THE WORST PEOPLE ON EARTH. Today's Times article about the scumbag banks ("Pay Garnishments Rise as Debtors Fall Behind") has stories of predatory lending and dunning practices so disgusting that I'm surprised Megan McArdle hasn't risen to their defense yet*.

One of the names of the banks' factota rang a bell, so I googled HSBC spokeswoman Kate Durham and found she'd appeared in this Chicago Tribune story I'd noticed a few days back:

When he died July 17, Elmer Duncan left a $2,361.04 balance on his Carson Pirie Scott credit card, which is administered by HSBC bank.

Since her name was never on the account, Ruby Duncan sent HSBC a copy of her husband's death certificate and assumed the debt would go away.

Instead, HSBC sent a new bill -- with her name on it...

In November, HSBC sent the account to collections in Ruby Duncan's name...

[Kate] Durham said she could not discuss the specifics of Duncan's case, citing privacy concerns. But she said the company's goal is to ensure "all of our customers receive a positive card experience with each and every interaction."

Helluva way to make a living, isn't it? Sometimes, though, Durham gets to report that HSBC has taken mercy on some of its victims -- when a newspaper threatens to publicize the situation. Other times, she updates the press on the legal disposition of the bank's crooked schemes ("HSBC spokeswoman Kate Durham confirmed the bank settled the case and said it admits no wrongdoing") and does straight-up stonewalling.

I used to work in public relations myself, and may again, but if things get so bad that I have consider a job like Durham's I may have to do the honorable thing and start breaking into church poor-boxes. God, is there anything lower than a banker?

* McArdle was apparently too busy being outraged at the post office -- which has outraged me in the past, too, but leave it to McArdle to put me in sympathy with the P.O.:

Now, I have no idea whether this is regulation run amok, combined with Soviet-level distributional inefficiency; or whether she simply didn't feel like dealing with my wedding invitations, and started making up rules to force me to take my damn business elsewhere.

Oh, what are the odds?

UPDATE. The comments are all about Megan McArdle! Banks, people! Don't you care about -- oh, the hell with it, she's appalling, isn't she? Next she'll complain that she has to pay money for the marriage license, which will just be used to subsidize looters and wreckers. Or has she done this already? I'm scared to look.

NOT SUITABLE FOR TREATMENT. Haven't looked in on The Anchoress in a while. Guards, can you open the hatch?

Disgraceful.

Arrogant

Unstatesmanlike

Breathtakingly rude, willfully insulting

Contemptible

Bookworm asks: Has their ever been a more ungracious man in the White House?

Nope.

What an appalling Putz.

Sounds like putsch, a little, doesn’t it.

There, I’ve broken my own rule about referring to the American President in respectful tones, due to my respect for the office...

Sigh. Wait'll she finds out who Doctor Sheehan really is.

UPDATE. Oh, and:

It’s sickening. I cannot believe what is happening to my country. We all suspected we were in trouble, with Obama, but it’s worse than we realized.

I hope someday she explains how, if we all had such suspicions, Obama managed to get all those votes. I'll bet it has something to do with Satan!

DEAR NATIONAL REVIEW: I NEVER THOUGHT IT COULD HAPPEN TO ME! It's nice to know that, even in this age of Tea Parties, conservatives will still clap for a Nanny State when it comes to porn. Anonymous, "a psychologist [!] who lives with her children in Virginia," says "Congress should fund a long-term, multidisciplinary analysis of the effects of porn addiction on marriage and family life. The National Institutes of Health are granted billions of taxpayer dollars for research on a wide variety of public-health problems, and yet pornography addiction is not among them."

If you're one of those rad libs who think swine flu has a better claim on the NIH's attention than porn studies, hear Anonymous' sad story:

By his own account, my husband of 13 years and high-school sweetheart, was first exposed to pornography around age ten. He viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically. Recently he began to reject my sexual advances outright, claiming he just didn’t “feel love” for me like he used to, and lamenting that he thought of me “more as the mother of our children” than as a sexual partner.

Then one morning around 2am he called, intoxicated, from his office to announce that he had “developed feelings” for someone new. The woman he became involved with was an unemployed alcoholic with all the physical qualities of a porn star — bleached blond hair, heavy makeup, provocative clothing, and large breasts. After the revelation, my husband tried to break off his relationship with this woman. But his remorse was short-lived. Within a few months he had moved permanently out of the home he shared with me and our five young children. In retrospect, I believe he succumbed to the allure of the secret fantasy life he had been indulging since his adolescence.

So, to recap: this rightwing scold's husband dumped her for a blonde with big tits who likes to drink. Yeah, what besides a psychological malady could explain that?

UPDATE. Forgot to hat-tip K.Lo, whose pimpage of this article at The Corner offers wet spots of its own:

When I recently went to a press conference for a Witherspoon Institute study on [porn's] social costs, a man walked in, stayed a few, and announced, "I expected to be much more titillated by this than I am." And there we are. It's dangerous stuff...

JIVE. How do you get the kids to listen to Bill Whittle? The same way you get anyone else to listen to him -- with tricks.

"Every now and then I'll run into a hipster," says Whittle in his latest PJTV entertainment. Knowing how tightly-wound the guy is, I was hoping the crew would bring in actual hipsters of the sort I used to see in my perambulations around Williamsburg*, so Whittle could denounce them for (to use a previous Whittlism), "sipping six-dollar coffees as they complain about capitalism on $2,000 Apple laptops," and maybe even criticize their grooming and shitty music. That could have been as good at the C.P.O. Sharkey episode where they go to a punk club.

But then Whittle tells us, "These hipsters, and many of them are in their 50s and 60s..." and shows us a picture of what looks like Wavy Gravy. Also, he says these alleged superannuated hipsters "are always so proud of being progressive, they're open-minded, always ready to try new ideas..." and affects to hear from these hipsters, "Don't be such a square man."

He's not even trying! Couldn't he have thrown in something about Micachu and the Shapes, or goatse? Regrettably, the reverse-hip act continues with Okie from Muskogee passive-agression: "They're not rigid and fear-driven like me... stuck with prehistoric ideas like individual responsibility and the right to keep and bear arms..." The Founders were "the worst kind of squares" -- which is, in case you haven't tumbled to Whittle's brand of irony, a big compliment.

Having trapped us in his bogus sideshow, Whittle lectures us about how Moses is better than Zeus and all those shitty little gods, "Greco-Roman philosophy" (that is, two falls out of three), and other boilerplate about why the West is the Best -- hardly remarkable, controversial, or difficult to grasp, but Whittle still insists it's dynamite to the longhaired punks: "At this point the hipster usually goes 'huh?'" He's not the only one.

* We don't seem to have hipsters around College Station, though Mary swears she saw some at a Starbucks once. I did recently see what appeared to be hipsters in Austin, but those specimens were of a softened form, more relaxed than the ones back in Brooklyn. Maybe that's because the coffee 'round these parts isn't so hot.

WE ARE ALL INTERESTED IN THE FUTURE, FOR THAT IS WHERE YOU AND I ARE GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF OUR LIVES. If I understand this hallucinogenic video aright, McMegan thinks that the recession will cause moral looseness as well as puritanism, and end in libertarianism, as everything does. Because the people far away from us won't matter so much, you see.

I would assume she wrote and directed the whole thing, but the folks on the breadline didn't have arrow-tags that said "looters."

GO AHEAD, HIT MY HAND AS HARD AS YOU CAN. Sometimes you just can't improve upon the simple juxtapositions provided by Memeorandum. Alongside a link to Steve Benen's Washington Monthly article about how red-state conservatives are screwing up their Congressional apportionments by denouncing the Census, Memeorandum provides another to the wonderfully apposite ravings of Sister Toldjah:

Why does one side of the Census postcard say it’s “required by law” to fill out but on the other side it says “you’ve been sent a *request* to fill it out”? No wonder the Census return rate is down at this point from the 2000 Census return rate. That and the fact that more and more people in this country are simply fed up with the federal government, a government that laughably suggests via their many Census ads that filling out the Census gives ordinary Americans the power to bring their “fair share” of federal tax dollars to their respective communities. Of course, they don’t mention that the more federal tax dollars poured into the community the more than community is answerable to Washington, DC. This is supposed to be “empowering”? No thanks.

And don’t you love the “non-invasive” Census questions, oh, like asking you for your name, birthdate, and phone number? [Emoticon]

It's official, these people are insane. The Census is in the freaking Constitution. You'd think folks who like to dress up as Revolutionary soldiers and have Tea Parties would approve of it. But apparently even the least objectionable and longest-lived requirements of the Federal Government are too much for wingnuts. Next they'll be talking about the Bill of So-Called "Rights" and the tyrannical Library of Congress.

Maybe they think it was all downhill after the Articles of Confederation, or when civilization itself interrupted the natural Randian state of nature.

I am very fond of my new home, but I'm glad I sent my form in while I was still living in Brooklyn and before I moved to Texas, so I could accommodate these morons in their quest for electoral irrelevance. Nydia Velazquez, bitches!

Jesus -- they're really totally abandoning normal democracy and just betting everything on hopes of a popular insurrection, aren't they?

GOLDEN BOY. Tom Tomorrow alerts me to Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser's latest, in which the eminent psychologist, documentarian, and non-tipping restaurant patron argues that liberals are mean to conservatives. We've heard this sort of thing many times before, often from Dr. Mrs. herself, but this time DMOP has picked herself a doozy of an exemplary victim: Jeff Goldstein.

Yes, that Jeff Goldstein (and this one), the belligerent proprietor of rightwing bile-shed Protein Wisdom. Goldstein is known for the viciousness of his own attacks on others -- including physical threats -- yet rightbloggers are accustomed to rally to his defense whenever liberals are mean to him.

I could never figure out why they're so protective of this bully, but I have a theory: Goldstein's always bragging on his academic credentials, so maybe the rightwing community, like any family that sees itself as coming up in the world, considers him their frail, schoolly child, and thus are prone to coddle him, and to be willfully oblivious of the fact that when he's not in his room studying he's out hitting the other kids in the back of the head with rocks.

DMOP's essay supports this theory. In this case the affront to Goldstein is even slighter than usual: He recently got a message from one of his former mentors, who requested that his name be removed from Goldstein's site. Goldstein, with his characteristic equanimity, described this as censorship. Goldstein's account is almost entirely rageaholic blargh-blargh, but DMOP, like an aggrieved parent, hears only her boychik's pain and sorrow:

Initially, Goldstein says he was hurt by his professor’s intolerant attitude, but then, his hurt rightly turned to anger.

Here I imagine Goldstein dressed up like the Mean Widdle Kid, peering from behind Dr. Mrs.' skirts and sticking out his tongue.

Inevitably it comes time for her to tell us that the boy is fine, it's those meddling social workers who are crazy. DMOP's reaction formation: Liberals are, like psychopaths, incapable of understanding the suffering of conservatives.

So just remember that next time a liberal treats you poorly, it may not be his or her fault. Like the psychopath who has no empathy for his fellow human being, liberals may have a blind spot when it comes to having any empathy or understanding for their conservative brethren. It often makes a psychopath worse to show empathy for him, as he will take advantage of it.

As that weird last sentence suggests, DMOP is ready to dish out prescriptions for the treatment of liberals -- but her aim is not to help the patients:

...expanding right-leaning media, getting more people involved, and making sure consequences are dealt out to those liberals who lie and treat conservatives with disrespect. Yes, this means all of us speaking up wherever we are when we hear false, inflammatory, or just plain mean remarks made about conservatives. And finally, clamoring for more diverse educational topics and literature in the schools and media would be helpful.

Conservatives shouldn’t back down on any of this, ever. For it is persistence and consistency that will eventually win the day.

From this it would seem that Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser is accustomed to practice on involuntary patients directed to her by the state, toward the end of neutralizing their threat to society, and that's also how she would like to deal with liberals who say mean things. If you were thinking of retreating to the Gulch with her, you should know that's the kind of libertarianism she believes in.

SHORTER NORMAN PODHORETZ. So, people have forgotten I'm alive, eh? I'll just whoop up Palin like I did Reagan, and remind these young punks that Norman Podhoretz always goes full retard!

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the weird tendency of some rightbloggers to embrace the loonier fringe figures out there -- including the Hutaree Jesus militia nuts. Some, like Dan Reihl, are content to make incoherent innuendoes and leave their commenters to explain how the sheeple will rise up just like they did after Ruby Ridge. But some -- like the Perfesser, who I thought would know better -- take the position that the government is making false arrests to cover for Obamacare.

It's not my way to put anything past the Gol-durned Gummint. But it's a sucker's bet to make such accusations without evidence. It doesn't do the presumed-innocent arrestees nor the cause of justice any good, and it makes you look like a fucking nut.

But that seems to be a new tactic among the belligerati -- to make common cause with the most deranged political actors. Can it be what they really believe, or are they so desperate for new alliances that they'll take whatever they can get?

UPDATE: Oy. From a $100 victim of the National Review begging squad:

We have to take a stand against creeping totalitarianism. I'll take the risk that the regime will somehow get the NRO donation list and use it to round up the freedom-loving counterrevolutionaries

I think I have it figured now: These people want to think it's dangerous and brave to be a Republican, instead of just sad. And they're willing to pay, in money and IQ points, for the privilege.

RE-UPDATE: They actually pulled the "freedom-loving counterrevolutionaries" post. Bad conscience, or did this cowboy threaten to stop payment on the check?

RE-RE-UPDATE: Ann Althouse provides the worst "this proves Bush right" angle of all time. Several Althouse commenters have laffs about Detroit, proving that armed mobs of white people can declare war on the government and some people will still be more concerned with the Black Menace.

THE LAND OF MAKE-BELIEVE. From RedState:

I had sworn off movies for the past year and a half, as my small contribution in the boycotting of Hollywood.

However, this week, when months of swelling, sustained, dedicated opposition to ObamaCare from this nation’s citizenry was answered by its passage with an iron gavel, and then followed by mockery and taunting, a particular movie scene immediately came to mind. I decided to temporarily lift the boycott, dust off an old favorite, and give it a watch.

Watching the final battle scene in “The Patriot”

Aaaaaugh! OK, continue:

was cathartic as I believe this scenario closely parallels where we are right now in this contemporary battle to protect our liberty from an over-reaching, arrogant, and corrupt government.

Try to imagine, in the early days of the Reagan Administration, some recalcitrant hippie saying that whenever the James Watt Department of the Interior got him down, he overcame his usual boycott of bourgeois entertainments and played a tape of The China Syndrome, and this inspired him to resistance.

That'd be pretty pathetic, wouldn't it?

THE GILLIBRAND LESSON. I am pleased to see credentialed deep-thinkers like Evan McMorris-Santoro of TPM discovering, as I did months ago, that Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the safer reelection bets among Democratic Senators. But McMorris-Santoro says:

She may have earned herself a second term simply by not being the controversial figure many in the Democratic party thought she would be.

Close, but "many in the Democratic Party" don't know what the fuck they're talking about. What could be controversial about her? She's as managed a candidate as I've ever seen. From the get-go Chuck Schumer and some other smart Dems have been packaging Gillibrand brilliantly:

• Lots of Listening Tours in the hinterlands (whence she came -- it's not just for carpetbaggers like Hillary);
• Unashamedly going "ahem" to the White House any time some rogue Democrat challenged her;
• Association with high-profile clean-water, safe-baby, and anti-gun legislation.

That last bit is the most interesting and, I think, has the widest applicability. I recall when Schumer pulled Gillibrand off the NRA gold-star list and handed her a typical New York liberal gun position -- namely, anti. It was supposed to be too radical for those anti-statists upstate -- and actually a little too anti for me. (Thank God I'm in Texas now, where I can easily get guns and drunk as God intended!)

But it's all in the way you spin it, and along with her other palaver, the gun stuff helps present Gillibrand as a goo-goo, family-friendly type, which position turned out to be formidable enough to scare away Giuliani and several other contenders.

The moral of the story is: When you read how them Tea Parties is sweeping the nation, look at your local theater listings; look at the anodyne, MOR crap that's popular. Look at your grocery aisles, your department store shelves, etc. How much has changed there in a year? It's rare that people stray very far from the models they're accustomed to follow, in politics or in anything else -- especially when the other side isn't making a good argument for change.

Considering the complete and almost unprecedented collapse of the Republican Party from 2006 onwards -- recession, sex scandals, and all -- Obama should have carried fifty states in 2008; as it was, he only got over at all because the GOP got on the wrong side of a real watershed. And a watershed is not the sort of thing you reverse quickly. Hell, the Democrats even got over all right in the 1978 Congressional elections.

This isn't an argument for the moral superiority of Obama or Gillibrand or anyone, but a caution against any lazy assessment of any incumbent as "weak" just because the papers are now full of anti-incumbent talk. Given all the big Democrats like Evan Bayh recently quitting and such like, a lot of people expect big Democratic losses this year. Most of them certainly don't deserve to hold their seats. But as Clint Eastwood once said, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

PANTLOAD AND THE PERFESSER DO AMERICA. Every once in a while some smartass tells me about something awful at Pajamas TV. That pisses me off, because PJTV wisely doesn't offer transcripts, which means I have to watch the fucking things if I want to keep up.

A few of you recently lured me to a chat between the Ole Perfesser and Jonah Goldberg. This promised the greatest team-up since Beavis and Butt-head, but alas, these two titans are not at their best. Nonetheless, some highlights:

• The Perfesser asks why "conservative intellectuals" like David Brooks have "not a lot of enthusiasm" for the totally awesome Tea Party movement. "There are different reactions from different people," muses Goldberg, "but you're right to generalize."

That could be the Shorter! But let's press on:

• Goldberg finds it "really bizarre" that Brooks compared the Tea Parties to the old New Left. Why, the New Left was "seeking to tear down existing institutions," says Goldberg, whereas the TP movement is "about restoration. There's a reason why they're buying all these books about the American Founding, why they're constantly talking about Thomas Paine and Don't Tread on Me."

That these alleged restorationists are attracted mainly to the most violent Revolutionary sentiments rather than, say, The Federalist Papers does not alert Goldberg to any contradiction, even when the Perfesser later elaborates that back in the colonial era, it was assumed that "if the government went too far, the people would just rise up in a body, it would be an organic thing" -- presumably like Shay's Rebellion, defeat of which began our long descent from the libertarian Valhalla of the Articles of Confederation to the Era of Big Gummint. (Or was it a false-flag operation?)

(BTW, do they know Paine thought Washington was an asshole?)

• Goldberg, in a semi-coherent ramble about the populism of the Ross Perot Reform Party, says that in '92 "the timing was just wrong because of Clinton and Bush I and the rest." Too bad there was no citizen journalist on hand to ask him the Tough Questions as to what he meant by that.

• The Perfesser gets down with The People! "The minute they do get interested in politics," he says, "everybody is basically saying 'why are all these ordinary Americans out there, shouldn't they just listen to their betters?' And actually that 'listen to their betters' is a lot of the tone I get not just from David Brooks but from a fair-number of sort of higher-level conservative intellectual types..."

The Perfesser quotes no examples of this, but as it's a matter of "tone," rather than actual words, he might have needed to express it via interpretive dance or his techno music, so it's just as well.

• "The Left," says Goldberg, "has bought into this idea that they have the monopoly on authentic protest" -- illustrated by a rant about "hippie kids" of the kind no one has heard since the days of Al Capp -- while conservative intellectuals are "trained to be skeptical of populism and mass-movement protest," which will certainly surprise anyone who's heard of Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13, the Moral Majority, etc.

Goldberg also chides the Left for being quick to call conservatives fascist, which I would find a charming piece of chutzpah if I had any faith that Goldberg knew what the fuck he was saying.

• After Goldberg claims National Review has always "had this internal debate about elitism vs. populism" -- Goldberg portrays William F. Buckley Jr. as a populist, which is like portraying Ernst Rohm as a scoutmaster -- the Perfesser pipes up, "I'm actually happy to be an elitist."

Well, of course he is -- after all, he's a Yalie and a tenured radical, and he's going to be among the elect for real when the Robot Rapture comes! But how's that square with his pitchfork Tea Party fervor? Simple:

I don't think the people running the country are an elite. I think if you look at it, they're not especially bright. They have no track record of especially good success.

What's happened in this country that's gone well over the last 50 years has mostly gone well in spite of the people running the country, not because of it. And so I don't think it's necessarily anti-elitist for groups of people to come up and say that the politicians and the journalists and the pundits are all a bunch of idiots because I think that's objectively a defensible position to take.

And I don't think that's anti-elitism. If you want to be an elitist, one of the things I think you have to be is an elite. It's like, you know, to be a diva, you're not actually just a woman who treats people badly, you're supposed to also be a woman who sings really, really well. And to be an elite, you have to be elite! You have to be good at something! And I look at Nancy Pelosi, or I look at, for that matter David Brooks, I think. what exactly are these people that good at, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

...says the guy doing a video in his rec room.

• "I think you make a good point," says Goldberg. Whereas "elite" is a meaningful term in plumbing, in politics "the word elite gets weird" -- because the political elite is really a "ruling class," or at least they are when they're Democrats, who are defending a "labor union-academic establishment and protecting their own interests to the detriment of society," in contrast to the altruistic oilmen behind George W. Bush.

• After a Perfessorial skein on his previous theme about how Politico is trying to work the "narrative" against the Tea Parties, Goldberg gently explains that Politico just likes to fuck shit up.

Corrected by Jonah Goldberg -- now that's a downfall! Fortunately for the Perfesser, the balance of the universe, and the ongoing cause of comedy, Goldberg immediately takes back the title of Clown Prince of Conservatism by offering as evidence of the Right's superior intellectual vibrancy the ongoing "healthy debate" between order and liberty as exemplified by... Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Next time they should get Goldberg all hopped up on Pibb Xtra before they turn on the cameras. The same basic idea worked for Chris Farley!

JUST FOR FUN. A local correspondent (that means Texas, hoss!) has tipped me to an Austin rightblogger called Urban Grounds and his offering for the day:





This is, I believe, the Inigo Montoya Award Winner of the Decade.

UPDATE. "Honestly," the guy adds in comments, "do you actually believe I don’t know the definition of an antonym?" This reminds me of the TV version of Shogun, when they tried to give Richard Chamberlain a boy and he snarled, "Do you take me for a God-accursed sodomite?"

(Just to save us some time: No, guy, that doesn't mean I'm calling you gay.)

SHORTER ENTIRE RIGHTWING: All these claims of threats against Democratic legislators, hah! These sissies just can't face up to the will of the people. Plus how do we know it isn't all a fraud? Why, in olden times OH SHIT ERIC CANTOR SAYS SOMEBODY SHOT AT HIS OFFICE DEMOCRATZ ARE OBVS KRAZY MURDERERS!

Bonus: Confederate Yankee, who explained the necessity of violence yesterday, is outraged by this alleged assault, and blames Rep. John Lewis.

This is why I tend to be phlegmatic about this kind of story -- not because they're necessarily untrue, but because by the time such reports get to us punters, there's nothing left but bloody shirts and instructions for waving them.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED... Tom "Not the Total Wingnut in the CA GOP Senate Race" Campbell says everyone knew he supported gay marriage before Maggie Gallagher of the He-Man Faggot Haters' Club produced a smear ad based on that fact. Gallagher says no, they didn't:

But before we launched that ad, we polled... Bottom line? Tom is wrong. Just 2 percent of his own voters know he favors gay marriage...

Bottom line: I think Tom Campbell is about to find out, as Dede Scozzafava did, that it is not a good idea to be for gay marriage if you are Republican.

Despite the superfluity of bottom lines, this is a great comparison, and a great idea in general: Alert voters up and down the state how much Republicans despise homosexuals, and seek thus to replicate the results of the Doug Hoffman-Dede Scozzafava-Bill Owens race -- in which conservatives triumphed by dooming the Republican candidate and electing the Democrat. If it worked that well in conservative upstate New York, imagine how it'll go over in California!

Please, Republicans, more Maggie Gallagher! We could use the laughs.

WHAT COMES AFTER DERANGEMENT? Conservative rage at the passage of the health care reform bill provides many opportunities for hilarity, and Sadly, No! and others have been slatherin' on the schadenfreude. But some of the featured performers in this circus are, I find, getting a little too weird for funsies.

Take Confederate Yankee, tightly-wrapped even under the best conditions, and today particularly deformed by anger.

First there is, as you might expect from someone whose cognomen proudly celebrates treason in defense of slavery, a badly-encrypted threat of violence:

Some are calling for the armed revolt against this encroaching tyranny. It was for this specific reason, after all, that our Founders made sure Americans would not be denied the use of arms.

Some misguided souls seem to already be responding to this affront to liberty with violence. I fail to find the usefulness or utility of such symbolic and largely impotent acts. This sort of petty vandalism is not what the Founders sought to protect.

Nay, not for such as the Founders the mere breaking of windows:

They sought to protect our right to replace—yes, overthow—would-be tyrants and rouges that history has taught us always eventually arrive to usurp power and run roughshod over the rights of the people.

Yes, a big-time rightblogger is calling for insurrection over National Romneycare. I'd mischievously suggest we call on his bigger-time buddies to denounce him, but that's a mug's game, and what would be the point?

His follow-up is just sad. A North Carolina report finds an employed-but-not-yet-insured fellow with diabetes, DeCarlo Flythe, who is happy about the bill, because he and his family will soon have access to medicine -- "we are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright." Check your own feelings on this: Happy for him? Maybe a little cynical about the plan being as much "like Christmas" as Flythe wishes to believe? Unless you are an untreated survivor of horrific child abuse, you probably didn't feel anything like what the Confederate expresses toward "un-men like DeCarlo Flythe and other dependent wards of the welfare state":

For dim souls like Flythe, Obamacare certainly seems to be an answer to their worries. In the short term, IRS agents will confiscate monies from those of us who pay taxes to pay for his inability to take care of his own family. Obamacare will pay for his diabetic medicines, and his eventual blindness. After all, with me and you picking up the tab, there is little incentive for Flythe to change his behavior to help regulate his diabetes.

This is the sort of Randroidal contempt for the less-fortunate you usually get from Megan McArdle, and though I am inclined to give the Confederate credit for sparing us McArdle's trademark self-pity, he loses it by advancing a non-fact -- "Obamacare promises a near stasis in medical care" -- as a reason for his concern. He's already made himself quite clear, and that feint suggests he doesn't even have the courage of his loathsome convictions.

Confederate Yankee may be sui generis, but polling suggests there are plenty more like him back home, and some of them may yet learn to read and write.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP. Yeah, I'm still doing these on Mondays, for the time being. Today's is about the Jesus angle on that health care bill passage anguish. Some Catholic groups had gotten involved with the struggle, which afforded ripe opportunities for hilarity, as well as a chance to introduce new readers to The Anchoress at her most stupidly vicious, laying down Catholic doctrine to actual churchmen and churchwomen from her little suburban fake-nun castle. Jesus, what an awful person she is.

Part of me wanted to get in on the nigger/faggot tea party thing, but first-hand reporting was sparse and I wasn't sure whom to believe, frankly. On the one hand, of course Democrats and their fans can get an easy lay-up by reporting they were slurred by neanderthals -- who besides the Ole Perfesser and likeminded doofuses would disbelieve them?

And they'd have cause to believe -- despite the Perfesser's carefulness to find the few black folk at these events and get pictures of them, anyone who's been to one of these shindigs knows the score. My own coverage of the early tea parties as well as their Version 2.0 showed me that the overseers of the tea parties want to make them as mainstream as they possibly can, and have cooled out the original hot rhetoric insofar as they have been able to. But, let's face it -- it's not a grassroots movement, it's a rightwing movement that wants to look grassroots, and such gatherings are bound to, of necessity, pull in some straight, white, and loose cannons of the slur-slinging variety.

So the words may have been said. The irony is, even if they were, I doubt they'd reflect much more that the deep-seated prejudices of some of the participants -- and if that were a crime, as Hamlet said, who should 'scape whipping? That's America, folks. The real question is, why and how did the equivalent of Orange County John Birch Society meetings from the 60s gone al fresco become such a big media deal?

UPDATE. Thomas asks in comments about my remark on "grassroots" in this context.

It's not that I think rightwingers less able to community-organize than liberals, but that I think most "populist" movements in our own era are mere inventions of seasoned political operatives and big moneymen. Like Ross Perot; some populist! (And let's not forget the periodic insistence that Obama, of all people, is a populist too.)

While I wouldn't write off the Tea Parties (and the closely-related anti-health-care rallies) as pure astroturf, they too have some fishy roots and receive a lot of unpaid advertising (you can't reasonably call it "coverage") from the rightbloggers. Their organizers get the crowds to show up, and famously to make their own signs, but not to draw up the agenda; when the big dogs staged those Tea Parties in New York last year, I doubt the congregation was polled to choose S.E. Cupp, Deroy Murdock, and several local Republican candidates for public office as speakers. Those picks were straight off the rightwing comintern go-to list.

Thus, they're stage-managed events, but with an open door policy. Shouters and spitters will turn up at such things and, like I said, it can't be much helped. But the belligerent response of the rightwing press to this revelation suggests stronger message discipline than most grassroots movements could manage: If it were a movement over which they really thought they had NO control, they'd just denounce the racist nuts and move on, rather than try to explain to us, first, that the incidents didn't happen, and second, that they are actually a healthful sign that racism is over.

GREENPOINT APARTMENT, ANYONE? My landlady claims to need help renting my 1BR up here in North Brooklyn. It's relatively cheap. Drop me a line if you're interested.

DEFINING GALT DOWN. Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser talks with an Atlas Society Randroid about Going Galt. It appears they've lowered the bar considerably since they were predicting masses of Bigbrains fucking off to the Gulch and taking Amerika down. Now Dr. Mrs. offers new and "different definitions of Going Galt." There's "the Randian definition... producers going on strike." But it can also mean businesses moving to different states to get tax breaks, and some kid moving her bank account to a credit union. It's E-Z and fun, kids!

The Atlas Guy claims that, just as in the 60s there was a "rising consciousness among blacks about civil rights," people are no longer thinking of themselves as liberals and conservatives, but as "producers and moochers." (Put me down with the moochers! I've been working like a son of a bitch, but I'm willing to learn.) Also, the Tea Party people use Ayn Rand slogans on their signs, which means the revolution against Obama's "socialism" is near.

I wish the PJTV thing more success than they, alas, have so far managed. Tea Parties would last about ten minutes if people got a load of what their Great Minds actually think.

FOLLOW-UP.