It was something he had wanted for decades and could no longer suppress.

"I asked a lot of my kids," said the woman now known as Theresa Sparks. "I think our story tells you that family really is the one thing that truly sustains. The love between children and parents can get you through something even as difficult as this."

Getting through, though, came with unimagined pain and alienation. Sparks lost her home, her job, her life savings. She sold everything she had - from the cars to a Cartier watch - and teetered on the edge of homelessness. Her sons didn't speak to her for a decade. Her siblings think she is a freak.

Today, Sparks, who rebuilt her life in San Francisco, becoming a political force and the onetime head of the San Francisco Police Commission, is reunited with her kids.

Yawn. Sparks is nothing more than a standard-issue SF progressive whose positions are so uncontroversial here that they are not even worth mentioning. The linked article is little more than a puff piece about her "struggles" with identity and gender. There is little to say about her political career beyond noting that she headed the Police Commission. Big freakin' deal.

Want to try radical? How about running as a conservative Republican? Then let's see how many friendly articles the Chronicle publishes about you.

Sanctuary Silly

Amid all the shrieks about boycotts, lawsuits, and protests against Arizona's "hateful" immigration bill, the US is implementing rules that will put a major dent in the practical effects of the sanctuary city movement, of which San Francisco is a leading light: US Policy Undermines SF Sanctuary City Policy

San Francisco officials are about to lose the ability to decide which criminal suspects who may also be undocumented immigrants should be reported to federal officials, The Chronicle has learned.

Starting next month, the San Francisco County Jail must begin participating in an automated reporting system set up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The program, Secure Communities, automatically links the fingerprint databases of state justice departments with a database used by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, known as ICE.

As part of San Francisco's 1989 sanctuary city policy, officials only report felony suspects whose legal status can't be readily confirmed upon booking to federal officials. The new program would end that discretionary practice because all digital fingerprints will automatically be forwarded to the state Department of Justice and on to federal immigration authorities for review.

Sanctuary city policies are mostly symbolic, "feel-good" resolutions that make undeserving politicians look righteous and idealistic. But, they also have a practical effect, in that law enforcement will inevitably arrest illegal alien criminals but refrain from doing the one thing that would get them out of our hair - reporting them to the feds for deportation.

San Francisco's normally loudmouthed illegal alien advocates in the mayor's office and on the Board of Supervisors are oddly quiet about all of this. The only city official to speak publicly is Sheriff Mike Hennessey who will be complying with the new rules.

"Essentially, this guts San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance in terms of criminal justice," San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey told The Chronicle on Wednesday.

Don't try to sound so disappointed, law man. Hennessey gamely lurches into the jack-booted slippery slope arguments beloved of Open Borders advocates:

Hennessey raised concerns that the implications could be far broader and potentially affect anyone whose fingerprints are run through the California Department of Justice for a criminal background check, including those applying for certain jobs, such as child care worker and teacher.

But David Venturella, national director of the Secure Communities program, said Wednesday night that Hennessey's concerns are baseless. The system is designed only to check the backgrounds of suspected criminals who come into contact with police, sheriffs, highway patrol and the like. To assert otherwise, he said, "is not true."

Not true?! How dare you, suh! You impugn our honor!

SF's sanctuary city policy may have been popular in the Mission (illegals) and Pacific Heights (gentry), but was generally unpopular in the rest of The City, especially after a gangsta from El Salvador shot a father and his sons. There is nothing functionally different from Arizona's law and the new US policy - law enforcement will be inquiring into and reporting on immigration status - except the latter is promulgated by the Obama administration, rather than evil Republicans. Yes, I am having a delicious side of irony with my breakfast this morning.

It only seems fair: if Arizona can't draft laws that address immigration status, then SF, and other cities, shouldn't be able to turn around and undermine immigration law. Sanctuary cities have been a glaring example of politically correct flouting of the law on behalf of a constituency that doesn't even have the right to vote (!), and anything that shuts that down is OK with me.

Comprehensively Speaking

While the Dow Jones Industrials were going to Hell and back, the Senate continued work on the (ta-daa!) Comprehensive Financial Reform Bill. You may recall last week that the dastardly Republicans were filibustering "reform" as part of their multi-generational effort to oppress widows and orphans. But, a funny thing happened; after Dems squeaked about Goldman Sachs, etc. Dodd started caving, er, negotiating in earnest. The results might surprise you: Dodd-Shelby Compromise

The Dodd-Shelby compromise gave Shelby almost everything he wanted in terms of reducing the government's ability to bail out bank creditors and near-insolvent financial firms:

The agreement abandons a $50 billion resolution fund that would have covered the costs of a major financial collapse. Instead, if the amendment is adopted, as expected, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would have the ability to liquidate large firms, and could likely use a credit line from the Treasury Department to cover any costs. Any losses the FDIC encounters would be recovered as the agency sells off the assets of the failed firm.

Using the FDIC, rather than creating a brand-new resolution fund makes sense since (1) everyone knows how the FDIC works and (2) now we don't have to have a $50 billion slush fund sitting around attracting moral hazard like flies to sherbet. As Steven Spruiell notes in the linked article, the GOP - led by Richard Shelby, with an assist from Bob Corker - got virtually everything they wanted:

Shelby's near-total victory on the bailout issues is worth emphasizing because the politics were so stacked against the Senate GOP that even some conservatives started wondering why they were filibustering and holding out for so long, especially after Reid started opportunistically forcing vote after vote. It's because the bailout provisions of the bill were really bad — you can catch up here — and thanks to senators such as McConnell, Shelby and Corker who wouldn't let go of this issue, those provisions are now much improved. Liberals who tried to spin it all as an evil Frank Luntz talking-point conspiracy have reason to feel a little bit foolish today. Dodd was willing to let the administration have the flexibility it wanted to do bailouts until Republicans filibustered the bill. Dodd caved, and the fixes were approved 93-5.

Pretty neat trick for what it supposedly a despised minority.

Meanwhile, the "audit the Fed" movement is also going to be part of the final bill, incredibly enough. "Socialist" Bernie Sanders - he wouldn't last five minutes in a real socialist system - worked out a deal with Dodd to allow the GAO to review the Fed's lending during the crisis: Fed Audit Deal Reached In Senate

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board of Governors shall publish on its website, not later than December 1, 2010, with respect to all loans and other financial assistance it has provided during the period beginning on December 1, 2007 and ending on the date of enactment of this Act under the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Term Auction Facility, Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, Maiden Lane III, the agency Mortgage-Backed Securities program, foreign currency liquidity swap lines, and any other program created as a result of the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act.

This isn't a complete audit, as it would not touch the Fed's regular non-emergency dealings. Ron Paul for one is crying "sell out!" By a "socialist?" I'm shocked!

So, it looks like we will finally have "comprehensive" financial reform, nearly 20 months after the original Bear Stearnes bailout. And, apparently no one yet has the guts to do anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were only ground zero for the whole freakin' crisis. Step by step, I guess.

Everyone's been talking about how they want to get this right because they expect this bill to provide the legal framework for US finance for decades to come. That's nice, but wasn't it a problem that bankers, especially those in the shadow banking system, were able to work around the old system - and everyone knew they had an advantage precisely because they were able to develop work-arounds? Seems like rather than trying to legislate "for all time," it would be much better to recognize that the law in this area needs to adjust to market conditions as they evolve. What, is that too much work?

Land of 1010 Dances

I spent most of the morning in the car listening to the radio, and all anyone wanted to talk about was illegal aliens. Shut off the radio at around 11 AM. One hour later, the internets were screaming about a 1000-point drop in the Dow. Even if I wanted to sell into that, it happened so fast there was no time: Dow Takes a Harrowing 1010 Point Journey

A bad day in the financial markets was made worse by an apparent trading glitch, leaving traders and investors nervous and scratching their heads over how a mistake could send the Dow Jones Industrial Average into a 1,000-point tailspin.

At its afternoon low, the Dow had plummeted 998.50 points, its biggest intraday point drop ever. The swing from its intraday high was 1,010.14 points.

The Dow eventually rebounded to close down 347.80 points, or 3.2%, at 10520.32, its worst percentage decline since April 2009. Stocks from Dow components Procter & Gamble and 3Msuffered precipitous declines. At one point shares of P&G tumbled 37%.

Everyone's blaming this on some sort of computer glitch leading to cascading sell orders from the dreaded High Frequency Traders, but lets not kid ourselves. For all the talk of a nascent recovery in the US (and things do feel a little more prosperous, at least in SF), there is still a lot of uncertainty out there, almost all of it directed not at banks, but at nations:

All this fogginess about botched trades came as the market was already on edge about Greece and the European debt crisis.

Just before the panic started, which was around 2:30pm ET, Mohamed El-Erian said on CNBC that the Greek crisis is about to spread.

"We've seen a crisis start in a country—Greece—become regional, impact the whole of the Euro zone and is on the verge of truly going global," said El-Erian, CEO of the world's biggest bond fund.

Rochdale analyst Dick Bove said the riots in Greece, which escalated after theGreek austerity bill was passed, are also a telling sign.

"There is simply a growing recognition that Greece has got to default, said Rochdale banking analyst Dick Bove. "The riots in the streets showed the decision to repay the debt was not going to be made by the people in Germany, France and Switzerland, it's going to be made by people in Greece and they're not going to repay it," he said. "Anyone seeing the riots is going to recognize that this government is going to be thrown out and anything replacing this government is going to be far more leftist leaning and they're going to repudiate."

The developed world is living through a crisis of Big Government, as nation-states as varied as Greece, Britain, Japan, Spain, California, and the US grapple with unsustainable public expenditures made worse by political climates that have been paralyzed into inaction. The violent riots in Greece are a warning that the Left will not hesitate to protect its prerogatives. The (typically) muddled election results in Britain, which might result in Gordon Brown remaining in office as Prime Minister (!), indicate that no one will have a mandate to make serious efforts at scaling back government until there is absolutely no other alternative. And, the continued spending in California (high speed rail!) and the US (Obamacare) show that some politicians simply can't imagine a world where they can't appropriate billions of dollars for ephemeral gains. Appropriately, our normally loquacious President was strikingly quiet this afternoon. There's no emergency if the president isn't involved, right?

The Little Depression lurks, for now...

Unhelpful

I do not approve of this: Sarah Palin: Let's Shake Up California

I’d like to tell you about a Commonsense Conservative running for office in California this year. She grew up in a modest home with a school teacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread. Through a combination of hard work, perseverance, and common sense, she proved the naysayers wrong to reach the top of her field, where she led with distinction – facing hard truths, making tough decisions, and showing real leadership through a rocky transition period. Where others had failed, her company had weathered the storm and settled on a stronger new foundation.

Her name is Carly Fiorina, and I’m proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.

Fiorina seems to have convinced Palin that she is the sort of "Common Sense Conservative" who will help lead the counter-revolution in Washington.

Carly is the Commonsense Conservative that California needs and our country could sure use in these trying times. Most importantly, she’s running for the right reasons. She has an understanding that is sorely lacking in D.C. She’s not a career politician. She’s a businesswoman who has run a major corporation. She knows how to really incentivize job creation. Her fiscal conservatism is rooted in real life experience. She knows that when government grows, the private sector shrinks under the burden of debt and deficits. We can trust Carly to do the right thing for America’s economy and to make the principled decisions she has throughout her professional career.

More important, Palin has looked at the state of the race and decided that Fiorina is the GOP candidate who would most likely be able to defeat Barbara Boxer

Please consider that Carly is the conservative who has the potential to beat California’s liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, in November. I’m a huge proponent of contested primaries, so I’m glad to see the contest in California’s GOP, but I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate.

Palin's right about Campbell. He is ridiculously liberal, going as far as to have supported the tax-and-borrow CA budget "deal" that was defeated last year. She's also *probably* right that Fiorina has the best shot, practically speaking, of defeating Boxer. But, that doesn't mean Fiorina is the best candidate out there. Here, for example, is what one CA conservative activist had to say about Fiorina's positions: Packard Letter

Taxation:While she claims to be against tax increases she has repeatedly called for taxation of the internet

Cap and tax-While she claims to be against this assault on America's competitive edge and tax on its working class, she is in favor of the "climate legislation" sponsored by Senators Kerry and Graham and has repeatedly advocated for government sponsored green jobs

Education-You say she will oppose "radical 'government takeover' policies," but she wrote a thesis advocating for just such a federal takeover of the education system from individual states.

Judicial nominees-When asked her position on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation, Ms. Fiorina stated "I probably would have voted for Sotomayor. She seemed qualified." Had Fiorina been in the Senate, she would

have disagreed with all but 9 members of the Republican caucus.

• Affirmative action-Ms. Fiorina has gone so far as to state that there will be no "truly representative democracy unless women make up half at least of our elected representatives." She is a longtime associate and cheerleader for Jesse Jackson.

It's easy to see why GOP leaders are eager to nominate Fiorina. She's wealthy, glamorous, and accomplished. She's a member of America's pseudo-celebrity class, in that she has written books, appeared in the news, been on television, etc. Fiorina is also a woman and would presumably be immune to the shrieking feminism that Boxer practices against her male opponents. Still Fiorina's strengths are more than offset by her negatives: her tenure at HP - supposedly her selling point - ended with her termination after the disastrous Compaq merger (which finally became less a matter of business judgment and more an exercise in ego to show she could close the deal. Sound familiar?). She has no demonstrable political interests or affiliations that pre-date 2008. And, I don't think that we should hide from the fact that Fiorina is recovering from a recent bout with breast cancer. Are we really going to try to hold on to a CA Senate seat with someone who might die in office?

Tactically, Palin might be right that Fiorina is the one who can take on Boxer. But, let's not kid ourselves. She shows every indication of joining the media-friendly McCain/Graham caucus in the Senate, meaning she'll spend as much time running against conservatives as she does against Democrats. But the idea that Carly Fiorina is a "conservative" - when there is an actual, battle tested conservative in the race! - is simply not in tune with reality.

Definitely Maybe

Don't Talk. Just Listen

Climate of Hate

Thomas Sowell looks at the phenomenon of African-Americans in San Francisco who are beating up Chinese-Americans. (how ironic that the only immigrant basshing in America is happening in "progressive" San Francisco, rather than "hateful" Arizona). As Sowell notes, these attacks are as much a product of overheated political rhetoric, as the phantasmal "bigotry" of Tea Partiers or Border Security activists: Resenting Achievement More Than Wealth

Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.

In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia, and our media — not to mention our politicians — promote an attitude that other people’s achievements are grievances, rather than examples.

When black schoolchildren who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for “acting white,” why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?

This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.

These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype — differences are translated into “disparities” and “inequities,” provoking envy and resentments under the more prettied-up name of “social justice.”

The Left's political program is ultimately built on envy and resentment, both of wealth and success. It's appropriate that the party of government would breed such resentment, as government has always resented anyone with economic power that lies outside the purview of bureaucrats and monarchs. The people marching in the streets against The Rich and beating up old Chinese ladies on MUNI are their shock troops, but the Resentful are all around us, and they vote.

Danger Mice

Mark Steyn highlights the "rush to judgment" that infects those in the government who are always ready to caution Americans to not "rush to judgment" as to the origin of terrorist plots (the better to allay acts of "hate"): Crying Loan Wolf

Whenever something goofy happens — bomb in Times Square, mass shootings at a US military base, etc. — there seem to be two kinds of reactions:

a) Some people go, "Hmm. I wonder if this involves some guy with a name like Mohammed who has e-mails from Yemen."

b) Other people go, "Don't worry, there's no connection to terrorism, and anyway, even if there is, it's all very amateurish, and besides he's most likely an isolated extremist orlone wolf."

Unfortunately, everyone in category (b) seems to work for the government.

America dodged a bullet once again, as did the politicians whose constituents are directly in the line of fire. Even after it became clear that the would-be bomber was a *gasp* Muslim, the cry immediately went up that he was an amateur and loan wolf. As Scrappleface notes, the Times Square operation showed all of the hallmarks of a tightly coordinated plot: hParking Spot Proves Times square Suspect No "Lone Wolf"

While officials called the bomb itself “crude” and “amateurish”, they now privately acknowledge that the preparation, advanced espionage and meticulous orchestration of events required to insert a Sport Utility Vehicle into a curbside parking space anywhere in New York City reflects a high-level of intellectual and technical sophistication.”

“You don’t just drive into New York and park your car,” the source said. “Without a real-time satellite video feed and agents on the ground in constant communication with the driver, that kind of operation can take hours on a good day. Even with all of those resources, the perps still had to count on a certain degree of luck.”

Ha. Ha. Glad we can laugh, rather than spend a week watching funerals on CNN.

Lawyers In Love

Sorry, but work and family responsibilities have left too little time for blogging the last 24 hours.

Back soon.

The Taxman Cometh. The Taxed Man Avoideth

The Times reports on the heroic level of tax avoidance in Greece. There's a lot of talk about the "cultural tradition" of bribes and tax cheating that has greased (heh heh) the wheels in that country, but the practical reality is there are a lot of Greek entrepreneurs and professionals who don't feel like paying for barbers to retire at age 50, and for garbagemen to go on strike just in time for summer vacation: Greek Wealth Is Everywhere, But On Tax Forms

Various studies, including one by the Federation of Greek Industries last year, have estimated that the government may be losing as much as $30 billion a year to tax evasion — a figure that would have gone a long way to solving its debt problems.

“We need to grow up,” said Ioannis Plakopoulos, who like all owners of newspaper stands will have to give receipts and start using a cash register under the new tax laws passed last month. “We need to learn not to cheat or to let others cheat.”

On the eve of an International Monetary Fund bailout deal that is sure to call for deep sacrifices here, including harsh austerity measures, layoffs and steep tax increases, many Greeks say they feel chastened by the financial crisis that has pushed the country to the edge of bankruptcy.

But even so, changing things will not be easy. Experts point out that ducking taxes is part of a broader culture of bribery and corruption that is deeply entrenched.

Mr. Plakopoulos, who supports most of the government’s new efforts, admits that he and his friends used to chuckle over the best ways to avoid taxes.

To get more attentive care in the country’s national health system, Greeks routinely pay doctors cash on the side, a practice known as “fakelaki,” Greek for little envelope. And bribing government officials to grease the wheels of bureaucracy is so standard that people know the rates. They say, for instance, that 300 euros, about $400, will get you an emission inspection sticker.

The government estimates that it may be losing up to $30 billion per year, which is a huge shortfall for a country of just 11 million. But, Greece is being bailed out to the tune of $120 billion, so even if everyone turned into Honest Ioannis overnight, there would still be a an unsustainable welfare state in need of a bailout.

The problem is not with the greedy "rich." It is with the tax collectors and redistributionists who have simply tapped out the golden goose on behalf of their rioting constituencies. It's fine to speak of social justice and equality, but the one lesson no one ever learns is that eventually you really do run out of other people's money.

Disaster Politics

You'll pardon me if I'm not spouting flames from my fanny over the federal government's "slow response" to the BP oil spill, or Eight Days In April as Legal Insurrection has dubbed it. Sure you can criticize the Obama Administration's slow response. You can make fun of the "regime." You can note that the progressive loudmouths who castigated the Bush Administration for its failures during Hurricane Katrina have suddenly gotten nervous and circumspect about politicizing disaster. All fair game.

But trying to turn this into "Obama's Katrina" is a step too far for my taste. The media and political attacks on President Bush in the days after Katrina hit land were outrageous, of course, and a perfect example of the poisonous black heart of the Left. American citizens were stranded on rooftops and in the Superdome, and all some people could do was complain about Michael Brown's horse farm, among other trivia. It was "Queen of All Media" Oprah Winfrey's show that broadcast the outrageous claim - from the chief of New Orleans police - that there was cannibalism at the Superdome. It was Kanye West who said, in the middle of a fund raiser, that "George Bush hates black people." It was beneath contempt and was all done in lieu of helping recover from a disaster that had affecting an area of land the size of Great Britain. Among other things, Bush was criticized for not doing a fly-over of the scene, so he could furrow his brow for the nightly news, as if that would have made a damn bit of difference. Maybe noblesse oblige works for some people, but I can't think of a single life such a stunt would have saved. For his part, Obama will visit the Gulf Coast this weekend. Happy, now? I doubt it.

The way this stuff used to be resolved is the person one step down the totem pole took the hit, while the president acquired a reputation for inaction without the media beating people over the head about it. Napolitano, for one, seems completely out of her depth here, and may not even realize that the Coast Guard, among other things, is part of her department. But, since 9/11, the new pattern is: "everything is the fault of the other guy because of his politics, and the only person who gets fired is some low-level grunt who might have taken a coffee break at the wrong time." The only people in leadership positions who are at fault are always in the other political party and no one can ever lose their job because they are "indispensable." If President Romney takes office in 2012, I'm hoping San Francisco doesn't experience any 7.0 earthquakes during his term (unless there's a special "gathering place" for registered Republicans...)

For too long, Americans have been conditioned to believe that disasters have a "narrative" or "meaning," as part of a media spectacle that can only be resolved by political action. We have lost touch with a fundamental aspect of the human condition: that life is filled with tragedy and that disasters are ... disastrous! If you politicize disaster, you will politicize the relief effort, too. Are we really going to become a country where the scope of federal aid depends on how your precinct voted in the last presidential election? I hope not.

Anyway, I'm going to be too busy hitting "Refresh" on Drudge to better follow the Obama Cheating Scandal.

UPDATE: I've corrected a mistake noted in the comments.