David Frum thinks Sarah Palin will be important for Trump in Iowa: they're kind of made of the same stuff

Here:

"Endorsements are usually said not to matter much in today’s politics—but if any endorsement in any contest ever can matter, Palin’s endorsement in the Republican Iowa caucuses will. ... In the contrast between Cruz’s support and Trump’s, one sees something truly new and disrupting—a battle between those for whom conservatism is an ideology, and those for whom conservatism is an identity. Since Donald Trump entered the race, one opponent after another has attacked him as not a real conservative. They’ve been right, too! And the same could have been said about Sarah Palin in 2008. Palin knew little and cared less about most of the issues that excited conservative activists and media." 

You can blame Nikki Haley, who responded to Trump not Obama, on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell

Reported here:

". . . House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell picked Haley to deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s final State of the Union address."

Mark Penn strategy memo from 2007 shows Hillary Clinton campaign wanted to exploit Obama's "lack of American roots"

The Atlantic has the memo here.

Erick Erickson asserts a difference between libertarianism and libertinism

Today filling in as guest host of the Rush Limbaugh Show in response to a caller recommending the Republican Party move in a more specifically libertarian direction.

The comment was more diplomacy than wisdom.

In the Molly Ball feature on Erickson for The Atlantic here, Erickson more than once eschews libertarianism, let alone libertinism:

“Nationally, people think of me as a Tea Party person, and I am,” Erickson told me. “But in Georgia, the Tea Party can’t stand me.” The local movement, he explained, is dominated by libertarian followers of former Congressman Ron Paul, and Erickson has opposed many of its chosen candidates. Erickson’s conservatism is of a more traditional bent, deeply informed by his evangelical faith. He believes Republicans must not yield in pursuit of small government, strong national defense, and the primacy of the traditional family.

Erickson sounded almost gleeful as he told me about the Tea Party hating him. He seems to delight in confounding expectations, and in almost every way, he refuses to be pigeonholed: he is a southerner who defines himself by his small-town sensibility, but he spent most of his childhood in Dubai. He speaks for the conservative grass roots, but he pals around with cable-news regulars and Beltway elites. He’s a strict no-compromises ideologue, but during his one foray into elected office, he was a model of bipartisan cooperation. ...

When I pressed him on whether his zeal for regulation while on the city council was at odds with his less-government philosophy, he said he believed human trafficking was a problem that government should have a role in solving. “I’m not a libertarian,” he said. Even small-government absolutists, after all, can agree that sexual slavery ought to be prevented.

Postmodernism at The Atlantic, continued, where the seven-day week is completely man-made

What's completely man-made is this account of the week, "Where the Five-Day Workweek Came From", in which long observation of four lunar phases of 7.4 days in length over millennia means nothing to an architect, who is, fittingly, cited as an authority, as in architects making stuff up.

The author, one Philip Sopher, an economics graduate from Princeton who should know his dates better, is completely ignorant of the Julian calendar reform of the Roman market day cycle of eight days to the more natural seven, which together with its other changes in 46 BC helped remove ever after in the West, not add, deliberate human meddling with the calendar, a common problem at the time of Caesar, here:

“Seven days,” wrote Witold Rybczynski in the August 1991 issue of The Atlantic, “is not natural because no natural phenomenon occurs every seven days.” The year marks one revolution of the Earth around the sun. Months, supposedly, mark the time between full moons.  The seven-day week, however, is completely man-made.

If it’s man-made, can’t man unmake it? For all the talk of how freeing it’d be to shave a day or two off the five-day workweek, little attention has been paid to where the weekly calendar came from. Understanding the sometimes arbitrary origins of the modern workweek might inform the movement to shorten it.

... At the very latest, the seven-day week was firmly entrenched in the Western calendar about 250 years before Christ was born.

---------------------------------------------

Little attention, indeed.

If no man is an island, how come Christian morality is being defeated everywhere?

Alan Noble, here:

"[M]orality has this nasty habit of not staying put; it sneaks out of our personal conscience and affects those around us. Some morals affect communities more than others, but no moral is entirely contained. My choice to live my life the way I want to will impact my community, no matter how careful I am to defer and tolerate and be sensitive to others. And this is a basic tenet of evangelical Christianity, too: Faith must be lived out in the public square; a privatized faith is no faith worth the name. Because of this, the real debate isn’t about whether morality should be public or private; it’s about figuring out what kind of moral impositions are tolerable and fair in a pluralistic society."

---------------------------------------------

It's no longer self-evident that Christian morality holds the field in US public life. It's not sneaking out everywhere and overturning everything. In fact Christian morality has been almost entirely defeated in the US. Otherwise we would not be at this pass. Which must mean the morality embraced by Christ's followers today is a fiction for far many more of the 75% of Americans who claim to be Christian than we otherwise think. The fact is, we've been running on the vapors of past Christians' morality, not our own, and the car is sputtering to a halt. It'll be a long walk home. 

Whack job writes in support of reparations

Errin Haines Whack in the UK Guardian article

 

"The 'Case for Reparations' is solid, and it's long past time to make them: Ta-Nehisi Coates's piece reveals the conversation that Americans need to start about our history of racial oppression",

 

here:

[A]n African-American writer telling this story in a legacy, mainstream publication like The Atlantic . . . adds weight and validity to the argument – and makes reparations harder to dismiss, yet again, as "crazy talk".

-------------------------------------

 

Translation: We've got liberal whitey licked. Time to drive the knife home.

These people have always lusted for blood, and they may get it. The knife cuts both ways.

Liberals still imagine conservative Democrats just evaporated when they actually became Republicans

Liberal Peter Beinart admits Republicans hate Obama because he's a Democrat, not because he's black, but still can't accept it that the Democrat Party left the southerners, not southerners the Democrat Party, here:

I’m not claiming racism is irrelevant to Republican opposition to Obama. Race is a constant presence in American politics, and it’s impossible to understand either political party without it. But the right’s strategy of militantly opposing, and sometimes delegitimizing, Democratic presidents stretches back two decades now. It has its roots in the end of the Cold War, which stripped Americans of a common enemy; in the fragmentation of media that once spanned ideological divides and now exacerbates them; and in the near-extinction of the southern conservative Democrats and northern liberal Republicans who once helped broker political compromise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And you'd think he'd see the victory in this instead of the defeat, because Democrats joining the Republican Party have done far more to liberalize it, and the nation as a whole, than Republicans have done to "conservatize" the new arrivals. The constant leftward drift of politics since the Reagan era proves that, especially in the realm of social policy.

The Atlantic Finally Catches On To The ObamaCare Part-Timing Myth

Derek Thompson, here, in "The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America":

If you've been paying attention to a certain slice of the financial media—see: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox News—you know for a fact that Obama and his health care law have tag-teamed with global economic trends to drive America inexorably toward a part-time economy.

-----------------------------------------------

Beat ya.

We first expressed doubt in the part-time-due-to-Obamacare meme in July 2013, here, because the category "usually work part-time" showed no new highs since passage of the law three years prior.

We began calling the meme a myth in August 2013, here, because average hours worked were not declining, but rising modestly.

In September 2013, here, we pointed out that government statistics will NEVER capture the reduction of part-time worker schedules to 29 hours per week because everyone working 34 hours or fewer is already part-time as far as the government is concerned and those are the people most likely to have their hours reduced. But those workers in the aggregate are too few in comparison to all the full-time workers to reduce average hours worked overall enough to impact that measure. The real scandal is that ObamaCare may be reducing hours for a small segment of the population which is already part-time, but especially retail, restaurant and food service workers. Unfortunately most of the evidence is anecdotal and no one really gives a crap about them anyway, least of all Obama.

And in October 2013, here, we pointed out that part-time for economic reasons was slowly declining despite passage of ObamaCare and had been high in the first place because of the crisis of 2008, something Derek Thompson seems really proud of pointing out now to his middlebrow audience.

So where's my Pulitzer Prize already, huh? 

Be Careful, Default Is A Venerable Old Liberal Democrat Specialty, Exponentially Imitated By Liberal Republicans

The Atlantic stumbles into the truth, here:

In 1933, President Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold. That violated the so-called gold clause, which required that all public debts be paid in gold coin of a fixed weight. (America’s overwhelmingly pro-Roosevelt Congress simply declared all gold clauses null and void.) The 1933 devaluation effectively amounted to paying off debts with devalued currency, which is widely viewed as a default. In fact, in her exhaustive research on sovereign debt, economist Carmen Reinhart clearly classifies the 1933 devaluation as a domestic default.

----------------------------------

Imagine waking up on a Monday morning only to find out you now needed almost 15 more greenbacks to get back the same ounce of gold which on Friday the government basically confiscated from you for 20 of them, and they wouldn't let you. That's the legacy of the Roosevelt Democrats.

30 million ounces of gold were handed over to the government in exchange for $600 million, and then the price of that gold was effectively raised to $1.05 billion.

The price of gold was kept close to $35 an ounce for 31 of the next 38 years, when at length Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 when gold averaged about $45 an ounce.

Since then dollar devaluation to date has come to an additional almost 97%.

Total dollar devaluation since 1933 as of this very hour now comes to 98.43%.

Face It, The Heritage Foundation Has Been And Remains Confused (By Liberalism)

As the photo at left demonstrates but conservatives want to ignore, including Erick Erickson here at Red State, a Heritage Foundation representative was present for the signing of RomneyCare in 2006 because Heritage invented the damn idea way back before HillaryCare raised its ugly head and Heritage was happy to see it made into law (so was Senator Ted Kennedy). That was just seven years ago, but now Heritage would just rather have you ignore all that.

Forcing people to sign up for health insurance at the point of a gun has its analog, of course, in forcing people in distant lands to adopt Western-style democracy, something we heard the heir of Republican conservatism, George Bush, incessantly preach: "The long-term solution is to promote a better ideology, which is freedom. Freedom is universal." (Whether they want it or not). To this day, as Molly Ball's article in The Atlantic points out here, "universal coverage" is still Heritage's position:

In my interviews with them, Heritage officials could recite chapter and verse on why Heritage turned against the individual mandate -- a turn, they claim, that occurred before Romney or Obama adopted the idea. “We still believe universal coverage is a good idea,” [Phillip] Truluck [VP and COO] said. But none of the four Heritage officials I interviewed could tell me offhand how the foundation proposes to reform health care and cover the uninsured if Obamacare is scrapped. (Later, an assistant followed up by emailing me links to Heritage papers on “putting patients first,” regulating the health-insurance market, and Medicare reform.)

The place is universally incoherent, and always has been. It has been against Drugs for Seniors as an expansion of big government, but supported the line-item veto, thus expanding the authority of the executive part of government, even as it once used to warn about the imperial presidency. Today it is famously against the current immigration amnesty plan but was pro-immigration for the longest time. It had a founder who has moved notably left liberal, but now it has a libertarian-friendly leader in Jim DeMint. It was for ObamaCare before it was against it. Something about the Heritage Foundation is really off for it to be the home of so many contradictory currents. If conservatism is the negation of ideology, as Russell Kirk taught us, Heritage knows nothing about it.

Maybe they should just rename the place The John F. Kerry Foundation and be done with it.

To Us Obama's A Dictator, To Liberals An "Executive-Power Extremist"

You won't find the traditional words "king", "tyrant", "usurper" or "dictator" in Conor Friedersdorf's Atlantic column, "Obama Acts Like He Doesn't Know He's An Executive-Power Extremist", here, because, before dictatorship disarms the population, it has to disarm the language first.

And it has:

The grammer is priceless. Who "put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president"? In Obama's telling, "a decade" put the executive power there. ... We know that Obama is an executive-power extremist in his actions. ...  [I]s he fooling himself, because he likes to think of himself as [a] more prudent and moderate man than he is? Can he not bear the truth that he's a Cheneyite extremist?

There it lies, limp as a dick. 

Sen. Diane Feinstein, Washed-Up Geezer, Thinks NSA Oversight Means Overlooking It

Senator Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum, I think

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is supposed to be leading the oversight of the NSA in the Congress, but to her "oversight" means something more like ignoring it. Easy to do during naps.

Conor Friedersdorf for The Atlantic reports here:

The [Washington Post] got its hands on the [internal May 2012 NSA] audit -- more than a year after the fact -- before she did! And the trend? "Despite the quadrupling of the NSA's oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009," [Barton] Gellman reports [link added], "the rate of infractions increased throughout 2011 and early 2012."

Steve Clemons Of The Atlantic Discovers U6 Unemployment 5 Years Into The Biggest Story Of Our Time

Don't tell Steve Clemons U6 has been measured since 1994

Except he doesn't really discover it until the commenters clue him in to the fact.

Here's the relevant snip assuming Leo Hindery Jr. must be a god for discovering the truth about the real extent of unemployment:

"In other words, BLS reports that official unemployment stayed flat at 7.6% while Hindery's more extensive figures show that real unemployment increased by 0.4% to 14.3%."

Then two commenters, one of which is "dormilon" below, break the bad news to Clemons in the comments section:

"I was equally confused by what appears to be the author's lack of familiarity with the 'alternative measures for labor utilization.' The BLS doesn't just issue one set of unemployment estimates (U-3) as implied above (For decades, the only employment numbers that anyone would discuss were those issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).), it issues an array of estimates that are disseminated with varying degrees of acceptance or familiarity. And, yes, that U-6 number should definitely be much better understood and publicized."

Commenter "Dcoronata" then goes in for the kill:

"Once you start an article the way you did, sophisticated readers already know not to bother. If the rules have not changed, then there is no duplicity, just bad journalists."

Clemons took it personally:

"Your comment borders on ad hominem."

-------------------------------------------------------------

No, I'd say it is most definitely ad hominem. Face it, Steve, you're a dumb shit, and a liberal who hasn't cared about the biggest story of our time until someone you esteem told you to care about it. There is no "Deception in Counting the Unemployed" as Steve's headline indicates, just bipartisan indifference about it.

Do Nothing Congress Increases Revenue, Spends Less

So says Molly Ball, here:

But the ironic thing is that, by virtue of its very do-nothingness, the do-nothing Congress got a big thing done. First, in the fiscal-cliff deal struck around the new year, wealthy Americans’ income-tax rates went up, a policy change long sought by the president and his party. Then, in March, the budget ax known as sequestration fell, chopping $1 trillion from federal spending over the next decade—a cherished goal for fiscal conservatives. More revenue plus less spending equals a lower deficit. A much lower one. Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that these changes, combined with the domestic-spending caps imposed by the 2011 debt-ceiling deal (and counting savings on interest), will reduce the deficit by $3.99 trillion through 2023. That’s enough to stabilize the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio, meaning that the debt will no longer be growing faster than the U.S. economy. In short, the deficit has been tamed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

She doesn't mention that both ideas were Obama's. Funny, Obama doesn't mention it either.

Another Big Lois Lerner Lie: There Was No Surge In 501(c)(4) Applications In 2010

In addition to trying to deceive the public that the IRS under Obama has been a transparent, apolitical arm of the government by planting the question she took from the audience of an American Bar Association conference, now we learn there was no surge in tax-exempt applications from conservatives as Lois Lerner has said, undermining her excuse that aggregating them in that way was merely an administrative efficiency.

TheAtlantic.com here explains how on Friday it was revealed that the IRS itself provided data to the Inspector General which shows the actual number of such applications went down in 2010, not up as she claimed in testimony:

Lois Lerner is a snake who, sensing a threat, struck before the Inspector General's disclosure that the IRS unaccountably and exclusively targeted Tea Party and other conservative group applications, and then recoiled to the safety of a demonstrably false excuse.

Like the rest of the incompetents in Obama's administration, she can't even lie properly.

Molly Ball Doth Espy The Flaccid Organ Called The Senate

For The Atlantic, here:

"The last time a major new piece of policy legislation passed the U.S. Senate was July 15, 2010.

"That's when the Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill came through the Senate. And it was 951 days ago."

Just before the Republicans retook the House in 2010, over 400 bills passed by the then Democrat-controlled House under Speaker Pelosi languished unactioned in Sen. Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Senate, on which, see here.

Q2 2012 GDP, First Estimate, Up Only 1.5 Percent. Q1 Revised Up To 2 Percent.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis report may be found here. The customary summer revision of the data going back several years is also part of the release, here.

The revised real GDP numbers going back to 2008 are something of a stunner, revealing no real GDP growth in any year from 2008 at 2.5 percent or above.

I am reminded of this statement attributed to Ben Bernanke three years ago today at Reuters, here:

It takes GDP growth of about 2.5 percent to keep the jobless rate constant, Bernanke noted. But the Fed expects growth of only about 1 percent in the last six months of the year.

"So that's not enough to bring down the unemployment rate," he said.


Since we haven't had annual GDP growth of 2.5 percent for going on five years, declining unemployment obviously has had nothing to do with government action, but rather with the growing number of people not counted as unemployed. Headline unemployment is based on the answer to the question "Did you look for work in the last four weeks?" and if you answered "No" you are not counted as unemployed even if you are.

Americans have dropped out in massive numbers because they are tired of beating their heads against a wall of mismatched skills, massive age discrimination, cheaper foreign labor and inhospitable government policy toward business, and they no longer count, quite literally.

It's no surprise really. 50 million abortions since 1973 haven't counted either. And while a gunman killing a dozen or more in a theatre makes big news for a few days, a similar number of illegals dying in a truck crash a few days later doesn't.

The message of the "modern" world is that lives are expendable, especially unemployed lives, who are now nothing more than "depreciating assets".

The Queers Are Only 2 Percent Of The Population

Not 10 percent, and certainly not 25 percent of the population.

They just make up for their small numbers by being loud and by otherwise acting like pricks.

Story at The Atlantic, here.

Misspelled Words Have Become Routinized At The Atlantic

As seen here, where the writer evidently thinks "routenized" is built off of "route", or something: