The International House of Bacon

That’s the question I have to ask after seeing this pop up. I’m linking to Fox only because it’s a full transcript with a link to the original audio. Here’s the problematic parts, straight from Obama’s mouth:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

This is literally unreal. Keep in mind, it’s been hammered home for over a year now that Obama’s a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR and omg he knows what he’s talking about. Then he comes up with this - the Warren Court wasn’t radical because it didn’t completely ignore what makes the Constitution and this nation great: the separation of powers, the limits of government, the basic equity in that no one’s more or less deserving in the eyes of the law. Obama was angry because the Court didn’t replace that with something that isn’t there, namely “what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

This is absolutely ridiculous. Jana summed this up beautifully:

I’m having trouble coming up with words to describe how these remarks make me feel. They’re antithetical to the values that we’ve come to understand as fundamentally American. This isn’t about abortion rights or gay marriage, it isn’t about war or terrorism, it is about something more significant. It’s about the philosophies upon which this nation was founded and has flourished for centuries.

This is the problem in a nutshell, right there - Obama’s idea of government and leadership run completely contrary to reality on the ground and the very reason this nation exists. It’s bad enough that we learned nothing from the tyranny (and I use that word deliberately) of FDR, but now we’re willing to let someone hoodwink us into it again? Really? For all the stuff surrounding the “Joe the Plumber” hysteria, this ties in quite nicely with that statement about “spreading the wealth around,” as the interview quoted above combined with the Joe the Plumber clip demonstrates that he not only still holds these views, but has held them for a not-insignificant amount of time. Combine that with his praise of Saul Alinsky, his time with the New Party (puts the AIP handwringing in context, doesn’t it?), and we’re not talking about a quirk, but a pretty sad trend.

And, again, while the media spends time complaining about the vetting process of Sarah Palin, only news junkies who get their information on the internet know this, and even then, it’s no guarantee. Why is this only popping up within 10 days of the election? People reading this have already voted in many circumstances. Absolutely unforgivable. But I’m sure that the media is entirely objective here. Absolutely objective, nothing to see here, move along.

If there’s any reason not to vote for Barack Obama, if you have any question at all, this really should seal it for you. Face it - John McCain won’t be able to radically change the Court with close to a filibuster-proof Senate, and McCain has a history of reaching across the aisle and urinating on the shoes of conservatives time and time again, so you’ll likely get your way anyway. Of course, I’m sure this won’t change many people’s minds. I’d love to hear why, but I doubt it’ll be forthcoming. But hey, at least I can say I fought against it. Maybe you even like what Obama’s saying up there. All well and good, but the point still stands - Obama didn’t want you to know it, the media didn’t want you to know it, and people who are voting for him who may not want this (and, if this poll is any indication, they overwhelmingly do not want to “spread the wealth around” Obama-style) don’t know it and probably won’t know it unless their friends tell them.

That is the true tragedy of the 2008 election.

More to read:

* Ace of Spades on American political schizophrenia.
* A fairly angry article at National Review from Bill Whittle.

It’s not even that funny - I just can’t stop watching:

I sometimes feel like the internet is made of stupid, and the swarm over Palin’s comments about the role of the VP (”in charge of the Senate, etc.”) is one of those stupid things. Why? Because, fortunately or unfortunately, she’s right.

1) From Reality Hammer, the Senate website itself gives a history of the VP position within the Senate. While the VP role has evolved into a more or less exclusively executive position, that’s due more to precedent and tradition rather than duty.

2) Ace of Spades is fun more for snark than commentary, but a story was offered up yesterday which demonstrates how useful this role can be. When the President of the Senate can essentially dictate who is recognized and shape the debate, that’s pretty huge.

I know Dick Cheney’s kind of ruined the concept of a strong VP for a lot of people - myself included in some respects. This isn’t the same thing. But, as a basic point - Palin was right.

I feel my funk slowly lifting.

Slowly.

1) This is why Clarence Thomas is the most important justice on the Supreme Court:

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution — try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

2) I know people that have been worried about this whole financial thing ushering a Depression, and I honestly wasn’t worried so much about that until the bailout. Why? We have to start by looking back to the 1930s:

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

…

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Meanwhile, we’re hitting another economic slump that could have wide-ranging implications, and the current frontrunner enjoys protectionism, economic policies that would increase costs to employers and consumers, and even more nationalization of various parts of vital industries. Further proof that we have learned nothing as Americans. Or, perhaps more accurately, that we’re being taught incorrectly.

1) Joe Posnanski said it best about last night’s Sox game: “This was like something out of a kid’s dream. Do you remember being a kid and concocting these fantastic scenarios when your team was losing, these preposterous comebacks that boggled logic and the space-time continuum.” Pretty much, and Surviving Grady nailed my feelings in terms of throwing in the towel at 7-0 and watching The Office, harkening back to 2004:

Bless me, Big Papi, for I have sinned.
After the game 3 nightmare, I stopped believing.
I did NOT stop hoping.
I did NOT stop rooting.

John Beckett needs to step up tomorrow. That’s all I’m saying.

2) My favorite time of an election year, since I never vote for winners, is usually the Al Smith Dinner, which provides more than a little levity to the proceedings. McCain was in rare form, and Obama was pretty funny himself. Take 30 minutes sometime today and watch these:

…who’s watching the game Saturday?

Holy crap.

Tonight’s debate was possibly the worst I’ve ever seen on both ends. The only worthwhile candidate discussions we’ve seen were the Saddleback ones, neither candidate was remotely effective, absolutely disturbing.

I officially hate this election for real.

Laaaaaate.

Books:

A Game of Thrones - George R. R. Martin: Why did I only read six books in September? You can blame this epic. I can’t really begin to describe how awesome this book is, and how I’m afraid to keep going because the next book is over 1000 hardcover pages and because I know he’s still got 3 more left to publish. Needless to say, the fact that I’ve waited this long to dive into this fantasy series is borderline criminal. And if you like fantasy books and haven’t read this yet, well, change that. Plain and simple.

Downtown Owl - Chuck Klosterman: It’s a Chuck Klosterman column with fictional characters reading his rants. It works, and it doesn’t. It took me forever to really get into it, and then it was done, and even then it was one of those ensemble-style reads where you don’t care about all the characters, invariably causing the book to focus too much on them. Ah well?

The Case Against Barack Obama - David Freddoso: This book needed to come out much, much earlier than it did, and the people who need to read this book simply will not. McCain should just start reading passages on the campaign trail.

Mortal Engines - Philip Reeve: A very fascinating steampunky young adult novel about cities that eat each other and the people who fight the folks running the show. A simple theme, but really, really excellent. Four books in the series so far - I’m looking forward to continuing it.

The Almost True Story of Ryan Fisher - Rob Stennett: A novel about a real estate agent who, after being inspired to be a “Christian realtor,” moves to Oklahoma and starts a megachurch. What I thought may be a painful, rude spoof of the megachurch culture ended up being quite a realistic and even-handed take with a good story and better characters. I really liked it.

The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins: Best book of 2008, IMO. It stumbles a tiny bit near the end, but it’s like Smash TV with a plot. Absolutely ridiculous how good this book is, and it’ll get soundly ignored because it’s a young adult novel. 12 cities, each offers two teens to take part in a kill-or-be-killed competition for extra stuff for your home city. Wicked good.

Movies:

Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist: I was deathly afraid of this movie. The YA book is pitch perfect in every way, and I assumed essentially unfilmable as a teen movie, what with the sex and the sex and, oh, yeah, the sex. But, surprisingly, they were able to make a heartwarming, funny, enjoyable movie that I assume is just as good for teens as it was for Ann & I. Seriously, get to the theater to see this, or add it to your Netflix, or something. It’s worth your time.

The Fifth Element: I watched this On Demand when I came home sick on Friday afternoon. Perhaps the most dated sci-fi movie of the last 15 years? I think the case can be made.

Thoughts on the Sox so far:

* Jon Lester’s a beast. My advocating trading him over the winter? Biggest sports idiocy moment ever. Period.

* With that said, if the Sox can play like this for 10 more games, I like our chances. I do think the winner of the Sox/Angels series wins the whole thing, for the record.

* What’s with the TBS guy’s jacket?

* For whatever reason, “Timlin in the eighth, Williamson in the ninth” keeps rotating through my head this week. That was the 2003 mantra that reared its ugly head when Grady decided Pedro could go one more inning. I hope it’s a good omen that someone a wee bit more competent is running the show tonight.

Now, end this Sox. I wanna go to bed.

I can’t formulate long-form thoughts right now, sorry.

* This is on the top for a reason - I’ve waited quite a while to see if anyone would condemn this, especially those who pushed the “Palin tried to ban books” meme. If you’re that interested in free speech and the dissemination of information, why are you not completely up in arms about this? Obama is actively seeking to silence an NRA ad concerning Obama’s positions on firearms, and is threatening legal action on it in order to keep the ad off the air. The issue is that Obama thinks the ad is unfair and false, even though every word of it appears to check out. Why are people silent about this? This is not an isolated incident, either - it’s bad enough that the media won’t report on this business, but Obama apparently feels like legal pressure is a good response to criticism. And from the left? From his supporters? From the folks who wanted to know how a librarian could support someone who banned books? Dead silence. Curious, isn’t it?

* Related: Instapundit notes an anonymous message about exactly how complicit the media is concerning Obama. I would normally disregard this sort of thing as anonymous ranting except that it fits the way things have been going this year to a T. I fully expect this to be dismissed as more conspiracy-mongering, however.

* A few subprime fallout links: First, Amity Shlaes on handling the debacle. She makes some pertinent comparisons to the Great Depression. Her book on the Depression, The Forgotten Man, should be required reading for everyone, especially those considering a vote for the one candidate this election who’d like to return to a more New Deal-style form of government.

Second, QandO linked to this 1999 New York Times piece on Fannie and Freddie expanding subprime lending due to “pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.” I’m not blaming Clinton alone for this - yes, he pressured them and yes, he did revamp the Community Reinvestment Act, but there’s more than enough blame to go around, and tell me that there aren’t some cringeworthy predictions in there.

Thirdly, I’m shocked to see such a good piece on CNN regarding the bailout possibilities. He took part in a Reason forum on the economy that’s worth reading, as well.

Fourthly, one would think this might be problematic.

Finally, the best ten minutes on the economy you can find. It’s worth your time, watch the whole thing. It’s worth noting that the original version was pulled from YouTube due to a copyright complaint from Warner Bros, even though this clearly falls into a fair-use exception. Warner Bros. and Google, though? Two of Obama’s top contributors. I’m sure there’s no relationship.

* If you haven’t seen it yet, Ralph Nader’s new ad is hilarious. I should do a parody with Pigeon, my cat.

* I’ve been fretting a bit about FactCheck.org being sloppy, but their recent whiff on guns, Obama, and the NRA is nothing short of embarrassing.

* Remember to stay on topic: McCain’s the dishonest one in this campaign, not Obama. But the major outlets won’t bother letting you know that.

* A Marine cleared in the Haditha shootings is suing John Murtha over his comments. He is the third Marine to do so thus far. Still no word from Obama, who said at one time that he “would never second guess John Murtha… I think he’s somebody who knows of which he speaks.”

* So, again, what is Obama’s position on missile defense?

* Another classy piece of reporting from the AP: Don’t vote for McCain, he might die!

* More stupidty from your favorite Democratic House leadership. No wonder their ratings are so low.

* If you’re not significantly bothered by this, I want to know why. I’m not saying Obama’s behind this, I know full well he isn’t, but this is wrong on any number of levels. Namely, all of them. I feel bad for any parent who’d subject their child to this. Then again, Obama’s views on service border on involuntary servitude, so perhaps it’s not entirely shocking.

EDIT: The video’s been locked up, unsurprisingly. This is the homepage.

EDIT 2: The video’s back.

* Lighter fare: io9 on Eureka’s interesting sponsorship deal, a list of restaurants worth visiting.