Joel Kotkin details the rise, and then the perplexing decline and fall, of the great state of California.

It turns out that Californians were the barbarians at their own gates; it was an act of self-destruction, fueled by the unforeseen (but should-have-been-foreseen) consequences of a change in the nature of “progressive” policies in the state:

During the second half of the 20th century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city – as something to be sacked and plundered. The result is two separate California realities: a lucrative one for the wealthy and for government workers, who are largely insulated from economic decline; and a grim one for the private-sector middle and working classes, who are fleeing the state.

I remember seeing the transformation myself. I lived in California for one year during the mid-70s, but from 1970 until quite recently I spent quite a bit of time there visiting friends and relatives.

Read the whole thing—and reflect on the fact that Jerry Brown is running for, and might even win, the governorship of California.

But it is.

Full disclosure: even though I’ve long been a Red Sox fan, I was never a Clemens fan. Too arrogant and full of himself, and when he played for the Sox he could never seal the deal when it really, really counted.

Yessiree, and there was a big bash planned, although Britain has warned Libya against it and Libya is apparently complying.

As for al Megrahi, he’s living in a lovely villa, and his sons have been given lucrative government jobs.

Is anyone—anyone—surprised by al Megrahi’s survival? The possible exception is Scottish first minister Alex Salmond, who makes a valiant but doomed effort to use the occasion of the anniversary to defend the transparently idiotic (and/or corrupt) decision of the Scottish government to release al Megrahi back in August of 2009:

Obviously people are going to have a range of views about the rights and wrongs of the decision … all we ask people to do is to accept it was a decision that was made in good faith following the due procedures that we have under the legislation and under the tenets of Scots law.

Is that all you ask, Mr. Salmon? I think it’s still way too much. I won’t go back and argue the case again; I did so at the time (my posts on the subject are here; scroll down, earliest ones at the bottom of the list).

But I’m with Iain Gray:

Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader, today said MacAskill had been “incompetent” in failing to get clear and unequivocal medical evidence that Megrahi’s death was imminent.

Reports from Tripoli claim he could now live for another seven years, although MacAskill said Megrahi was still critically and terminally ill.

Gray said: “A year ago I said this decision was wrong because the balance between justice and compassion was wrong, but a year later even that element of the decision, the medical evidence, now has very significant doubt cast on it.

I would add that, even a year ago, the medical evidence was already suspect. What’s more:

Anger over Megrahi’s continued survival has grown after it emerged that none of the four external specialists used by [prison doctor Fraser in issuing his report] had explicitly said he had three months to live.

Several said they were not consulted about the decision to release him on medical grounds.

The whole thing is a travesty. But it’s merely a symptom of what’s happened to the resolve and judgment of the western world. How al Megrahi and his family, and the government of Libya, must be chuckling at our foolishness.

I’m reading this book of short essays by Jorge Luis Borges that were originally part of a lecture series he gave in Buenos Aires in 1977. Here’s a wonderful excerpt:

Emerson said that a library is a magic chamber in which there are many enchanted spirits. They wake when we call them. When the book lies unopened, it is literally, geometrically, a volume, a thing among things. When we open it, when the book surrenders itself to the reader, the aesthetic event occurs. And even for the same reader the same book changes, for we change; we are the river of Heraclitus, who said that the man of yesterday is not the man of today, who will not be the man of tomorrow. We change incessantly, and each reading of a book, each rereading, each memory of the rereading, reinvents the text. The text too is the changing river of Heraclitus.

A Pew Research poll finds that a growing number of Americans think Obama is a closet Muslim. The figure is now 18%, up from 11% in March of 2009, while the number who believe he’s a Christian has dropped from 48% to the present 34%, and 43% say they don’t know what religion he practices. What’s more, these numbers reflect a poll taken before his remarks on the 9/11 mosque controversy; my guess is that the trend has only increased since then.

And what do I think? I’m with that 43% who don’t know. I would add that I not only don’t know what religion he practices, I don’t know if he practices one—and if he does, I don’t know whether it is for show or because he believes in the tenets of that religion.

And I believe that the whole controversy is a subset of the question: who is Obama, what is he? Is he a socialist or a capitalist? Is he even an American at all, as birthers ask?

One might just as well say he’s a space alien and leave it at that. There is no other president about whom we’ve asked similar questions, because in some essential way we’ve known who they are/were. We didn’t and still don’t really know Obama, although we’re getting there, we’re getting there.

The relevance of the speculation about Obama’s true religious beliefs is that it is a subset of the speculation on his inner core and how that is expressed in his behavior as president. What are his true wishes for, and allegiance to, this country? His actions make a great many people doubt that he has the usual conventional dedication to its history and its best interests at heart, a speculation that—despite all the arguments about the wisdom of previous presidents, and disagreements with their policies—has not been seriously leveled at his predecessors.

It is leveled at Obama, however. And it’s sticking and growing because of a combination of three things about him that are unique in presidential history:

(1) His previous track record in public life was relatively short.

(2) He has kept many of the other salient facts of his life hidden, and the press has allowed him to do so.

(3) He campaigned as one thing and has governed as another—and this is not true just of a detail or two, but of his basic political stance, including how liberal or middle-of-the-road he is.

Before Obama was president, the gaps only meant something to those who sensed something wrong or who disagreed with his political persuasion. Now that he has a track record and has behaved in a way that seems to ignore both the wishes of the American public and the country’s best interests, more people have learned to distrust him; he has earned it. And now some of the unique facts of his history, (ignored by many people during the campaign) take on added significance—his childhood years in Indonesia, for example—and they lend themselves to the Muslim theory.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and blank screens were made to be filled in. Before Obama was president, he benefited from that blankness because most people were inclined to fill in his blanks with positive characteristics: smart, calm, competent. Now that his track record is so abysmal, and so at odds with his campaign persona, they are more inclined to fill in the screen with attributes that explain why he has not done right by this country.

There are Muslims who do serve this country well—for example, in the armed forces. But many of our conflicts around the globe are with Muslim countries, and of course our jihadist terrorist enemies are Muslims whose allegiance to, and interpretation of, that religion is one of the main things that drives them. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is not what explains his poor behavior as president, it is his poor behavior as president that explains the idea that Obama owes his true allegiance to someone or something else—whether it be Islam, or socialism, or communism, or internationalism, or statism, or all of the above, or any other ism that seems to fit a growing fact situation that puzzles so many Americans.

[ADDENDUM: The Anchoress has some sobering musings on what the 9/11 mosque controversy says about America.]

[ADDENDUM II: Ace reports on a tape that purports to show the 9/11 mosque Iman being not so moderate.]

Ed Whelan has written another article in National Review examining Judge Walker’s behavior in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial. No one else in the press seems to be looking closely at what actually happened, how Walker ruled, and the ways in which the spokespeople (including Ted Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs) and the press have subsequently distorted what happened during the trial.

I was originally puzzled by reports indicating that the defense lawyers seemed to mount such an inadequate case, and to say shocking things to the judge such as “you don’t have to have evidence” on the subject of whether the traditional purpose of marriage is procreation, one of the contested issues in the trial. Well, it turns out that “you don’t have to have evidence” was the truncated quote to end all truncated quotes, and the defense lawyers weren’t so stupid after all.

It’s worth reading the whole article. In fact, it’s worth reading everything Whelan has written on the subject. But here’s an excerpt:

In context, it’s clear that Cooper [attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8] cited extensive evidence in the record, as well as relevant legal authorities, in support of the proposition that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” Indeed, the evidence that Prop 8 proponents submitted (and cited in their proposed findings of fact) in support of this heretofore obvious and noncontroversial proposition was overwhelming.

When Cooper stated “you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities”—Kingsley Davis and Blackstone and the other “eminent authorities” that Cooper was ready to discuss when Walker interrupted—and that the “cases themselves” “recognize this one after another,” it’s crystal-clear in context that he wasn’t contending that he hadn’t provided evidence or that he didn’t need to provide evidence or other authority. He was merely making the legally sound observation that the many cases recognizing the procreative purpose of marriage were an alternative and additional source of authority for the proposition.

But you wouldn’t know any of this from Walker’s highly distorting clip of Cooper’s statement—or from Olson’s contemptible misrepresentation of it, or the media’s mindless parroting of it.

Walker’s outrageous distortion on this point isn’t an aberration. As I will show when I have time, it’s representative of his entire modus operandi throughout his ruling.

The evidence (there’s that word again) mounts that Judge Walker’s rulings in Perry were bizarre and highly unusual. They point to the strong probability of a significant degree of judicial bias and/or incompetence. As for Olson—well, as the plaintiff’s lawyer, we really can’t expect objectivity from him. And then there’s the mainstream press; anyone who’s been paying attention should have given up long ago on expecting them to represent the situation fairly.

I remember model Twiggy. She was thin:

And then Kate Moss, ditto:

But this is getting ridiculous. And scary, too, if this woman’s body is seen as something to emulate. America’s Top Model? Perish the thought:

Here’s another photo, in case you think that one’s a fluke:

Come to think of it, though, she’s not really significantly thinner than Twiggy. She’s just taller—a lot taller (6′2″ vs. Twiggy’s 5′6″). Her height gives her an exceptionally elongated look that exaggerates her exceptional thinness (correction: emaciation).

[Hat tip: Althouse.]

Nancy Pelosi says it’s time to investigate—those who object to the 9/11 mosque, and how they might be funded and organized:

Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41204.html#ixzz0wyff8saL
“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

Scott at Powerline confesses, but he says he’s only a volunteer; no money was exchanged.

Me too—alas.

Too bad Nancy Pelosi is going to be re-elected in November. But at least we can hope that this profoundly un-American power-hungry Speaker will be divested of that position in 2011.

Random spell-challenged spambot seeking sympathy:

Some bowling balls are heavy and i accidentally dropped one on my foot. it is quite painfull.

Roger Simon (not the one at Pajamas; the political reporter one) says it’s very possible that Obama will be a one-termer, because he doesn’t “get” that to be re-elected he’s got to play to the polls.

But there’s a lot that Roger Simon doesn’t seem to “get,” either.

The first thing he doesn’t appear to get is that Obama didn’t choose his overbearing, rushed course because he’s tone-deaf to the wishes of the people. He chose it because he’s a statist with tyrannical desires. He did it, in other words, because he yes, he could. As Obama boasted at a big-bucks Hollywood fundraiser last night, when he was among friends and could speak freely:

We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda — one that helps working families — not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three…This is exactly when you want to be president. This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better…

I hope you understand why we’re here tonight. It’s not to take a picture with the president. We’re here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.

Does that sound like a man who doesn’t get it? Not at all. The idea was to lie about who he was, get into power, and then ram a progressive agenda through as quickly as possible before any consequences could be exercised by voters at the ballot box. The results were to be transformative in terms of the way government works—even though some of the other consequences might be a single term for him, and the end of the political careers of those who took what he calls “the tough votes” in order to push it all through despite the will of the people.

If you read the entire piece, you’ll see that Simon seems to approve of what Obama and the Democrats have done; he just wishes they would have done it a bit more slowly and not riled so many people in the process. And he makes the excellent (and quite correct) point that just because a position is popular it doesn’t make it right.

He then adds sarcastically:

Maybe Obama is disconnected. After all, as a former professor of constitutional law, he actually knows what the Constitution says.

His opponents have no such fetters. They know what they want the Constitution to say: yes to guns, no to gay marriage and never to mosques close to hallowed ground, though churches and synagogues are OK.

What’s so wrong with that? I’ll bet they poll great.

Earth to Roger Simon:

Obama was not a professor of constitutional law, he was a lecturer. And many legal scholars—and actual professors of constitutional law—say that the second amendment does indeed say “yes” to guns. In fact, the Supreme Court reaffirmed just that in a recent landmark case called District of Columbia v. Heller (you can look it up).

Oh, and the issue of gay marriage has yet to be put to that definitive test. You should see the back-and-forth arguments on the issue at the legal blogs and periodicals! No consensus whatsoever among legal scholars and con law experts—although there’s a somewhat prevelant idea even among liberals that Judge Walker may have overstepped in quite a few of the details of his Perry ruling.

Let’s see—that leaves us with the 9/11 mosque. Simon seems not to “get” (or is he being disingenuous?) that the vast majority of those criticizing the promoters of the mosque are saying that, although they have the constitutional right to build, they should decide not to, if they want to be sensitive to the feelings of the people. And that sort of freedom of speech—to criticize someone’s actions, and request that they do differently, and even demonstrate against them—is also an exercise of one’s constitutional rights, when last I checked.

But hey, I’m not a law professor. Or even a journalist writing at Politico. So maybe I don’t get it.

Or maybe I do.

It took six years, but Tom DeLay has been cleared in the investigation of his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

One is tempted to make puns on “DeLay” and “delay”—six years is an awfully long time—but at least the process was bipartisan, from the Bush to Obama presidencies, as well as the Attorneys General under each man.

And nada was found:

“The federal investigation of Tom DeLay is over, and there will be no charges,” [DeLay’s attorney] Cullen said. “This was one of the longest and expensive and thorough investigations in recent memory. DeLay took a tack right from the start that he had nothing to hide, and we have been in a routine and constant dialogue with [prosecutors].

Well, the wheels of justice grind slow, and all that. Please take a look at comment #6 in response to the Politico article (made by commenter “spontaneous” at 9:40 AM today; linking to it directly doesn’t seem to work):

A moment ago this story was a simple Post It Note, the way all Republicans are cleared, buried in another story. The double standard in this town is so deep, I’m surprised they mentioned it at all. While Democrats currently accused of wrongdoing host lavish parties for themselves as they wear broad smiles for the camera, they poignantly cry for mercy. Apparently, in the current climate of the Democratic Hypocritical Culture of Corruption, it is not welcome news that their premiere Republican target that they personally destroyed was cleared. As triumphant Democrat Nancy Pelosi rode to victory back in 2006 on her Trojan Horse of Ethics, her large coterie emerged — a literal army of Democrat offenders — that have made DeLay look like a saint.

Well, I don’t know about the “saint” part; DeLay still faces state charges in Texas (and I wonder whether there’s not some cause of action against him for his execrable showing on “Dancing With the Stars”. If not there should be; click the link at your peril.)

But the double standard “spontaneous” writes about has historically been the case more often than not. Remind me—why is Barney Frank still a member of the House in good standing despite this?:

In 1991, Barney Frank received an official reprimand for reflecting “discredit upon the House.” The reprimand came as a result of his relationship with a man named Steve Gobi, a male prostitute whom Frank initially paid $80 for sex. Frank later took Gobi to live with him in his home, making him a personal aide. He paid him $20,000 in compensation (unreported to the IRS) and let him use his car. Subsequent investigation revealed that in the course of their relationship, Frank used his congressional office and stationary to fix Gobi’s 33 parking fines. Frank also used his congressional letterhead to write a reference letter to Gobi’s probation officer — Gobi was under court supervision as a convicted felon with a prison record — in which he gave false information. Most damningly, the investigation found that Gobi ran a prostitution ring from Frank’s home. In his defense, Frank asserted he knew nothing of Gobi’s illicit enterprise.

The Democrat -controlled House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank after a heated debate during which some Republicans demanded expulsion…

After Gobi, Barney Frank become involved in another questionable — and possibly criminally tainted — relationship with a man called Herb Moses. Moses, whom Frank called his “spouse,” was a high-level executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998. Dubbed a “mortgage guru” by the National Mortgage News, Moses boasted that he helped develop “many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”…Frank continued to claim almost until the day of the collapse that the two mortgage giants were financially sound. If we lived in a sane world, Barney Frank would be compelled to testify about his culpability in the current crisis and what role his romantic involvement with Herb Moses — as well as the campaign contributions he received from Fannie and Freddie — played in his shilling for these two moribund institutions.

Ah, dream on—it’ll never happen.

Or will it? Depends on the results of the elections of 2010 and 2012, I suppose. Of course, it’s always possible that the voters in Frank’s district will make the question moot by finally refusing to re-elect him. But I wouldn’t sit on a hot stove waiting for that to happen, either.

I have no idea whether this report in Haaretz is true; only time will tell. But it’s certainly interesting:

Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the [9/11 mosque] project in the next few days.

…[S]everal people familiar with the debate among New York’s Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally.

A show, indeed—because they have already amply demonstrated their lack of true sensitivity.

But it still would be a good thing, and an example of how peaceful public pressure can sometimes work. The move—if it occurs—could also have some financial advantages for the mosque-builders:

Another factor in the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center, estimated to cost a hundred million dollars. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.

I think not. But stranger things have happened.