Why Do Bad Politicians Happen To Good Countries?

Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

Unless you're Sarah Palin. Then you can quit, whine about how mean the media elites are, and get a big hug from millions of conservatives pining for a charismatic leader.

Naysayers who thought Palin was finished after her disastrous vice-presidential run and subsequent resignation can think again. Everyone's favorite hockey mom is back with a vengeance, and she's got a best-selling book, crowds of adoring fans, and heaps of of 2012 presidential buzz to prove it.

That's good news for Palin's bank account -- and bad news for the country.

The excitement over Sarah Palin has little to do with her accomplishments, her policies, or her ability to lead. Like Obama before her, Palin is a vessel for the discontent of millions of Americans. This time, it just happens to be conservative discontent. It doesn't matter what she says, does, or writes. Some conservatives will always see a political savior when they look at Sarah Palin.

But the question begs to be asked: has there ever been a political idol less worthy of worship?

The frenzy over Barack Obama was absurd. Presidential rumblings began the moment he started his first term in the Senate. Nothing in his paper-thin list of accomplishments suggested he would be a transformational figure.

But at the very least, Obama was bright, clean, and articulate.

He went to Harvard.
He sounded smart.
He reached out to the other side.

Palin, on the other hand, manages to combine Obama's lack of experience with the eloquence of Dubbya and the depth of Dan Quayle. Her policy positions consist of conservative buzzwords wrapped in layers of winks and you betchas. True, it's no secret that conservatives are suckers for folksy politicians. And there's nothing wrong with that -- as long as there's some substance beneath the folksiness.

On an even more disturbing note, Palin represents a brand of identity politics that flies in the face of everything conservatism stands for. The fact that Palin is a woman is used as a sledgehammer against her critics; every attack is automatically branded as sexism. The same people who've railed against affirmative action for decades have suddenly discovered that being a woman is the only qualification anyone needs to be a national political leader.

This is a critical moment for the conservative movement. There's an incredible amount of anger and disappointment surging up against Obama and his policies. Conservative leaders can either try to channel this energy into a positive force for substantial change, or become buzzword-chanting demagogues, fueling the worst instincts of the conservative base and alienating everyone else. Sarah Palin – who won't even draw the line at giving a nod to the “birther” movement – has chosen the latter path.

There's no question that the Republican Party needs leadership. But Palin has nothing to bring to the table. She can draw crowds -- but those crowds are made up of people who are already in the tank for the GOP.

Every minute Palin stays in the spotlight is a PR disaster for conservatism. She may have bailed out on Alaska, but Palin can still perform one more act of public service: retiring to private life.

That's a change even I could believe in.

Maine Comes Out Of The Closet.

When California voters passed Proposition 8, it was a stunning victory for supporters of traditional marriage.

California is a blue state. And although California is home to a strong conservative minority, Proposition 8 even managed to pass in notoriously liberal Los Angeles county. Increased minority turnout -- usually considered a boon for liberals -- pushed the proposition over the top.

To cope with the loss, the gay-rights movement invented a convenient fiction: it was all those darn Mormons! Yes, the insidious Mormon church, with its infinite supply of money, had hoodwinked the good people of California. Because we all know that Mormon coercion is the only possible reason for opposing something as awesome as gay marriage.

In retrospect, there was nothing surprising about the victory. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been brought to a direct vote, Americans across the country have soundly rejected it.

And last Tuesday, Maine joined the ranks of states that have defeated gay marriage at the ballot box.

Earlier this year, members of the Maine State Legislature legalized gay marriage. They probably assumed they were doing what the people wanted. A reasonable assumption, given Maine's demographics.

Like California, Maine is a blue state. Although Maine's senators are Republicans, both are moderate-to-liberal on the issues. And Maine isn't exactly a part of the Bible Belt. A recent Gallup survey on religious identity ranked Maine as the 3rd least religious state in the country, just beneath New Hampshire and Vermont.

Blaming Mormon cash probably won't fly this time. Protect Maine Equality, the campaign supporting Maine's gay marriage law, raised $4 million, compared with only $2.5 raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, which aimed to overturn it.

Social conservatives were outspent and outmaneuvered in unfriendly territory.

So why did this haven of secularism decide to put the gay man down?

Here's my guess: most people are just fine with the current definition of marriage -- even some people who who have no moral qualms about homosexuality. Like Barack Obama, they believe marriage is between a man and a women. And as long as Americans can vote gay marriage down by secret ballot, they will.

Which means that gay-rights activists will have to increasingly rely on courts to impose their will on the people. American voters may not approve of gay marriage, but when courts rule that gay marriage is an inalienable civil right, there's nothing they can do about it.

Sure, some people might be ticked off at first, but conventional wisdom says that history will vindicate their judicial activism.

Or will it?

Advocates of gay marriage assume their cause is the continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This assumption rests on the premise that marriage is simply the union of two individuals -- making laws banning gay marriages as arbitrary as the laws that prevented mixed-race couples from marrying in the past.

But social conservatives -- along with plenty of social moderates -- believe that marriage was designed to enshrine the unique male-female relationship. No one is being denied the right to get married; it's just that being married involves spending your life with someone of the opposite sex.

Ultimately, the issue isn't about civil rights. It's about the definition of an institution -- and who should be allowed to define it.

This nuance escapes the gay-rights crowd. People who disagree with them are hateful, or homophobic. And they believe that eventually, like the racists of the past, these bigoted neanderthals will quietly fade into the margins of society.

It's true that homosexuality is gaining more public acceptance, and the same thing can be said about gay marriage. But even if the entirety of secular America embraces gay marriage (hardly a foregone conclusion), the religious beliefs held by millions of other Americans will make gay marriage a controversial issue for the foreseeable future. And America's increasing ethnic and religious diversity could play a major role in undermining the gay-rights agenda. Immigrants from third-world countries tend to be more culturally conservative than their native-born counterparts, and the expanding Muslim community in the U.S might prove to be a powerful conservative force in the culture wars.

In other words, resistance is not futile; Americans will not be assimilated. Whenever an advocacy group adopts the language of inevitability, mental flags should go up. This is no exception. Maine's rejection of gay marriage revealed just how tone-deaf gay activists have become. There are deeper issues at work here than a simple conflict between bigotry and acceptance. And if supporters of gay marriage want to continue to ignore and marginalize their opponents, they should brace themselves for the sting of defeat.

Think About It.

Decisions that are weighed carefully are better than stupid decisions. And when members of our government are making decisions, the importance of rational thinking is paramount

Bills rushed through Congress in a couple days can financially burden the nation for decades. And half-baked strategies cooked up by a commander in chief can lead to tragedy.

The "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality is the root of all kinds of evil. When a crisis strikes, bad ideas can become reality in the blink of an eye. We saw this happen in the aftermath of 9/11, the aftermath of the financial meltdown, and we're starting to see it in the midst of an overblown health care crisis. Government officials become intoxicated with fear, make a flurry of drunken decisions, and wake up a month later with a serious legislative hangover and angry constituents flooding the phone lines.

So, when Obama promised to "never rush the solemn decision" of sending American troops into combat situations, it seemed pretty reasonable. The use of military force is a complicated issue, both financially and morally. War is not a game.

The war in Afghanistan, which Obama was addressing in his speech, is an especially sticky situation. More manpower may be needed, but it's only a small part of what needs to be a multi-pronged strategy. The surge in Iraq produced incredible results, but ultimately, it was the Sunni awakening movement as much as increased troop levels that quelled the violence. In Afghanistan, where corruption is endemic, tribalism reigns, and opium powers the economy, it'll take some serious thought to cook up a comprehensive strategy that can stop the country from returning to the arms of the Taliban.

But prominent conservatives, including Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, have decided that Obama's policy of actually thinking about things will lead to ruin.

According to Cheney and Limbaugh, Obama is "dithering" on Afghanistan.

Rove claims Obama is being too "wobbly."

Really?

For the record, there's nothing conservative about behaving rashly. Few things are more antithetical to the conservative mindset than a gut reaction to a problem. William F. Buckley famously wrote that his National Review stood "athwart history, yelling stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so." For decades, conservatives have fought against ill-conceived experiments in social engineering. They would do well to encourage the same critical thinking when it comes to American military action.

At least George Will gets it. After Cheney accused Obama of "dithering," the masterful columnist offered this rebuke:

"For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Yea, verily.

A bad leader can still make a bad decision after months of rigorous thought. Obama may indeed drop the ball on Afghanistan. And if he ends up making a bad decision, critics should feel free to fire away. But criticizing him for trying to make a good decision is absurd.

Obama is trying to do the right thing in Afghanistan. For that, he deserves a tasty cookie -- not ridicule.

Michael And Me.

Anyone who goes to a Michael Moore movie expecting a logical argument will walk away disappointed. Moore is a populist, not an intellectual. He goes for the gut.

And in his latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, it works. Sometimes.

Capitalism has everything you'd expect from a Moore film. There's the ironic, '50s-era stock footage (more so than usual), Moore-on-a-mission stunts, honest Americans facing economic ruin, and a lesson about the evils of -- what else? -- capitalism.

To make the case that capitalism is the root of all evil, Moore presents a loosely connected set of emotional vignettes:

Families being forced out of their homes.

Airline pilots who have to work a second job to survive.

Companies taking secret life insurance policies out on their employees.

And so on.

Some of the things Moore shows us are troubling. But ultimately, Moore is kind of like a man who sees a house on fire and launches into a tirade on the evils of oxygen. It's sad that some people are losing so much. But everything they had in the first place was the result of -- *gasp!* -- capitalism.

And many of the things Moore complains about don't seem to have much to do with capitalism at all.

In the final portion of Capitalism, Moore lambasts the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions as corporate robbery, and marches to Wall St. demanding the American people's money back. Fair enough. But government handouts to failing businesses are hardly a product of pure capitalism.

Similarly, when Moore tells the story of a for-profit juvenile prison that rakes in the dough thanks to a couple of corrupt judges, the problem seems to lie with the dangerous collusion of business and government -- not laissez faire economic policies.

Michael Moore claims to be non-partisan, but conservatives hoping to see Obama get some comeuppance for his continued support of corporate welfare are left empty-handed.

Moore does go after some prominent Democrats, most notably Chris Dodd. But Obama largely gets a pass. Even when Moore rips apart Tim Geithner, he never mentions the man who appointed him.

And while Michael Moore shows footage of house Democrats -- including Dennis Kucinich -- boldly standing up to the first bailout bill, he ignores the fact that a wide majority of Republicans voted against the bailout.

And as always, Moore plays it loose with the facts. When Moore reveals that wages have remained steady since the '80s while productivity has shot upward, he concludes that Americans are being forced to work harder for the same amount of pay. While this may be true in some cases, it's pretty lazy to ignore a little something called the digital revolution that's been going on for the last few decades.

Interestingly enough, Capitalism has a strong religious message, unusual for a Moore film. Moore, a liberal Catholic, interviews several priests who have some harsh words for America's economic system, and mocks the idea that Jesus would support capitalism. To drive home the point, the movie's takeaway message is worded in distinctly moral terms: "capitalism is an evil, and you can't regulate evil."

Like all of Moore's films, Capitalism is cleverly crafted and entertaining. But your enjoyment of the film may hinge on your ability to temporarily shut down large portions of your brain.

Near the end of Capitalism, Moore shows footage of Katrina survivors stranded on the roofs of their houses, and tells the audience that this is what capitalism bring them.

Actually, that's what large hurricanes combined with bad engineering bring us. Common mistake.

Everything In Its Place.

Nancy Pelosi is ticked off at Republicans again. This time, it's because they're so very sexist.

After Pelosi suggested Monday that the public was wary of sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and that McChrystal's recommendation to President Obama for more troops "should go up the line of command" rather than be aired in "press conferences" -- the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a mocking press release titled "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal."

"If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place," concluded the release, setting off a barrage of criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs that the GOP was employing sexist rhetoric.

Pelosi herself weighed in Thursday at her weekly press briefing.

"It's really sad they really don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi said. "I'm in my place -- I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't heard in decades."

Nancy Pelosi took the NRCC's statement to mean she needed to be put in her place as a woman. But that's obviously not what the NRCC meant.

Stanley McChrystal is a general in the U.S. Army. He thinks we should put more troops in Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She thinks he's wrong.

When the NRCC says that McChrystal should put Pelosi "in her place," they're saying they want McChrystal to remind Pelosi that, as a military official, he knows a thing or two about military policy. And to make that point crystal clear, the NRCC encapsulated it in the press release's title: "General Pelosi knows better, slams McChrystal."

The issue isn't whether a woman can be speaker of the house. It's whether the speaker of the house should pretend to be a general.

Pelosi is smart enough to know this. But phony outrage over non-existent sexism is much more fun than real debate.

Olympics Part Deux.

The International Olympic Committee gave Chicago a stunning slap in the face last Friday. If Chicago had gone toe-to-toe with Rio in the final round of voting and lost, no one would have been shocked.

But the combined power of Oprah and Obama couldn't even carry the second city past the first round.

Ouch.

Make no mistake -- this wasn't about Obama. There was never a compelling reason to bring the Olympics to Chicago. Rio De Janeirro deserved to win. Chicago didn't.

But at the same time, Obama's Olympic disappointment is a microcosm of his flawed understanding of foreign policy.

Critics enjoyed roasting Bush over his "arrogant" approach to world affairs. He was a gunslinging Texan with a messiah complex -- embarrassing at best, dangerous at worst.

And more often than not, Bush was guilty as charged. He thought we could swoop into the Middle East and transform it into a democratic paradise. Bush envisioned America as the savior of the world -- a nice thought, but an unrealistic one. Now, Obama is left to pick up the pieces of Bush's failures.

But arrogance comes in different guises.

Obama's employs a kinder, gentler arrogance. It's an arrogance that says that the world will bend to our wishes if we butter it up with smiles and heartfelt mea culpas. On a more personal level, it's an arrogance that says the magnetism of one man can reverse decades of anti-Americanism around the world.

There's nothing wrong with being nice to other countries. It's certainly better than being an international jerk. But it's not going to win any major concessions from the international community.

And the fact that Obama is an international celebrity doesn't mean the world will hand him what he wants on a silver platter.

Obama showed up in Copenhagen assuming that the IOC delegates loved him. They probably did. But it wasn't enough to change their minds.

People in Europe may swoon over Obama, but we're not seeing our NATO allies rush to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Why? Because nations are selfish, and they don't want to make that kind of sacrifice. Their personal affinity for Obama isn't worth a dime when it's time to make policy.

The utility of warm-fuzziness is limited.

In the end, an American president needs to have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of what other countries say. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a bad one -- but it would have been just as bad if every member of the UN had backed it.

"Going it alone" isn't an ideal strategy when it comes to dealing with the world's problems. But sometimes, if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.

A Thought.

If Roman Polanski were a plumber from Hoboken, who would be petitioning for his release?

Justice is supposed to be blind. Being a creative genius isn't grounds for clemency. Neither is being a holocaust survivor.

Some situations are complicated; this one isn't. Polanski committed a terrible crime, and admitted his guilt. He should be punished. Justice delayed is better than no justice at all.

An Olympic Blunder?

President Obama is dealing with a sophmore slump in his freshmen year.

Iran is testing missiles and developing nukes. Afghanistan is a quagmire. Solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are incapable of passing healthcare legislation. Nobody knows what to do with all the scary people in Gitmo.

And in the midst of it all, Obama's once-soaring poll numbers are starting to fall to the earth. If Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, it looks like he's getting his wish.

Obama needs to score a feel-good win to prevent his presidency from looking like an epic fail.

This Friday, he plans on doing just that. In a historically unprecedented move, Obama will personally lobby the Internatioal Olympic Comittee to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

If Obama succeeds, his position as the darling of the world will be solidified, and Americans will have a little piece of positive news to cling to.

But what if he fails?

Fair or not, there's no doubt that Obama will be skewered if Chicago fails to bring home the athletic bacon. Obama sold himself as a guy who could magically make the world give America a big hug. If the Olympic committee gives Chi-town the cold shoulder, his international star power will look a bit faded.

And Chicago definitely has problems. Its famous public transit system is falling apart, high profile acts of violence are rocking its troubled neighborhoods, and The Honorable Rod Blagojevich is now a national symbol of Chicago corruption.

To top it all off, Rio De Janeiro has long been the assumed frontrunner in the Olympic race. Will the Olympic overlords really refuse to give up-and-coming Brazil its first shot at hosting the games?

Something tells me that Obama wouldn't be jetting out to Copenhagen unless he had assurance of success. Then again, he may just be audaciously hoping to melt the hearts of the IOC members.

For America's sake, here's hoping the president doesn't fall flat on his face. In these times of general woe, our country could use a few scraps of superficial prestige.

Racists With Racist Charges Of Racism.

Is it racist to call Obama a racist? According to lots of liberal commentators, the answer is yes. Ever since Glen Beck proclaimed that Obama harbors a "deep-seated hatred for white people," the statement has been used as exhibit A in the ongoing effort to portray conservatives as racists.

But this raises a few questions. Is it ever appropriate for a white guy to accuse a non-white guy of racism? What if the non-white guy is actually racist? And is there really anything inherently racist in a charge of racism?

Obama was raised by white folks. Most of his closest advisors are white. The idea that Obama hates white people is laughable. But lots of people are stupidly accused of racism. When Bob Herbert, a black columnist, accuses white conservatives of being driven by racism, I think he's wrong. But I don't think he's racist.

Isn't it possible that Glen Beck's stupid and incoherent statement was just a stupid and incoherent statement?

Suspicious Minds.

Barack Obama is black. Barack Obama is also a liberal Democrat.

If you ask conservatives why they don't like Obama, they'll probably point to characteristic no. 2. But liberal commentators can see through this charade.

Those conservative hicks don't care about "the constitution," "limited government," or some stuff that Thomas Jefferson wrote. When they say "socialist," they really mean "scary black person."

The proof? Why, it's all around us --
The nutty conspiracy theories.
The heated rhetoric.
The sheer disrespect they show for The Office of The President. (*gasp!*)

Political differences could never stir up this kind of deep-seated hatred. It's a bonafide Presidential lynching -- angry whites rising up to destroy an uppity colored man.

After all, remember how nice conservatives were to Bill Clinton -- a white, moderate Democrat from Arkansas?

I sure don't.

You want conspiracy theories? Forget that whole birther deal -- fringe conservatives accused Clinton of being personally responsible for several murders. And when Clinton proposed his health care plan, it was opposed (and eventually defeated) with just as much fervor by conservatives in Congress. Talk-radio, the fount from which so much of this racial animosity is supposedly flowing, rose to prominence as the center of opposition to the Clinton administration.

Maybe some of Obama's critics are racists. And maybe some of Obama's supporters are racists. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what goes on deep inside the minds of everyone in America. But the fact that a group of people loudly -- even rudely -- opposes someone with different political views can be understood without pathetically playing the race card.

Sadly, even when it comes to something as universally tragic as the 9/11 attacks, some liberals just can't resist making everything about race. Kate Clinton (of no relation to Bill), a writer for the Huffington Post, had this to say about the Republican reaction Barack Obama:

"Republicans treat President Obama as if he were a substitute and they are just waiting for the real deal to come back in the room. That would be a white Republican male. Their desperate efforts to delegitimize an elected president (not to be confused with their efforts to legitimate a selected president) remind me of their panicked response to the terror attacks on September eleventh, eight years ago. For many of them, it was their first experience being attacked. Unlike women, poor people, and people of color who know being attacked as a pre-existing condition, the white guys freaked. Their world order was rocked. They panicked, put the country in lockdown and retaliated against the wrong country."

Yes, you read that correctly: September 11th was only frightening for white males. And those dumb ol' white men only attacked Iraq 'cause they were so scared. Seriously.

But moving on from that breath-taking piece of ignorant nonsense, Clinton's first point was partially valid. Republicans probably do consider Obama as a place-holder until they can get someone from their own party in office. Just as Democrats thought of Bush as some idiot they had to put up with until the coming of their messiah. In the political system, you're always looking towards the next election cycle -- and hoping to win. That's life.

It has nothing to do with race. Sure, Republicans would love to replace Obama with a white male Republican. They'd also love to replace him with a white female Republican. Or a black male Republican. Or an black female Republican.

Throughout his political career, Obama has called on conservatives and liberals to stop questioning each other's motives. And while Obama hasn't always lived up to this standard, it's a good bit of advice.

It's easy to believe that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by some dark force in the recesses of their soul. But in the end, all you get is a debate poisoned by imaginary issues.

The Visible Hand Strikes Again.

Once again, The Economist hits the nail on the head with a write-up of the now infamous "cash for clunkers" program:

Rebate schemes like this tend to encourage buyers to advance purchases that they would have made anyway, thus cannibalising future sales. The termination of a car-scrappage scheme in France in the 1990s led to sales plunging by 20%. Nor is it certain that the scheme provides a more general boost to the economy, as buyers may have been put off other purchases in order to afford a new vehicle.
...
The green benefits are also hotly contested. The scheme should help to make America’s car fleet slightly less fuel inefficient, but there are significant environmental costs in scrapping perfectly good cars and building new ones.

The American economy is an incredibly complicated machine. When the government decides to stick its greasy hands inside and fiddle around with the parts, bad things tend to happen. This isn't to say that government policy can't have positive effects -- but in almost every case, it comes at a price. Short-sighted policies that promise too-good-to-be-true benefits lose their shine when the consequences come a-knockin' on the public's door.

Right now, members of congress are considering a piece of legislation that would transform America's massive healthcare industry. The benefits are obvious: everyone gets healthcare coverage. But before trigger-happy reformers vote aye, they might want to dwell on the unintended consequences of their pet project. Yes, just about every modern country provides universal healthcare coverage. But a lot of those countries have to deal with huge doses of taxation, high levels of sustained unemployment, and a stagnant work force.

After considering the pros and cons, a lot of people may still support the legislation. The good of universal coverage may outweigh the associated evils.

But there are some things that no one can foresee. Our economy is based on billions of unpredictable transactions between individuals. If seemingly harmless programs like "cash for clunkers" can create unintended ripples in this economic ocean, what could happen when the government gives one of our largest industries an extreme makeover?

I'm really not sure. But you can bet it won't be all unicorns and rainbows.

Watering The Tree Of Liberty With The Blood Of Sub-Par Cable Pundits.

So, some guy brought a gun to a protest outside of Obama's healthcare town hall in New Hampshire. That guy went on Hardball with Chris Matthews. And this is what happened:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Is it just me, or does Mr. Radical Gun Nut seem a lot more collected and rational than Matthews? This was clearly meant to turn into a shouting match, but Kostric never took the bait. And shouldn't television personalities be held to a slightly higher standard when it comes to hair? The dead ferret perched atop Chris Matthews' noggin is kind of distracting.

Workers Of The World Unite! ... Please?

Leftists around the world were thrilled when the world economy came a-tumblin' down last year. Capitalism had failed! It was time for the people to arise, and create a new, better order, full of rainbows and the equitable distribution of income!

But when it came time for elections in Europe -- a stronghold of center-left politics -- things didn't work out quite as planned. In short, the socialists got pwned.

A new article from The Economist does a good job of examining this phenomenon:

With the exception of Greece, the European elections in June were a disaster for social democratic parties. From France to Austria, centre-leftists failed to harness dislike of conservative incumbents. There was a swing against ruling socialists from Bulgaria (where they were ousted from national power in July) to Britain (whose prime minister, Gordon Brown, looks irredeemably unpopular). In Spain supporters of the ruling socialists tried hard to convince people that they were as upset as anybody about unemployment of nearly 20%, but voters still nudged to the right.

Elsewhere in the world, the picture is more mixed. But in almost every democracy, politicians who style themselves progressive face a common set of problems, to do with shrinking treasuries, looming environmental challenges, general pessimism and the resurgence of nationalism.

But the situation is more complex than it seems. As the article notes, "conservative" politicians, including France's beloved Sarko, haven't hesitated to bash capitalism and institute massive government bailout programs.

American conservatives looking for a ray of hope would do well to remember that the left/right distinction has always been relative; the Democratic Party would be considered center-right by European standards.

Even so, Europe's shift to the right is a good reminder that triumphalists are lousy at predicting the future. Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" was an illusion, and the shine is already wearing off Obama's magical presidency. Politically speaking, shift happens. In America, conservatives were in power when the economy took a dive, so they received a drubbing at the polls. But in countries where socialism held sway, leftists suffered a similar fate.

Some people vote according to unbending ideological principles. But the rest seem content to settle for voting the bums out, whoever the bums may be.

Drinking Their Troubles Away.

It's finally here! The moment we've all been waiting for in breathless anticipation!

The beer summit.

For two weeks, America has been enthralled by the epic racial drama that began with a 9-11 call, and ended with the arrest of a prominent black professor who just happened to be buddies with the prez.

Liberals decried the "racially motivated" actions of Jim Crowley, the police officer who put professor Henry Louis Gates in handcuffs. Conservatives pinned the blame on Gates, attempting to portray him as a racialist black-power nutcase.

Obama added fuel to the fire when he asserted that the police acted "stupidly." Later, the president tried to soften his statement. But it was too late -- commentators already had all the fodder they needed to create a delightful storm of made-for-cable-news controversy.

But now, it will all come to an end, as Obama The Uniter descends from his lofty throne to reconcile both sides of the conflict. Tonight, Crowley, Gates, and Obama will gather 'round a picnic table outside the White House, drink beer, and learn a valuable lesson about tolerance.

But there's another lesson that can be learned from the Gates-Crowley affair, and it has nothing to do with race-relations in America. It's a lesson about how the media can turn a meaningless series of unfortunate events into a public issue that everyone needs to care about.

Henry Louis Gates was an intellectual who lost his house key.

Jim Crowley was a police officer responding to a call about a break-in.

Gates was understandably upset that Crowley suspected him of breaking into his own home. He made a scene. Crowley was understandably upset about being chewed out by Gates. He arrested him for disorderly conduct.

Afterwards, Gates was promptly released.

The story was newsworthy, because Gates is a public figure. But it wasn't a story of all-consuming importance. At best, it was an odd story about a semi-famous person in a strange situation. It deserved a short blurb, and nothing more.

But Gates' racial interpretation of the event was too juicy to ignore, and two weeks later, a Rasmussen poll shows that 75% of Americans are still following the story "somewhat closely."

Oh well. Nothing washes away the flavor of legislative gridlock and plummeting approval ratings like knocking back a few cold ones with a cop and a seriously ticked-off academic.

King County: The Final Frontier.

He's a man with a plan for King County.

His plan involves sky homes. Tall, tall sky homes.

And please, don't call him Michael Nelson.

"It's Goodspaceguy," he reminds me, as he signs a release form.

"There are over 50,000 Michael Nelsons in the United States. But I googled a bunch of space-related names, and no one else was using Goodspaceguy."

Legally, only his middle name has been changed to Goodspaceguy. But who cares? He is Goodspaceguy, he's running for King County Executive -- and it's time for his close-up.

Goodspaceguy is now sitting in a studio at KCTS Channel 9, Seattle's PBS station. From my vantage point in the control room, he looks very pleased with himself. Three cameras are fixed on him. A man is applying powder to his almost-completely-bald head. It'll reduce the glare. His face breaks into an impish grin.

"I was in Los Angeles sitting in the audience for the making of an entertainment show, and during the breaks, people would pop up and put make-up on the people on stage. But now I'm the one getting powdered."

Triumph.

As a libertarian without any government experience -- and an outspoken advocate for a mass-exodus to orbiting space colonies -- Seattle hasn't always been so kind to Goodspaceguy. As he bitterly noted in a posting on his blog:

"This is the tenth time that I, Goodspaceguy, am a candidate for public office, but I am slammed back; I am censored; I am not allowed to speak."

But now, he is being allowed to speak. And he does.

He mainly speaks about economics. In fact, he makes it clear that he considers himself to be an economist, prefacing his statements with an authoritative, "as an economist, I..."

In Goodspaceguy's estimation, the economy has been sabotaged by everyone, including "the people." He compares King County planners to Soviet officials, and rails against the minimum wage.

The picture he paints has dire overtones: "Government is taking a sledgehammer and beating the people in this country," Goodspaceguy says.

Crime, he insists, is an economic problem. If a gang member got a job, his peers would follow his example, and become productive members of society. It's that simple.

Traffic congestion will soon be a thing of the past, thanks to "sky homes." You know, like the ones they have in Vancouver, Canada. If there are many sky homes, people can live near their work, and won't have to drive. Yes.

Goodspaceguy compares the citizens of King County to a big family; a part of the larger human family that currently inhabits "spaceship earth." He says that we should strive to increase our knowledge. And we should have more free parking.

Then, it's all over.

But I'm not satisfied. Goodspaceguy's signature issue -- man's galactic future -- wasn't even touched on. And there are so many questions left to ask. So many that must be asked.

So, I caught Goodspaceguy in the hallway, and asked him if he had time to answer a few more questions. He had time.

I began with a search for Goodspaceguy's philosophical roots.

"You refer to yourself as an economist. What other economists have influenced your thought -- which ones do you agree with?"

He couldn't think of any. He only reads introductory textbooks, because they give you a "broad perspective."

Disappointed, I changed the subject.

"In economics, it's assumed that people always pursue their own interests. Why would people want to go to live in orbiting space colonies?"

He acknowledged that there will be challenges. But the end-result will be inevitable.

"At first, few will come. Then more, and more, and more, as (the colonies) become nicer."

According to Goodspaceguy, the orbiting space colonies will be gigantic. But he doesn't plan on abandoning good ol' Earth:

"I want to make Earth into a paradise," he says in a reassuring voice.

So far, so good. But why orbiting space colonies? Couldn't we build space colonies the old fashioned way -- on the ground? On Mars, perhaps?

It all comes down to gravity. Because the orbiting space colonies will be able to spin at variable speeds, they'll also be able to generate the same level of gravity found on Earth.

In the world of Goodspaceguy, everyone is divided into two classes: the ground-huggers, and the enlightened few. Ground-huggers go about their daily lives, raising children, and working normal jobs. They aren't evil -- but they aren't able to grasp the higher truths of existence. And sometimes, their ignorance leads them astray.

"I think it was the ground-huggers that supported Hitler," Goodspaceguy says.

Goodspaceguy is not a ground-hugger.

But if mankind's future is in the stars, why was he silent about it during his interview in the studio?

"A lot of people aren't educated about it, so I don't talk as much about it as I could," Goodspaceguy says.

"If you were to tell people in the past about the way things are now, people would think you're crazy. They'd think it was lunacy," he quickly adds.

Fair enough.

A Family Affair.

When Mark Sanford vanished, it was a big story. When he reappeared, and confessed to an affair with a woman in Argentina, it became a once-in-a-lifetime feast of scandal and intrigue.

And it didn't take long for pundits to pull out the hypocrisy card.

You see, Mark Sanford's south-of-the-border infidelity was only a minor sin, on par with downloading the second season of ALF on Bittorent. And we've all been there, right? Yes, the real crime was that Sanford had the gall to promote "family values" while he indulged in private iniquity. Sanford was a hypocrite.

Senator John Ensign, another conservative Republican, had just admitted to an affair of his own a week earlier. Another hypocrite.

So, people started to connect the dots:

Sanford.
Ensign.
Vitter.
Craig.
Foley.

The already-triumphant left became jubulient. They finally had a dossier of evidence that discredited those religious-right loonies once and for all.

It was so simple: anyone who really cared about family values would have no choice but to migrate to the Democratic Party, led by shiny dad-in-chief Obama.

But wait -- what about all those Democratic sex scandals?

Like John Edwards, who fathered an illegitimate child while his wife was stricken with cancer?
Like Elliot Spitzer, who hired a prostitute?
And didn't his successor, David Patterson, have... marital problems.... of his own?
What about big-city mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa?
Or President Bill Clinton?

Gosh. It sure looks like this whole infidelity thing doesn't really respect party lines. But what about the hypocrisy thing? Democrats may cheat, but are they hypocrites?

To a certain extent, yes.

Politicians of all stripes try to paint themselves as model family men. It isn't a Republican thing. And generally, Republicans are no more judgmental than Democrats. It's worth noting that Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, was the first divorced President.

Sure, Republicans have a habit of attacking Democrats for their personal failings, but Democrats are all too happy to return the favor. Whenever a tawdry scandal is exposed, you can bet that people will exploit it for political gain.

And Republicans may tend to take conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but frankly, neither of those issues have much to do with cheating on your spouse. Opponents of gay marriage may talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, and traditional values, but supporters of gay marriage appear to believe that marriage is pretty darn important as well, and I haven't heard of any Democrats (unless Woody Allen counts) who openly support infidelity.

But even if conservatives alone bore the stain of hypocrisy, would it matter?

Not really.

When someone fails to live up to the standards they preach, they discredit themselves -- not their standards. If Officer Bob tells a classroom full of kiddies to stay off drugs, and then goes home and overdoses on painkillers, it doesn't become okay to become a pill-popping fiend. And when a socially-conservative politician has a fling with a South American vixen, it doesn't mean that marriage is a sham. It means he is.

Thank goodness. If we tossed out ideals every time we failed to live up to them, we wouldn't have much left to believe in.

The idea that Republicans are losing their "values voter" cred is just as absurd. Socially conservative voters support Republicans because they agree with their policies. Voters in South Carolina may give Sanford the boot, but it's unlikely that they'll replace him with a liberal Democrat.

In the end, cheaters like Sanford, Ensign or Clinton are just people who did something bad. Sometimes their careers die, and sometimes they don't. Their actions don't -- and shouldn't -- herald the death of a party or an ideology. Anyone who pretends that adultery (or hypocrisy) is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem is willfully ignorant.

It turns out that there are humans in both parties. Who knew?

When Worlds Collide.

Barack Obama's much-hyped speech to the Muslim world won't change anything. But it was a pretty good piece of political rhetoric.

Yes, he presented a white-washed version of Islamic history, but what else could he do? He's trying to make friends. And generally, you don't diss the people you want to befriend.

Most refreshingly, Obama resisted the temptation to identify Bush administration policies as the root of America's conflict with the Muslim world, as he's done on past occasions.

And while there were the expected apologies for past American actions in the Middle East (like the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq), Obama had equally strong praise for the good ol' USA.

Even so, it's beyond naive to assume that rhetoric will do anything to cure the Middle East's problems.

As Obama acknowledged, the conflict between Islamic nations and the West has been going on for a long time. But Obama's dead wrong when he assumes that all this fighting is the result of a communication problem. Like Bush, Obama assumes that all people essentially share the same set of values. It's a beautiful idea, but it's also completely wrong.

Not everyone is a fan of freedom, peace, equality, and tolerance. Historically, very few nations have celebrated these values the way modern societies do, and many nations still reject them. There are a variety reasons why this happens. Some people value the stability of tradition over the chaos that results from individual expression. Some people believe that the collective will should be exalted above personal choices.

And yes, many Muslims reject democratic values because of their religious beliefs.

Like all religions, Islam is complicated. To say that Islam has always been a religion of violence and intolerance would be inaccurate. But to characterize it as a force for peace and tolerance would be just as lopsided. Historically, most Islamic rulers allowed Christians and Jews to exist in their lands. But non-Islamic citizens were hardly equal. Their testimony was disregarded in court, and they were forced to pay a special tax. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing. The Ottoman Empire populated its army with military slaves known as janisaries, most of whom were kidnapped from Christian families when they were children.

While the extermination of religious minorities was rarely official policy, it did happen.

There are verses in the Koran that imply that Christians and Jews will get to paradise, but there are also verses that seem to command Muslims to conquer unbelievers. Even if many modern Muslims would rather live and let live, you don't have to be a history professor to figure out that Muslims in the past felt differently about the matter. And there are still plenty of Muslims who follow the path of violent jihad.

Islamic jurists from different sects have conflicting opinions regarding Islam's compatibility with modern values. Needless to say, some come down firmly against them. While it's true that several Islamic countries have had female leaders, the broader state of women's rights -- and human rights in general -- in the Muslim world is still dismal. Assuming that all of this is just a massive coincidence, or the result of Western imperialism, is nonsense.

The arrogance of Western commentators is their constant claim that "true Islam" is peaceful. Some Islamic sects are peaceful, others aren't. What gives someone the authority to decide which ones are "true?"

I don't think that most Muslims are "bad people" by human standards. I don't think most of them want to kill me. I think they have some legitimate grievances against the West.

But radical Islam isn't an insignificant force in the Middle East. And its adherents don't share our values.

One of the great failures of humanistic policy makers has been their failure to understand the reality of god-centered religions. They assume that a common ethical core lies beneath the veneer of religious belief. If someone does bad things, it's simply because they're poor and oppressed. This is the flawed worldview that Obama espoused when he talked about people "clinging to guns and religion" because of economic hardship.

But in reality, many people do things simply because they believe it's what their god wants them to do -- whether or not it benefits them personally. Their values are not centered around humanistic ethics, or a survival instinct.

Material poverty can help spark an interest in radicalism, but not all radicals are poor. The Bin Laden family certainly isn't hurting for cash, but that didn't stop lil' Osama from going astray.

What am I getting at?

I'm not sure. In the real world, there's not much the American government can do beyond the things we're already doing: fighting terrorists when possible, allying ourselves with moderates in the region, and attempting to coax skeptical Muslims with reasonable concessions and kind words.

But reality should always inform our decisions. And the reality is that some people are very different from us, and will probably never be like us -- no matter how much we try to be their friends.

This is the world we live in. Coming to terms with it doesn't give us a clear roadmap for the future -- but it doesn't hurt either.

A Just Crime?

Yesterday, a terrible person who killed babies for a living was murdered. Two wrongs may not make a right, but I can't make myself feel any sorrow for George Tiller.

The real tragedy is that all pro-lifers will now be viewed as violent extremists. It's bad publicity for the movement at a time when pro-life views seem to be gaining ground. Even worse, Tiller will now be viewed as a pro-abortion martyr. Others could be inspired to take his place.

The fact that Tiller was murdered while he was acting as an usher in his church will only do more to humanize him.

In a just America, the legal system would have punished Tiller for his crimes. But as a strategy for ending abortion, vigilante justice simply doesn't work.

Freakin' Idiots!

If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Her story is inspiring: She grew up in a poor neighborhood in the Bronx, but managed to rise through the Ivy League and into a seat on one of the highest courts in the land.

Barack Obama boasts that she has a "common touch," and that her life experiences will help her make compassionate decisions.

But sadly, Sotomayor has chosen to ignore the needs of our nation's most persecuted minority group: Nerd-Americans.

Thousands of Nerd-Americans depend on nunchaku -- combined with ninja-like reflexes -- to floor attackers many times their size. But New York law bans the possession of nunchaku, or "chuka sticks," leaving Nerd-Americans in the state defenseless against muggings and epic wedgies.

For a brief moment, there was hope. James Maloney, a proud defender of the ancient nunchaku tradition, challenged the constitutionality of New York's oppressive law.

The case was callously dismissed by a district court.

In his time of need, he turned to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of three justices, including Sotomayor, examined his case. They had a chance to right a grievous wrong, and strike a blow for Nerd-rights everywhere.

And yet, they chose to turn Maloney away, like some kind of hideous legal puppy that no one could love.

In their ruling, Sotomayor and her cronies asserted that the Second Amendment didn't apply to the states, making his complaint invalid.

But they didn't stop there. Instead, Sotomayor & Co. decided to slander the art of nunchaku-wielding by repeating a torrent of fear-mongering that would make Janet Napolitano blush:

The legislative history of section 265.00 makes plain that the ban on possession of nunchakus imposed by section 265.01(1) is supported by a rational basis. Indeed, as Appellant concedes, when the statute was under consideration, various parties submitted statements noting the highly dangerous nature of nunchakus. For example, New York’s Attorney General, Louis J. Lefkowitz, asserted that nunchakus “ha[ve] apparently been widely used by muggers and street gangs and ha[ve] been the cause of many serious injuries.” Mem. from Attorney Gen. Louis J. Lefkowitz to the Governor (Apr. 8, 1974). And the sponsor of the bill, Richard Ross, stated that “[w]ith a minimum amount of practice, [the nunchaku] may be effectively used as a garrote, bludgeon, thrusting or striking device. The [nunchaku] is designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill.” See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00, practice commentary, definitions (“Chuka stick”) (quoting Letter of Assemblyman Richard C. Ross to the Counsel to the Governor (1974)).

Shame on you, Sotomayor. Shame on you, New York. America was founded on the belief that every man had the right to disable his foes with the Japanese weapon of his choosing. But as soon as your nerdophobic tendencies kick in, none of that matters to you.

As a Supreme Court justice, you'll have a chance to redeem yourself. You'll have another shot at forming an alliance with the Nerd-American community.

If you reject them, don't come crying to me when a chaotic elven wizard inflicts 30 points of damage on you with his rod of shadows.

Indecent Psychological Exposure?

Every month or so, conservatives find a new what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-England story to shake their heads at.

Kids having babies.

Sharia law becoming civil law.

And now this: Conservative talk-show host Michael Savage has been officially banned from England. According to Jaqui Smith, the director of the British Home Office, his presence in merry olde England would "cause inter-community tension or even violence."

Really?

Savage is a provocative guy. He gets angry -- a lot. And naturally, he has more than his share of detractors. But he isn't in the habit of commanding his listeners to commit acts of violence. Love him or hate him, grouping Savage with neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists is absurd.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this move has more to do with punishing someone for holding unpopular (i.e. unacceptable) views than it does with maintaining public tranquility.

Still, England's seeming censorship of Savage is only the latest sad chapter in the larger story of England's weak stance on the freedom of speech. Due to libel laws that are weighted against defendants, England is being used as an international center for the censorship of controversial material:

While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants' claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff's lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour. The bill can rise to millions.

Perhaps you don't live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You're wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on Earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renminbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these medieval laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.

In other words, if you write something controversial about someone in America, and someone can read it in England, they can come after you. In response to the growth of British "libel tourism," Congress is considering a bill that would prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgements that violate the 1st amendment. A good move -- but it won't help blacklisted Savage.

If the Obama administration has any guts, it should step up to defend one of our country's most prominent voices. What ever happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say -- but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?

I Am Clueless, Hear Me Roar.

In the pages of Wednesday's Daily Nebraskan, columnist Sarah Melecki made it clear that she's really ticked off at some guy named Mark Regnerus.

According to Melecki, Regnerus is the epitome of patriarchal evil:

Mark Regnerus, who published an opinion piece in the April 26 Washington Post, thinks it’s a tragedy that women are statistically choosing to get married at a later age now than they did in, say, 1890. His reasoning? According to Regnerus, as a woman ages her “market value” decreases, while a man’s increases.


...
This guy thinks that my value is wrapped up in my ability to produce fertile eggs. And apparently as I get closer to menopause, I get more and more worthless.
...
But whether or not I decide to have children, I am not worthless. I contribute to the good of society, and I challenge the ideas of closed-minded sexists like you, Mr. Regnerus.
...
Don’t let society pressure you into anything, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from people like Mark Regnerus, it’s that our world is full of people who are stuck in a black and white television set with a 1950’s idea of marriage. Let’s make sure we’re living in the digital era.


Because I happen to live in the digital era, I harnessed the magic of the interweb to find the opinion piece that scarred Melecki for life. Now, my only question is: Did Melecki actually read it? Any of it? A cursory glance at the article reveals a remarkably benign column arguing for the freedom to marry young -- a far cry from a sexist polemic:

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree."

...
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too.
...
It is is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. (emphasis added) Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion.

The focal point of Melecki's rant -- that Mark Regnerus believes women should be valued based on their ability to produce children -- is patently false. Regnerus makes no value judgements at all. He certainly doesn't say that society should discard women who can't make babies. He merely points out the bleak truth that, generally speaking, men consider younger women to be more desirable spouses. There's a difference between someone's "market value" on the dating scene and their worth as a human being -- a nuance that Melecki seems incapable of detecting.

Melecki's warning that "you shouldn't let society pressure you into anything" is rather ironic, considering that it happens to be the main thesis of Regnerus's article. Instead of commanding women to conform to a 1950s mold, he simply tries to make the point that women should feel free to get married young if they want to. He offers no condemnation for people who choose not to marry. His article never even touches on the larger feminist debate over whether a woman should be valued based on her family or her work.

But it doesn't take long to realize that Melecki is simply using Regnerus as a springboard to segue into a dull screed against the evils of our patriarchal society:

From an early age girls are taught that marriage and motherhood are key goals in life. Dress up wedding gowns, happy endings in fairy tales, baby dolls and Playschool kitchens are forced upon little girls from the time they can walk until they decide they’re too old for toys. Everything is pink and frilly and is in preparation for being an obedient wife.



Boys, on the other hand, get to play with a variety of toys, from race cars to G.I. Joe. There may be a few toys marketed toward boys that prepare them for being a husband and father, but more often they get to choose from a wide array of art, video games or basketball.

I have three younger sisters, so I've witnessed the horror of baby dolls being "forced upon" little girls on several occasions. When they unwrap those little bundles of oppression, it only looks like they're happy. Deep down inside, there must be a pain I can't even imagine. (If only they could choose from a wide array of basketball like the boys!)

Melecki's piece demonstrates that militant feminists are the only people stuck in the 1950s. With the number of American women working outside the home hovering near 80%, there just isn't enough to get mad about in the "digital age." Thus, they conveniently construct a frightening fantasy realm where male oppression lurks beneath every pebble to convince themselves that their stale talking points are still relevant. Anyone who dares to present an opinion that appears to slightly contradict feminist dogma is promptly crucified.

It looks like the patriarchal oppressors don't have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.

The Trouble With Torture.

After the release of a series of Bush administration memos on the legality of "enhanced interrogation techniques," the battle over torture has returned with a vengeance.

Conservatives tend to believe that torture is a necessary evil. It isn't pretty -- but it saves lives. According to conservative news sources, information extracted via waterboarding from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed helped prevent a major terrorist attack on L.A.

Liberals assert that torture is morally wrong and damages America's standing in the world. The strongest opponents of torture would love to see Bush and Co. stand trial for war crimes.

Clearly, the President has to make some tough calls when it comes to keeping Americans safe. When thousands of innocent lives hang in the balance, the morality of torture doesn't seem so black and white.

If Obama knew he could save a city by subjecting a scary bearded man to intense physical discomfort, would he really stick to his principles?

Then again, can anyone ever be sure that torture will produce life-saving information?

By any measure, torture is a great way to get people to talk. Inflict enough pain, and someone will tell you what you want to hear. But what if the truth isn't what you want to hear? What if Mr. Death To America really doesn't know anything?

Then you get stuck with a steaming heap of bad intelligence. In fact, according to a new report from the Senate Armed Services Committee, much of Bush's faulty intelligence on the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda came out of torture sessions.

When you get right down to it, torture is a questionable tool at best. If the clock is ticking on an impending terror attack, torturing a bad guy could prevent the destruction. But it could also horribly mislead law enforcement and accomplish nothing.

Perhaps when the stakes are high enough, some just prefer a dubious gamble to nothing at all.

One Lump, Or Two?

The formula for a protest is simple:

You hold a sign adorned with an angry political message.

People who disagree with your message feel mad inside.
Sometimes, they argue with you.

People who agree with your message feel happy inside.
Sometimes, they give you high-fives.

If there are enough people holding signs with you, a TV crew arrives.
A 30 second clip of angry sign-wavers appears on the six o' clock news.

The tea party protests didn't deviate from the formula. But it seems that some people were unfamiliar with the whole protest thing.

An indignant Huffington Post featured a slideshow of the "ten most offensive" signs from the tea party protests. A couple of them -- gasp! -- compared Obama to Hitler!

Can you imagine? Comparing an American president to Hitler! At a protest!

Oh, the horror of it all.

After CNN reporter Susan Roesgen failed at sharing the stimulus gospel with a protestor, she noted the "anti-government" tone of the protest, and announced that it wasn't appropriate for "family viewing."

Indeed. Keep airing that garbage, and babies will start opposing redistributionary tax policies.

Were there some ignorant, angry people at the tea party protests? Yes. But nobody should come to a protest expecting a university lecture on political philosophy. A protest is a magical time when a bunch of people get mad at something together. Ugliness happens.

Arrr.

Pirates are back.

Like the pirates of old, modern pirates are no laughing matter. They plunder, kidnap, and in some cases, kill. And from the looks of things, the civilized world doesn't seem to know what to do with them.

What can be done?

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has a novel idea from the past: kill 'em.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."

Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Unfortunately, duking it out with pirates on the high seas isn't always a viable option. The Gulf of Aden, the locus of current pirate activity, is a major transportation corridor for oil. When pirates attempt to hijack a tanker full of flammable gold, engaging in a firefight may not have pleasant consequences. In any case, once pirates have captured a vessel, military action will probably end in the death of innocent hostages.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I'm guessing that if we want to take out the bad guys, the fight will have to take place on land. As long as pirates can take refuge in Eyl, and other lawless Somali cities, they'll keep coming back for booty. Whether anyone has the will to engage in a messy ground conflict in Somalia is another question.