This is interesting. Red State’s Erick Erickson (a Gingrich supporter) predicts that Obama will win the election.

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains — Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

Well, not being a Romney supporter, nor much of an optimist about any of the four candidate’s chances of beating Obama, I don’t think I am engaged in self delusion. But I am an admitted Gingrichphobe. I think the man’s Rockefeller-on-steroids drug war statist expansionism, his advocacy of the death penalty for victimless crimes, make him the most anti-libertarian Republican yet. It would gall me to have to vote for him, as I have said countless times.

But still… I think Erickson has come up with the best argument in favor of Gingrich yet. If losing to Obama is a certainty, then why not let Gingrich be the one to do it? That way, supporters of his sort of statism will be seen as having had their turn and failing.

What worries me, though, is that all the polls continue to indicate that a majority of Americans would favor a Generic Republican over Barack Obama.

You’d think the GOP could come up with a single generic Republican. Perhaps an avuncular war hero of some sort could be drafted.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Nah, scratch my fantasizing. Republicans (at least, the majority of those voting in the primaries) don’t want to win. Winning is secondary; they would rather be “right.” A pitiful irony, really, because Obama could be defeated by the “right” candidate.

In his lecture to students in my hood yesterday, President Obama tried to present himself as a champion of the rights of the downtrodden by contrasting the tax rates of millionaires with those of their employees. The example he used was Warren Buffett and his secretary:

Obama: That’s not fair. A quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.

Audience: Booo.

Obama: Not fair. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. I know because she was at the State of the Union. She told me. (Laughter.) Is that fair?

Audience: No!

Obama: Does it make sense to you?

Audience: No!

Actually, the above doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t withstand basic tax analysis.

Buffet himself declares that he pays a 17.4 percent rate on taxable income. His staff, like Bosanek,  pay an average of 34 percent. The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The 2009 results  show that the average taxpayer paying Buffet’s 17.4 rate earns an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000. But an average taxpayer in Bosaneck’s rate (after downward adjustment for payroll taxes) earns an adjusted gross income  of $200,000 to $500,000. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary well above two hundred thousand.

We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffett is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

I imagine that there are any number of secretaries who would want her job and her place in the Congress gallery for the President’s State of the Union address.

Another explanation may be that the secretary, or Buffet, or Obama, simply lied.

I find his statement that “a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households” disingenuous, because if we assume that “millionaire” is defined as having a net worth of  over one million dollars, and “middle class” is defined as making (in Obama’s words) “less than $250,000 a year — which 98 percent of Americans do” then two assumptions are being made.

One is that this “quarter of all millionaires” even have enough actual income to be subject to taxation at the same rates as those who have earned income of up to $250,000 per year.  Many of those painted as the wealthy elite are retired and living off whatever they socked away after taxes. Some may be real estate poor and have little or no income.

Income tax is tax on income, right? Or does Obama think there should be a tax on money that has already been taxed and somehow saved anyway? If so, then why doesn’t he come right out and say that he is in favor of confiscation of already-taxed wealth?

The second problem I see is a substantial portion of  the 98 percent of Americans who make up to $250,000 a year may already be millionaires on the balance sheet. They may have done well on income they managed to save or invest, as well as appreciated real estate. And if they are millionaires, are they included in both groups Obama’s dichotomy?  Because if they are “among the less than $250,000 a year — which 98 percent of Americans do” as well as in the ”quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households,” then they become both the evil millionaires and the oppressed classes at the same time.

But such follies cannot be, can they? Not unless we want people to wage class warfare against themselves. I mean, even if you’re a Marxist, the slogan “eat the rich” is not supposed to mean having the rich eat themselves.

Via Glenn’s link I was reminded of an unfortunate tendency:

It is the human condition that the oldest generation despairs of the youngest.

I was thinking along such lines for much of the day after watching Barack Obama’s speech in its entirety.

I’ll spare the (misleading) details of how billionaires like Warren Buffet pay less in taxes than their secretaries. Instead, check out the climax, followed by the glad-handing:

Yet these kids are not all that bad. They are young and thoughtful, full of hope about the future, and not wanting to screw up. They should not be dismissed as “brainwashed.” When I was their age (groan) I was “worse” (if that is the right word) than most of the kids today. I was a Marxist Leninist pain in the ass, and while I wasn’t brainwashed I was full of emotion — so full that I was unable to be objective in the adult sense. It took me quite a while to figure out things for myself. (And even now I still have trouble figuring things out for myself.)

It took me years to realize that I was a libertarian at heart, so I am in no position to be dismissive, or despairing.

Especially because many of these kids I would dismiss are more libertarian than I was at their age.

It is often tempting to think that young people are lacking in perspective.

Especially when you lack their perspective.

As the Republican candidates beat each other to death in a bitter contest to see which bloodied and broken combatant emerges as the “winner” (in quotes because I think whoever it is will still be at war with a major segment of the GOP), I thought it might worth reminding everyone that the Democrats have no such worries, and Barack Obama has already started campaigning in earnest.

I refer not to the “State of the Campaign” speech the other night, but to Obama’s visit to my neighborhood tomorrow morning. He’ll be speaking at the Al Glick Field House a short block away, and the kids in this student town are already in a state of rapture. They started lining up last night at 7:30 p.m. for tickets that weren’t for sale until nearly 14 hours later, and there’s even a touching article about the first lucky guy who got a ticket.

Obama mania is back in full swing!

Roughly 3,000 people Thursday morning received tickets to President Barack Obama‘s upcoming speech —many camping outside overnight to secure their place in line— and still hundreds of hopefuls were turned away.

It’s clear: Obama mania has seeped into the University of Michigan campus as the school prepares for his speech on college affordability Friday at 9:35 a.m. at the Al Glick Field House.

Many students standing in line and roaming around campus lived here in 2010 when Obama was the spring commencement speaker, and we asked them how this month’s impromptu visit compares with the last time the president and his entourage descended upon Ann Arbor.

“There’s been a lot of talk on campus. In all my classes students have been talking about if they’re going to go get tickets and professors are talking about it in class,” said senior political science and American culture major Amanda Caldwell, president of the U-M College Democrats. “But to have a sitting president come and give a commencement speech is very different than what he’s doing now.”

There’s

What he’s doing now is, of course, campaigning:

Obama, who will become the first sitting president to visit U-M’s Ann Arbor campus twice, will deliver his speech three days after the State of the Union address, where he’s expected to seek to define the role of the government in sparking economic growth.Although the speech won’t be billed as a campaign event, it’s clearly part of the president’s election year effort to highlight his accomplishments in a state has benefited directly from his policies.

Obama is sure to remind the crowd that he championed $50 billion in federal financing to help guide General Motors and Chrysler through their bankruptcy filings in 2009.

His support of the auto bailouts — which saved thousands of jobs — is looking increasingly crucial because winning Michigan is vital to the president’s reelection, said Craig Ruff, an analyst with nonpartisan Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants.

“It’s great that Michigan is on the swing state tour,” Ruff said. “It shows that the president is not taking Michigan for granted.”

He is obviously going out of his way to court the student vote. Talking about college affordability and promising lower tuition is music to their young and tender ears.

And those mean old white Republicans are so out of touch that they “haven’t done anything” to get young people’s support!

Caldwell, the U-M senior, says Obama hasn’t lost his relevance among young people.

“Republicans… haven’t done anything to get young people’s support. “I think Obama will have just as much support from young people as before.”

Obama is not wasting any time, and he certainly doesn’t appear to be taking the youth vote (which was the backbone of his 2008 campaign) for granted. As to whether he’s lost his relevance among young people, the only relevance that matters will be on Election Day, when they’ll probably line up again for an Election Day youth party!

I can’t see them lining up for either Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Ron Paul is the only Republican who seems to have anything approaching youth appeal.

But what do I know? I’m just an aging white man commenting on the latest antics in my hood.

UPDATE: In case anyone is interested in being subjected to the president’s speech, it can be streamed live here.

AND MORE: Obama says he wants a second term “badly.”

Isn’t that the way he’s run his first term?

Plus, he’s already campaigning against Gingrich:

Obama pushed back against what he called Republicans’ “rhetorical flourishes,” including Newt Gingrich’s oft-repeated contention that Obama is the “food stamp president.”

[...]

…he said the rhetoric from conservatives like that used by Gingrich illustrates an attempt by Republicans to engage in the same divisiveness that they profess to decry.

“The American people are going to make a judgment about who’s trying to bring the country together and who’s dividing it, who reflects the core values that helped create this country … and who is tapping into some of our worst instincts,” he said.

The above would seem to confirm my earlier speculation that Gingrich is the guy he wants to run against.

UPDATE (1/27/12, 12:15 p.m.): An hour ago I walked to the corner with my camera and happened to catch the presidential motorcade when it was leaving. (The president is in the second limousine.)

MORE: Text of speech here.

In a very odd coincidence, while looking for something else I stumbled onto a marvelous interview with Jerry Garcia about “The Movie that Changed My Life.” What’s odd about this is that the film — Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (a 1948 classic starring Bela Lugosi as Dracula and Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man) — is one of my favorites. When I saw it as a child I was terrified and just in the past month I re-watched twice. I had no idea that it was so influential on Jerry Garcia, though. He was only six years old, his father had died the year before, and the film not only so terrified him that he had to hide his eyes, but it also just captivated him, and became a lifelong influence.

In the fascinating interview, he explains why, in great detail.

I completely understand his view of mastering the macabre being an ally of persecuted children. (Being young and impressionable is a two edged sword.)

In what I’m sure is no coincidence, I’m a lifelong horror fan as well as a longtime Deadhead.

I love this part of the comment that Glenn linked:

I didn’t watch the SOTU because I was washing my hair.

I didn’t watch it because I was drinking a beer at the time, and I can’t multitask as well as the rest of the watching-Obama-under-the-influence crowd.

Perhaps I am not getting the rerun.

I have to write about something and I don’t want to.

I don’t want to because I am dead tired, and need sleep, so blogging about anything is a supreme pain in the ass. (Yeah, I just updated an earlier post about Gingrich, as if I can stop him and his police state advocacy…)

But when I read the story that Glenn Reynolds linked about a guy who was arrested for DWI and sat in a cell — apparently “forgotten” — for 22 months, I found myself flabbergasted.

Sorry, but I’m an American citizen who believes in the Constitution, and who also happens to be an attorney, and stuff like this is just plain not supposed to happen.

A man who spent two years in solitary confinement after getting arrested for DWI was awarded $22 million for suffering inhumane treatment in New Mexico’s Dona Ana County Jail.

Stephen Slevin was arrested in August of 2005 for driving while intoxicated, according to NBC station KOB.com. He said he never got a trial and spent the entire time languishing in solitary, even pulling his own tooth when he was denied dental care.

“‘[Prison officials were] walking by me every day, watching me deteriorate,” he said. “Day after day after day, they did nothing, nothing at all, to get me any help.”

Slevin said he made countless requests to see a doctor to get medication for his depression, but wasn’t allowed to see one until only a few weeks before his release. He also never got to see a judge.

The $22 million settlement, awarded by a federal jury on Tuesday, is one of the largest prisoner civil rights settlements in U.S. history, according to KOB.com.

He says he has no idea why they did what they did, and the alleged humans who run the county don’t return the reporters’ phone calls.

This just didn’t make any sense to me. I have sometimes succumbed to fits of paranoia in which I have wondered whether the United States (a country I have known and loved as early I can remember) might be degenerating into something like a Third World country, but a story like this hammers home the reality of that so starkly and bleakly that I just don’t want to believe it’s true.

So I Googled. Reading between the lines, it seems that the DWI suspect was mentally ill. Somehow, that served as an excuse to just let him rot:

Slevin, 58, was arrested in August 2005 and charged with driving while intoxicated and receiving a stolen vehicle near Las Cruces. His lawyers said the prison segregated him because he had a lifelong history of mental illness.

Albuquerque civil rights attorney Matthew Coyte said his client then began to deteriorate while in isolation.

“They threw him in solitary and then ignored him,” said Coyte. “He disappeared into delirium, and his mental illness was made worse by being isolated from human contact and a lack of medical care.”

Slevin’s lawsuit alleged he became malnourished, lost significant weight, developed bedsores, fungus and dental problems and was not aware of his situation or surroundings.

He was transferred to another state facility for two weeks, where he was given a psychiatric evaluation and then sent back to the Dona Ana County Detention Center, where he was again placed in solitary confinement. Coyte said Slevin did receive a brief competency hearing a year into his imprisonment, but the case against the man never proceeded.

After 22 months as a pre-trial detainee, Slevin was released and the charges dismissed. He then filed suit, claiming his rights of due process were violated since he was not given a hearing before being placed in solitary confinement.

Photos taken before and after his confinement show dramatic appearance changes. The plaintiff said things were so bad he was forced to pull his own tooth while in custody, and that his pleas for help were dismissed.

It’s so sickening I don’t know where to start. I’ve written countless posts about the fate of the mentally ill in this country, but this incident really takes the cake. I’m glad he won, and if I were a taxpayer in that God-awful excuse for an American town which locked him up and threw away the key, I’d be asking why my tax dollars should have to be paying the $22 million, and not the sons of bitches who did this to him.

All I can do is agree with what Glenn said:

…these guys should have to spend 6 years in solitary each. But, of course, all that happens is that taxpayers get stuck.

“Sovereign immunity” works that way.

The “sovereigns” play, while the rest of us pay.

Bastards.

(If there is a bright side in this mess, I guess it’s to be found in the $22 million jury verdict. That would not have happened in Zimbabwe, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, North Korea, China, Mexico, or in most of the countries on this planet. But give us time!)

Newt Gingrich’s former couch buddy Nancy Pelosi can’t leave the Florida primary well enough alone. And I can’t leave Nancy alone. On top of ABC’s antics in perfectly timing the ex-wife smear so that it would inflame the red meat base, now is the time that Pelosi has chosen to let loose with a double secret “allegation” which amounts to a great big nothing:

Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

King: “Why are you so sure?”

Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

As if on cue, Gingrich immediately turned around and told his friend to put up or shut up:

“There’s almost a level of hysteria about the prospect of somebody who really wants to change Washington,” said Mr. Gingrich to host John McCaslin.

“I have a simple challenge for Speaker Pelosi…you know, put up or shut up. I mean, I have no idea what she’s talking about. I don’t think she has any idea what she’s talking about, but bring it on,” he said.

“My life has been looked at by lots of people and I’ve been around a long time. And I just think that when you are a left-wing Democrat, the prospect of a Gingrich presidency is really sort of like a nightmare,” Mr. Gingrich added.

I have to say this for Gingrich. He is quite adept at saying precisely what the red meat base wants to hear, when they most want to hear it.

It was nice of Nancy (one of the most reviled lefties in the history of red meat conservatism) to pick such a time to play stick-it-to-Gingrich. I’m sure Newt is very grateful, and both he and Nancy are clucking over the fact that many red-meat primary voters are unaware that there might be such a thing as reverse psychology. The ABC stunt worked in South Carolina, so why not do it again?

At the heart of the reverse psychology game is  seemingly plausible meme: The left is “going all out” to destroy Gingrich now, because they fear his candidacy.

Look. There are four candidates. Why on earth would the left most fear the candidate who not only does the poorest against Obama, (Gingrich continues to trail the President in the double digits) but who has the worst negatives? Common sense would suggest that Newt is the best choice for Obama to run against.

I might be wrong, of course, and I freely admit my bias, and my Gingrichphobia. I also may be what Allah calls a “febrile political junkie who loves to obsess over political mind games.”

…If you’re a Mitt fan, the answer is clear — she knows something from having served on the ethics committee when Newt was reprimanded and it’s only a matter of time before it comes out. If you’re a Newt fan, the answer is also clear — this is a classic case of the left telling you who it really fears by trying to sink him before he can gain any more electoral momentum. And if you’re a febrile political junkie who loves to obsess over political mind games, the answer is equally clear — Pelosi does know something, and she also knows that attacking Gingrich publicly this way will rally conservatives behind him, so she’s happy to do it precisely because it’ll help Newt win, which is just what Democrats want. Hmmmmm.

It would be one thing if this were the first time. But the fact is that Newt thrives on being bashed by the left, so if they want to help him, this is a great time to go after him with “everything they’ve got.” Especially if it’s old news like his failed marriage, or a big pile of nothing like Nancy Pelosi’s “I’ve got a secret” game.

It’s a lovely game.

MORE: FWIW, American Spectator Editor R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. has been around for awhile, and known Newt from day one. In no uncertain terms, he warns conservatives that they are being had:

Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.

He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

Well put. My natural instinct is to defend my allies, but please not Gingrich!

A psychotic bit of 1980s nostalgia which could never pass muster today.

And if you liked that, you’ll just love “Hitler Was a Vegetarian”

Ah, the nostalgia of my misspent, um, “youth”!

And it goes without saying that no war is at least as bad as war!

Sigh. (If only I could learn that no Newt is at least as bad as Newt, I might be happy for a night….)

But what I need right now is a revival of Wabash Cannonball:

In news that will probably suck for social conservatives, it’s looking as if abortion is safer than pregnancy. Much safer:

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.

The study is of course certain to be attacked by the RTL people. But what both sides are missing is that a key element has changed. The narrative which rightly so disturbs people — cutting a living baby out of its mother’s womb — is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

…since the abortion drug mifepristone was approved for use in the United States in 2000, the number of medically-induced abortions has been on the rise.

Mifepristone is also a contraceptive:

Mifepristone as a regular contraceptive at 2 mg daily prevents ovulation (1 mg daily does not). A single preovulatory 10 mg dose of mifepristone delays ovulation by 3 to 4 days and is as effective an emergency contraceptive as a single 1.5 mg dose of the progestin levonorgestrel.^[26]

In women, mifepristone at doses greater or equal to 1 mg/kg antagonizes the endometrial and myometrial effects of progesterone. In humans, an antiglucocorticoid effect of mifepristone is manifested at doses greater or equal to 4.5 mg/kg by a compensatory increase in ACTH and cortisol. In animals, a weak antiandrogenic effect is seen with prolonged administration of very high doses of 10 to 100 mg/kg.^[15][39]

In medical abortion regimens, mifepristone blockade of progesterone receptors directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation–until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production). When followed sequentially by a prostaglandin, mifepristone 200 mg is (100 mg may be, but 50 mg is not) as effective as 600 mg in producing a medical abortion.^[36][37]

So, if we talk in purely statistical terms, women who take this drug early on and lose their babies are at far less at risk than they would be if they kept them. It’s just one of those hard truths, and it boils down to common sense. By causing miscarriage, these hormonal drugs essentially remove the risks of pregnancy, leaving whatever risks the drugs carry, which are not as great as the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

The abortion issue aside, risk analysis is one of my pet peeves, as it reduces humans to statistics, and when communitarianism is factored in, often leads to busybody demands for behavioral changes. While no one in his or her right mind would argue that women should take mifepristone to prevent the health risks of pregnancy (because it is self apparent that the right to have a child is a fundamental individual right even though it wasn’t listed in the Bill of Rights), a growing number of people are clamoring that people should stop using gas clothing dryers, because the dryer vents emit toxins.

And the toxins are unregulated!

The same University of Washington researcher who used chemical sleuthing to deduce what’s in fragranced consumer products now has turned her attention to the scented air wafting from household laundry vents.

Findings, published online this week in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, show that air vented from machines using the top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens.

“This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “If they’re coming out of a smokestack or tail pipe, they’re regulated, but if they’re coming out of a dryer vent, they’re not.”

The chemicals they found include acetaldehyde, which to my utter horror I learned occurs widely in nature:

Acetaldehyde (systematically ethanal) is an organic chemical compound with the formula CH₃CHO, sometimes abbreviated by chemists as MeCHO (Me = methyl). It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.^[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.^[4]

Damn! I knew that alcohol breaks down into acetaldehyde, which then breaks down further into acetic acid, but I had no idea that it was in my morning coffee! Not only that, there are innumerable carcinogens in the food I eat!

“Naturally occurring pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are ubiquitous in fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices. Cooking foods produces about 2000 milligrams per person per day of burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens and many mutagens… In a single cup of coffee, the natural chemicals that are known rodent carcinogens are about equal in weight to a year’s worth of synthetic pesticide residues that are rodent carcinogens, even though only 3% of the natural chemicals in roasted coffee have been adequately tested for carcinogenicity.”

Sheesh. That sounds more dangerous than mifepristone, or even pregnancy. I knew that we were being systematically poisoned, but I didn’t know things were that bad.

What about the right to be safe?

Is there such a right? If so, is it an individual right, or a community right? How do we weigh the individual’s right to make whatever choices he or she wants against the so-called greater good of society? If the “pollution” my dryer emits can in theory be regulated, and if I can be compelled to cut out my dog’s ovaries on the theory that she might commit “overpopulation,” why would a woman has any more right to have a child than to abort a child? What is the difference between the government telling her she may not terminate her pregnancy and the same government telling her she may not initiate her pregnancy? Or telling her that because she is pregnant, she may not engage in any activities or consume any substances that might harm her child? I mean, if she may not consume mifepristone, then what right has she to consume tobacco?

Risk analysis is confusing.  I’m trying to come up with a formula that squares safety and rights, and it keeps looking like tar and water, because rights have risks.

And if rights have risks, shouldn’t rights be banned?

(Wow, I can’t believe I wrote a post which didn’t mention the war on you-know-what!)

Getting an email like this only adds insult to injury.

Over the last few days, we’ve seen conservatives in South Carolina – and across the country – unify behind our bold campaign of ideas. With support from great conservatives like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michael Reagan, 100 Tea Party leaders, and millions of proud Americans it doesn’t matter how despicable the attacks from the media get, together we will continue to persevere. This election is about fundamentally changing the direction of our nation, and I am honored to represent the ideas of freedom and prosperity for the conservative movement. Will you help us keep this momentum going by participating in our two-day “knockout punch” money bomb?

Executing people for victimless crimes represents “freedom”? That’s what Newt wants to do. I think he is a cruel man, and he is deliberately appealing to the cruelest elements of the Republican Party. (This is getting tired, but once again, I am ashamed to be in the party of Gingrich. The problem is that I hate the left more.)

Here’s the accompanying image:

It reminded me of a similar observation.

I’m not drinking the punch.

MORE: I have been watching tonight’s four man debate, and it is quite obvious that Newt Gingrich loves Ron Paul, while Mitt Romney loves Rick Santorum.

The reasons are equally obvious.

A Ron Paul guy I am not. But I certainly agree with what he said today after the TSA detained his son Rand who had refused a patdown search:

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul issued a sharply-worded statement in reaction to the detention of his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, by Transportation Security Administration agents in Nashville on Monday.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control,” Paul wrote in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our kids and our seniors and does nothing to keep us safe.”

So far, the other candidates are not talking about the burgeoning police state in this country, with the deadly SWAT team raids, warrantless searches, and the rest of it.

One of them, Newt Gingrich, wants to make the police state bigger. He wants to expand the Patriot Act and dramatically expand the war on drugs.

In that respect, despite holding a Ph.D.. in history, Gingrich lies shamelessly about the founding fathers.

Gingrich was later asked if former Presidents Thomas Jefferson or George Washington should have been arrested for growing marijuana.

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government,” he responded.

Both Washington and Jefferson grew marijuana on their Virginia farms. At the time, the plant was used to make a number a products, such as rope and textiles. It did not become a widely-used recreational drug in the United States until the 20th century, but some academics have claimed that at least seven early U.S. presidents used the drug in the form of hashish.

Gingrich has previously called for a more aggressive drug policy, including the death penalty for drug smugglers.

In view of undisputed history, I don’t think this should be dismissed as ignorance. Gingrich clearly knows better. I think is shameful that such a man is being seriously considered as a candidate for the presidency. But Gingrich is so shameless that I wonder whether he is a sociopath.

Not that a little thing like shamelessness stopped Obama.

MORE: Not that it matters, but these Drudge headlines are typical vintage Newt:

CONFUSION:

GINGRICH NOW: I SUPPORTED GOLDWATER…

GINGRICH FLASHBACK: I SUPPORTED ROCKEFELLER OVER GOLDWATER…

Newt knows that honesty is not the best policy.

Not that the conservative Alinskyites would care, but voters might.

It looks like the Iranians are having no more luck fighting the culture wars than American Conservatives are having fighting theirs.

When American businesswoman Ruth Handler first launched Barbie back in 1959, she probably didn’t expect the dolls to become as controversial as they are popular.

In an apparent effort to shut out Western culture, Iranian authorities have closed toy stores in Tehran for selling Barbie dolls, according to Associated Press.

Which just goes to show you what culture wars are really all about. They reflect the totalitarian impulse. Totally.

The Soviets were big on culture wars too. Trying to stamp out American influences like jazz and rock and roll. Both those forms of music were first denounced by culture warriors in America. As was Barbie in America. So the Soviets and now the Iranians are late to the game. In fact the war against jazz impelled Drug Warrior Harry Anslinger to prepare a plan to arrest multitudes of jazz musicians for their drug use. Well – wiser heads (heh) prevailed. For a while. It wasn’t until much later that war was declared on the Grateful Dead for their celebration of drug use, as chronicled in their song Truckin’. Despite the culture wars, government reports indicate that about half our youth have tried an illegal drug by age 25. Not a very good advertisement for the utility of a culture war. The Iranians will be no luckier. Because a culture war is the best advertisement a despised culture can get. The central idea being, “People are willing to go to jail for this? It must be really fun.”

I’m in a bad place right now and I am taking things too hard. Last night I was apoplectic over the apparent inevitability of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy, and it really, really hurts. That’s because I am a Republican, and even though I am a libertarian Republican, I think of myself as a loyal person. For years I defended Bush despite my problems with him. My thinking is that if there is any hope of this country going in a libertarian direction, it has to come from the Republican Party. In any case, it damn sure isn’t going to come from the Democratic Party.

But Newt Gingrich is so anti-libertarian that he is the anti-libertarian’s Anti-Libertarian. The Anti-Libertarian in chief, if you will. And if he becomes the standard bearer for the Republican Party, that means libertarianism is dead in the Republican Party. I worry that I cannot remain in such a party, and it really sucks, because I am a very pragmatic person with shockingly low standards.

And Newt Gingrich crosses a line that’s hard to cross, because I’m not into drawing lines, and barely have one.

He violates my shockingly low standards. He offends my shallow and flexible principles.

I don’t know what to do. I have not discussed my political involvement much in this blog, but I am involved in local Republican politics, and I know that Republicans will be expected to pull together, support, and work for whomever the candidate is. But if that candidate is Gingrich, that is something I cannot do. While I might be able to vote for him (and even for that I’d feel guilty for the rest of my life), enthusiasm is simply beyond my capacity. The man is a statist’s statist, and on the drug war, a fascist’s fascist. Plus I don’t like his personality. In short, the man sickens me. Seeing that this is what I think, how I am I supposed to be a loyal Republican?

Disloyalty is not my shtick.

Any thoughts are welcome.

Better than wiping!

(Whether it’s as good as melting. or just another meltdown format, who knows?)

A few days ago I predicted that the ABC smear via the ex would “backfire,” and it has.

Gingrich trailed Romney by double digits just days ago. But that changed quickly after Gingrich’s performance in Thursday’s night CNN Southern Republican debate. The former House speaker was able to turn his biggest liability — accusations by his second wife, Marianne, that he wanted an “open marriage” — into an asset, drawing two standing ovations for assailing the media for bringing up the allegations.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

The reason I put “backfire” is in quotes is that I think the leftist ruling elites want Gingrich to be Obama’s opponent, and they manipulated the situation perfectly by playing the right wing hatred of the MSM like a violin.

Unless things change, Gingrich will be the nominee, and I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for the bastard, simply because he isn’t Barack Obama. Hating the left more than the right works that way, but I am so, so tired of it.

What? I should have endorsed Romney? That would have made a big difference in South Carolina, wouldn’t it? (If I have any South Carolina readers, please feel free to sound off.) But overall, considering my longstanding antipathy towards the man, I think have shown great restraint in holding my tongue fingers.

I have remained silent because I have seen that attacking Gingrich seems to help him.  In that respect he’s like the new virus that’s going around.

Let it run its course. We have the Constitution as backup.

AFTERTHOUGHT: If I had any sense, I wouldn’t care about Newt Gingrich and I would not write these silly posts. But I have this weird sense of — what’s the word — duty? And when I see an impending train wreck, I just feel obligated to warn about it, even though I can’t do a damned thing.

If Gingrich is the candidate, he will either win or lose. Both alternatives are bad.

More: A headline that sounds too gooder to be truer.

“Gingrich beats Media”

(CNSNews.com) – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has defeated the national media in South Carolina by a margin of 54 percent to 14 percent, according to a survey conducted by a Democratic polling firm.

The poll, conducted by Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling (PPP), interviewed 1,540 likely South Carolina Republican primary voters from Jan. 18 to Jan. 20. It showed that 54 percent of those voters said they had a favorable opinion of Gingrich while 37 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of him.

At the same time, only 14 percent said they had a favorable opinion of the media, while 77 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of the media.

Gingrich defeated the national media?

Spare me.

AND MORE: “Evangelicals are the base of the GOP.”

Really?

Does that mean the GOP has become the Party of God? And even if that is the case, I thought the evangelicals favored Rick Santorum.

What’s up with Gingrich? Does it all come down to anti-Mormonism?

Commenter Filbert left this link in a comment. From it I gleaned this interesting tit (British English) bit. This is in reference to the so called anti-piracy bill and how Hollywood feels about being dropped like a hot potatoe (Dan Quail spelling).

Several moguls, in response, ”sent back word saying ‘Fuck You’ basically,” one insider tells me, expressing how they feel used and abused by the President despite their campaign contributions.

Ah. Yes. Paid for but not bought. When you can’t even trust your own crooks…..

Sorry I haven’t gotten a post up today, but I have spend most of the day batting a virus in vain. I’m hardly a novice and I know enough to have good anti-virus and to not download things, but last night a mere click to a contaminated website (a mom and pop business in the area I will not name) resulted in an instant flag from Vipre antivirus that a Trojan had been stopped, and within seconds of that a maniacal “program” (in quotes because it is anything but that) festooned with clever Windows imitative gifs, and bearing the name of “Security Defender” basically took over my computer.

I realized what was happening, and I was not dumb enough to fall for its “instructions” telling me how to rid myself of viruses, but it seemed the more I tried to avoid it, the more aggressive it got. I ran Malwarebytes, which soon indicated that I had seven dangerous Trojans. Deleting them did nothing. This thing had caused my browser to redirect Google searches so that every one of them told me I had typical virus patterns and only “Security Defender” could help me. This thing was so smart and so fast that it not only made it appear that “Security Defender” was a program (it was in the Start > Programs list), but it even made the Windows security shield icon warn me that “it” had to be updated. I was furious, and I battled it. (I ran Malwarebytes over and over, and each time it found more. I also ran Windows Defender, whose icon is imitated by “Security Defender,” but that found more Trojans every time I ran it. Tracur and Bamital and Sirefef oh my!)

What I did not know then but now now (thanks to Dean Esmay) is that I should have immediately turned off my computer, and carefully gone through everything later in Safe Mode, and even then only after creating a new user account and signing in as that.

It’s all part of the Zero Access virus, (“a compartmentalized crimeware rootkit that serves as a platform for installing various malicious programs onto victim computers“) and I can assure you these people are smart and aggressive. As if they know that nothing will really be done to stop them. Seriously, like the AIDS virus, what gives this thing “life” are the very attempts to remove it. It is evil and malevolent by any standard, and could almost be called diabolical (were I religiously inclined to believe that evil was created by a benevolent deity).

My friend asked me where the collective outrage is, and where’s the reporting?

I remembered that I had already written about the double standard in law enforcement. Our government (including the FBI, Homeland Security, and even the CIA) has no problem going after copyright pirates, do they? They are even willing to scrap the Constitution to do so. But where it comes to viruses that wipe out individuals’ computers, forget it.

This is not to say that I am in favor of DVD piracy, but I fear home invasion more. And let there be no question about it, this is home invasion. My computer was disabled by this attack, but I’m savvy enough not to cooperate with the attackers, though not as savvy as I should be. (My networking was permanently, irreversibly ruined, and there was no way to reinstall TCPIP, not even by this “force” method.)

Live and learn. After all, I’m just an individual, as are most of the victims. The big companies can afford better protection. Which is their right.

But take their analogy to shoplifting. Take Lamar Smith. (Please!)

“The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store.  It is illegal and the law should be enforced both in the store and online.

“The Committee will continue work with copyright owners, Internet companies, financial institutions to develop proposals that combat online piracy and protect America’s intellectual property.  We welcome input from all organizations and individuals who have an honest difference of opinion about how best to address this widespread problem.  The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.”

Online piracy is bad, but so is, um, online virusy.

Why is nothing being done?

And just what is piracy? I don’t want pirates coming into my computer and ruining my carefully (and often lovingly) saved personal data any more than the executives at the RIAA want their latest rap video downloaded. The difference is that unlike them, I don’t have Congress at my disposal.

Such a double standard stinks, and I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage.

MORE: As to where stuff like this comes from, the capital seems to be in Shaoxing, China:

On March 29, 2010, Symantec Corporation named Shaoxing, China, as the world’s malware capital.^[9]

You’d think they’d be ashamed to be the malware capital of the world.

(And I thought totalitarian states* controlled what went on inside them…)

* Not to sound like a paranoid nut, but if governments and businesses like computer viruses, we little guys are so screwed.

The conventional wisdom is that the ABC hit piece (which I suspect was deliberately leaked to Drudge) featuring a much-hyped interview with Newt Gingrich’s angry ex-wife Marianne is an attempt to derail the man’s candidacy, or even put the coffin’s nail in it. I think it’s just the opposite. ABC is surely savvy enough to realize that conservative Republican primary voters deeply distrust the MSM, and do not like to see them meddling in elections. That this will backfire in Gingrich’s favor is a certainty. I think it already is, and Perry dropping out at this time is icing on the cake. So is Sarah Palin’s all-but-endorsement. If Santorum’s supporters could persuade him to drop out, I think Gingrich would probably win South Carolina.

A shame, because I am an ABN (Anyone But Newt) Republican. While I would — barely — vote for him over Obama, he makes me not want to be associated with the GOP in any way shape or form.

The worst thing about the ex-wife hit piece is that I don’t believe in judging candidates by such personal dirt in their lives. We all have it, and it is a major reason most people never become involved in politics. I repeatedly defended Rush Limbaugh over his drug use (even though I can’t stand his position on drugs), and were Newt discovered to be a junkie, I would not hold that against him or want him to go to prison, even though he wants to execute people for drug offenses. So if forced to take a position on the ex-wife smear, I would probably have to come down on the side of Gingrich. Which sucks, because I cannot stand the man.

Seeing him smeared, of course, does not translate into supporting his candidacy, because it is irrelevant.

As to the South Carolina Republicans, they might not consider it irrelevant, but they are already familiar with Gingrich’s past. Those who hold it against him are probably not his supporters. Those who already know will resent the timing of this media smear, and it will most likely incline many of them to support him out of sympathy.

Too bad they can’t realize that that may be the whole idea.

I’m not alone in predicting a pro-Newt backlash.

UPDATE: I said Romney and meant Perry (who endorsed Romney Gingrich.) Error(s) corrected.