Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers writes, Governor Beshear is willing to peddle lies for money. What does that make him?:

All this puts me in the mood for another rendition of Monty Python's Galaxy Song, which ends:

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

• • • • •

^{h/t to consistently intelligent Media Czech at Barefoot and Progressive for relentlessly covering the Ark rip-off.}

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2006:

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Louisiana 1976, dadanation, Purple Priestess, ybruti, srkp23, and vcmvo2 as reader and editor.

The rescued diaries are:

• Frank Palmer continues yesterday's discussion on setting prices with The price of wages. (ybruti)
• medicalquack presents The Guideline Algorithm that Can Deny Care and Medications. (srkp23)
• ask reports that the U.S. is 17th in How Democratic? EIU's Annual Index. (ybruti)
• KAMuston spins a tale of murder and revenge in Old California in the latest of his series: PASSION AND OTHER SINS; PART THREE. (Purple Priestess)
• Full of wisdom, War on Error gives us A Heartfelt Gift, To the 100th Power. (Louisiana 1976)
• No Border Wall reports Desert Ecosystems Sliced and Diced by Border Walls. (srkp23)
• Big Chuck considers The "Age of Palin": Maybe More than a Temporary Lapse into Insanity. (ybruti)

jotter brings today's High Impact Diaries: December 28, 2010.

sardonyx has tonight's Top Comments: DK4 Beta Edition, Part IV: Exploring.

Enjoy and please rescue your own favorite diary from the past twenty-four hours in this Open Thread!

It's the end of year so we took a look at the most viewed content for 2010. While we don’t produce too many top ten lists here at Daily Kos, I did one last year on the most viewed diaries of 2009. One thing I found surprising again is that one of the diaries this year only received 38 comments and didn’t even make the recommended list. The same thing happened last year with this diary.

To compile the list we used Google Analytics with the only stipulations being that it had to be a diary that was published in 2010 and no front page writers or posts were eligible. You might be surprised to read that if we dropped the 2010 requirement three of these diaries would have been bumped for those published before the year began.

Without further ado:

Top ten most viewed diaries in 2010

10. The Surprising Relevance of Facts aka Anderson Cooper showed up for work by DiegoUK

9. Fishgrease: DKos Booming School by Fishgrease

8. The day the Klan messed with the wrong people by gjohnsit

7. Anonymous 1, Oregon Tea Party 0 by Neon Vincent

6. What Happens When A Liberal Black Man Goes To Glenn Beck's "I Have A Dream, Too" Speech?!? by AverageBro

5. Want a raise? Wash your vagina. by dhonig

4. Actor with Down Syndrome Puts Palin in Her Place by CatM

3. Westboro Baptist Church Pwned! by jetskreemr

2. 'So how's that hopey, changey thing workin' out for ya?' by wikoogle

1. We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, Now you get mad!? by Nica24

Here are the three diaries that would have made the list if we included those published before 2010:

• Photo Tour of The Solar System (Part 1) by Troubadour
• America Before Pearl Harbor - Early Kodachrome Images by johnnygunn
• The 25 BEST things ever said, by anyone by plf515

Washington Post:

In the version of history being taught in some Virginia classrooms, New Orleans began the 1800s as a bustling U.S. harbor (instead of as a Spanish colonial one). The Confederacy included 12 states (instead of 11). And the United States entered World War I in 1916 (instead of in 1917).

These are among the dozens of errors historians have found since Virginia officials ordered a review of textbooks by Five Ponds Press, the publisher responsible for a controversial claim that African American soldiers fought for the South in large numbers during the Civil War.

To give you an idea how bad the scholarship was, one of the five academics who reviewed the textbooks compiled a ten-page-long list of errors.

Historian Mary Miley Theobald, a former Virginia Commonwealth University professor, reviewed "Our America" and concluded that it was "just too shocking for words."

"Any literate person could have opened that book and immediately found a mistake," she said.

The review process began after The Post reported on the Civil War claims earlier this year. The author of the text defended her work by explaining she had conducted her research online, citing works published on the Internet by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. According to The Post, the group dismisses the role that slavery played in the Civil War, instead characterizing it as battle over states' rights -- a position embraced by Gov. Bob McDonnell in commemorating the South's secession from the Union. (McDonnell, who didn't even mention slavery, eventually conceded that it was wrong to completely omit any references to slavery.)

Now, to be fair to the textbook author, the Commonwealth of Virginia made it pretty clear how it wanted to handle discussions of the Civil War and slavery. The official position of the commonwealth's Department of Education is that while slavery was one of the four issues that divided the nation before the Civil War, the war itself was primarily a matter of states' rights:

The South feared that the North would take control of Congress, and Southerners began to proclaim states’ rights as a means of self-protection.

The North believed that the nation was a union that could not be divided.

While the Civil War did not begin as a war to abolish slavery, issues surrounding slavery deeply divided the nation.

Of course, some might say the Civil War began when the South seceded from the union and confederate soldiers opened fire on Fort Sumter. And some might say that given that history, it is historical folly to minimize the fact that among the "rights" that southerners sought to defend was the right to own other human beings. Especially given that in seceding, South Carolina mentioned slavery no less than eighteen times.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Then again, despite this obvious history, there are some who actually go so far as to call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. Others merely describe it as such. And when that description becomes a state government's officially recognized narrative of the war, you shouldn't be surprised when you end up with lousy textbooks.

The window to change Senate rules opens just one week from now, on January 5th. With that date rapidly approaching, at Daily Kos we are stepping up our efforts to support rules reform with a variety of actions over the next week. You can join those efforts now by signing our petition to make the filibuster a real filibuster.

Based on comments I have seen on blogs and social networking sites, there is still some trepidation among progressives about the campaign to reform Senate rules. Here are three of the biggest worries that I have seen, all of which can be put to rest:

#1: It will still take 60 votes to pass legislation or confirm nominations
Of all Senate rules, the 60-vote threshold to end debate has drawn the most attention over the last few years. As such, many casual observers of the current rules reform fight have conflated this campaign with an attempt to put an end to the 60-vote threshold and go to a simple-majority Senate. This prospect worries quite a few people, especially now that Republicans have increased their number in Congress.

However, this campaign, even if successful, will not end the 60-vote Senate. Of the rules changes being discussed, none of them will prevent 41 Senators from blocking any nomination or legislation. Whether or not you want to see the 60-vote threshold lowered, the 60-vote threshold will not be lowered by this campaign. Period.

Among the changes actually being discussed, new rules may shift the burden of a filibuster away from those seeking to break a filibuster, and toward those wishing to continue one. That is, 41 votes will be required to continue a filibuster, rather than the current 60 to break one.

Also, new rules will also require Senators to show up and engage in a televised talk-a-thon if they wish to filibuster. This will enact a public price for obstruction. Right now, Senators don’t even have to show up to filibuster--it’s painless.

Together, these two changes would not end the filibuster, but they would make it a real filibuster. If that’s something you support, sign our petition to make the filibuster a real filibuster.

#2: Republicans will change Senate rules no matter what we do
I’ve also seen some progressives worried that if Democrats change Senate rules with only a simple majority vote (“The Constitutional Option”), then Republicans will retaliate with far more severe rules changes the next time they control the Senate and the White House. There are two reasons why this is not a valid concern.

First, Republicans are going to change Senate rules the next time they are in charge no matter what Democrats do now. Lest we forget, n 2005 Republicans attempted to entirely abolish filibusters on judicial nominations. The GOP acted first on this one, not Democrats. And, as part of their general tendency to more aggressively apply unusual parliamentary procedure to further their goals, Republicans will act to change the rules again, no matter what we do now.

Also, Democrats have come so close to changing the rules now--all Democrats have signed a letter in support, and Harry Reid promised rules reform--that even if Republicans were to act purely out of retaliation, what we have done is already a casus belli for spiteful retaliation. Since there is no preventing retaliation based on what we have already done, we might as well just get the reforms we want.

#3: Senate obstruction helps conservatives more than progressives
A third common fear of rules reform among progressives is that making it more difficult to filibuster would help conservatives over the next two years more than progressives. This line of thinking comes mainly from the left-wing of the party, some of whom believe that the new Republican-controlled House, in combination with a much more conservative Senate and a President willing to cut deals, means progressives must operate as though we were in the opposition.

Again, no. The only way making it more difficult to filibuster would reduce the ability of Senate progressives to block legislation is if there was actually a bloc of 41 progressive Senators willing to filibuster non-progressive legislation. There is no such bloc now, and there won’t be in 2011-2012 either.

In the short-term, no one will ever get 41 Senate Democrats to oppose any nomination or piece of legislation that is supported by both President Obama and a majority of the incoming House and Senate. Even during the inevitable times when President Obama will face significant opposition from Congressional Democrats over deals he cuts with the Republican leadership, 41 of the current 53 Senate Democrats will never, ever rise up in opposition to those deals. All of 12 returning Senate Democrats opposed the tax cut deal, for example. Senate Democrats are simply not a rambunctious enough bunch to find 41 of their number to oppose a Democratic President on anything.

Even in some alternate reality where Senate Democrats were that rebellious, having to take to the floor or the Senate to maintain their opposition doesn’t seem like a real deterrence to such a group. It didn’t deter Bernie Sanders from talking for eight hours on the Senate floor in opposition to the tax cut deal, for example.

***

There is nothing for progressives to fear from Senate rules reform. Additionally, as I will argue tomorrow, there is quite a lot to be gained.

In the meantime, sign up to make the filibuster a real filibuster. We are joining with Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley on that effort, and they will use your show of support to make the case for the real filibuster to their colleagues.

Following reports earlier today that former senate candidate Christine O'Donnell was the target of a criminal probe into a misuse of campaign money, O'Donnell is firing back -- and if you were looking for patented O'Donnell crazy, she doesn't disappoint.

O'Donnell begins:

Since anonymous sources are being taken seriously, please allow me to share some tips I've received and keep the tipsters' identities anonymous. We've been warned by multiple high-ranking Democrat insiders that the Delaware Democrat and Republican political establishment is jointly planning to pull out all the stops to ensure I would never again upset the apple cart. Specifically they told me the plan was to crush me with investigations, lawsuits and false accusations so that my political reputation would become so toxic no one would ever get behind me.

First, that would be Democratic insiders. Second, a report about an investigation about specific allegations that were made last September hardly qualifies as a "crush [of] investigations, lawsuits and false accusations." And third, her political reputation was made toxic by the incredibly long list of crazy that came out of O'Donnell's own mouth over the years. In fact, allegations of a misuse of funds is probably the least crazy thing ever attached to her name.

O'Donnell continued:

I was warned by numerous sources that the DE political establishment is going to use every resource available to them. So given that the King of the Delaware Political Establishment just so happens to be the Vice President of the most liberal Presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table. And further connecting the dots, do you think it is just a coincidence that Melanie Sloan was a senior Biden staffer just before she joined CREW and filed her complaint against me?!

Well, sure. The Vice President probably has a get-Christine war room set up at FBI headquarters.

And as for Melanie Sloan? She worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee when then-Senator Biden was its chairman ... seventeen years ago.

O'Donnell concluded by saying:

I have faith that our supporters and the general public will see right through these thug tactics. This is simply an Establishment trick to stop the anti-establishment Tea Party movement in its tracks. Heck, the Presidency is at stake in 2012.

Is she announcing her candidacy?

Sarah Palin says "refudiate" was just a typo. But, as Cenk points out, not only is the 'f' key nowhere near the 'p' key, she'd used the 'word' refudiate -- with an 'f,' not a 'p' -- in an appearance on Fox long before her infamous tweet.

Opinion Research Corporation for CNN. 12/17-19. 1000 American adults. MoE 3.0%.

In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?

Among all American adults: (MoE: 3.0%)
Succeed: 61%
Fail: 27%

Among Democrats: (MoE: 6.5%)
Succeed: 89%
Fail: 5%

Among independents (MoE: 4.5%)
Succeed: 59%
Fail: 27%

Among Republicans: (MoE: 6.0%)
Succeed: 27%
Fail: 61%

Given that the overwhelming majority of Americans hope President Obama's policies succeed, your first reaction to those numbers might be to shrug. But the fact that more than a quarter of Americans are rooting for his policies to fail is actually a fairly substantial chunk of the country and you won't be surprised to find out who is rooting for failure: the GOP.

According to the poll, 61% of Republicans are rooting for Obama's policies to fail. Not even conservatives (51%) or tea partiers (57%) are rooting as strongly for his failure. In contrast, 89% of Democrats and 59% of independents hope President Obama's policies succeed.

Whether or not you believe President Obama is pursuing the right policies, the goals of those policies -- things like improving the economy, keeping America secure, combatting discrimination, and reducing inequality -- shouldn't be that controversial. Still, Republicans overwhelmingly want Obama to fail. Why?

Remember John Hofmeister?

He's the former Shell Oil president who spent the BP oil disaster claiming that the leak could be cleaned up by attaching a big vacuum cleaner to a supertanker. When they finally tried Hofmeister's plan, it was a miserable failure, but he still got a ton of uncritical coverage from the media for his idea -- including his totally false conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration was blocking his plan at the behest of unions because they were refusing to waive the Jones Act.

Well, Hofmeister is now making a new claim: he's saying that by the time the presidential election rolls around, gas will be at $5 per gallon.

The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

"I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.

...

Gasoline prices have been steadily rising. Last week, gas prices crossed the $3 mark for the first time since October 2008. According to AAA figures, prices are up 4% from a month ago and 16% from the $2.585 average a year ago.

A study from the Oil Price Information Service estimates drivers will spend $305 on gasoline in December. According to the study, fuel prices are up 13.6% from last December and 76% higher from December 2008.

And who does Hofmeister say is to blame for these increasing prices? Well, naturally, President Obama:

Hofmeister, who earlier aired his concerns in an interview with Platts Energy Week, criticized the administration for cracking down on domestic oil drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"It is pure politics that keeps us from drilling more of our own resources," he said.

Sure. It's Obama's fault that oil is a finite resource. If he would just wave his magic wand and release the ingenuity of the oil industry, we'd have an unlimited, cheap, and risk-free source of energy right at our fingertips. I mean, if we just did more drilling like Deepwater Horizon, we'd have everything we could ever want in the world, and it would all be here within two or three months, because the people who say oil is a limited natural resource are crazy. Right?

Over the past six months, our polling partners at PPP have provided a pretty awesome resource. They have compiled fairly recent approval numbers for nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, including over a dozen Senators up for re-election in 2012.

On paper, 2012 should be a pretty tough year for Democrats in the Senate, despite the prospects for a rebound election in the wake of November's defeats. The Democrats, as often happens in Senate election cycles, are victims of their own success: their excellent performance in 2006 means that the Democrats have a far bigger class of Senators to defend in 23 months.

So, who is looking particularly vulnerable heading into the cycle. The three candidates in the most dire straits consist of one Republican, one Democrat, and one...um...whatever the hell Joe Lieberman is.

Approval ratings, candidates facing re-election in 2012, Lowest three

Lieberman's problem, according to PPP's Tom Jensen, is the same problem confronted by another hugely unpopular Senator (outgoing Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter):

Specter and Lieberman's numbers definitely speak to the perils of having it both ways...they don't really make Democrats or Republicans particularly happy and you can get away with that if independents love you for your independence but in their cases that has not happened.

Jensen does wonder aloud if Lieberman's leadership role on DADT repeal has put him back in good stead with Democrats, and promises to poll the state again in the near future. Lieberman's forced retirement could grow more likely if Linda McMahon decides to make another Senate bid. She has shown signs of doing so, and if she does, Lieberman cannot rely on Republican votes to save him the way that they did in 2006.

Given Ensign's travails, a net negative approval of seven points is actually not all that bad. That said, it seems pretty unlikely that Ensign survives the 2012 campaign. Indeed, his fate may well get sealed in the GOP primary, where he is almost certain to face a high profile battle. The most likely intraparty rival for Ensign looks to be upstate Congressman Dean Heller, who may well have the tacit backing of both Nevada and DC Republicans.

While Casey's numbers are not awful, they are mediocre in a state that was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats in 2010. His saving grace may well be the absence of an obvious first-tier challenger. The GOP's best bet might be suburban Congressman Jim Gerlach, but life in the majority might suit him well, and make him less likely to move, especially since the GOP now controls the redistricting process in the state.

Other incumbent Senators who might get targeted comprise a quartet of Democrats whose approval ratings range from a net approval of -1 to +4. They are: Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Sherrod Brown (OH). Democrats have to hope that the electorate in the four key states represented by those Senators behave like they did in 2008 (when President Obama came with 10,000 votes of sweeping them) than they did in 2010, when the GOP dominated in these four states.

On the other end of the spectrum are the four most popular Senators up for re-election in 2012. Among those polled by PPP, the four top dogs split evenly between the Democrats (Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar and New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman) and the GOP (Maine's Olympia Snowe and Massachusetts' Scott Brown). Of the four, only Brown is likely to get targeted, if only because of the natural terrain in the Bay State.

The failed senate candidate from Delaware may not be a witch, but is she a criminal?

A person with knowledge of the investigation says federal authorities have opened a criminal probe of Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell to determine if the former Senate candidate broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity to protect the identity of a client who has been questioned in the probe. The case, which has been assigned to two federal prosecutors and two FBI agents in Delaware, has not been sent to a grand jury.

These allegations against O'Donnell are not new. As you may recall, last September:

... Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints with the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against newly-minted Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell (R) for using campaign funds for personal living expenses.  

... based, in part, on the affidavit of former campaign aide David Keegan.  Mr. Keegan explained that in 2009, when Ms. O'Donnell was out of money, she paid her landlord, Brent Vasher, two months rent out of her campaign funds. On FEC forms, Ms. O'Donnell called the expenditures "expense reimbursements." Mr. Keegan also attested that Ms. O'Donnell routinely used campaign funds for meals and gas, and even a bowling outing.

Too bad about not being a witch, because this would be a good time to have a make-it-go-away spell handy.

• This is the slowest time of the year around here, so if you're hanging out at Daily Kos, you are the elite of the elite. That, or you're desperately trying to pass time at work during YOUR slowest time of the year.
• Judith Miller ends up at Newsmax, where she belonged all along.
• 2011 will be the year of unbridled GOP xenophobia.
• Dear "No Labels", that sign behind you guys? That's a lable,

  

  Then again, if you were going for ironic, then bravo!

• If lawmakers want to end lame duck sessions, then I wouldn't cry too much about it. Just make sure you cut their pay accordingly. Or better yet, swear the new congress in sooner, so that, you know, we have a functioning government at all times.

  We wouldn't want to prevent a lame duck Republican congress from, you know, impeaching presidents like Clinton.

• Nothing like having to actually govern to destroy teabagger rhetoric.
• How many Christine O'Donnell "witchhunt" jokes will we have to endure?

  And I see no problem with using campaign funds for living expenses. Otherwise, running for office becomes truly limited to only those wealthy enough to live a year or two without salary.

The new sheriff in town is not at all blase about the foreclosure fraud crisis.

The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems.

While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear.

First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used “robo-signers,” false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes.

Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago....

Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes.

The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers.

Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks....

A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families.

Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family’s already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest.

Hopefully, Warren's voice will be heard within the administration not just in preventing future foreclosure fraud crises, but in dealing with this one, and she can counter Geithner's unwillingness to intervene against the banks. It's about time there was a very strong voice in Treasury speaking out on behalf of the borrowers.

Around the dinner table when I was a kid growing up in southwest Georgia, there were usually 14 people from four generations: great-grandparents, grandparents, my mother, one aunt, two uncles, five cousins and me. The motivation was partly familial and cultural, but it was also financial. Money was in short supply, and our little clan could manage better under one dilapidated roof than scattered around. There were other benefits; for example, always having an adult to get comfort from and hearing some astonishing life stories from my elders. The overall experience made communal living in the '60s and '70s that others saw as experimental adventures perfectly natural to me. But that counter-cultural communalism wasn't multigenerational and kinship related.

Multigenerational arrangements are not the way most Americans live today, not the way most have lived for a very long time. For three decades, however, there's been a steady rise in multigenerational kin living together, as reported earlier this year by a Pew Research Center survey. This showed a 33 percent increase since 1980 in the proportion of Americans living in such households, "a sharp trend reversal. From 1940 to 1980, the share of Americans living in such households had declined by more than half."

Part of the trend is a consequence of a rise in immigrant families used to traditional multigenerational households. Part has been driven by the aging of the population, with baby boomers choosing to have their parents move in with them. The boomers can take care of their parents, and their parents can watch the kids. Between 2000 and 2007, there was a 67 percent rise in seniors living multigenerationally.

But the biggest impact, the one most familiar to us, has come from a trend among young adults - especially singles and those without children - moving back in with their parents out of economic necessity. As of 2007, one of five children age 24 to 35 had moved back home, double the number in 1980. A Census report in October found the poverty rate for the 5.5 million young adults now living with their parents to be 8.5 percent. Had they not lived at home, it would have been 42.8 percent.

In addition to these changes, more adult siblings have moved in together, and young adults hammered by student loans and a grim job market have moved in with grandparents.

Altogether, these trends have put 49 million Americans into homes with at least two adult generations. In 1980, there were only 28 million living in such arrangements. That's a 75 percent increase in a period when the population grew 36 percent. The steady move toward multigenerational households has surged even more in the past few years.

According to an analysis of Census data by The New York Times, the Great Recession has boosted the number of Americans living in multifamily, multigenerational arrangements. And much of it is not voluntary. Michael Luo writes:

Census Bureau data released in September showed that the number of multifamily households jumped 11.7 percent from 2008 to 2010, reaching 15.5 million, or 13.2 percent of all households. It is the highest proportion since at least 1968, accounting for 54 million people.

Even that figure, however, is undoubtedly an undercount of the phenomenon social service providers call “doubling up,” which has ballooned in the recession and anemic recovery. The census’ multifamily household figures, for example, do not include such situations as when a single brother and a single sister move in together, or when a childless adult goes to live with his or her parents.

For many, the arrangements represent their last best option, the only way to stave off entering a homeless shelter or sleeping in their cars. In fact, nearly half of the people in shelters in 2009 who had not previously been homeless had been staying with family members or friends, according to a recent report, making clear that the arrangements are frequently a final way station on the way to homelessness.

A New York Times analysis of census “microdata,” prepared by the University of Minnesota’s state population center, found that the average income of multifamily households in the records fell by more than 5 percent from 2009 to 2010, twice as much as households over all, suggesting that many who are living in such arrangements are under financial siege.

Whatever the advantages of these arrangements of necessity, they can be tough for all concerned. Loss of independence and privacy, "meddling," differences of opinion about child-rearing between parents and grandparents, as well as added financial stresses brought on by families who take in the unemployed or elders whose savings no longer contribute much income thanks to low interest rates. And the arrangements will no doubt have economic effects of their own, including a reduction in the demand for new housing and an increase in demand for certain types of housing.

Among the questions posed by the growth in multigenerational arrangements is whether the underlying trend will continue its current direction or reverse as the fractured economy improves, however much that happens. Pretty much anybody's guess.

In a post yesterday, I said:

What we have here is the President praising the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles for giving the concept of second chances -- what some might describe as a Christian principle -- a national platform, but give Fox a few days and they'll have their viewers convinced that Obama was kicking Bo's head in while praising Michael Vick's despicable crimes.

But it turns out that it might not take a few days -- here's Tucker Carlson, sitting in for Sean Hannity, last night on Fox:

Alright, President Obama -- it has been confirmed by the White House -- called the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, and during the course of their conversation thanked him for giving Michael Vick a second chance.

Now, I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale.

... and apparently no mention of the fact that the purpose of the call was to praise owner Jeffery Lurie for:

... the most ambitious green initiative yet: the installation of about 2,500 solar panels, 80 20-foot-highwind turbines and a generator that runs on natural gas and biodiesel so that Lincoln Financial Field, the Eagles’ home, will be the first stadium capable of generating all its own electricity.

... or that according to Lurie, the President said:

"... it's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail. And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall."

Nope. It's a controversy about the President getting behind a dog killer.

The Republican alarm bells are ringing once again. The very idea of closing debate on a Senate rules change by majority vote, as Republicans themselves proposed doing just a few years ago, is now being treated to the "unprecedented power grab" routine.

What do I mean by routine?

Well, I mean it's a standard play, like so many of their Frank Luntz focus group-tested go-to phraseology.

Like when disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) attacked, well, pretty much everything, in March of 2009 as "a power grab in virtually every way."

Or when Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) attacked the automakers' bailout (as well as the Wall Street bailout that he voted for) as "a major power grab by the White House on the heels of another power grab from Secretary Geithner."

Or when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) called the Clean Water Restoration Act the, "biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation."

Or when good, ol' refashioned moderate independent-type Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) called proposed new EPA regulations on greenhouse gasses, "an unprecedented power grab."

Or when Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) insisted that America was "where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy." The problem? "You still had votes but the votes were just power grabs like you see in Iran, and other places in South America, like Chavez is running down in Venezuela."

Or when former Sen. Bill Armstrong (R-CO) said that having curriculum standards for university accreditation was "part of an unprecedented power grab."

Or when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called the 2002 proposal to expand hate crimes legislation to cover attacks against gay or disabled Americans a, "power grab" by federal prosecutors.

And net neutrality? Also a power grab, of course, says the Washington Times.

And of course, there's also this gem from former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who insisted even at the height of the 2005 nuclear option tensions, that it was the Democratic use of the filibuster that was really the, "power grab of unprecedented proportions." And he helpfully pointed out to us then that, "with more filibusters threatened ... the power grab would become even bolder and more entrenched."

So what's the point here? Certainly not that the only people accusing others of "unprecedented power grabs" are Republicans. Far from it.

It's just this: If you hear a Republican accusing Democrats of an "unprecedented power grab," be sure to check that the sun is rising in the East, and that dogs are still biting men. You've seen it before, and you'll see it again. And as the last quote illustrates, it won't even matter if the shoe is on the other foot. Not only will what Democrats do still be called a "power grab," but it'll be called "hypocrisy" as well. Count on it.

Grab some power for yourself, too. Lend your support to Senate rules reform. Sign our petition. Demand reform of Senate rules, and make the filibuster real.

You know how when we're talking about rules reform, we're always wondering whether it might come back to bite Democrats? About whether it's something they'll eventually be sorry about?

Well, it's always worth considering, of course. But then again, it's always something that can be changed back, too:

In 2007, just weeks after Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and six years after the first passel of Bush tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats made a key change to the budget rules to prevent that episode from repeating itself.

Republicans had used the budget reconciliation process -- immune from a filibuster -- to pass the cuts and explode the deficit: two things the reconciliation process was never meant to allow. To get away with it, Republicans were forced to include a 10-year sunset in package -- planting the seeds for the tax cut fight we just saw on Capitol Hill. After Dems wrested control of Congress, they banned the reconciliation loopholes used by the GOP altogether.

But as they return to power in the House of Representatives, Republicans are taking steps to unravel those changes.

Yes, in 2001 and 2003, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass the ruinous tax cuts... that were just renewed. Yes, reconciliation was never supposed to be used for that purpose. Yes, the 2003 package even had the special distinction of having been passed only thanks to then-Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote. (Try to square that in your mind with the Republicans calling Democratic use of reconciliation a "nuclear option.") Yes, Democrats changed the rules in 2007 so that this wouldn't happen again. Yes, that rule (among other things) just recently prevented Democrats from using reconciliation to pass tax cut extensions limited to just middle class.

And yes, Republicans are trying to change them right back so that they can do whatever they want.

Now, granted, this is a change taking place in the House and not the Senate, and it's really only in the Senate where rules like this pose a serious obstacle, since the House can waive pretty much any restriction it wants to so long as it can muster a majority for it. But the principle is an important one: Republicans don't care what you think the rules are, they only care what they think they are, whether the results are consistent or not. Everything the government wants to do has to be paid for because of the growing federal deficit. Except taxes, of course. At least, tax cuts that Republicans feel like passing at any particular moment. Not so much the case when the cut in question might be credited to Democrats.

But, back to the point. Rules, to Republicans, are largely pointless when they get in their way. And should Republicans in the Senate succeed in regaining the majority, they'll surely attempt to make the same kind of change they're setting their sights on in the House. In fact, there's little reason to expect them to wait to win the majority before they try this one, though the odds of prevailing would surely be somewhat higher if they do.

There's no direct analog to the question of filibuster reform, of course. You'd have to infer that the House Republican willingness to change a pretty common sense reconciliation rule, taken together with the willingness of Congressional Republicans in general to insist that tax cuts don't need to be paid for, to leap to the conclusion that Senate Republicans would also seek to change this rule. And then from there to the conclusion that there are probably other inconvenient rules that a future Democratic minority might seek to use to hamstring Republican attempts to force their agenda through without a so-called "filibuster proof majority," like, say, the filibuster rules.

But -- and maybe it's just me -- I think it's pretty easy to imagine.