H/T the comments at AAPS News of the Day which are a must read if you want to understand more.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Ready or not, it's Halloween, so I wanted to wish a nightmarishly good time on all my readers. I'm not wearing a costume, but Coco managed to look a little ghoulish for the occasion.

And I did manage to carve my pumpkin before the sun completely set.

Lucky for me, and lucky for the pumpkin that there was a human to provide the necessary economic stimulus to bail it out and transform it into something useful before the deadline.

Seriously.

Just look what happens to pumpkins that wither and die without intervention!

Trick or treat!

In light of the previous post on free speech (and for innumerable other reasons), I find it tough to see how any libertarian could possibly justify voting for Barack Obama. I understand why McCain could be considered beyond the pale by libertarians, especially the purists of the Large L variety, and I have voiced my disagreements with him many times. But voting for Obama is something else. He's not merely a statist, but he may be the most statist candidate who ever ran for president.

Yesterday Glenn Reynolds linked Todd Zywicki's observations on this subject. He thinks it may have to do with the fact that libertarians simply find Obama personally likeable, and have not taken the time to think about his positions on the issues:

...I have slowly come to the conclusion that as bad as McCain is, Obama really is much, much worse than I realized for a long time. Maybe I'm just slower at this than others, but it really took a long for it to sink in to me exactly how far left Obama really is. On every single issue that I am aware of, he seems to be at the far left end of the Democratic Party spectrum. I mean really out there.

I think that my slowness to really pick up on this was due to several factors. First, Obama's demeanor is essentially moderate--he doesn't come across as a Howard Dean crazy type. I think this leads one to assume his policies are moderate. Second, my resistance to McCain was really quite strong--I've criticized him here before, especially for the way it seems that he approaches problems. Third, until recently McCain has really run a terrible campaign in terms of explaining the differences between himself and Obama in terms of illustrating exactly how far left Obama is. Fourth, because of media bias, the media has tended to reinforce the idea that Obama is a moderate and not to highlight the embarrassing parts of his message.

Perhaps most fundamentally, given the history of the world over the past 25 years I think I just had assumed that no serious politician or thinker would in this day and age hold the sorts of views that Obama seems to hold. Raising taxes in a recession, protectionism, abolition of the secret ballot for union elections, big spending increases, nationalized health care, and most appallingly (to my mind) the potential reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine"--I mean this is pretty serious stuff. And when combined with a Democratic Congress, I think we may be talking about (to use Thomas Sowell's recent phrase) a "point of no return." I guess I just assumed that Obama would be sort of Bill Clintonish--"the era of big government is over" and all that stuff. That he would have absorbed the basic insights of recent decades on taxes, trade, regulation, etc.

I think most people who have studied Barack Obama's redistributionist views would agree that he is considerably to the left of Clinton, if not downright socialistic.

So what's up? Might libertarians for Obama be engaged in what Glenn Reynolds and Matt Welch characterized as wishful thinking?

In light of history, it would be hyperbole to argue that Obama is the antithesis of libertarianism. But consider this: there's already burgeoning movement of Americans (ranging from plumbers to economists) who are so appalled by Obama's incentive-stifling tax policies that they're threatening to go John Galt. (If that's not a clue for the apparently clueless, I don't know what would be. )

So, I understand why libertarians might want to vote for Bob Barr over John McCain.

But I find myself wondering whether those libertarians who are voting Obama are in effect voting to crush John Galt.

I hope it's ignorance and not cognitive dissonance.

M. Simon's post about the hypnotic qualities of Barack Obama made me recall something which might be of interest, and which may or may not shed light on the human perceptions involved.

Basically, I found Barack Obama interesting at first, and the fact that he had a more pleasant voice than Hillary made me favor his dulcet tones over her shrill screechiness. Not that I ever contemplated voting for him in the general election, but if I have to endure socialism, I'd at least prefer not to have to listen to shrill voices all the time. I have a real problem listening to unpleasant sounds, especially grating ones, and it gets worse as I get older. (This is not sarcasm, but a true statement.)

Yet I don't think this means I am being lulled into a false sense of security by the pleasant tones, much less hypnotized. I am one of those people who cannot be hypnotized (yes, it has been tried), because my overwhelming sense of skepticism is aggravated by the fact that hypnosis is a form of manipulation, and when I perceive that people are trying to manipulate me, I do not go along with them, even when I agree with them. (Hell, I couldn't even meditate when I tried, for which I was gently chided by a meditation expert who was conducting an MCLE seminar.) My friends consist of people who do not and would not try to mess with me or manipulate me the way so many people have over the years -- especially those who claim to want to "help." (My favorite bumpersticker is "DEAR GOD, PLEASE DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT HELP ME ANYMORE.") So, for me, Obama's words don't have any sort of hypnotic effect. He's easy to tune out, though.

The problem I have with him is that I have already grown sick to death of him, and he hasn't even been elected yet.

Funny, because I found Mikhail Gorbachev refreshing too. Put a nice, fresh, pleasant face on Communism, eh? My father (a retired officer who had served in World War II) warned me that he could end up being far worse than the mean-looking guys, and that we would be better off with a scowling ugly Russian -- especially ordinary people who need to clearly understand the nature of the enemy. I noticed that leftists felt the same way about Ronald Reagan. They hated his likeability for reasons similar to my father's. Republicans were supposed to be mean and ugly like Nixon. Not avuncular and happy like Reagan.

I don't know where the hell I'm going with this, because it is not my purpose to compare Obama to Reagan or Gorbachev, or any of the three to each other.

But as to hypnosis, fortunately the conventional wisdom holds that people cannot be hynotized to do things against their will or against their better judgment. The people who want to be hypnotized by Barack Obama can go ahead and be hypnotized.

For me, his curtain of change is soundproof.

MORE: Speaking of Ronald Reagan, here's David Bernstein:

The last thing the U.S. needs is a left-wing Ronald Reagan, but that might well be what we get.

Tom Maguire asks some good questions about the recent news item involving Barack Obama's aunt:

Barack Obama has an aunt (OK, a half-aunt) living in Boston and we need a British newspaper to tell us this? What else are we going to learn about Obama after we elect him? And will we learn it from our own ever-vigilant press, or must we rely on the kindness of foreigners?

But there's a penalty to be paid. When they do, they are dropped from the campaign, and good luck covering anything after that:

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

[...]

After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.

Meanwhile, retired military officers who have offered analyses to the occasionally vigilant press are finding themselves investigated by the FCC:

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The probe is sending chills through the ranks of military commentators, some of them decorated war heroes who share their expertise with millions of lay viewers. They see it as one in a series of moves the Left is making to intimidate and shut up its critics.

"We are seeing the dawn of a new era of the current Democratic leadership trying to muzzle free speech and the First Amendment," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a Fox News analyst, told HUMAN EVENTS. "It may be the most invasive intrusion that we have seen in our history. There will be more of these tactics to follow."

Said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of Fox's first defense analysts, "It's an affront to freedom of speech. As retired officers, we're private citizens and can say anything we want under the First Amendment. The whole thing was to explain to the American people what was going on in war and analyzing it."

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

Considering the multi-level government investigation of Joe the Plumber (an ordinary citizen who asked Obama a question prompting his "spread the wealth" reply), I'd say that if Obama is elected, all signs point in the direction of a major crackdown on vigilance.

This is the first time I've ever seen a presidential campaign which has repeatedly sought criminal prosecution of its critics.

We've all heard that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

But if the price of vigilance means a literal loss of freedom, what then?

The last day or so I have been looking at the The Mass Psychology of Fascism and how to Escape from Freedom. Not the books. Stuff on the net. Let me start with Ali Sina's discussion of the cult of personality.

There are other disturbing similarities. Like Hitler and Khomeini, Obama also likes to create a cult of personality around himself. As stated above, when a large number of a population is discontent, a charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and present himself as the agent of change. He can create a cult of Personality by associating himself with the idea of change. He convinces everyone that things are terrible and a drastic change is needed. He then casts himself as the only person who can deliver this revolutionary transformation that everyone is waiting for. He portrays himself as a benevolent guide; the only one who cares about people and their needs and can pull them out of their alleged misery. In reality, they have no clue about how to address the problem - have no experience, no track record. But they are convincing because they are self assured.

These revolutionary leaders need foes. They exaggerate the problems. They make everything look gloomy. They lie, cheat and slander their opponents while casting themselves as the saviors of the nation. Hitler chose the Jews to blame for everything that was wrong in Germany. Khomeini made the Shah and his westernization plans his scapegoats. Obama has chosen President George W. Bush to smear. He can rally people around himself, as long as he can instill in them the dislike of Bush and equate his rival, McCain to him. Sigmund Freud wrote, "It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness" (Civilization and Its Discontents).

A cult of personality is excessive adulation, admiration and exaltation of a charismatic leader, often with unproven merits or achievements. It is similar to hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders.

And then we have Fouad Ajami discussing Obama and the Politics of Crowds.

There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.

As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, "Crowds and Power" (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when "distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd." These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.

On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest -- African-Americans and affluent white liberals -- has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking -- Canetti's feeling of equality within the crowd. The day after, the crowd will of course discover its own fissures. The affluent will have to pay for the programs promised the poor. The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama's vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him. Their ethos is one of competition and the justice of the rewards that come with risk and effort. All this is shelved, as the devotees sustain the candidacy of a man whose public career has been a steady advocacy of reining in the market and organizing those who believe in entitlement and redistribution.

One of the big clues for me that a lot of people see through him is that many people only half in jest call him "Dear Leader".

There is a bit I came across a while back claiming his success with at least part of the crowd is due to hypnotic techniques.

THE EVIDENCE IS HERE: This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama's use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of "hack" hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.

The entire paper is located here.

I found this on another forum, contributed by one of the more certified liberal loons. On first blush my sentiments were "yeah right." But because it was Sunday morning and a slow news day, I decided to indulge my curiosity and my funny bone and have a look see into this assertion of mass hypnosis by one Barack Obama.

Needless to say, what I found was not only intriguing, but captivating in both presentation and common sense reality. What this writer has to say and the way that he presents his argument, not only captivates the imagination? But also causes the reader to call forth the images of their own personal recollections, while the author utilizes his own observations and experience to make his points and his arguments for the assertions he is representing.

And as I read th author's presentation the thought kept bouncing back at me that these are the very same techniques and principles (as being described) employed and deployed by all successful "preachers" and "charismatic speakers" historically. And that someone at some point had simply sat down and applied analytical thinking and deduction to the process of successfully leading people through manipulative speaking.

And where better to learn these techniques for a young Barack Obama, than at the feet of the professed and by observing and emulating the performances of charismatic preachers and others in his own life.

This is where Barack Obama had his "Eureka moment" in my estimation.

I am in the process of reading the pdf and I would have to say that it is slow going at first. Here is an excerpt from the beginning that I think is key.

Dr. Erickson discovered while working as a therapist, that he could hide therapeutic hypnosis within the normal content of an inconspicuous conversation with the patient, and avoid much of the patient's conscious resistance that normally accompanied hypnotherapy.18 Dr. Erickson realized the subconscious mind was always listening, and understood better than anyone before how to access it, and implant suggestions into it. What Dr. Erickson did was figure out how to put people into trance and hypnotize them and implant suggestions with seemingly normal conversation. He discovered that people could achieve this heightened state of hyper-suggestibility without the traditional difficultly-induced coma-like state traditionally associated with hypnosis. Though his pioneering understanding, he was able to do the same and much more often with simple plays on words and embedded meanings in a single sentence. The entire field of "covert hypnosis", or "conversational hypnosis" is based on Dr. Erickson's techniques, and is now primarily used by hypnotists and psychiatrists.19 Conversational hypnosis is often referred to as Ericksonian hypnosis. The word "hypnosis" is never mentioned and there is nothing overt to give away that hypnosis is being used. It is impossible to detect unless you know precisely what to look for. Hack versions of these techniques are unfortunately taught to be used as persuasion tools for salespersons, and even more unfortunately also for men looking to enhance their success picking up and seducing with women.

NLP was mentioned previously, so what is this NLP stuff? It is Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Let's look at what the wiki has to say.

NLP was co-created by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder in the 1970s through observation and imitation of gestalt therapist Fritz Perls, family systems therapist Virginia Satir and psychiatrist Milton H. Erickson. The originators emphasized modeling of excellence as the core methodology, that is, the observational and information gathering methods they developed to define and produce the models of exceptional communicators. They also claimed that the basic assumptions of NLP draw from aspects of neurology ("neuro-"), transformational grammar ("linguistics") and cybernetics ("programming"). It has often been promoted as an art and science of effective communication and defined as 'the study of the structure of subjective experience'. Others put more emphasis on the tools, techniques and applications specific to contexts such as psychotherapy, business management and communications training, motivational seminars, personal development, and teaching.

So can those techniques be taught? Neuro-Linguistic Programming for Dummies thinks so. I haven't read the book so I can't comment.

So what is the antidote to all this? Study the product before you buy. Be sure it is what you want and that the price is acceptable and know the techniques being used on you so you won't be bamboozled.

If you would like to listen to a perfect example of hypnotized Obama supporters just click on the link. Howard Stern does a fine job of ferreting out some people who do not know their product. At all.

Amazon has a set of videos explaining the techniques by Derren Brown. It looks interesting. Especially when he is seducing the girls. I'm sure such techniques could be used in the other direction by the ladies. If they knew how.

Here is a supposed example of street hypnosis by Derren Brown on YouTube. What do you think? I think that he does have some success but his failures are edited out. What makes me think that? I was never moved by Obama and now he grates on my nerves. If he grates on your nerves:

You know. It just came to me. It is all about Jeddi Mind Tricks. He is not the President we want. We can move along now and vote for McCain.

Watch Obama in action with appropriate music:

Update: 31 Oct 008 1357z

Commenter who, me? had this to say in the comments at Power and Control:

I was intensively trained in NLP in 1989, by some of the best and most ethical, with some overlap of Erickson methods. I've studied and used it professionally since then, in partnership with clients for the changes they explicitly want and need and agree to.

For the most part the article is accurate.

The difficulty with using it for argument is that NLP is derived from long-standing persuasive techniques, and thus BO can be regarded simply as good at giving pre-scripted persuasive speeches.

However, the elements are there as described. Notice particularly the Big Code Words -- nominalizations. The practitioner is taught to find the subject's favorite nominalizations, the ones resonant with life and promise for the listener --"criteria" words. The practitioner need have no hint of what the specifics are. Betsy Newmark refers to public education now operating on such "motivational" abstractions, thereby priming voters for this kind of packaged appeal.

I have avoided watching Obama's speeches. So I haven't directly calibrated his lulling pacing, tonal delivery, etc. But astonishing to me is, after 19 years of close attention to my own and others' thought patterns, I was finding a kind of "drag" toward Obama -- not the candidate but the voting target -- though I do not support him. As I anticipated going into the early-voting booth, I felt especially I needed to pay close attention, not to somehow go blank and vote for him. I've never ever felt that concern in any other election, as to any other candidate.

In short, both reading the article and noting with astonishment something in the air seemingly affecting me in spite of myself, there's a lot to this. But an a-logical demagogue-ready collective-mentality population really is key, otherwise the slick Package Nominalizations, gestures, and emotion-infused appeals to free-floating futile-program-based idealism wouldn't be so effective delivered wholesale.

Some MDs discussing the pdf paper. It is very interesting pro and con. Thanks to commenter Penny. Here is a very interesting comment from the "MDs discussing" link:

William D Horton, Psy. D. Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

I am the co-author and technical advisor/expert for the article. My name is on it in several of the placements, but through an error, not all. I broke it down as a way to understand the Obama sudden rise to power. The co-author wants to remain behind the scene as he is fearful of negative feedback. I personally have respect for the skill Senator Obama uses these skills. I just wanted to point out the deep emotional response he elicits. I have talked about this on several radio shows and other outlets. If I had it to do over I would have removed partisan aspects, but I do stand by the techical aspects of the article.

William Horton Psy. D. CAC Master Hypnotist and NLP trainer

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Since we love rumors around here let me pass on another one. According to The Obama File a tape in which Michelle Obama is castigating racists for working for the defeat of her husband will air on FOX some time in the next few days (given the typical election calculations it will be out some time today - the Friday before elections). I discussed the tape a couple of weeks ago at Totally Unverified. Here is what the Obama File has to say:

A final agreement has been reached between African Press International (API) and Fox News Network (USA) on the dates to air the Michelle Obama tape arising from a discussion Mrs. Obama had with the API two weeks ago. The show will take place any day/time from now, with a 15 minutes alert on when it is to take place. Other programmes will be interrupted. This is a precaution taken to avoid interference from any quarter.

In the agreement, Fox News Network will broadcast 39 minutes of the 54 minutes long tape. The whole tape cannot be aired unedited due to security reasons and especially due to the explosive political temperature in the country because of the Presidential elections that is just around the corner, November 4th.

The tape will be aired in two portions by two separate units in the Network. API's representative will appear live in one of the shows.

October surprises generally happen on the Friday before the election and to insure the maximum dissemination with minimum rebuttal the news usually breaks around noon Eastern Time. About 1600 GMT for those keeping Coordinated Universal Time.

Of course the Obama camp will have their October surprise ready too. So we may have competing October surprises for a change. It will be interesting and should provide a lot of blog fodder if any of this happens.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I was all set to write a post about the LA Times withholding the video of Rashid Khalidi's farewell party (which featured the Ayerses and the Obamas among other luminaries), when I saw that WorldNetDaily has stepped right up to the moral equivalency plate with a story about McCain giving Khalidi (or at least some previous political incarnation of Khalidi) some money.

That means, obviously, that I can't blog about the Khalidi video without looking like a hypocrite, right? Because, the thinking goes, if the Republicans gave money to Khalidi, then he becomes magically "respectable" and politically untouchable forever. Like Bill Ayers via Walter Annenberg.

The problem with that logic is that it shouldn't matter who gave him money or why. What matters here is that the tape is being withheld, in a manner which suggests they're playing the hide-and-seek game instead of reporting. (Which ties right in to what Jules Crittenden and Michael S. Malone said the other day.)

As to the "investigative journalists" who might get to the bottom of this and track down the Khalidi video, they're too busy going after Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, who unlike most politicians is not afraid to fight back.

What's interesting about the Ayers angle is that the LA Times (which is withholding the tape) didn't report that Ayers and Dohrn were there:

"But we should know about their relationship, including apparently information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman."

McCain appeared to be referring to a Los Angeles Times article from April which said Obama knew and attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO spokesman, during his academic career in Chicago. The article makes no mention of Ayers's presence at the event.

"The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I'm not in the business of talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet?

"I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different," he said, saying Ayers had a "long relationship" with Obama, who was eight years old when the Weathermen were waging their radical campaign.

At the risk of sounding like a wild conspiracy theorist, I'd be willing to bet that Ayers is at least part of the reason for withholding the tape. Maybe he and his wife were a little too chummy with people who didn't mind being chummy in 2003, but would find it immensely embarrassing right now.

Not being able to see it, no one will know.

There's more here, and had the New York Sun not reported on Ayers presence there, it's doubtful anyone would have known:

A spokeswoman for McCain said the senator based his allegation about Ayers on another newspaper article -- a New York Sun report in 2005 that Ayers had been at the same banquet.

The Sun article reported that Ayers had contributed to a commemorative testimonial book honoring Khalidi but did not specify whether that book was signed by dinner attendees or assembled beforehand. "A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers," authors Sol Stern and Fred Siegel reported.

McCain has spent weeks trying to make Obama's relationship with Ayers an issue in the campaign, saying that Obama had not been truthful with the American people about how close the two are.

The Los Angeles Times wrote in April about the banquet as part of a broader story examining Obama's relationship with the Palestinian community in Chicago. The paper issued a statement yesterday saying their source asked them not to release the video.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the paper quoted Russ Stanton, editor of the LA Times, saying. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."

Who was there never would have been brought to light at all by the LA Times, and the only reason we know about it is because of the persistence of the 2005 New York Sun piece:

...when Columbia academic officials made this choice they knew they were getting a Palestinian political activist. From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO "guidance committee" at the Madrid peace conference.

In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia's SIPA, working under Dean Anderson. In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)

I'll just bet they were chummy. I'd love to see the tape.

Precisely why they won't let me.

UPDATE: The LA Times' Khalidi tape coverup continues, and Ron Rosenbaum says that their latest response is "worthy of a Rumsfeld press conference."

Read it.

Don't ask me why.

I heard this and had an intense feeling something terrible was about to happen, then a flock of crows flew low overhead, in avian anarchist formation.

No going home.

MORE: I liked dr kill's comment to the last post:

Human reality is universal only at the border of life and death. The further Americans live from death, the less they understand how to determine the relative importance of deeds and ideas. There is nothing like witnessing a little death to realign one's priorities more realistically.

I don't know whether to call this the quote of the day, the quote of the month, or the quote of the year, but I think what Bill Quick says here is brilliant:

A free and healthy democracy cannot function when it has no way to determine reality.

While Quick's focus is on the "corrupt, degenerate, dangerous mass media" which made it happen, I think that academia -- especially post-Modernist deconstructionism -- has played a large role with their decades-old war on reality. The idea that there is no reality, that instead there are only competing realities, means that whatever version of the truth works for you is true.

Now, some religious people will tend to see a phrase like "the truth" and think in religious terms. Social conservatives often define morality in terms of absolute truths, and many of them define those who disagree as "moral relativists." I think this distorts the process further, because history does show that different societies and cultures -- including those squarely within the Western tradition -- have defined morality differently. Morality has a way of changing over time. I worry that seeing morality as absolute truth makes it more difficult to focus on regular, factual truth -- such as what happened on, say, September 11, 2001.

That there are such people as 9/11 Truthers, and that there is a well organized movement of them, is something I find deeply disturbing. People like that see truth as driven by what they want to be true, and to them, facts play a subordinate role.

Bill Quick's post was about the polls (which was why Glenn linked it), and the polls of course are all over the map -- which means they cannot possibly all be right. What this means is that depending on your preferences, you can seize upon whatever poll you want, or claim quite credibly that because they're so sloppy, none of them can be relied on.

Still, there's an old political saying that "the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day."

Shouldn't that be reassuring? Won't there be, um, "closure" after the results are in, no matter who wins?

In view of the ferocious, conspiracy-driven relativism that seems poised to supersede traditional ways of determining reality, I'm worried that no matter who wins, his victory will not be seen as real by large numbers of highly partisan people. People on both sides who believe that even numerical truth is whatever they and the people they surround themselves with want it to be.

Bush did not win in 2000, nor did he win in 2004. McCain will not win in 2008. Obama will not win in 2008.

According to the new truth, whoever wins will not have won.

What was once a free and healthy democracy will have lost.

If this looks depressing, sorry. I really should be more cheerful. Maybe I should shift to satire mode.

I should always keep in mind that the people who disagree with me have their realities, and I have mine, and what I say here is just a result of my cultural bias. And since someone else's realities are just as valid as my own, then reality is like, you know, a democracy. It's not up to me to determine it. I have to bow to the reality of the majority.

I should acknowledge that if there is no way to determine reality or truth, I can hardly expect to stumble across it in a blog post, or know it if I see it. And certainly I can't be blamed for thinking what I think.

That's right! If I think something is true, it is a product of my cultural conditioning, and absolutely not my fault.

I probably just need to be reeducated.

(Oh hell, they can just buy me off with truth serum....)

MORE: Via an email from M. Simon, I just learned about an interesting ad campaign advising people to vote twice!

They even have a button to go with it:

If there are multiple realities, I see no problem with multiple voting. I mean it's like if I feel twice as strongly as you about something, then shouldn't my vote count twice as much?

To not allow me to vote according to the views of my conscience would be disenfranchisement!

Economist George Newman tears into both candidates, although he offers some advice to McCain:

...Nothing reveals Mr. Obama's visceral hostility to business more than the constant urging of our best and brightest to desert the productive private sector ("greed") and go into public service like politics or community organizing (i.e., organizing people to press government for more handouts). Who in his ideal world would bake our bread, make our shoes and computers, and pilot our airplanes is not clear.

And if you think all this comes from an ardent John McCain fan, you couldn't be more wrong. The Arizona Senator has made some terrible mistakes, one of them trying to out-demagogue Mr. Obama to the economic illiterates. This kind of pandering never works. Such populists and other economic illiterates will always go for the genuine article.

Mr. McCain should have asked some simple questions -- pertinent, educational and easily understood by ordinary voters. Such as:

- If the rise in the price of oil from $70 to $140 was due to "greed" (the all-purpose explanation of the other side for every economic problem), was the fall from $140 to $70 due to a sudden outbreak of altruism?

- If a bank is guilty both for rejecting a mortgage ("redlining") and for approving it ("greed" -- see above), how might a bank president keep his business out of trouble with the law?

- If the financial turmoil of the last year or so was caused by inadequate regulation, which party has controlled both Houses of Congress and all of its financial committees and subcommittees (where such regulation would originate) in the last two years?

- If we bemoan the sending of $750 billion a year to our enemies for imported oil, which party has prevented domestic drilling for decades that would have made us more self-sufficient?

- You were unhappy with Congress, and in 2006 you cast your lot with those who, like Mr. Obama now, promised "change." Are you happy with the changes that have taken place in the last two years?

None of these questions have been asked loudly or often enough, while the other message -- everything is bad, it's all Bush's fault, and McCain=Bush -- has sunk in. So given his own penchant for business bashing, a McCain win would merely count as damage control.

I'm sure it's just coincidental that the "altruism" outbreak occured not long after McCain threatened to drill.

The Register UK is looking at how Greenpeace views fusion. Greenpeace is suspicious. Yes they are.

The (Joint European Torus) JET reactor in Culham, Oxfordshire was completed 25 years ago, and work is underway on ITER in Cadarache, France, a €10bn facility, backed by six countries (including China) plus the EU. The Czech Republic has a smaller-scale reactor, called Compass. All use magnets to force a fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium, releasing enormous amounts of energy. Eventually, it's hoped, more than goes in. ITER is designed to produce 500MW for 300 to 500 seconds with an input of 50MW.

"We'll certainly have it in fifty years," ITER's Neil Calder told the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation last week. But not if Greenpeace has its way.

Yes, the fuel for fusion is abundant, and far more productive than fossil fuel - one litre of seawater can produce as much as 30 litres of petrol. It's much safer than nuclear fission. And it doesn't release CO2. So what's the problem?

"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy," Jan Van de Putte of Greenpeace International said when ITER was announced in 2005. Van de Putte predicted it will never be efficient - so why bother?

Spokesperson Bridget Woodman said: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."

(Which must break the record for the number of false and contradictory assertions you can cram into a 17-word sentence. But that's par for the course these days. When you hear a phrase like "sustainable energy" the opposite is usually intended - the speaker is referring to an energy source that won't sustain anything for very long or very reliably.)

I think the following exemplifies the Greenpeace attitude.

Two of Greenpeace's co-founders, Patrick Moore and Paul Watson long since departed: Watson to run his own anti-whaling group and Moore criticising its anti-human, anti-development agenda. "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Moore lamented.

Fusion seems to exemplify what Moore means: an anti-modernity superstition. Greenpeace doesn't understand what fusion is, but whatever it is it will be scary, it will be bad, and it must be stopped.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

FedBizOpps.gov has a solicitation for a bid for more experiments by EMC2, Doc Bussard's company now being run (at least on the experimental side) by Rick Nebel.

The Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, CA intends to procure on an other than full and open competition basis a service to provide: 1) Research of Electrostatic "Wiffle Ball" Fusion Device. The contractor is to specifically investigate the required instrumentation to achieve spatially resolved plasma densities and spatially resolved particle energies. This requirement is sole sourced to Energy Matter Conversion Corporation, 1202 Parkway Drive, Suite A, Santa Fe, NM 87501, as the only company in the world investigating and developing this type of device.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Update: Dave Price has some thoughts and more details.

Kim Priestap reports on early voting in Florida. Democrats seem to have a big advantage in turnout.

Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early.

"We're thrilled at the record turnout so far," said Democratic Party of Florida spokesman Eric Jotkoff. "It's a clear indication that Democrats want to elect Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ballot so that we can start creating good jobs, rebuilding our economy and getting our nation back on track."

But party breakdowns for turnout aren't the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.

And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats' 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.

OK. That is Florida which is looking pretty good right now. What about Maine and New Hampshire?

Tonight's been a busy night, in that we've talked to a half dozen people on three times as many subjects - including Team Hillary members in New Hampshire and Maine, who we know well from the primaries.

Here's the kicker: these people aren't McCain supporters. Several are working for Obama now in both states, because they have political jobs and thus must tow the party line. Others are voting Green and no longer campaigning for anyone, but are tuned into things in their states.

We know nothing about New Hampshire or Maine and have never pretended to. We won't start now. All we'll tell you is what these people told us tonight, and it's that they truly do expect John McCain to win both New Hampshire and Maine next week, for the reasons they gave below:

(1) In both states, they have never seen an enthusiasm deficit for Democrats like this. Hillary Democrats there say there are more "closet McCain supporters" than anyone can count. Despite what the media says, people are not enthused and fired up to go out and vote for Obama -- quite the contrary: people are scare of Obama's policies and will be voting McCain. The enthusiasm deficit in both New Hampshire and Maine is "as clear as day" according to those we spoke to tonight. They say they do not see anywhere near the level of Obama signs, stickers, buttons, etc. out this year, as they did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and even Dukakis gear in years past.

It also looks like Joe The Plumber has had a big effect in Maine. And as Maine goes so goes the nation.

(2) We asked why people in these states are not voting for Obama and were told that in Maine, especially, a lot of it has to do with Joe the Plumber and redistributing the wealth. Much of Maine makes its living off the sea: fishermen pull in $200,000 or more a year in family businesses. Joe Biden's slip that Obama really intends to define "wealthy" as $150,000 a year or above sent terror through Maine's fishing community and other small business industries. We were told tonight that Maine and New Hampshire have more small family businesses that would be affected by Obama's redistribution of wealth than we could imagine. Joe the Plumber resonated with these people -- especially the fishermen.

It also looks like caucus fraud is also playing a part.

The other interesting tidbit that came out of the conversation tonight was that of the Hillary Clinton convention delegates who are openly supporting John McCain, the largest number of these people come from states that held caucuses.

We were told tonight that no one is yet picking up on the fact that Democrats in states that held caucuses, and who saw firsthand the fraud, voter intimidation, and other vile tricks Obama pulled in caucus states have NOT forgotten about any of this. These people are still LIVID that a Democrat dared to use Chicago fraud and intimidation to game the caucus system. The Clinton delegates from caucus states have been coordinating efforts amongst themselves for payback against Obama on November 4th, since no state will vote in a caucus then.

We're told this is the reason that Iowa is so much closer than we ever dreamed it would be. Remember, we have insisted McCain would lose Iowa because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. So, we've been baffled by McCain and Palin's appearances throughout Iowa, or the fact internals we see show the state incredibly close. We never could figure out why -- and it was so obvious this whole time. THE CAUCUS FRAUD Obama committed back in January is coming back to bite him in a HUGE way. Because of the ethanol opposition, McCain should be losing Iowa by large numbers -- but the people we spoke to this evening says he'll end up winning the state, largely because of Democrats who are so disgusted by the behavior of Obama's followers during the caucuses.

This isn't just Hillary Democrats either. It's a large swath of Democrats who feel violated by the tactics Obama employed in their state -- bringing thugs from Chicago across the Illinois border to vote in Iowa's caucuses. People there remember the truth, and will have that in mind on November 4th.

Obama did not cement his relationship with those he defeated by offering them a large consolation prize (Hillary as VP) to make up for all the rubbed raw emotions the caucuses created. When he picked Joe Biden he made the hill he had to climb much steeper. And then along comes Joe the Plumber in the last two weeks of the campaign to put a large hole in his campaign below the water line. And Obama keeps enlarging that hole by lowering the threshold for those who will see tax increases. First $250,000, then $200,000 and finally (so far) $150,000. Worrying people the most I believe is not the actual number, but the fact that it keeps going lower. Where will it stop? I think it will stop with a huge Obama loss on the night of 4 Nov.

Do we have any other anecdotes and fuzzy data points? Yes we do. The results so far in Nevada show that the Obama/pollsters turn out model is not near what has been hoped/projected (change we can believe in - heh).

Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going.

While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn't vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.

The data provide a glimpse into the composition of the more than 300,000 Nevadans who had taken advantage of early voting over the first nine days of the 14-day period. The information comes from proprietary databases that political action groups purchase from commercial vendors, cross-referenced with the public data the state releases showing who has voted.

Traditionally, older people, whites and people who vote consistently tend to turn out at the highest rates overall, said David Damore, a political scientist at UNLV. But this year, much has been made of the idea that the youth vote, the Hispanic vote and first-time voters would turn out at unprecedented rates, galvanized by a heightened political climate and the candidacy of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

"I would have expected those numbers to be a little higher," Damore said. "At the same time, the people who come out for early voting may tend to be the tried and true."

The idea that the electorate will be radically reshaped this year remains an open question, he said, and it's possible the Obama campaign faces a challenge turning out the untested voters it's relying on to win.

Recent polling shows Obama leading in the Silver State by varying margins. Democrats' hopes have been boosted by a tectonic shift in voter registration that has left them with more than 110,000 more registered voters than Republicans, but the GOP insists there's hope because the election will be decided by who votes and how.

"What Republicans have been saying is that registration is only half the game, and they have the tried and true model to get people out," Damore said.

U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., was in Las Vegas on Tuesday working to rally Hispanic voters for Obama. She said she expects high Hispanic turnout this year.

So let me do a short analysis of why I think Obama will lose.

1. Caucus fraud rubbed Democrat voters the wrong way.
2. Failure to select Hillary was a failure to mend fences
3. Sarah Palin gave the Republican base and disaffected Hillary voters something to cheer about.
4. Joe the Plumber (a gift from the Maker) sealed the deal

But it is not over until it is over. Don't let any analysis - positive or negative - keep you from doing what must be done. And what is that you ask? Well I'll tell you. Again.

Vote. Vote like your life and your country depended on it. It may. If we get a very strongly Democrat legislature it is critical that McCain/Palin have all the support we can show to keep the legislature in check. So even if you live in a state that is a foregone conclusion one way or another, your show of support will matter come 20 January 2009. Vote.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

As Abe Greenwald makes clear, "Something Happened."

One week ago, the Zogby tracking poll had Barack Obama beating John McCain by almost 10 points among likely voters. Today, it's a four-point game. Yesterday, IBD reported, "After seesawing between 3.2 and 3.9 points over the weekend, Obama's lead slipped to 2.8[.]" Gallup's newest traditional poll has Obama leading by two points. Probing coverage of Sarah Palin's wardrobe didn't seem to do what the mainstream media had hoped. With the public losing interest in the crusade against Palin, a fresh news cycle has ushered in a serious challenge for Barack Obama. Americans are scared that the Democratic nominee is a socialist. And it's not attack ads or robocalls that have created this impression, but Obama's own words. Up until now, Obama has enjoyed a twenty-six-point lead among self-professed moderates, who make up roughly half the electorate. As there is nothing moderate about collectivism and wealth redistribution, the new charges could bury Obama.

Barack Obama's greatest advantage over John McCain has been his ability to convince Americans that he will take them someplace, transport them out of the War on Terror paradigm, off of the anti-American planet we currently inhabit and into a future in which America is somehow still the global leader without actually being better than any other nation, where somehow everyone is furnished with healthcare and education without this crippling the economy. Over the past few weeks, this last "somehow" has been defined. And if it points toward where Obama intends to take the U.S., Americans are rightfully fearful.

Even Obama himself admits that the "change" he promises won't be easy:

Obama's democratic socialist sympathies first came to light in when he told Joe Wurzelbacher of his plan to "spread the wealth." The worrisome sentiment was reinforced by an unearthed 2001 radio interview, during which Obama seemed saddened by the Supreme Court's inability redistribute wealth in accordance with need. On Sunday, Obama sounded a further collectivist note, when he told a Colorado crowd, "Now, make no mistake: the change we need won't come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together."

Americans don't take kindly to the government-knows-best kind school of problem solving. If wealth is to be spread around, it will be spread by those who earn it. Sacrifices may be made, but they will not be dictated. Even today's PC-damaged Americans suspect that the collective good is most effectively, and ethically, realized in pursuing individual achievement. Less than twenty years after the defeat of the Soviet Union, we're faced with a potential president who thinks it's his place to tell us what we must give up and how it will be apportioned to bring about the common good. This won't fly. Eighty-four percent of Americans oppose the government redistribution of wealth.

While there has been evidence of extreme ideology in the Obama camp (it has certainly been presented here), as I keep saying, ordinary voters are not activists, political junkies, or readers of libertarian blogs. So it took someone they could relate to -- Joe the Pumber -- to get ordinary voters' attention:

Before Joe the Plumber, Obama managed to sell indecision as moderation and detachment as self-possession. Evidence of extreme ideology was skillfully sidestepped as ancient happenstance (as in the case of his association with Bill Ayers), or partisan misinterpretation (as in the case of Obama's abortion record). But Obama's sympathies are both recently held and clear-as-day. And that's a serious problem.

Joe the Plumber got their attention in ways that activists could not have and in ways that no amount of kvetching about Bill Ayers could have. I can condemn Bill Ayers' communist ideology and respectability from now till doomsday, and that has no effect on the electorate. The average person would say "Bill who"? But Joe the Plumber anyone can understand.

Many pundits have observed that negative attacks tend to turn off voters, and some newer commenters have told me repeatedly that my attacks on Bill Ayers are a losing "strategy." What they don't understand is that while I support McCain, this is my blog with my thoughts, not a McCain strategy. Furthermore, ordinary voters don't read this blog; when I last polled the readers, the number of undecideds was ridiculously small. (3 out of 176, to be exact.)

If attacking Bill Ayers is negative, so be it. At the risk of not persuading those three potential voters, I'll just say what I want.

Those who like Bill Ayers can keep attacking Joe the Plumber.

How much of any of these negative attacks will trickle down to the voters, I don't know.

But I suspect that if the voters were forced to decide, attacks on Joe the Plumber might poll worse than attacks on Bill Ayers.

I'm getting a bit tired of the fact that every time I write a post about Bill Ayers, I am told that the real issue is somehow G. Gordon Liddy. On the most recent occasion a commenter accused me of Nazism:

How is it that you support a neo-nazi fascist like G. Gordon Liddy, who happens to be a good friend of McCain?

Nazi murderous ideology, apparently is kosher to you.

Bear in mind that while I respect the fact that many people do not like Liddy and some think McCain should not have associated with him, I personally like Liddy, and came to know him over the years. I say this as someone who has disagreed with him on many occasions. In fact, disagreement was how I came to know him. While I had read and enjoyed his autobiography, Will, when it first came out, and I had seen him debate Timothy Leary in Berkeley, he had for me become a dim memory until the mid 90s when I learned that he had a talk radio show which was on the air in San Francisco. I listened, and I got ticked off hearing Liddy condemn Bill Clinton's plan to allow gays to serve in the military. Fully expecting to be ignored (if not ridiculed and insulted) I started calling in and sending faxes. To my astonishment, Liddy couldn't have been more polite to me -- notwithstanding a stubborn disagreement which remains to this day. I think the guy is a real gentleman of the old school, even though I disagree with a lot of what he has to say (yes, I know he has said many outrageous things), he is a lesson in the importance of civility even in the face of serious disagreement. This is why he has friends who are his polar opposites.

While I do not know Bill Ayers, I have been friends -- close friends -- with communists who share his ideological perspective. (I'm not running for president, so I get to pal around with anyone I damned well want without needing to explain myself.) For all I know, Ayers might be the kind of guy I'd enjoy having a beer with.

This does not mean I would agree with Ayers.

Nor does it mean that I think the two of them are the moral equivalent of each other in any way. In my view, Bill Ayers' ideology is far, far more heinous than G. Gordon Liddy's.

However, I think what's more important than who you pal around with is whether you share the ideology of your pals.

But since so many people seem to think the real issue is not Ayers but Liddy, and that palling around with Liddy is so much more egregious than palling around with Ayers, I thought a poll might be in order.

So here's a "palling around" poll:

MORE: Speaking of palling around, I nearly left out this picture of G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary:

While I don't think this calls for another poll, I should probably disclose that I met them both, and found them both very likeable.

However, I prefer Leary's ideology on the drug issue, and Liddy's ideology on the gun issue.

During the discussion of Ayers' and the Weather Underground's genocidal plan to murder 25 million Americans, it occurred to me that focusing on tactics (like terrorism and murder) tends to sideline the murderous ideology that drives them.

In what I think is an attempt to frame the debate away from ideology, typical "fact check" discussions of Bill Ayers downplay his ideology, with words like "communism" not being mentioned.

From the Obama campaign "Fact Check" site:

"Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap."

The Facts

Bill Ayers has acknowledged that he was one of the leaders of a group known as the Weather Underground, which carried out a series of small-scale bombings at the Capitol and the Pentagon in 1970 and 1971 as a protest against the Vietnam War. He was charged with conspiracy to bomb, but the charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct. Over the last two decades, he has been better known in Chicago as an education expert, and it was in that role that he became acquainted with Obama in 1995. The two men served together on the board of an anti-poverty group, and Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election campaign for the Illinois State Senate in 2001.

Yet Communism -- and Communists -- excuse such murders as being something other than murder. They are "liquidations" or the application of "revolutionary justice" to "enemies" of "the people."

Unfortunately, Ayers only stands out because of his involvement in terrorist acts. My concern is that the focus on terrorism misses this larger point, which is that his form of terrorism is incidental to and was always subordinate to the ideology of communism. Terrorism was but a tactic, and the fact that he does not currently engage in terrorist acts is tactical. His ideology has not changed in the least. So, the focus on Ayers' past terrorism (which must come as a relief to communists in general) avoids focusing on his past communism as well as his present communism, of which he is proud to this day.

Here's Ayers on the past:

Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No it is not. I don't regret that. The people of the world are being exploited and oppressed and militarized by the great imperialist powers, led by the United States. That is the situation today in my view.
...
And I'm not sorry about anything that I participated to try to end that war or against that government that was waging that war.

Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No it is not. I don't regret that. The people of the world are being exploited and oppressed and militarized by the great imperialist powers, led by the United States. That is the situation today in my view.
...
And I'm not sorry about anything that I participated to try to end that war or against that government that was waging that war.

Personally, I think it's sickening. The only thing I can say in Ayers defense is that he's within his First Amendment rights in glorifying murderers.

Yet Ayers and his supporters would disagree with my viewpoint. To him and those who think like him, Guevara is not a murderer, because his murders were committed in furtherance of his ideology. It will never be (and can never be) admitted by Ayers or his supporters that their ideology itself is murderous, and that communism cannot be imposed on people without murder, which of course it never has been.

Ayers is now a teacher, and as he subordinated his terrorist acts to the greater picture of communism, he now sees his educational efforts the same way.

Notice the way he conflates his past terrorism into merely a teaching opportunity in this YouTube interview with Chavista comrades (in front of the murderer's icon, of course).

Via Ed Morrissey who excerpts some pertinent quotes:

3:20 - The particular crisis we faced with the Vietnam War was a crisis that called on us to escalate, to resist in more intense and, and, uh, uh, in more extreme ways. But one way of looking at it is that the Weather Underground was a great teaching moment. And, to the extent that we didn't fully realize what we were trying to do, we were bad teachers, and to the extent that we did good things, we were good teachers.
5:42 - I mean, to go from underground, when we really thought we were in a revolutionary crisis ... and there's no question that when we left the underground, we lost something valuable -- we lost our treasure.

Obama says he barely knows him, but in the years when he was meeting and serving together on the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund, as well as launching his career with a fundraiser in Ayers' Che Guevara-festooned house, Ayers made at least four Marxist pilgrimages to Caracas to praise Chavez's dictatorial regime.

He sits on the board of a Venezuelan government think tank called Miranda International Center, focused on bringing Cuba-style education to Venezuelan school children.

Recent polls show this turning of schools toward Marxist indoctrination terrifies average Venezuelans. Venezuelan dissidents also accuse Miranda of rewriting constitutions in South America to grant leftist leaders absolute power, with some saying Ayers had a role in 2007's effort to give Chavez total power inside Venezuela.

Again, except for mentions like that ,Ayers' murderous ideology -- Communism -- is largely overlooked, while the punditry focus on what was a tactic -- terrorism.

Either Communism doesn't matter or people are afraid to use the word.

What concerns me is that the focus on Ayers the terrorist turns inevitably turns into a debate over how old Obama was at the time of the bombings, how close his relationship was with Ayers, whether G. Gordon Liddy is comparable to Ayers, etc. and avoids any mention of communism, much less a serious discussion of whether it is appropriate for a president who (unless I am mistaken) sees nothing wrong with working with communists, and dispensing money to communists.

One of the lesser known communists who managed to receive nearly $2 million from Ayers and Obama is a guy named Mike Klonsky.

Andrew McCarthy (God bless him) has written a long, detailed piece about Klonsky, and he stresses what I have tried to stress in this post -- that the debate over terrorist tactics (and whether they are repented) avoids any focus on the murderous ideology behind the tactics:

With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) -- in which the mantra "unrepentant terrorist" has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers's ideology that Obama plainly shares -- much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.

Here's what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a "social justice" blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky ... or Ayers ... or Dohrn ... or Wright ... or Rashid Khalidi ...

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

Does anyone know?

As far as I can tell, the only hint of a discussion by Obama of whether he shares their ideology was the description of Ayers as "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis."

Does that mean only irregularly?

From the comments at HillBuzz Sara P speaks

Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.

I work for a campaign and can't wait for this week to be over.

I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.

The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and "play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama"

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

We did this the whole primary and it worked.

Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

People makes posts to the effect that the world has "gone mad"

Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn't control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.

see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become "sheeple"

The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and "fair and balanced" and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.

Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn't know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don't see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can't imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue cari