THE SWEET HEREAFTER. The Ole Perfesser hehs but does not indeed a First Things post mocking the Singularity, a human-robot nirvana for which the Perfesser holds out hope. But the Perfesser does not cast his scorn so wide as to include the IEEE Spectrum item to which First Things refers:

If you’re obsessed with your own mortality, the idea of a computer blinking into consciousness 400 years from now isn’t going to rock your world. You want the magic moment to come, say, 25 years from now at most. Unfortunately, that timetable grossly over estimates the speed of technical progress...

I've had fun with the Perfesser's visions of eternal life, not to be a killjoy, but because it seems integral to his horrible politics. He belongs to a school of conservative-libertarians who take a cheery view of human progress, and while that is usually preferable to the end-is-nigh attitude of crunchier conservatives, it too often serves as a glib evasion of even our most obvious problems.

If Peak Oil ravings are unhelpful, for example, so too may be comforting assurances that we can just drill our way out of our recently acute but observably chronic energy problems. That sort of optimism flips off despair, which is reasonable, but it also flips off any suggestion of how progress might be better achieved by means other than those endorsed by the Republican Party, as shown by the Perfesser's suspicious lapses in confidence when the scientists he expects to grant him immortality take global warming seriously.

We can assume that the impeccably conservative First Things is annoyed by the Perfesser's interest in the Singularity because it conflicts, or rather competes, with their own faith in a more old-fashioned idea of life beyond life. It wouldn't annoy them so much if the Perfesser were not otherwise a fellow traveller -- that the FT post stretches to include Christopher Hitchens is a psychological tell: these fellows are basically on our side, why can't they go the whole hog and come to Jesus? What they don't recognize is that the Singularity serves the Perfesser's conservatism in exactly the same way Jesus serves theirs. It is the blissful prospect of a world beyond that makes sense of their otherwise puzzling lack of interest in the world at hand and the people who live in it.

Conservatives often disparage the alleged liberal faith in "the perfectibility of human nature," but by their actions conservatives tirelessly demonstrate that their contempt is really for the idea that we may improve anything in our present life -- not just the nature of humans, but their condition as well -- by means not endorsed by Reagan or Jesus. Liberals support social programs, they tell themselves and whomever else will listen, because liberals are foolish tinkerers with the human spirit -- just like the Nazis! Of course, we really support such programs as an advance from the want-induced tribalism of earlier times, as some conservatives acknowledge when they are incautious.

It's harder to demonize liberalism on those terms, of course, but I don't think that's mainly why they reject them. They really believe that something besides utility underpins their ideology, absurd as it may look to someone who is mainly looking to get through life with less pain. And that something is eternal, immutable, and unanswerable. So no matter how disastrous the results of their faith may be on this wicked, imperfect earth, that is to them a small thing compared to the reward their faith will buy them on the Other Side.

For the theocons, it's God; for such as the Perfesser, it's the Singularity. For the rest of us it's bullshit. But when they stick together it's difficult to wrest control of the Ship of State from their poisoned judgment.

UPDATE. In comments, Keifus breaks it down: "The rollers and the glibbies both expect to be rewarded for believing the right thing over actually doing the right thing." There's something to that. We already know why the Jesuscons are the way they are (because Jesus, that's why!). And as for the glibertarians, their sloth comes from the suburban/managerial mindset 99% of them are bred to. They think of scientists and engineers as their employees, even though they don't actually pay or manage them. Much as they expect artists to heed their calls to "shut up and sing," the glibbies expect the test-tube and cyclotron guys to devote themselves to sustaining the social order that benefits them. That's why they get mad when scientists turn their attention to stuff like climate change instead of softer cushions for fat glibertarian asses. To the glibs, that's goofing off.

BYRON YORK, TV DETECTIVE. Byron York, National Review, August 5, 4:05 pm:

Several days ago, I posted a Top 10 list from the "Late Show with David Letterman" in which Letterman mentioned the John Edwards "love child" story. The list was actually entitled "Top 10 Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident"...

I linked to the Top 10 list on the "Late Show" website, but not long after my item was posted, I got a number of emails telling me the list had disappeared from the site. The suspicion was that the "Late Show" had pulled the controversial item. I've been meaning to call CBS to find out, and today I finally got around to it... the spokesman assures me it will appear in an upcoming issue of the "Late Show" newsletter...

Byron York, National Review, August 5, 8:15 pm:

I've received some emails from readers who say they saw the July 29, 2008 episode at home, on TV, with the Obama/Edwards Top 10 list included. Does anyone out in TiVo-land have any information?

Byron York, National Review, August 6, 10:49 am:

I've gotten a lot of emails from readers forwarding the link to the YouTube video of David Letterman's Obama/Edwards Top 10 list. From what I understand, that doesn't prove that it actually aired on CBS... I've also gotten more emails from people who say they saw it on the Letterman show, but I still haven't seen any video to that effect.

Meanwhile, I've gotten notes that Jay Leno joked about Edwards last night... The audience reportedly got the joke.

Readers, you seem reasonably sane. If it was made clear to you that you had become this much of a fucking tool, wouldn't you kill yourselves?

THE OLIGARCH AS POPULIST. Gazillionaire Tom Golisano, a frequent independent candidate for Governor of New York, has a PAC fueled by five million dollars of his own money. New York Republicans, whose balance of power in the State Senate is thin, are shitting bricks over it, and a candidate in a Democratic State Senate primary is calling for investigations because she suspects Golisano of colluding with her opponent. Talk about your Operation Chaos.

The last three times he ran for Governor, nobody took Golisano seriously. Even in the Corzine-Bloomberg era, he was considered a crazy rich guy playing at statesmanship. "Unlike Michael Bloomberg, whose millions were backed up with a discernible political philosophy [? -ed.], Mr. Golisano seems to believe that wanting to be Governor is enough reason to be handed the position," said the New York Observer in 2003. "New Yorkers realize, of course, that he is a clown."

Maybe so, but given the three-ring circus of our current politics, from the slimefest at of the Presidential race to the accidental Governorship of David Paterson, Golisano may yet turn out a clown prince. He may have figured that, while merely investing in campaigns didn't do the trick, it might be worth a few mil to position himself as a lone do-gooder venturing into Albany's den of thieves. It's a win-win situation for him. If he backs losers, the ensuing bad governance will be something he tried nobly though in vain to stop; if he backs winners, the ensuing bad governance will be a great disappointment to him, and a sign that Albany must be reformed root and branch.

This is the wave of the future. Our country is as rotten as a Minneapolis bridge, yet our politics is more of a clown show than ever, with tire gauges and celebrity slurs instead of squirting flowers and slapsticks. The more completely these matters are devoted to symbols rather than issues, the more obsolete Parties become: they're less political entities than production companies as it is, distinguished mostly by proprietary image banks that convey "toughness," "compassion," or what have you, the way MGM was once associated with glamour and Warner Brothers with action pictures. In the wasteland of 2010 Golisano may well be able to offer his candidacy to whatever party is desperate enough to take it, and win.

UPDATE. Fixed typo.

QUINTESSENCE OF DREHER. Rod Dreher tries to get the CrunchyCon kids excited about John Edwards. He agitates to get the big papers (presumably including his own) to cover the Edwards affair story, which has so far been proffered only by the National Enquirer, bloggers, Fox News, and that monstrous hybrid of all three known as Mickey Kaus.

Dreher says he has very serious reasons for wanting to promote this story. "[Edwards is] still a big player in Democratic politics," says Dreher, "and might have been either an Obama running mate, Attorney General or held some other cabinet post." To elevate the tone further, he refers to Edwards twice as "the Silky Pony."

Amazingly, Dreher's readers don't take the bait:

Sounds like you are rationalizing. And gossiping.

I'm no fan of Edwards, but is it any wonder why people don't go into public service?

I am so glad I am not the only one who reads the tabloids when standing in line at the grocery store. Seriously, though do we know if these rumours are even true? It seems in poor taste to malign someones character without proof of their alleged indiscretions.

Some readers also mention the rich veins of McCain scandal that could be opened under this forgiving policy.

Dreher responds as one would expect of a Christian:

It is impossible for some people to engage in a rational critical discussion of the point. Another reader just wrote me privately to say I should shut down all the comboxes for a while, because the tone has gotten so nasty he doesn't want to visit them anymore. I'm not going to go that far, but I am going to shut down this one. Sorry, screaming mimis!

I'm tired of the excuse that Jesus is just misrepresented by his followers, and am going to have to assume that He's an asshole, too.

WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. When last we attended kulturkampfer Andrew Breitbart, he was telling us that the Hollywood blacklist of the 50s was nothing compared to the dirty looks conservatives get in filmland these days.

Now he devotes a Washington Times column to Jon Voight's recent right-wing ravings, which he claims were "swiftly attacked by establishment entertainment journalists expertly wielding the tools of the new McCarthyism." How's that for a hook: Voight is marked for death!

Those who are not fans of the genre may be disappointed at the thinness of the plot. When blogger Jeffrey Wells says of Voight, "I finally get what Angelina Jolie has been on about all these years," Breitbart thunders, "Mr. Wells went well below the belt by attacking Mr. Voight's parenting skills. And for what? Because one citizen expressed his contrarian political opinion in a town that doesn't embrace free speech anymore." Variety's Peter Bart repeats an anecdote demonstrating Voight's awareness of his own intellectual limitations; Breitbart, mortally offended, says that Bart is "desperately attempting to be as cruel as possible" (before repeating some dirt on Bart!), and announces, "[Bart's] message to Mr. Voight: You're dead. Hollywood never forgets."

Like I said, it's for fans -- if you're not familiar with the form, you may have trouble getting into the story, especially if you know that failure to toe the liberal line hasn't done much harm to Bruce Willis' career. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger's. Or Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's. Or Judd Apatow's, etc.

Breitbart anticipates this argument, but his rejoinder is less than convincing, and even less than coherent:

Those who argue that Mr. Wells' point of view is not representative of a larger mind-set among the Hollywood elite should think back to 2005, when Barbra Streisand publicly canceled her subscription to the Los Angeles Times for the crime of hiring a conservative to pen editorials a few times a week. That writer, Jonah Goldberg, went on to write the book "Liberal Fascism," which hit No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list. Perhaps the title resonated with the masses.

So Babs cancelled her subscription and Jonah Goldberg went to #1? What does that have to do with... well, anything? Never mind -- Breitbart throws us a twist ending ("Is it any wonder Jon Voight didn't have his opinions published in a hometown rag?") and brings up the closing credits. So it doesn't make sense -- neither does David Lynch! The critics will eat it up!

Competing for rightwing box-office is Weekly Standard's current cover story, "Hollywood Takes On The Left," which tells us about David "Airplane" Zucker's new comedy film, all about Rosie O'Donnell and Barack Obama and other deranged liberals. The cover promises an inspiring story of plucky wingnuts saving the day, but that's all marketing; Zucker and author Stephen Hayes know what the audience really wants when the lights go down, and they play it as a paranoid thriller. Zucker's partner, Steve McEveety, worries about losing his shirt. The star, Chris Farley's brother, says, "If it's the last movie I do, I'll go work for Steve's company." Zucker says he's "donated his career" to defeating Obama with this movie, and "Shouldn't I be allowed to say that?" and "Why can't I put it out there?" as if pleading for his little movie's life before a liberal death squad.

Yet such problems as Zucker et alia are having seem to be the kind any less-than-hot production company might reasonably expect ("Zucker had originally hoped to cast Dan Whitney aka Larry the Cable Guy as Malone, but a timing conflict kept him from getting it done"). But don't tell the wingnuts that. Their version of Hollywood entertainment doesn't come from movies, but from outrages. Breitbart and Hayes are those happiest of entertainment figures: showmen with a winning formula.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE. In my April Voice article I referred in passing to Megan McArdle as a "lipstick libertarian," which outraged her: "I'm hard put to think of a way to pack more snide sexism and heteronormative stereotypes into two words."

She also got after us sexist liberals:

I will say that I'm particularly shocked to find that about 95% of this comes from the left, particularly the fraternity potty talk--my right wing commenters usually limit themselves to saying "you're pretty", which is the sort of thing no one, male or female, minds hearing.

Today the Hit & Run blog of the eminently libertarian Reason magazine announced a bloggingheads dialogue between McArdle and Kerry Howley. It is titled "Lipstick Libertarians." At the top of the episode, McArdle announces, "I've been called a lipstick libertarian. I'm not quite sure if that was meant as an insult or a compliment."

She's reappropriating the L-words, I guess. Here are some of the Reason comments:

In my imagination, you two are planning a rainbow party. I'm not about to watch the video and spoil that image.

You girls would be so pretty if you just did something about your hair and makeup.

Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!

Girl's got quite the noggin, glad she's on our team! *friendly, athletic slap on the ass*

They kind of look a little bit like Bert and Ernie in that one.
Bert and Ernie were a couple, so does mean Kerry and Megan.... [WARREN'S HEAD 'ASPLODE]

Maybe this is that fabled common ground between liberals and libertarians I've been hearing about. I suggest Obama start using it to counteract charges of elitism. First step: flip-flop his apology for calling that reporter "sweetie" and say his only regret was not also giving her a friendly, athletic slap on the ass.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP: "Rightbloggers find McCain's Chocolate Sandwich Tasty." I may be getting the hang of this headline thing.

CHUTZPAH. The Anchoress, under her pen name Elizabeth Scalia, pleads in a PJM essay against "name-calling" -- as practiced by "rabid Bush-haters."

I could leave it at that, but let's just take a quick look at some of the Anchoress' greatest hits:

Is it just me or is Bill Clinton looking increasingly like the the smug bastard son of Boris Yeltsin?

Is Obama a megalomaniac?... If he wins, no one can say we didn't see megalomania... (Also, Obama is "a presidential candidate [who] needs to get up on stage and jeer at his country and countrymen for their lack of so-called sophistication to his 'sophisticated' and self-hating supporters," who are also "jack-booted silencers of dissent"; the press are Obama's "whores," etc.)

Nancy Pelosi Orwell: The Lady Likes Control... Feinstein: Tomorrow belongs to the people! Pelosi: Excuse me, comrade, I think you mean tomorrow belongs to me!

Jimmy Carter... the most repellent ex-president, ever...

This only draws from recent examples in which the Anchoress' usual passive-aggressive approach flares unto raw slander. By and large she prefers to use devices such as imaginary dialogues and funny dialects to mask the full intensity of her rage. I'd say her latest self-casting as the Voice of Sweet Reason isn't fooling anybody, but with cases such as hers, we must admit the possibility that she is fooling herself.

SHORTER RICK MORAN: I can dish it out, but I can't take it.

(Remember: there is no greater atrocity on the face of God's green earth than accusing the children of Lee Atwater of racism.)

WHY WE'RE FUCKED. Over at Reason, discussion of some article about Obama race blahblah:

...my father--who I don't believe has a bigoted bone in his body... is nonetheless apprehensive about Obama because he correlates governmental decline of where he lives with when black politicians started getting elected. While I don't share his reasoning and conclusions (especially in the case of Obama, who won't get elected without a hell of a lot of white people voting for him) he is empirically correct about the local politics in many cities...

I don't suppose they bothered to ask the white voters who said race was a factor whether it was a positive or negative? I would expect some percentage to be guilty white liberals voting for the black guy because he is a black guy.

Obama's liberal white supporters are given to cheering his sneezes and fainting whenever he graces them with his presence.

All this election is going to prove is that whites favor generic white over generic black and blacks favor generic half black over generic white. That's a basic human impulse that has colored human social interaction since the beginning of time and is nothing to be concerned about.

Commenters also suggest that if you vote for Obama because he's black, this makes you the real racist; that black people won't vote for "an Orien..., er, Asian candidate? ;-)"; etc.

Now bear in mind, these are libertarians, who are generally smart enough at least to correctly spell the word "libertarian." Despite their clinical and tragic inability to empathize with other human beings, you'd think their intellectual pride at least would steer them away from racist circular logic. So it is depressing to see them using their big brains to explain that, while they themselves don't see the relevance, they can understand how Al Sharpton Whoisblack makes decent, reasonable white people nervous about Barack Obama Whoisblack.

And if that's what the Randian Supermen are up to, imagine the discourse in the 3-D comments boxes (aka bars, church basements, etc.) inhabited by Real Americans who don't need no debate-school tricks to tell you what they really think.

SHORTER PETER WEHNER: Without bullshit, we're fucked.

OUTTA LOCKDOWN. Well, that was weird. Apparently Blogger thought I was running a spam blog and briefly shut me down. Blogger describes spam blogs as those that "can be recognized by their irrelevant, repetitive, or nonsensical text" -- well! An honest mistake, then -- "along with a large number of links, usually all pointing to a single site." I'll have to write less about Jonah Goldberg henceforth.

I was a little sore about it, but I'm glad to see some of the comrades kept their heads:

Obama's Netroots Supporters Continue "Blog Burning"

Tell me once more how progressives love free speech...

Online activists thought to be loyal to Barack Obama are once against using Google's software tools to target rival political blogs for elimination as spam blogs...

I must mention that Mr. Yankee updated with a cryptic one-line link to a contrary opinion. (You won't catch me making that mistake again!)

The Anchoress delivered an epic "Prayer Request" for Catholic bloggers deprived of internet ventilation by Satan: "Not that one is conspiracy minded. But it does seem that Old Scratch is doing his usual. Pray for Julie, her husband and Beyond Cana group, Deacon Greg and Patrick... Let me know of any other Catholic blogs on google/blogger and I’ll add them to the growing list!" She also corrected, briefly, suggesting the outage might be due to "Summer mischief," which of course means she hates Obama because he's black.

UPDATE. Confederate Yankee has expanded on his retraction, only because you citizen-journalists held his feet to the fire! Boo-yah! Pibb Xtra for my horses, noogies for my men.

THE BARREL HAS NO BOTTOM. It's come to this: the geniuses at National Review are parsing the hell out of Obama's statements that allude to the perfectly plain-to-the-non-brain-damaged fact that a black Democratic Presidential candidate is unusual and may excite negative feelings among certain honkies [cue 'Dueling Banjos'].

Peter Kirsanow marvels that Obama "suggests that certain Americans are intrinsically racist, and those Americans aren't just confined to political opponents." Kirsanow is one of the very, very few people of color I have heard from who is offended by the very notion that white racism exists, which explains why Bush appointed him to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

As for the house honkies, they seem especially enraged by Obama's crack that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" -- again, to the mentally complete, an uncontroversial statement. Jay Nordlinger clears his throat, retucks his shirt, says "Um, there's actually only one president on the dollar bill," then retires to the locker room for his wedgie. Yeah, adds Jason Lee Steorts, and what about when Obama said, "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face"? "Nobody thinks... Well, no; lots of people think Bush and McCain have some 'real' answers to some challenges, and lots of people think Barack Obama's answers to the same challenges are mistaken. There are millions of such people, in fact." Then he retires to the locker room, etc.

After a barrage of this crap, Obama surrenders to custom and sends a spokesperson to tell people it's not about race, and Amy Holmes becomes excited and analogical:

This reminds me of that game one plays with children where you cover your face with your hands and tease, "You can't see me! You can't see me!" They will giggle and shriek, "Yes, I can! You're right there!" Children love this game and will play for hours. Apparently, the Obama campaign believes we will, too.

Sometimes a metaphor is not immediately obvious because it is especially crafty, but much more often it is not obvious because it sucks as a metaphor. Besides, don't kids do rainbow parties instead of this shit anymore?

At this point "The Dollar Bill Statement" has become a full-blown scandal at National Review, and soon we may expect them to predict serious electoral repercussions. "Not content with mere insinuations of racism," says Kirsanow, "the Obama campaign publically signals their belief that we're galactically stupid." Wonder where they got that idea?

People say this campaign is especially exciting, and I have to agree. It's only July and already I fail to see how these people can get any more ridiculous. But I know they'll find a way!

UPDATE. Some Haloscan weirdness; comments appear to have been deleted; feel free to resubmit. I took advantage of the confusion to delete an italic tag and fix a typo.

TROLLHOUSE COOKIES. I don't know how much more can be said about McCain's ridiculous Obama and the White Sluts ad at this point. But I was delighted to see Ross Douthat's coverage of it. No, not for anything Douthat wrote -- as expected, the advocate of a new, cleansing Republican populism does a "GOP Racism? Where?" Vaudeville act for two posts.

What pleased me was that the two posts are infested with what bloggers of a McArdlesque turn of mind would call trolls -- that is, they give Douthat a hard time not only about his posts, but also about his blog, his Party, etc. And very enjoyably too: "This blog is starting to feel like a petulant resignation letter," "This is the ultimate Ross Douthat post. Bitchy, hand-wringing, and pointless," "Maybe we should be congratulating Ross for being so post-racist that he is completely unable to detect it," etc.

But my very special compliments go to whoever put up the priceless fake Steve Sailer comment:

It's a fact that African-American penises are larger, in inverse correlation to IQ.

I have measured hundreds myself, and feel that this ad is bringing up a serious question.

If we have an African American president, then clearly white women are going to start having interracial sex. And we have no idea where this will lead.

But, we will have a lot of blond women surprised, and sore.

Nobody wants to hear this, but it is fact.

As some of us have known for years, many of the great geniuses of the internet labor in obscurity. We must celebrate them as we mourn the Unknown Soldier, with such insufficient but well-meant monuments as this.

(If you aren't familiar with Sailer's ideas on race, this will give you some idea.)

UPDATE. No sign of stopping. One commenter suggests Douthat is trying to follow Yglesias' lead and attract offers from more overtly partisan operations. I have thought for a long time that the Atlantic should just clear the decks and replace all their bloggers with genuine, diagnosed aphasics and autistics. The current policy of employing Asperger's sufferers just doesn't go far enough.

SOCIAL NOTES. Tbogg points out two girls passing notes at The Corner:

Observation [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

The last time I've seen as many smiling people as I saw at Tiffany's earlier this afternoon, I was at St. Peter's in Rome in the spring...

Kathryn's Observation [Lisa Schiffren]

Smiles at St. Peter's are about the hope for transcendence. Smiles at Tiffany are about the hopes that come with earthly love -- and the very material proof of its magnitude and sparkle that Tiffany purports to sell. The floor where they sell engagement rings ought to be a happy place.

All gack! aside, I really, really hope this is Corner code for "K-Lo's got a beau." I have a soft spot for this awful woman; she seems to be the product of great suffering, not just its cause. Nobody could actually be as stupid as her writing suggests, so I assume that trauma or disorder has something to do with her often-incomprehensible output. My basic theories are these:

1.) Unhealthy sexual obsessions, exacerbated by the twin, soul-crushing burdens of loneliness and Catholicism, fatally distract her;
2.) A neurotic need to please some distant father-figure overrides her basic editorial skills and drives her to humiliate herself by writing cringe-inducing propaganda and then, in a paroxysm of self-abasement, publishing it under her real name;
3.) All that and a brain tumor.

She deserves a little happiness. Also, given her professed values, if she marries we may presume she'll quit her job. Win-win!

WHO'S POLITICALLY CORRECT NOW, MOTHERFUCKERS?* You'd think that if anyone called Hillary a bitch, wingnuts would piss themselves cheering. But black people, especially those who've been mentioned favorably by Obama, don't get that Golfcourse Pass.

Ludacris spits some hilariously tasteless lyrics ("Paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified/McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed"), and conservatives go into a PC snit. The dumber ones seem to think Ludacris works for the Obama campaign; the dumbest ones, having recently sought deep political significance in a cartoon, seek it now in a rap song:

Exit question: How does this stack up with the New Yorker cover? Both were created with an eye to defending Obama, both can be used by his political opponents against him (at least, in the New Yorker's case, among dullards unable to grasp satire) [!!! -- ed.]. I'm guessing that whereas the magazine was squarely blamed for Covergate, Ludacris will plead authenticity and be duly absolved.

The guy also says the song is "political dynamite"; does he think Ludacris is on Obama's VP shortlist? Perhaps he assumes that all Americans are just like himself, and cannot tell one black man from another.

As our current, insane politics requires, Obama has distanced himself from the remarks of Mr. Cris; his measured, sensible way of doing so draws a lovely why-I-never sputterfest from uber-ofay Philip Klein at the American Spectator:

The need to add the qualifier, "While Ludacris is a talented individual" is absolutely outrageous. Most Americans won't see talent in these lyrics -- they'll see them for what they are -- blatantly racist and sexist garbage. This is a major bungle by the Obama campaign.

Yeah, Obama should have come out for warning labels on iTunes. That would have helped him cement that crucial "old guy who still says coloreds" vote.

I'm shocked the head wingnuts don't have flying squads running around the internet, taking this stuff down before normal people wind up staring dumbfounded at it. They must have those voting machines rigged nice and tight.

*UPDATE. Alternate title just came to me: WHY YOU ALL IN MY EAR/TALKIN' A WHOLE BUNCHA SHIT THAT I AIN'T TRYIN' TO HEAR?

LATE ENTRY. The Voice posted my usual Monday column on a Wednesday this week. (Why? Because they're in the Village, man, where time is just a concept.) Have fun anyway, it's about the Obama World Tour and the dopes who are all "Oooooh, Obama's your messiah, you looooove him," and making the peace sign and going "Peeeeace man, peeeeeace." And then (as long as we're fantasizing, why not?) crapping themselves and rolling around on the floor.

Ahem, what I mean to say is, I find their reasoning a trifle disingenuous. This news is not so fresh, though I see conservatives are still trying to get some mileage out of the troops Obama unvisited in Europe. National Review's Charlotte Hays dismisses the Washington Post's "McCain's Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence" story: of course treasonous Obama would treasonously deny he treasonably dissed the troops for treasonous treason, and "Obama's inconsistent reasons for not going are as lacking in supporting evidence as McCain's assertion," Hays reasons. I wish that trick really worked, if only for my own sake: I could go around demanding people prove they don't owe me two grand, and never have to work again.

HOW DID RED DAWN EVER GET MADE? How odd to see Orson Bean, one of my favorite talk-show guests in boyhood, quoted extensively by his son-in-law Andrew Breitbart in the Washington Times:

"Aside from the inconvenience of having a career ruined, being blacklisted in the '50s was kind of cool," Orson recalled over watered-down dark rum pina coladas poolside at Club Med.

"You were doing 'the right thing.' Hot, left-wing girls admired you. You hadn't 'named names.' The New York Times was on your side. And you knew it would pass. Things always do in America..."

On the other hand, these liberals today:

"These days, the left doesn't just disagree with right-wingers - they hate them. People actually shudder when I tell them I'm a Republican. I should have to carry a bell and yell, 'unclean'"...

So the blacklist was okay, because Orson Bean got trim and the support of the Times in exchange for employment opportunities, but today liberals shudder at him, which is worse. What was Dalton Trumbo bitching about?

It's a curious point of view, which even Breitbart seems to realize, because he refers to Orson as "once again on the wrong side of the censors," presumably to make the point that shudders mean censorship. I suppose he really means self-censorship: "'Repugnant' Reaganites and 'reptilian' Bushies planning to work on the 'Ocean's 14' set have mastered a code of conduct: silence." Yeah, look at Bruce Willis, who "doesn't talk openly about politics anymore" -- after he stumped for Bush the Elder in 1992, Willis was shunted off to obscure projects like Pulp Fiction, Nobody's Fool, and Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Bruce did hard time, man, so we can forgive him for taking the easy way out now. He just couldn't take the shudders. Could you?

It might be easier for guys like Breitbart if there were Senate Committee hearings and publications (Red State Channels?) that made their martyrdom more overt. On the other hand, like most Hollywood types, they have vivid imaginations, and can cook up a witch-hunt out of a few dirty looks.

KEEP IT SIMPLE, DOUCHEBAG. National Review's Victor Davis Hanson is not content with being both a columnist and a -- wait, what do you call a guy who knows a lot about ancient history and is constantly reminding you of it? Oh yeah, a douchebag. Well, now Hanson wants to be a neologist, too. Speaking on the speeches of politicians whose eco-enthusiasms annoy him, Hanson writes:

It is scary when Speaker Pelosi claims "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet," or Al Gore barks about his utopian plan to shut down all generators of electricity except wind and solar within 10 years -- or else: "The future of human civilization is at stake." Or Obama claims that at the "moment" of his nomination over Hillary (?) "The rise of the oceans began to slow." Call this ecobonics, geo-narcissism, or hokey science -- or a variant strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome -- but it is creepy nonetheless.

"Ecobonics"? Why the conflation of ecology and ebonics? What do black people have to do with environmentalists? Oh right: conservatives hate them, too.

It would appear... wait, I'm having difficulty maintaining my arch tone and devising a glittering jest on this subject. So let's leave it at this: what a fucking douchebag.

MONDAY WITH ROD DREHER. 8:52 AM: My Lord Jesus wouldn't approve, but between you and me and the blogosphere, Africans are hopeless.
3:56 PM: TV gives your kid autism! So don't give them any, much.
4:15 PM: I don't mind living with black people so long as they belong to the same cult as me. I have children, y'know.
6:41PM: Why should black people get breaks? Let 'em earn it like I did.
8:43 PM: It's ridiculous to say conservatives want to kill people. I just want them fired for blasphemy. Totally different.
10:06 PM: Some poor saps at my job are going to get fired. Break out the good champers!