From Hell's Heart, I Blog at Thee

I don’t have much time.

For the last month I have been held captive in some sort of highly-secured windowless cell. I am perpetually blindfolded, but based on the sickening odors, I have deduced that I am either downwind of a dysenteric Tibetan yak farm or somewhere in Detroit.

I cajoled a guard into allowing me to use his iPhone by promising him I could copy over all the contacts stuck on his old phone, so I only have time for a quick post and maybe three hands of Party Poker.

Do not forsake me, my Scotticus Finch acolytes. Like the heroic Balloon Boy, I will inevitably pop up inexplicably close to where you last saw me, none the worse for wear, and just as misanthropic as you remembered.

Mostly, I can’t wait to escape so I can finally find out what ingenious plan British Petroleum and President Obama implemented to quickly and efficiently stop that silly little oil leak in the Gulf. Remember that? What a slightly inconvenient nuisance that must have been for a few fish in the immediate area and absolutely no one else on Earth. USA! USA! USA!

Scenes From Fallujah Quincy

Sometimes images really can do more to drive a point home than all the words in the world. Just ask Janet Reno. Or Janet Reno. Or Janet Reno.

On Wednesday, Quincy (Ill.) Deputy Police Chief Ron Dreyer was called upon to bravely show his teeth in response to an imminent threat against President Obama. Jim Hoft of BigGovernment.com has the pictures:

Excuse me, officer? Yes, you -- the one dressed to combat Maximus Decimus Meridius or possibly a Rancor. You look ridiculous. You, your boss, your boss's boss, and especially your boss's boss's boss, are cowards. Please look deep within yourself (I'm sure you signed up with the best of intentions.) and beg the chief to reconsider next time he wants to send a squad in full riot gear to intimidate a peaceful assembly.

Rockets' Red Glare

Sunburn crept down my unprotected scalp, its progress imperceptible save for the stinging pain left behind every time I wiped the sweat from my forehead. Shaving my head was a dumb idea this time of year; forgetting the sunscreen was even dumber. Just ahead of me, a man in full woodland camouflage struggled to walk -- likely a symptom of the enormous cantaloupe-sized growth protruding from his ilium. A combat shotgun hung taut on a strap across the cripple's back, and I absently fingered the .38 special on my belt. It felt strange to be envious of him.

Sharp, overlapping machine-gun blasts vibrated in my foam earplugs with regularity, but no one in this area was paying any attention. They were here to buy. A hand-drawn tag Scotch-taped to the leviathan rifle in front of me read simply "$56,000" and was set directly behind an upturned Nazi SS helmet overflowing with brass knuckles: "$6 each". A rack of silk-screened t-shirts caught my eye -- the classic Che Guevara design re-imagined with President Obama in relief and letters added to spell "douCHEbag". Noticing my line of sight, the vendor piped up, grinning with half his mouth as he drew me in.

"A colored fella' looked at that one earlier. He said he loved it! Said he hated liberals!"

I've no reason to believe the t-shirt and brass-knuckle salesman was in any way representative of the hundreds of friendly, freakishly-knowledgeable vendors hawking their hawk-wares at the Knob Creek (KY) Machine Gun Shoot last Saturday. In fact, beyond the anachronistic (and innocuous) use of the term "colored", there was nothing terribly offensive about his observation or his shirts. And while crazies were out in force -- I can't shake the image of a man enthusiastically greeting an eight-year-old boy to his booth with a crisp Hitlergruß -- in aggregate the event was more Paula Dean than Anarchist Cookbook.

Firearms unquestionably outnumbered attendees by a factor of ten, both for sale and in personal possession, and I'm fairly certain I've never felt so safe in all my life. Vendors routinely turned their backs on unsecured items worth tens of thousands of dollars; after all, who would try to rob these people? Even US Senate candidate Rand Paul made an early appearance, pressing the flesh with hobbyists and kooks alike with no visible security entourage of any kind.

Had MSNBC been on the scene (like the New Zealand Herald?), it would have been easy to cherry-pick a ratings-grabbing hodgepodge of militants and racists, but the reality is that Knob Creek was ideal family fare. Between rich historical displays, a live band, "feel-free-to-touch!" meteorites, a light-and-sound show that puts fireworks to shame, and a swiftboatload of genuine experts teaching respect for and healthy caution toward weapons, the Machine Gun Shoot is exactly the kind of event Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would have enjoyed.

At eighty-seven degrees, less parking than your average Hawaiian Shave Ice hut, and no beer for sale, 8000 people certainly didn't come all this way just to whisper about "colored" people.

Obama's War on Terrycloth

Want to see what truly chickenshit trade policy looks like? Then hop on board this crazy train.

The US pays out an estimated $3 billion annually in subsidies to improve American cotton growers' ability to under-price foreign cotton producers, including Brazil. The World Trade Organization determined Brazil had a legitimate beef with this practice, and authorized sanctions against the US. So the US, rather than considering suspending or eliminating the subsidies, instead plans to pay out an additional $150 million annually, directly to Brazil, to help offset the unfair trade policy.

Not angry yet? Follow that money train again: US farmers can't compete with Brazilian farmers, so we give them tax money. This puts Brazilian farmers at a disadvantage, so we give them tax money, theoretically to get us back to where we were before we spent 3.15 billion dollars.

If you believe in protectionism, great; be a protectionist. If you believe in globalism, great; be a globalist. And if you're one of those wacky free-marketeers like me, double-great; we'll hang out, eat some foie gras, and shoot the poor with bullets made of compressed money. But throwing away billions of dollars pretending to be all three and achieving the goals of none is politics at its worst, and it is exceptionally cowardly.

Hat tip to "Ryan", who really should be working.

President Bush's Third Term Turning Out Worse than Feared

Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head concerning President (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Obama's chilling decision to authorize the assassination of an American citizen without due process of any kind. Greenwald's plenty good at what he does, so I'll just parse out the best bits:

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill [American-born Islamic cleric Anwar] al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.
...
No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit would say: "Remember when they told us if we voted for John McCain, we'd get Orwellian tactics and an increased police state? Turns out they were right."

And just for the record, here's candidate Obama in 2007 proving once again that he has never even played a game of cards or shared a cab with President Obama:

[Boston Globe]: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

I suppose the quandary surrounding the detention of citizens is moot if you grant yourself the authority to simply assassinate them instead.

Accepting the Award on Behalf of the Internets Will be Ted Stevens

According to those tea-sipping pitch-joggers over at the BBC, the Internet has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Finchy! The Nobel Peace Prize is an honor traditionally reserved for tempered humanitarian activists or elder global statesmen with a long history of working toward a more peaceful world!" Well, gentle reader, that attitude is so 2006.

It's 2010, and the Barack Obama GoDaddy.com™ Hope & Change© Warm Fuzzies Award® has a new reputation to uphold. Never mind those boring doctors treating rape victims in the Congo, imprisoned electricians championing Democracy in China, or mountaineers building secular schools in rural Pakistan. No one has even heard of those people. But everyone knows Perez Hilton and LOLcats.

In addition to the Internet, I say it's high time we nominate hugs. Or rainbows. Or the very concept of peace itself. Why not nominate a fictional amalgamation of Jesus, Buddha, Captain Stubing from The Love Boat, and long summer afternoons sippin' lemonade? No matter what, Nobel Committee, you've already been bested in the race to the bottom.

Enjoy your newfound irrelevance.

St Paddy's Day tip o' the hat to "Andrea" for the link.

Coffee? Tea? Diet Ski?

A quick timeline:

• November 2008 - Social/foreign-policy liberals, angry at social/foreign-policy conservatives, elect Barack Obama as the 44th President. Optimism ensues.
  
  
• February 2009 - Fiscal conservatives, angry at fiscal liberals, form the Tea Party Movement and help elect Scott Brown as a United States Senator. Optimism ensues.
  
  
• April 2009 - Social/fiscal liberals, angry at all the anger, initiate the reliable Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo offense, normalize network-television references to testicles being put in people's mouths.
  
  
• February 2010 - Social/fiscal/foreign-policy nihilists, angry at the anger over all the anger, form the Coffee Party. Their platform (not to be confused with kindergarten curriculum) includes hugs, sharing, and following the leader.
  

Clearly, grassroots political organizations are the new black, and for once I intend to finally be on the inclining end of the graph. Therefor, I am proud to announce the formation of the Scotticus Finch Diet Ski™ Party.

For those of you who have never been in a situation where it was necessary to purchase a beverage from a service station out of a foam bait cooler labeled "POP - 50¢", Ski is like Mountain Dew infused with Ted Nugent's sweat. In 2005, Diet Ski changed its slogan from "Ain't Y'all Thirsty?" to "Sip it with Supper!", and in 2008 they celebrated the first confirmed purchase of Ski by a black person. But I digress.

There are three major planks of the Diet Ski Party platform. First, we demand that the Federal Government finally take responsibility for forcing NBC to cancel Bonanza after a mere 14 years. (And just when Little Joe was beginning to get into his stride as a character!) Second (as envisioned by blogger Pro Libertate), we will create a (budget-less) Office of Skepticism headed by James Randi, whose only responsibility will be to shame superfluous governmental agencies into voluntarily disbanding. Lastly: Congressional term limits, measured in "hours remaining" and continuously displayed on an LED lapel tag.

The symbolism is appropriate. The Diet Ski Party, like Diet Ski itself, is just another knock-off of the two major brands that are, themselves, practically identical. Despite the fact that it's a cheap imitation of a branch of a branch of a branch of a major brand, thousands of yokels would inevitably become Diet Ski Party fans, create Diet Ski Party Facebook groups, organize Diet Ski Party marches, and blog endlessly about the tragic underexposure-treatment the Diet Ski Party is getting from Big Media, which is of course snugly in the pocket of every party except the Diet Ski Party. The point is that Internet connectivity and 24-hour news cycles lend a misleading implication of ubiquity to even the silliest of communities. Some of us have learned that "revolutions" most often... aren't.

I appreciate anything that puts a bee in the bonnet of either major party, but to affect real change it's going to take something with a lot more kick than tea.

I Don't Think All "People" Are Idiots, But All "Homo Sapiens" Are

Thankfully, President Obama is attempting to follow through on his 2008 campaign promise to repeal the ridiculous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy regarding gays serving in the US military.

Despite the fact that DADT is a Bill Clinton political brainchild from the go-along-to-get-along days of the early 1990s, the push to scrap it has mostly come from the political left, whose insistence that all homosexuals aren't necessarily shaved Chupacabra brings some sanity to one of America's fiercest debates.

Or at least that's what I thought. Turns out, though, that liberals are just as irrational as conservatives when it comes to Adam and Steve sharing a foxhole. Look upon these poll numbers and weep:

79% of Democrats support allowing gay men and women to serve openly.
43% of Democrats support allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

That is not a typo. I checked.

Sixty years after the Mattachine Society, forty-one years after the Stonewall Inn raid, thirty-three years after Anita Bryant, and seven years after Lawrence v Texas, there is a thirty-six percentage-point difference in what employment liberals think "homosexuals" should be allowed to pursue versus "gays".

Whence comes the discrepancy? We can speculate that the term "gay" elicits a much friendlier (literally) image than the taxonomic "homosexual", but doing so insinuates such an immense level of epidemic puerility that even my epic misanthropy won't abide it. In order to prevent the impending voluntary collision between my head and the nearest brick wall, I'm going with "transcription error" and calling it a day.

Shape up, folks. If anyone wants to start his own army that won't allow gays, or blacks, or Jews, or even homosexuals (!) to serve, then I'll help him pick out snazzy uniforms. The right to set up whatever backward, bigoted clubhouse that revs your engine is inviolate, but the United States Armed Forces -- a public institution -- has no more right to bar qualified homosexuals than they have to bar Catholics or Jersey Shore fans.

Decimating Diversity

As a member of a cushy ethno-socioeconomic majority, my capacity to empathize with the deep, victorious feeling of pride that Barack Obama's election must have elicited among many blacks is limited. Given the tumultuous year that followed, though, how is this possible:



Over the time period covered by the poll, Obama's approval is down among Republicans (unsurprisingly) by 24 percentage points. Among Independents, his approval is down 18 points. Among young people: down 13. The elderly, females, Midwesterners, college graduates, married people -- Obama's approval is down at least 16 percentage points in each group. In fact, the President's approval rating is down in every single category Gallup looked at, including liberals and Democrats.

Except among blacks. Though it is within the poll's margin of error, Obama's approval actually increased among blacks between February and November, maintaining an average of 93% approval for the year.

In the entire scope of politics, religion, philosophy -- or toothpaste preference for that matter -- where would anyone expect concurrence exceeding nine out of ten? In a separate poll about abortion by the same polling company, only 52% of respondents categorized themselves as "pro-life" when the question was asked exclusively to Catholics. To put it in another context, the percentage of blacks who disapprove of Obama as President is identical to the percentage of people who ranked car salesmen as "very high/high" in honesty and ethics, and the same percentage of self-identified Christians who say they don't believe in God.

A generations-long (and continuing) struggle for equal opportunity has got to make it difficult to admit you backed a turkey, but blindly supporting a President because he looks like you is every bit as dangerous as blindly opposing him just because he doesn't. Not all of Obama's support is blind, obviously, but approval approaching unanimity in one group simultaneous with near-universal disappointment outside that group displays a disturbing lack of ideological diversity.

Wholesale Healthcare (and Eunuchs)

Over at Hit & Run, reliable commenter P Brooks sums up Obamacare quite well:

And- goddammit!- if you make it mandatory for everyone, and prohibit risk-based pricing, it's not actually "insurance" anymore. It's a "buyers' club" for medical services.

Obviously, a buyers' club is great if you're an unemployed 50-year-old base-jumping, gator-wrestling smoker with diabetes and chronic dry eye; not so much if you're a healthy, risk-averse person forced to participate.

That's all I've got. Celebrating the birthday of the non-denominational Holiday Infant has evidently quelled my indignation.

If you absolutely must have something else today, hop across the virtual pond and read about Pakistani eunuchs winning the right to be recognized as a distinct third gender.

You'll Have my Story as Soon as the White House Writes it for me, Chief!

I’ve been meaning to blog about this fantastic Glenn Greenwald piece (originally posted October 6 at Salon.com) for awhile now. It deals with the media’s use of unnamed sources and specifically skewers Washington Post stenographer-as-journalist Anne Kornblut.

First, here is The Post’s own ombudsman:

The Post has strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. ...News organizations can pay dearly if they're not vigilant about sourcing. At minimum, credibility can suffer. At worst, a damaging journalistic transgression can occur. ...

Post policies say that readers should be told as much as possible about the quality of a confidential source ("with first-hand knowledge of the case," for instance). They also say "we must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence."

Now, here is Greenwald taking Kornblut to the woodshed:

The Post depicts Obama as heavily and heroically engaged in disrupting the alleged Najibullah Zazi domestic terrorist plot and -- repeatedly highlighting that success -- claims "the White House has been charting a delicate course as it attempts to turn the page on Bush-era anti-terrorism policies," whereby "the Obama administration is increasingly confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country." Here are all of Kornblut's cited sources for the article -- every last one of them -- in the order she cites them:

Obama aides pointed ... administration officials said ... a senior administration official said ... officials said ... a senior administration official said ... senior Obama officials stressed ... a senior administration official said ... aides said ... officials said ... one senior administration official said. ...one senior official said. ...The official said ... a senior administration official said ... a senior administration official said ... administration officials said .... a senior official said.

Not a single named person is cited, and there's not a syllable of quoted dissent in any of it. Virtually every sentence in the long article does nothing but praise Obama and depict him as stalwartly safeguarding America's civil liberties ... even as he protects us from the dangerous Terrorists, so why is anonymity needed for that? It's nothing more than what [White House Press Secretary] Robert Gibbs is eager to say every day. Nor is there a hint of who these officials are, what the basis is of their knowledge, or why The Post granted anonymity....

...The Post's article ... doesn't even claim that these anonymous officials have any knowledge at all -- first-hand or otherwise -- of what actually happened (are they national security officials, press people, political advisers?). The article doesn't even pretend to justify why anonymity was granted (there's not a word about that).

...[W]hat happened here is obvious: the administration wanted to issue a Press Release exploiting the fear surrounding the Zazi case to justify Obama's Bush-copying civil liberties policies ... while depicting Obama as our careful yet forceful protector. So they dispatched an official (or officials) to dictate the sanctioned administration line to Anne Kornblut. She then unquestioningly wrote it all down (after granting them anonymity) and The Post uncritically published it as a "news article."

The whole piece is worth a read. (It goes on to point out that in addition to being a lapdog, Kornblut is also dead wrong in her assertions.)

Kornblut's piece in question is not an editorial or opinion column, mind you. It appeared in the National News section of The Washington Post. Remember this lazy, irresponsible work the next time someone tells you that the death of newspapers will be the death of “real” journalism, or when you hear the White House declaring who is and is not a news organization.

We Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself the Ghost of John Henry

So there will be no cost of living increase for Social Security this year.

Except that there will be.

For those keeping score, this:

Obama said he would not allow the money to come out of the Social Security trust funds, which would further erode the finances of the retirement program.

counts as a lie, since the Social Security trust fund doesn’t exist.

Furthermore, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is this:

Thursday's announcement comes a day after President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

Retired railroad workers? Why not retired calligraphy tutors? Why not left-handed Civil War history enthusiasts? Why not grumpy super-powered bloggers?

Your humble correspondent decided to go straight to the source and find out what’s so damn special about retired and veteran railway employees.

Well, crap.

BREAKING NEWS! SCOTTICUSFINCH EXCLUSIVE!

ScotticusFinch has received reliable information indicating that later today Barack Obama will be announced as the winner of the Cannes Film Festival's Palme d'Or for his VHS film "Bears @ Browns Sasha's Swim Meet".

Developing...

UPDATE: According to exclusive ScotticusFinch information, this afternoon President Barack Obama will hold a press conference accepting this year's Fields Medal for his work in calculating an exact 15% tip on a $109 dinner bill split two ways.

Developing...

UPDATE: Insiders have confirmed to ScotticusFinch that yesterday Barack Obama was unanimously named "World's Best Grandma" by the Association for Research on Mothering. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs describes Obama as "glib".

Developing...

I'm from the Government, and I'm Here to Help: Update!

On Friday I posted a graph showing how actual unemployment numbers resembled the White House estimates on Cialis. Today, via Veronique de Rugy and The American, we see that as the stimulus has been spent, unemployment has actually accelerated.

Give us money, and we’ll give you jobs. That was the promise President Barack Obama made when he asked Congress for a $789 billion stimulus bill back in January. The cash, the administration said, would create millions of jobs over the next two years.

Here was the argument as presented in the January report by the Council of Economic Advisors' Christina Romer and chief economist to the vice president Jared Bernstein, called “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”:

The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million … even with the large [stimulus] prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.

Based in part on this argument, President Obama got his money. So what happened since then?

Using data from the president’s website Recovery.gov and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this chart shows the monthly increase in the unemployment rate in tandem with the administration’s stimulus spending.

Note that these are not promised dollars and estimated unemployment numbers; this is stimulus money that has been already been spent, and actual unemployment.

I'm from the Government, and I'm Here to Help

The day may come when Wyatt -- after watching Mary Poppins, perhaps -- will ask me for $9 to go buy an umbrella. Deep in his little heart, he will be convinced that for only $9, he can achieve his dream of flight (or perfect pitch, or whatever aspect of Poppins inspired him), and I have no doubt I will indulge him. The lesson and the adventure will be a bargain at $9.

Not so much, when the lesson costs $787 billion.



President Obama's words at the ARRA signing ceremony eight months ago:

...today does mark the beginning of the end — the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs.

Chart via Don Surber. Link via Hit & Run via Instapundit. Sheesh.

Political Porcine Protagonist Pursued by Perturbed Police

In Aaron Sorkin’s political wet dream The American President, plucky presidential advisor Lewis (played pluckily by the plucky Michael J Fox), describes the American hero-need thusly:

People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

Or, evidently, root for a feral pig. Following Ron Paul’s failure to place in a single presidential primary, Bob Barr’s failure to be more man than moustache, and Barack Obama’s failure to keep any of his campaign promises that would have reduced the power of the federal government, libertarians have pinned their inspiration to a pig.

My favorite part:

”It’s not easy [to catch]. You have a 150-pound pig with an attitude,” said Jim Crosby, director of Bay County Animal Control.

For the record, 150 pounds is 15 pounds less than Justin Timberlake weighs. The Guardian Force's bid to catch the pig was rejected by County authorities as "prohibitively expensive".

Crimefighting for Gumshoes by Chase Leeds

Remember those terrible jokes in kids’ magazines like Boys Life, Highlights, and Barely Legal that paired a fake book title with a clever(ish) author’s name? Think: No More Broccoli! by Kurt Child, or Succeeding as a Lawyer by Sue Yu.

Well, Ann Forest Burns just happens to be the spokeswoman for the American Forest Resource Council, a coincidence that makes this superhero smile. The AFRC is a clever(ish)ly-named timber industry group opposed to President Obama’s reversal of a Bush policy that doubled the amount of logging allowed… Oregon forests… endangered owls… old-growth— Okay, seriously, no one cares.

Whole snorrific NYT article here.

Five minutes’ worth of third-grade name humor here.

As if this Were Necessary: Volume I

Quickchange infiltrated the White House briefing room on Tuesday, looking for some non-verbal cues from President Obama during his daytime press conference. We have our suspicions that Mr Obama may be a Red Leader plant, or possibly even a more-advanced version of the Romneybot 3000.

But instead of subtle hints, Quickchange was witness to outright propaganda:

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian.

...Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

Whole thing here. It appears former President Bush's press-handling playbook was not among the items removed when the Obamas took up residence in the White House.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Celebutantes?

One thing is now certain: Baby Wyatt is not the magical harbinger of a new era of liberty. Not yet anyway.

The NSA is proving to be relatively immune to Hope 'N Change®, and has far better things to do than serve as Agents of National Security:

According to the reporter who first broke the NSA wiretapping story, there is no proof the agency has scaled back its interception of the personal phone calls and email messages of American citizens as promised by the Obama administration or even that it is being straight with Congress about its activities.

James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed the NSA’s over-collection of data in an article for the New York Times on Tuesday, noting that one NSA analyst was even found to have been reading the private email of former President Bill Clinton.

...“It sounded like, from the former NSA analyst that we interviewed, that it was rare to access the emails of celebrities or famous people,” Risen stated, “but that it was fairly routine, according to him, for people to access the emails of girlfriends or wives or other people that they might know.”

So wives, girlfriends (or both!) and former Poti* are routinely monitored by the NSA, but at least trolling through celebrities' email is "rare".

See the whole damn thing here.

*Is there a plural of POTUS?