SOMEHOW PRISON IS WORSE THAN YOU THOUGHT

You probably don't need a lot of incentive to avoid going to prison, what with the shankings, the anal rape, the race riots, the crowding, the racist gangs you'll have to join for protection, and the general tendency of our society to treat prison as a legalized form of torture. But believe it or not, prison may actually worse than these facts have led you to believe.

Let's say you're a doctor. Doctors are respectable and highly educated, right? Yes, but like any other profession there is a bottom of the barrel, people who went to barely-accredited medical schools and barely graduated. The kind who are routinely disciplined by state medical boards and repeatedly sued with good cause for medical malpractice. The Doctor Nick Rivieras of the world, if you will. What does a doctor do in that situation? Where do you work after you are suspended for fondling an anaesthetized patient? After too many patients end up dying from ridiculous mistakes?

Well, you go to work in a prison.

There was a brief spike in interest a few years ago, prompted by heavy coverage in the New York Times and budget/overcrowding crisis in the California Dept. of Corrections (where an inmate dies "every six or seven days" from inadequate care), in the sorry excuse for healthcare that inmates receive. In addition to being denied (expensive) medications and other forms of treatment due to shortages of funding and serious understaffing, inmates are routinely treated by physicians who see prisons as the employer of last resort. The reasons are not mysterious. Would you want to be a prison doctor? I certainly wouldn't. I'd take that low-paying, dangerous job only if normal society wouldn't take me. Then again, people will take unpleasant work if compensated accordingly – note how inner-city hospitals are rarely short on staff because of the extra incentives they provide.

Unfortunately prison health care, like so many other aspects of our correctional system, has been farmed out in the misguided belief that money is saved. Prison Health Services, Inc., the ginandtacos.com "profiteer of human misery of the week," controls an overwhelming amount of this corner of the market in human suffering. It also provides yet another example of why privatization of public services rarely makes sense. PHS sure is cheap, which saves the states some badly needed cash, right? Well, yes, they save money up front. But gosh are those wrongful death lawsuits expensive to settle. Like all other profiteers on the government tit, PHS gets paid a lump sum and then maximizes profits by cutting every cost known to man. By hiring Dr. Nick Riviera. By refusing to provide prescription drugs. By having one doctor for 7,000 inmates. State and local governments are quickly learning that withholding insulin from diabetics is a risky cost-control measure. When they die, well, it isn't real cheap to make that problem disappear.

So, in addition to all of the other horrendous aspects of being in prison, remember that five years for stealing a car can easily turn into a death sentence if you have medical problems. Aside from the human rights issues involved (and recognizing that most people have limited sympathy for convicted criminals) you can sit back and enjoy yet another example of how privatization does little more than move costs from one pile to another, usually increasing them in the process.

BROKEN CLOCKS

As a broken clock is right every twelve hours, one of our friendly libertarian visitors to yesterday's post has raised an interesting point that I need to address periodically. Perhaps it was unintentional, an externality of the barrage of nonsense about how I don't devote my life to whining about taxes because I don't pay any.

online pharmacy buy xenical online no prescription pharmacy

Regardless, let's accentuate the positive.

Why do I call Objectivists retards and make fun of them rather than engaging their philosophy in earnest, respectful debate? Kudos, Rand Fan. That is a fair question. Let me explain.

First of all, I teach political science for a living with a heavy emphasis on current American Politics. In the course of this work I am regularly exposed to many bright, dedicated students of all political persuasions. I am also exposed on a daily basis to all manner of sloth, proud ignorance, arrogance, and flat-out stupidity. As I have stated before (but perhaps not for newcomers) my profession prohibits me from responding to students with "What's the matter with you? Are you fucking retarded?" even when that is my first response and perhaps even the most appropriate one. As anyone in this profession should do, I treat my students respectfully and take great pains to emphasize that students are graded on the ability to retain, apply, and interpret facts. This site, which is a personal one, is a place where I don't have to listen respectfully to stupid shit. I get to make fun of it. This is an outlet.

Second, I go for jokes. Very little of what I post is "straight" with no element of sarcasm and comedy. Why? Because funny things are fun to read (and write). People like to read things that amuse them, especially while trying to kill a few minutes at work ("going Galt" if you will).
buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription

Third, I've gotten a little older and wiser. Granted, taunting and insult comedy are not usually taken as signs of maturity. But I used to argue with everyone and about everything.
buy bactroban online buy bactroban no prescription

All the fucking time. Strangers, friends, classmates, teachers, idiots on the internet…it didn't matter. Gradually I realized that this was unproductive and therefore a tremendous waste of effort on my part. So I no longer argue with people who hold frivilous viewpoints. That is not an idle choice of adjective. I mean "frivolous" in the way that the legal system uses the term.

When an attorney files a motion, the judge's response generally falls into one of two categories. First, the judge can grant the motion, having decided that the attorney's legal argument was sound and persuasive. Alternatively, the judge can deny the motion if the attorney's argument is flawed or sound but unpersuasive. In short, the expected outcomes are "You convinced me" or "You didn't quite convince me."

When a judge rules that a motion is frivolous he is saying neither of those things. He's saying "This is complete gibberish and a waste of our time." He is not saying you have a bad argument, he is saying that you have not made an argument at all. For example, when "tax protestors" attempt to defend themselves with lunatic arguments such as that income taxation is voluntary or that they are not United States citizens, judges do not solemnly consider the merits of this nonsense. They call such arguments frivolous.

online pharmacy buy furosemide online no prescription pharmacy

It would waste the court's time to address them as serious points of law.

Here's a better example. Pretend that a conference on astrophysics has convened the top minds to discuss the latest in the field. You crash one of the panel discussions and raise an argument that the moon is made of cheese. What would they do? Well, they'd probably think it was a joke and laugh politely. After you pressed the point they would realize you are serious. Perhaps one of them would take a few seconds to kindly point you toward the mountains of evidence disproving your "theory." If you kept pressing, they'd stop being polite. They'd get pissed off and probably have you removed from the premises so you could no longer waste their time.

This is why I am not interested in having a point-by-point debate about Objectivism, whether or not the Holocaust happened, Young Earth Creationism, 9/11 Controlled Demolition hypotheses, the McVeigh/Hussein connection, or any other ridiculous viewpoint. The people who subscribe to such ideologies aren't worth arguing with because they aren't affected by evidence or rational critiques. Since they can't (or more likely just won't) understand that their viewpoint is without merit, it avails me of nothing to point it out.

Feel free, as is your kind's habit, to insist that our refusal to debate you is because we A) lack brainpower or B) are terrified because we know you're right about everything. Keep telling yourself that. In reality I have better things to do than be the 10000th person to explain to you that Ayn Rand's cult is intellectually bankrupt. Everyone else can see what you refuse to. Repetition isn't going to help.

So that's the long answer. The short answer is that I make fun of you because you make it so goddamn easy.

MAN DISCOVERS AYN RAND, GETS AN FJM

I have no idea who in the hell John Andrews is.
buy neurontin online www.lifefoodstorage.store/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/neurontin.html no prescription

I know only that he publishes the occasional burst of stupidity on the intellectual Chernobyl that is the TownHall.com opinion page. His latest masterwork, "When Will Atlas Shrug?" sets a standard for inanity that may not soon be equalled. His title indicates his penchant for asking questions shortly before providing really, really bad answers. With a wary eye and a heavy heart we begin.

What is the breaking point?

The Breaking Point is a 1950 film based on Ernest Hemingway's novel To Have and Have Not. It stars John Garfield and Wallace Ford.

Where will the resistance form?

online pharmacy buy xenical online no prescription pharmacy

According to Red Dawn, it starts in Colorado. Remember this. It becomes relevant later in the column.

Heavy questions, but unavoidable in the current political climate. The productive members of society can only be pushed so far, some say.

"That's a great quote, who said that?"

"Some."

How far can productive people be pushed? Let's ask Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Or the heads of all the airlines (OK, they were railroads in the novel) who have leaned on the Federal Bankruptcy courts to stay alive in the past eight years. Or the Big Three. Come on, don't walk away. This is fun.

What they envision is not defiance of law or a reversal of the election.

That's big of them.

It is people's growing disengagement from a new economic order that punishes effort and rewards envy – the creepy future that Barack Obama and the Democrats intend for us.

If you want to learn more about this creeeeeeeeeepy fuuuuuuuuuture, send 10 Bazooka Joe wrappers and an SASE to:

John Andrews, Curator of the Future
Tar Paper Shack Filled with Mail Bomb Parts #17b
Aryan Nations, Idaho 70065

Columnist Michelle Malkin calls that withdrawal, "going Galt."

"I wonder if the term originated with her. In fact, it didn't. If I even bothered to Google it, I would have caught this."

Malkin was the first speaker when several hundred Coloradans gathered for a free-market leadership conference in Colorado Springs on March 6-7.

Wow, that sounds PRODUCTIVE! A forty-eight hour circle jerk echo chamber attended by a broad sample of Colorado Springs' most promising future Federal Courthouse bombers! Maybe the first step in going Galt is to waste one's time at shit like this.

Her reference was to John Galt, the individualist hero of Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged." She told of seeing a placard at the Denver protest rally for Obama's stimulus bill signing that warned: "Atlas will shrug."

Said sign was held by a 36 year-old assistant manager at the Lidz kiosk in the Greeley Mall. He likes to think of himself as "Atlas" when he's crying himself to sleep in his efficiency under a dangerously teetering mountain of discarded Hot Pockets boxes.

So what, you ask. So in human behavior, incentives matter. People are choosers, not automatons.

I think if anyone is going to lecture us on behaving like automatons (sic) it should definitely be Objectivists. And/or hardcore Rand fans. They aren't even slightly cult-like or apt to parrot the views of The Leader. They don't rigidly adhere to a dogma and blink in unison.

Of course in the 1950s, when Rand was writing her epic about a slow-spreading spontaneous strike among Americans fed up with big government, tomorrow supposedly belonged to New Soviet Man.

This fallacy of hindsight exists only in the minds of fourth rate conservative columnists. It becomes slightly more true every time they need it to prove a point.

Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II, the three champions of freedom who would prove otherwise, weren't yet heard of.

That was so awesome when they teamed up to defeat Communism! And Magneto! It's kind of amazing that the greatest sustained period of prosperity in the history of this nation was during the New Deal era yet those Presidents made no contribution to the inevitable implosion of the Soviet system. Hard to believe, but true.

But we're now told that 2008, with its routine recession and its celebrity election, showed freedom is untrustworthy after all.

You are told that at lunatic conferences at the airport Radisson in Colorado Springs at which Michelle Malkin is the keynote speaker.

online pharmacy buy azithromycin online no prescription pharmacy

The novel — with John Galt as capitalist superman and Dagny Taggart, Ayn Rand's alter ego, as railroad tycoon — may not be great literature.

It's not that it isn't great literature, John. It's that it is horrendous literature, literature written in some other language and translated into English with a free online translator. When something is A) a book and B) 1000 pages long, I'd say "bad literature" is a pretty significant shortcoming.

But its message of radical self-reliance has inspired millions across the decades.

Well, the Communist Manifesto has certainly inspired many millions more. So if popularity is the criteria for judging the merits of written work – and it isn't – Atlas comes in far behind Marx, The Grapes of Wrath, and Everybody Poops, which has inspired untold billions to poop.

And as a Coloradan, I like it that the story is set right here. "We can't lose Colorado. It's our last hope," says a Taggart employee at the start. A Rocky Mountain valley is the retreat from which Galt triumphs at the end.

HOLY SHIT! IT'S RED DAWN!

Retreat attendees…weren't about to unplug Galt-style from daily life in protest against wind power, national health care, and charity-choking taxes. But they took seriously the disincentive effects against wealth creation and social comity in these and other collectivist proposals. We should too.

*hits floor*

(there is a 72 hour gap in the entry at this point while Ed is administered smelling salts and various creams and lotions)

Read that amazing paragraph again to make sure it exists. To summarize: these bedwetters who won't shut the fuck up about "going Galt" for the past three weeks not only A) aren't productive but B) have no plans to actually do anything except sit around and talk about it before heading back to work at the screen door factory. So this is essentially the biggest exercise in autofellatio since…well, everything these people do follows the same all talk, no action pattern.

As ever more people ride in the wagon and fewer are left to pull it, there will come a breaking point.

Well, there are probably fewer people pulling it because millions upon millions of people are out of work thanks to two decades of policies intended to enrich the select few at the expense of everyone else.

But definitely also because Chad from Topeka has recognized that there is a disincentive for him to work any harder at his maintenance job.

Crowding taxation onto the highest earners and debt onto our kids, as President Obama proposes, invites collapse.

The kind of collapse one might see if, hypothetically, a president spent 8 years and $1.5 trillion cutting taxes and leaving future generations to pay the bill. John Andrews, you're not very good at this. Refuting you is about as challenging as reading from the Twilight series. That's a good analogy, in fact. Both Twilight and this column are challenging inasmuch as they are so terrible that I have to threaten myself with bodily harm to make myself keep reading.

Ignoring the constitution at will, as statists and the spending lobby do, breeds contempt.

It did, hence the 2006/2008 elections, hence the reason you are writing this inane horseshit and (presumably) getting paid for it.

Ruin must result.

It did. Score another one for John!

Did the USA learn nothing from the USSR's implosion, wondered Vladimir Putin recently.

So we're taking advice from Putin now. What, was Mugabe busy? Couldn't find a copy of the collected works of Pol Pot? How about we learn something from the collapse of our own economy rather than taking GaltLessons from the Soviet straw man?

Cold War victory taught us the power of ideas. The East crumbled when the West asserted the superiority of liberty, wakened by thinkers like Hayek with his expose of the road to serfdom and Bastiat with his ridicule of "everyone seeking to live at the expense of everyone else."

Yep, that is what brought the Cold War to an end. B-52 Stratofortresses carpet-bombed the Warsaw Pact nations with copies of Hayek wrapped in American flags. Those who weren't killed by falling books said "Holy shit! This is brilliant!", overthrew their governments, bought Weber grills, and joined the John Birch Society.

Also influential was Rand with her capitalist commandos.

I asked the Capitalist Commandos for an autographed photo. It wasn't autographed, but they did send this:


And just so we're clear, he's crediting Ayn Rand for helping to end the Cold War. Just so we're clear.

Galt and Taggart's crusade was idea-powered.

No, it was fictional. Not quite the same thing.

With moral truth they defeated the lies of something for nothing and freedom through coercion. Not even the government office of Morale Conditioner, censoring radio, could stop their entrepreneurial comeback.

What a stirring fictional lesson. The rest of us will rely on a similar energy and spirit to get through this while you useless drags on society sit around conference rooms jerking each other off.

Their strike against the redistributionist guilt trip was fiction. But we can shrug it off for real. The Tea Party movement is a symptom.

Here is a photo of the Teabagging event in New York City, population 11 million:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The only movement of which this reminds me is a bowel movement. Here is the raucous crowd, a pleasant mix of toothless hillbillies and well-armed sociopaths, in Rochester (aka "God's Asshole"):


I don't mean to be crass, but…perhaps these people should consider going jogging rather than going Galt.

If the Teabagging "movement" is a symptom of anything, it's a symptom of how stupid these people are to gather in one place so the ATF and FBI can photograph the people they'll be busting in the next few years for hoarding ammonium nitrate.

Colorado may again play a role.

What do you call a state with a Democratic Governor, two Democratic Senators, a Democratic majority in both chambers of the State Legislature, and a 5-2 Democratic edge in House seats? If you're John Andrews, which is to say if you are retarded, you call it GROUND FUCKIN' ZERO for the new conservative revolution, baby!
buy clomid online www.lifefoodstorage.store/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/clomid.html no prescription

I am becoming more and more convinced that right-wing columns are all written as parodies by bored sociology grad students and a supercomputer which has attained the intellectual capacity of cattle and, therefore, Republicans.

SOPHIE'S CHOICE

Perhaps the best recap of what happened in the 2008 presidential election is the satirical headline, "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job." Does anyone envy that guy at the moment? Would you do the job at any price even given all the neat perks of being President?

The public, with its drosophilia-like memory capacity, is going to forget that Obama inherited all of these problems and angrily demand to know why he hasn't solved all of them in three or four months. The problem of the problems, of course, is that many of them are no-win propositions. Take, for example, the collapse of the auto industry, which is about to take a poor economic situation and make it much, much worse than anyone is willing to admit.

GM is at the end times; two weeks ago employees leaked a memo revealing that the company has taken away personal wastebaskets and laid off janitorial staff to save money. They are openly conceding that they have "substantial doubts" about their ability to survive without continued (and presumably increased) intervention. The new car market is in free fall and, more importantly from GM's perspective, the market for shitty new cars is even worse.

Obama is faced with a simple fact in light of GM's new request for $30 billion in "loans" less than 90 days after getting $13.7 billion: their survival plan is going to be to ask for $15-20 billion every three months for the forseeable future. His options are two: pay the ransom or let them go bankrupt…at which point they'll have to be provided with tens of billions in Debtor-in-Possession financing by Uncle Sam. What, you think any of the banks are in the position to lend it? Or that they would even if they could? Nope. Either way, this costs us an arm and a leg.

The company and its employees are behaving irrationally only in abstract; in the context of a company that is obviously going to fail, their behavior makes more sense.

online pharmacy buy clomiphene online no prescription pharmacy

Fox and its allies have heavily hyped the refusal of unions to make even greater concessions (disregarding those that have been made) but the union likely realizes that the workers only have a few paychecks left no matter what they choose, so why cut them even further? Deep concessions will help the company sputter along for, what, two or three more weeks?
buy paxil online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/paxil.html no prescription

And the company has recently announced a 45% increase in production irrespective of the fact that nothing is selling, a decision more reminiscent of a crack addict going on one last spectacular binge than any kind of reasoned corporate strategy.

There is no good option here. The President has little choice but to sit back and supervise the most expensive trainwreck in economic history.

online pharmacy buy stromectol online no prescription pharmacy

Given that bankruptcy and bailout both cost more than anyone can imagine, I guess that Obama's best bet is to figure out which one preserves more jobs and reduces the number of people who will be dumped onto the dole.
buy sinequan online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/noprescription/sinequan-no-prescription.html no prescription

The company can't raise additional capital – efforts to sell Hummer and Saab have gone absolutely nowhere, the former because the military is holding trials to replace the Humvee and, if another Hummer vehicle isn't selected to replace it, that unit isn't worth a warm bag of spit. The Swedish government will probably take over Saab but they sure as hell aren't going to pay for the privilege. This is it. The company is such a structural mess that they could fire everyone tomorrow, close every division other than Chevy, and still lose billions of dollars per month.

Pour a 40 for GM, and in the meantime try envisioning our current economic situation after another million or two million people with well-paid jobs become unemployed and stop making payments on their debts. Good luck, BO.

LAS VEGAS: POOR, BLACK

There are over 3,110 counties in the United States, and last year 35 of them accounted for fully half of the home foreclosures and repossessions:

Goddamn you, California and Florida.

So what makes these areas so prone to foreclosures? Just speculating here, but they appear to fall into two broad categories: areas that are just economically devastated and areas that are sprawling, overbuilt trainwrecks. In other words, a healthy mix of places where people have no money and places where people were flipping houses to make a quick buck. The problem is there aren't too many of the former – only a few like Cleveland, Washington D.C., and…well, that's about it. The rest of these counties are among the fastest growing and most economically productive (pre-crisis) areas of the country: Las Vegas, Phoenix, Southern California, the Bay Area, Dallas, Central Florida…

You can see the source of my cognitive dissonance.

online pharmacy propecia no prescription

The subprime crisis is supposed to be all about poor black people who borrowed money they couldn't repay (or, being shiftless as they are, refused to repay) because Democrats in Congress forced banks' hand with the CRA. Yet the nation's most impoverished areas aren't the ones glowing blue on this map.

online pharmacy diflucan no prescription

Instead we see the ones that led the way during the tech boom, the housing boom, the Iraq Defense Contracting Orgy boom, and the upper-class tax cuts boom. I can't say I have the spare time to do it at the moment, but it appears that if one assembled the data and created a model to test the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and foreclosures, the rate of new home construction would prove quite significant.
buy isotretinoin generic buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net over the counter

Or perhaps I will find that Scottsdale and Anaheim are populated almost exclusively with poor, black homeowners with $600,000 mortgages.

SERIOUSLY, FUCK AYN RAND

I used to think Ayn Rand was the bomb but I outgrew it. You know, when I turned 12.

We all know that liberalism is for the (naive, inexperienced, foolish) young while conservatism is a natural byproduct of aging, maturing, and gaining experience with the world, right? Conventional wisdom gets it wrong yet again. The surge in popularity of objectivism and libertarianism on campus underscores how right wing ideology, not pie-in-sky liberalism, is the real fantasyland for kids who have absolutely no experience in the real world.

Yes, Ayn Rand is making a comeback among the college-aged. Objectivism is even getting some mainstream press in light of Commissar Obama frog-marching the nation toward hardcore Communism. Heroic individualists are threatening to "go galt" now that Obama has completely eliminated all incentive for anyone to work ever again, re-enacting their own version of the "producers' strike" in Atlas Shrugged.

I've gotten a little more mellow in recent years, believe it or not, less keen to argue and more able to see middle ground.

online pharmacy buy strattera online cheap pharmacy

But there is no middle ground here, no way for us to meet halfway in intellectual compromise: If you are an Objectivist, you are retarded. This is a judgment call, and I just made it. Grow up or fuck off. Those are your two options.

First of all, let us never overlook the fact that Rand's novels are atrocious as literature.
buy zovirax online buy zovirax no prescription

Boring, repetitive, unconscionably long-winded, and written at approximately a 10th Grade level. Her wooden characters, the dialogue that makes you feel like you're being lectured by your uncle, and the idiotic plot all read as if written by a 17 year-old shut-in who spends a lot of time touching himself under a life-sized poster of Hayek. Atlas Shrugged is to literature what Battlefield: Earth is to film – it's five times too long and leaves readers wondering if Rand ever met another human being let alone successfully interacted with one.

Second, whatever respect we could have for Rand in light of her awful writing skills is obliterated by her unbelievably sophomoric "philosophy." It's exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, preachy, self-aggrandizing shit that plays well with immature people who think the world revolves around them – in other words, college kids. Yet Objectivists themselves have contempt for academia, which refuses to dignify their little cult with serious study. But who could be expected to take this sort of thing seriously?

"Just this weekend," said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) on Wednesday in an interview with TWI, "I had a guy come up to me in my district and tell me that he was losing his interest in the business he'd run for years because the president wanted to punish him for his success."

John, your constituent is a friggin' idiot. He is exactly the kind of ex-fratboy MBA who thinks of himself as a linchpin of society, an "Atlas" upon whom the nation rests, but in reality could be replaced by any literate college grad or, in many cases, an unusually motivated ape. Think about this logic (or "logic") for a second: this guy no longer wants to run his business because his taxes went up a few percent. The government wants to reduce his income by 10%, so his response is to reduce it by 100%. Sheer brilliance. Go ahead, Mr. Irreplaceable. Close your business. Go broke to "teach us a lesson" about how important you are. We'll just have to struggle on without you. I am trying to be tactful here, but if this logic makes sense to you, I have to be emphatic: you are retarded. You're far more likely to be in the bottom rung of society than among the "producers."

Conventional wisdom is wrong. It's not "Liberal at 20 or no heart, conservative at 30 or no brain." Only the young can indulge (on mom and dad's tuition dollar, by the way) this kind of solipsistic ME ME ME horseshit. People who mature beyond adolescence start realizing that, hey, there are other people in the world and that sitting on one's ass lecturing them about what they shouldn't have done is of limited use. Politics is about solving problems, not moralizing. Life is about living in society, not in one's own head. Objectivists are right to target college kids, though, a demographic highly susceptible to new "-isms" in their first foray away from Ham Bone, Iowa or wherever. They're also the kind of people most likely to find dichotomous, black-and-white morality appealing. Accordingly I should go easy on this new generation of Objectivists with their natural abundance of naivete, youth, and selfishness.

online pharmacy buy clomiphene online cheap pharmacy

Happily, those who mature emotionally beyond the age of 18 will soon outgrow it. But there's a fine line between deserving sympathy and inviting a vicious intellectual beatdown, and the line is starting to blur.
buy furosemide online buy furosemide no prescription

In conclusion, if any of this was insufficiently clear: Man, fuck Ayn Rand.

BLUFF CALLING

The Democratic Party's effort to stick Rush Limbaugh with the "leader of the Republican Party" tag has been successful only inasmuch as Rush has taken his sweet time (weakly) denying the charge. Why have his denials been so rare, so quiet, and so half-hearted? Because he believes it, of course. He loves it. He desperately wants it to be true.

He wants RNC big-shots groveling at his feet, Congressmen kissing his ass, and the whole conservative universe dancing at the snap of his fingers. His bombast does a horrible job of concealing his latent insecurity and need for adulation.

In short, Rush wants to be King.

He knows what is best for the GOP and everyone in it – for the entire conservative movement in fact. So here's my question: why not make it official? Why not get off his fat ass and run for Congress? Why not challenge Michael Steele for the top slot at the RNC?

online pharmacy buy vigora online cheap pharmacy

Why not lead by example and show all these incompetents how to do things correctly? Limbaugh, like Bill O'Reilly, constantly crows about his ratings and his massive popularity. Why do these geniuses not leverage their phenomenal popularity into positions of elected authority?

Mr. Limbaugh is a legal resident of Florida, where there is no state income tax. Florida isn't a lost cause for Republicans, so surely all he'd need to do is throw his name on the ballot to run for Congress and the rest would take care of itself. Or how about that key Senate seat, the open one that Jeb won't run for? Or perhaps Governor, since Charlie Crist is one of those sissy fake Republicans Rush so loathes? Certainly Limbaugh has the finances, the name recognition, and most importantly the popularity he always mentions. So what's stopping him?

This will never happen, of course, because demagogues know that the second they leave their insular circle of sycophants their true level of popularity and influence will be exposed. Imagine how hard it would be to play Self-Anointed Leader of the Right after getting trounced in a Republican primary. Imagine how silly he'd sound doling out advice after losing to a Democratic Senate candidate by 40%. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for the Most Popular Man in America to get 15% of the vote in a real live election.

That's the grand illusion that all demagogues have to be very careful about maintaining. In his own little corner of the world, Rush is King and his legions of Dittoheads are a mighty army. Here in the rest of the world, they're 10% of the population and Rush is a red-faced, drug-addicted bag of fluid.

online pharmacy buy avana online cheap pharmacy

Rush's influence among Republican officeholders is premised entirely on concealing the size of his fan base. If these Congressmen who kiss his ring realized that his audience isn't nearly as big as he thinks it is, that it's an insignificant portion of the overall electorate, well, they might not be so eager to prostrate themselves before Limbaugh's throne. That's why he'll never put his money where his mouth is – it's hard to be an arrogant, self-important know-it-all after getting one's ass delivered on a platter at the ballot box.

(Postscript: Both Larry Kudlow of CNBC and Chris Matthews of MSNBC have claimed they may run for the Senate in 2010, Kudlow against Dodd and Matthews taking on Arlen Specter. Smart money is on both chickening out.)

CULTURE TOTEMS

Back in 1965 Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant piece of satire taking aim at The New Yorker and its editor William Shawn. He made fun of the editor's quirks and lampooned the magazine for taking itself so goddamn seriously – you know, he wrote the kind of cultural criticism piece that The New Yorker did so well and so often. Shawn and the magazine went ballistic, threatening to sue for libel and attempting to get an injunction against publishing Wolfe's relatively tame satire. Additionally, a Who's Who of the literary world rushed to the defense of their hallowed institution, accusing Wolfe of a lack of manners and integrity (while curiously avoiding any criticism of his honesty, as everything he wrote was painfully true). Wolfe responded:

A lot of people are going to read the letters and wires by Richard Rovere, J.D. Salinger, Muriel Spark, E.B. White, and Ved Mehta, five New Yorker writers, and compare their concepts and specific wording and say something about – you know – funny coincidence or something like that. But that is unfair. These messages actually add up to a real tribute to one of The New Yorker's great accomplishments of the last 13 years: an atmosphere of Total Orgthink for many writers of disparate backgrounds and temperments. First again! But that is just an obiter dictum. What I really wish to commend these letters for is their character, in toto, as a cultural document of our times. They are evidence, I think, of another important achievement of The New Yorker. Namely, this wealthy, powerful magazine has become a Culture-totem for bourgeois culturati everywhere. Its followers – marvelous! – react just like those of any other totem group when someone suggests that their Holy Buffalo Knuckle may not be holy after all. They scream like weenies over a wood fire.
online pharmacy amoxil best drugstore for you

Wolfe dared to point out that The New Yorker had become staid, pretentious, and a sort of how-to manual for cultural dilletantes. It had ceased to be a fresh voice in literature and had become, as Wolfe loved to call it, the nation's foremost shopping journal. He was right, and many of the same things can be said of The New Yorker today. There is no better evidence that something has become a parody of itself than the inability to accept parodies in good humor.
online pharmacy levaquin best drugstore for you

Tom Tomorrow has stirred up the same kind of hornet's nest response by releasing a cartoon mocking blogging as a substitute for mainstream media journalism. And the blog-o-sphere, that great cultural critic and mocker of all things Media, is having a hard time taking it in stride. Some people are screaming, as Wolfe said, like weenies on a campfire, so much so that Mr.

Tomorrow has been getting harsh criticism on his own blog (the existence of which shows that he has a better sense of humor than his critics).

Is the Internet so full of itself that it can't take someone pointing out that maybe – just maybe – blogging isn't going to replace real journalism? Have Glenn Greenwald and Salon.com and AlterNet and Daily Kos become the new Culture-totem, the taste-making things that pseudointellectuals and petit bourgeois everywhere conspicuously consume to regurgitate at a future cocktail party for valuable Social Cachet points? Of course they have. For as much as hipsters and yuppies love critiquing everything on Earth they seem incongruously humorless about themselves.

The idea that blogging will replace real journalism is as rooted in obtuse "the market can do it better" ideology as the idea that the stock market will replace Social Security, that casinos will fund our schools, or that the charity of billionaires will replace the welfare state.

Whatever it is I do – that we do – it isn't journalism. It's commentary. It's dissemenation of ideas. But the ideas themselves, the things we chat about endlessly and examine from every angle, originate from actual working journalists with real experience. We take the fruits of their labor and add value. Sure, that added value can be significant but we'd be pretty useless without the raw materials journalists give us gratis.

Blogging is good at exposing weaknesses in arguments and getting people to notice news that they might not otherwise see. That is what we do. We say "Hey, this news item is important – pass it on" and "This news item is pure bullplop." We are not journalists and we can no more replace them than movie reviews could replace movies.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN GETS THE FJM TREATMENT

(note: primer on the FJM can be found here)

We always knew this day would come.

Unless someone writes a musical comedy about the Symbionese Liberation Army, Thomas Friedman's attempt to re-invent himself as a progressive will stand as the most baffling, compelling, I-gotta-see-this event of my lifetime. His entire worldview has collapsed around him recently, so he wrote a book in his inimitably idiotic literary anti-style about his concern for the environment. That'll sell books to the kids and the liberals, right? Were it that easy, Mr. Friedman. Were it that easy.

New book persona aside, The Unit's weekly NYT columns show that he still has plenty of vigor for the kind of jingoistic, libertarian tent-pitching that made him famous. To wit: "Paging Uncle Sam," which is either the title of his column or an upcoming Charles Bronson movie that I absolutely have to see. The call is from rhetorical Excellence; is Friedman man enough to accept the charges?

Seoul, South Korea

Knowing what we know about this mustachioed twit, this simple byline foreshadows unspeakable horrors. We all know that 75% of this column is going to be based on throwaway comments from conversations with random Korean people.

online pharmacy buy ventolin online cheap pharmacy

I wish I could have been there to see the puzzled Koreans trying to mind their business on the subway and thinking "Why is this caucasian porn star asking me about tariffs?"

It is very useful to come to Asia to be reminded about America’s standing in the world these days.

Yep, nothing like randomly encountering some people in a foreign country to prompt some grandiose generalizing about what "the world" thinks about America.

For all the talk in recent years about America’s inevitable decline, all eyes are not now on Tokyo, Beijing, Brussels or Moscow — nor on any other pretenders to the world heavyweight crown.

Belgium? Belgium??? Are they even in the conversation? Is this like the NCAA tournament where we have to include Winthrop, Iona, UNC-Asheville, Siena, UM-Baltimore County, and Coastal Carolina because they won whatever turnip truck of a conference crowned them champion? Belgium: the token Benelux entry in the field of new world powers.

online pharmacy buy stendra online cheap pharmacy

Take that, Luxembourg!

All eyes are on Washington to pull the world out of its economic tailspin. At no time in the last 50 years have we ever felt weaker, and at no time in the last 50 years has the world ever seen us as more important.

Friedman talked to the world. This is what it said. Verbatim.

While it is true that since the end of the cold war global leaders and intellectuals often complained about a world of too much American power, one doesn’t hear much of that grumbling today when most people recognize that only an economically revitalized America has the power to prevent the world economy from going into a global depression.

Little late to be talking about prevention, Tom. I suppose that "one doesn't hear much of that grumbling" in your social circles.

It was always easy to complain about a world of too much American power as long as you didn’t have to live in a world of too little American power. And right now, that is the danger: a world of too little American power.

National Review's Michael Leeden: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's the kind of power they want us to assert.

Somewhere in the back of their minds, a lot of people seem to be realizing that the alternative to a U.S.-dominated world is not a world dominated by someone else or someone better.

"(A) lot of people" "seem to be realizing" things. The depth of research, the empirical support! Stunning.

It is a leaderless world. Neither Russia nor China has the will or the way to provide the global public goods that America — at its best — consistently has. The European Union right now is so split that it cannot even agree on an effective stimulus package.

Maybe they lack your Napoleon complex, Tom, your need to dominate and control and subjugate, i.e. "lead."

No wonder then that even though this economic crisis began in America, with American bad borrowing and bad lending practices, people have nevertheless fled to the U.S. dollar. Case in point: South Korea’s currency has lost roughly 40 percent against the dollar in just the last six months.

Ah, the rock-solid American Buck! Given the extent to which the governments of Asia have gone all in on the dollar as a reserve currency, what you call fleeing to the US dollar has the desperate feel of good money chasing bad.
buy prednisone online buy prednisone no prescription

“No other country can substitute for the U.S.,” a senior Korean official remarked to me.

Guy next to Friedman on the plane? Auto rickshaw driver? Bartender?

“The U.S. is still No. 1 in military, No. 1 in economy, No. 1 in promoting human rights and No. 1 in idealism. Only the U.S. can lead the world. No other country can. China can’t. The E.U. is too divided, and Europe is militarily far behind the U.S. So it is only the United States … We have never had a more unipolar world than we have today.”

It's uncanny how much this unsourced, unverifiable quote supports the author's thesis! What a happy coincidence. I'm not saying Thomas Friedman fabricated this quote, but Thomas Friedman fabricated this quote.

Yes, many Asians resent the fact that Americans scolded them about their banking crisis in the 1990s, and now we’ve made many of the same mistakes. But that schadenfreude doesn’t last long. In random conversations here in Seoul with Korean and Asian thinkers, journalists and business executives, I found people really worried.

"When I threw loaded questions at random people, their responses confirmed my preconceived conclusions. Amazing!"

This is a region where Western brands carry great weight, and for people to see giant U.S. financial brands like Citigroup and A.I.G. teetering is deeply unnerving.

Not to mention the weight Western brands carry with Friedman, the man who can't go three paragraphs without dropping a trademarked name.

“There is no one who can replace America. Without American leadership, there is no leadership,” said Lee Hong-koo, South Korea’s former ambassador to Washington. “That puts a tremendous burden on the American people to do something positive. You can’t be tempted by the usual nationalism. When things don’t go well, most people become nationalistic. And in the economic world, that is protectionism"

Uh oh! Throw in the Aerosmith CD, dim the lights, and let the free-market dry humping begin!!

"We are pleased to see President Obama is not doing that. Americans, as a people, should realize how many hopes and expectations other people are putting on their shoulders.”

Clearly the President's goal should be to do what makes other nations happiest: refuse to treat their goods the way they treat ours.

And that’s just on economics. President Obama’s first big security test could come here — and soon. North Korea has gotten crazier than ever; it has been made even poorer by the global economic crisis and by the withdrawal of aid by the new South Korean government.

This is a different column, but OK! I guess this is kinda important.

Now the North is threatening to test one of its Taepodong-2 long-range missiles, which may have the capacity to hit Hawaii, Alaska or beyond.

Alaska.

Was that a multiple choice question? Because I totally pick Alaska.

The North last tried such a test in 2006, but the rocket exploded 40 seconds after its launch. If the North does test such an intercontinental ballistic missile again, American forces will have to consider blowing it up on the launch pad or shooting it out of the sky.

YEAH! And then we gotta use our photon torpedoes and death rays and Dr. Manhattan and all kinds of other weapons that are as non-existent as a functioning Anti-Ballistic Missile system.

We never should have allowed the North to get a nuclear warhead; we certainly don’t want it testing a long-range missile that could deliver that nuclear warhead to our shores, or anywhere else.

So the fact that they do (or, more accurately, may) have nuclear warheads is a reason that we should start a war with them and WHAT THE HELL ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT I thought this was about the economic crisis and leadership.

Never more inward-looking, never more in demand: that’s America today. This moment recalls a point raised by the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum in his book, The Case for Goliath.

No, to me it recalls a point raised by a more noted scholar, Rudyard Kipling, in his poem "The White Man's Burden" or perhaps by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

When it comes to the way other countries view America’s pre-eminent role in the world, he wrote, “whatever its life span, three things can be safely predicted: they will not pay for it; they will continue to criticize it; and they will miss it when it is gone.”

If this logic worked for colonialism, I guess it'll work equally well for neo-colonialism!

Welcome to Friedman's world, a world desperately seeking a Caesar. When someone like Tom says "leadership" it means control; "setting an example" means establishing hegemony; "she was all over me" means date rape. This is in many ways the sickest and most dangerous worldview, one in which the rest of the world not only needs American hegemony, they want it. Just look at how they're dressed.

SURROGATE MATLOCK

With little fanfare and minimal attention in the mainstream media, the century-and-a-half old Rocky Mountain News published its final issue last week. The Denver market proved unable to sustain two daily newspapers even after the News and the Denver Post quasi-merged (maintaining separate editorial staffs) in 2001 in an effort to remain solvent. The shuttering of the News surprised no one, as Scripps had been attempting to sell the money-losing enterprise for several months.

Further west the San Francisco Chronicle, the crown jewel of the Hearst empire, is on death's door. A company whose founder was once so insanely wealthy that he built this and inspired Citizen Kane will be without a daily paper in a major city if the Chronicle collapses. The trouble out west is not atypical. The entire Tribune corporation (including the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times) is in bankruptcy as is the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the jointly owned Philadelphia Inquirer / Daily News. Other titans like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post are scarcely doing better. In short, the long-expected demise of the newspaper industry may be at hand courtesy of the reduction in advertising expenditures contomitant to the financial collapse.

Like most Americans I used to read the newspaper (specifically the Chicago Tribune) religiously but no longer do so. In this instance the conventional wisdom about the internet killing print news is accurate. I get nothing from reading the newspaper except day-old news and syndicated editorials I can easily find online. In the blink of an eye newspapers went from being the sole provider of hard news – TV and radio being widely recognized to provide little substance – to being, in essence, a vehicle for delivering coupons and auto dealer advertisements to old people. They have become Matlock, a way to distract and entertain the elderly for an hour every morning.

On Saturday I picked up a Trib for the first time in years and the experience was shocking. What was once a half-inch stack of newsprint now looks like a comic book. It has been pared down to three sections (Main/National, Metro & Finance, and Sports). The main section contains two or three pages of Chicago news followed by ten pages of AP Wire reprints, closing with the obligatory syndicated columnists who appear in every paper. The Finance and Sports sections are mostly filler, old stock prices and box scores. The bulk of this skeletal excuse for a paper was fluffed out with ads. The really local paper (the tiny Joliet Herald News) is even sadder – essentially two pages of police blotter entries and a page of high school sports sandwiched among a few car ads. Who reads this? Who bothers subscribing? Well, it is worth noting that I read these two papers at my dad's house (age: 58) and even he, age and all, admitted that they're not worth reading anymore.

The death of the industry was signalled by two major events. First, the advent of widespread internet use in the late 1990s began exerting downward pressure on newspaper subscriptions, ad rates, and street sales. Second, the industry reacted to this pressure in the worst possible way: by cutting the things that were their only competitive advantages over the internet competition. They fired columnists and replaced them with syndication. They did less local reporting and more cut-and-paste from Reuters and the AP Wire. In other words, they tried to save money by turning to more of the exact content that readers were so easily able to get online at no cost. Thus the industry's decline turned into a steep nosedive.

I am something of a Luddite and I mourn the idea that the newspaper industry may disappear almost entirely for largely sentimental reasons. Print journalism has played a major role in the political history of this nation and is woven into our social fabric. But sentiment and meaningful history were insufficient to save the locomotive or the telegraph and it is looking less likely that the newspaper can avoid the same fate. This presents some major problems. Internet news is dangerous in that it allows users complete control over what news they will consume. Unlike a paper or even a TV news broadcast the internet exposes readers to no news that he or she does not consciously choose to read. This will only exacerbate the "I make my own reality; I decide what's true and selectively consume news that supports my conclusions" tendencies which are already strong in Americans. Furthermore, the collapse of print media outlets will reduce the number of working, professional journalists in an era in which we need more dirt-digging and quality reporting than ever before. In a world in which everything is left to bloggers, freelancers, and stringers we can expect marked decreases in both the breadth and depth of reporting. We'll get exactly what we don't need – more opinion, less facts.

Truthfully I'd rather see the industry collapse than to survive putting out the pitiful excuses for major newspapers that we see today. In either case I can't shake the feeling that I'll be explaining the role and relevance of newspapers to my children as we gaze upon one mounted on a wall in a museum.