Taken with a Canon Powershot SD770. Click to enlarge.

I like Sarah Palin. I don’t think she’s crazy, or stupid. My problem with her is I don’t think she’s a reader. I don’t think she reads books. This disqualifies her for the Presidency, as far as I’m concerned. The President doesn’t have to be an intellectual, but I do think he or she needs to read and have read a lot of books, about history and biography and economics and foreign policy.

Her lack of book larnin’ is not, however, the cause of the hatred and hysteria she inspires among liberals. Being a beautiful, charismatic, capable, conservative, Christian, pro-life woman, is an unforgivable combination of sins. As I understand it, she has had to spend half a million of her own money on legal fees, defending herself against bogus, political ethics charges. She and her family are viciously attacked in the press and on TV on a regular basis. Being governor of Alaska makes it very difficult to travel in the lower 48 and collect big speaker’s fees. So resigning seems like a very rational thing for her to do, mostly for personal reasons, but also for political reasons.

I don’t expect her to pick up the reading habit though, at this stage of the game.

Most of my friends and relatives, and commenters, think I’m a right wing nut. But I took this quiz that is supposed to place you on a four dimensional political spectrum, and I came out a slightly liberal, fairly libertarian, centrist, or maybe a slightly libertarian, fairly liberal centrist. I can’t tell. I’m not smart enough to understand the chart. Here are my results:

MJ made the best videos on MTV for quite awhile. I watched a few of them today on youtube. I especially like the Billie Jean video where, as he dances down the sidewalk, the squares light up underneath his feet. It’s a great video, song, arrangement, dancing, everything. He was a genius who broke new ground for many years.

He also, as was made obvious by his ever whiter skin color, bizarre surgically altered face, and fantasy neverland ranch, became more and more psychotic as time went by.

It’s an occupational disease. It doesn’t happen to every big star, but some of them, especially if they become globally famous at an early age, develop the delusion that they can have whatever they want, do whatever they want, ingest whatever they want, without consequence. It is a disease of youth in general, but most of us run into limitations fairly quickly that disabuse us of this bad idea.

For Michael Jackson, or Elvis, or Janis, or Jimi, or Jerry, it must have looked like a not so unreasonable notion, until it was too late.

We drove through Spring Hill, Tennessee this afternoon on our way to visit friends in Hampshire and Summertown. General Motors is closing the plant in Spring Hill pretty soon. The decision has been taken to make the planned, small, green, government-mandated GM cars in Detroit rather than in Spring Hill. Here Mickey Kaus explains why this is so. The problem is that the Spring Hill plant makes cars cheaper and better than they do in Detroit, because down here in the benighted South, they are not burdened with UAW union work rules, and gold-plated benefits. Now that the UAW and the Democratic Party own GM, it is time to take revenge on those scabs down in Tennessee.

Posted by Harcamone

This is not the first time that J. Carter’s body language expresses, more eloquently than words could, his unfitness for diplomacy. One must make allowances and extend respect for age, but he is very far out of his league.

The gesture of Carter is a hopeful, pleading “turning towards.” The position of his hands is indeterminate — they are just sort of weakly folded into one another. His elbows are indeterminate and off axis. One foot is on the ground; one foot is mostly off, balanced awkwardly and pointlessly on the ankle. His shoes do not shine. His head is slumped down into his shoulders, making his neck invisible. This is not a position of strength or stability. Carter’s mouth is indeterminate, too, neither open nor closed. If he is saying anything, nobody is paying attention. Looked at as “body architecture,” the total effect is one of extreme instability and weakness. Carter looks inconsequential.

The body language of Haniyeh does not reciprocate Carter’s turning. There is nothing weak or unstable here. Haniyeh’s body expresses resoluteness and comfortableness. Neither he nor the translator wears a tie, as is their custom; they do not alter it to suit a former US President. Haniyeh’s hands are visible, relaxed and symmetrical. There is no slumping, other than the sag of his middle-age belly. His head is high on his neck. His shined shoes are flat on the floor. He lips are closed, and he wears a soupçon of a smile. His posture beams confidence. He is not looking at Carter, in fact his eyes seem directed slightly towards his left, away from Carter.

Haniyeh’s erect posture put his head and top of shoulders above the back of his chair, where they stand out in contrast to the orange curtains. Carter’s shoulders sink below the back of his chair, even half of his head is sunk below the line of the chair. His pale skin and white hair fade into the white, undecorated background.

Even the translator’s body is not evenly situated between Carter and Haniyeh, but leans significantly towards Haniyeh. His glance, too, is to his left, away from Carter.

To ceremonious people like Persians and Arabs, every detail of this picture yields information. Many Westerners cannot read these simple, obvious semiotics.

Many on the right are offering praise, however faint, for Obama’s speech to the Muslim world. I have a real problem with the very idea of speaking to “The Muslim World” at all. “The Muslim World” is the goal, the agenda, the ambition, the aspiration of Al Qaeda and its associates.

What Muslim world? Is there a Christian world, a Catholic world, a Lutheran world, a Buddhist world, a Hindu world? Does a Muslim in Indonesia or Chicago owe his primary allegiance to Islam in exactly the same way as a Muslim in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Do all Muslims everywhere see themselves as part of a global Muslim Ummah that transcends national borders?

Is this something that an American President should legitimize and encourage? Osama Bin Laden, surrounded by his constantly renewed 72 virgins, must be chuckling.

Update: I stand corrected. Apparently Obama never used the phrase “the Muslim world” anywhere in his speech. Since everybody else referred to it as his speech to the Muslim world, I assumed that it was.

Further update: The official press release headline on the State Department Web site: “President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo.”

I saw on TV today that Obama’s plan for health care is to create better health care for more people at a lower cost. Wow, I had no idea. I have been so wrong! I just don’t see how anyone could be against that.

Well, and now I just saw Nancy Pelosi, again on TV, say that she promised the Chinese that she and the Democrats are committed to deficit reduction! I was wrong again! Somehow I had gotten the idea that the government intended to spend more than they took in for the foreseeable future. All lies, apparently.

And now Obama says that he has no interest in micromanaging General Motors, that the government will not interfere with GM management decisions in any way! How could I have been so misinformed? I completely fell for the lies about how the UAW lobbied the Obama administration and stopped GM management from importing cars made in China. I guess I will just have to quit watching Fox News.

Now my head is really spinning. I am reeling from the news I just heard that all of those innocent people who were randomly scooped up by the American military to be tortured and indefinitely incarcerated in Guantanamo for no reason whatsoever, are not going to be tried in U.S. courts, and are not going to be released!? What is going on here?! Am I still living in America?

Thank God the President is at least still taking a principled stand against gay marriage, as a counter to Dick Cheney’s support thereof.

Generally, as regards foreign policy, I think that Obama is pretty much doing the right thing. It is so unfortunate that he feels the need to heap all of this opprobrium on Bush for pursuing exactly the same policies that he himself is now, thankfully, pursuing. I’m glad that Obama is repackaging the Bush policies in shinier wrapping. George W. Bush was never very good at packaging.

Obama is now continuing the Bush administration policies with regard to military tribunals, indefinite detaining of unlawful combatants, rendition, and FISA surveillance of international calls. He has also ordered a study into possible enhanced interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual.

If there is some way in which he is departing from the Bush policies on the war on terror, I am not aware of it. The changes in the military commissions are obviously phony. He has banned waterboarding. Oh wait, no, Bush did that. He has promised to close Guantanamo, which would not only be stupid, but I don’t think he will really do it, and if he does do it, he will simply have to recreate it in a different, less suitable, geographical place.

I applaud the reversals of his campaign positions. I just wish he wouldn’t deem it necessary to continue with the lying and the Bush bashing. I will give the President the last word. Here are a few excerpts from his speech that exhibit his serial dissembling and finger pointing:

“But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.”

“…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.”

“There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.”

“…the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

“We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.”

“…we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past.”

“Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law.”

“In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.”

“I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.”

“On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.”

“Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.”

“Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building.”

Obama is now blaming hedge funds and other Chrysler bond holders, which include the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods’ retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, and teachers’ credit unions, according to CBS News. Even though they are contractually, legally, first in line for the remaining assets of Chrysler, Obama has threatened them with ruination unless they take his deal which rewards most of their money to the UAW, a major Democratic campaign contributor.

It is not the responsibility of hedge funds and their ilk to safeguard the American financial system. Those guys always do their best to figure out a way to make money without risk. That is the ideal toward which they strive, and so they should.

It is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the financial committees in Congress, and professional and academic economists to be in the safeguarding business, and they have all failed miserably, Democrats and Republicans alike. The reason they all failed is because it felt so good that nobody, including the electorate, wanted it to stop.

My prediction is that Obama and company are in the process of screwing it up big time. The way the American political cycle works is nobody likes Republicans because they are like your Dad, always preaching self reliance, hard work, thrift, stiff upper lip, and all that crap. The Democrats are popular because they promise to take care of us and make everything groovy for free. But the Democrats are wrong about everything, so whenever they get in power, they screw everything up and then we vote for Republicans again, reluctantly, until we forget how badly the Democrats screwed up the last time.