A PACK, NOT A HERD? Armed citizen patrols in New Haven.

SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT BY BANNING BOOKS! Publication would be on the Internet instead.

Er, but actually, aren’t all those unread books a decent form of carbon sequestration?

Speaking of which, here’s my carbon-credit scheme: Buy carbon credits from me, and I’ll subscribe to newspapers in appropriate quantity, then deposit them unread into landfills where they’ll remain unchanged for centuries at least. The beauty is that this will keep journalists, whose jobs are currently in danger, employed. And newspapers will suck up to me for my circulation-enhancing patronage, giving me immense media power. When people say “cancel my subscription!” they don’t care. But “cancel my 100,000 subscriptions” — well, that’s different . . . .

There must be a downside to this idea somewhere — the germ of it came in a reader email a while ago that I can’t find now — but I’m not seeing it. And heck, it would be more honest than a lot of the carbon-credit schemes out there.

UPDATE: I could do something similar by paying a bounty for people’s old Dexes. Or whatever.

DENNIS MILLER has a radio show?

SEND SCALZI TO THE Creation Museum.

WHAT DO THESE PEOPLE have in common?

MARRIAGE AS “HATE SPEECH.”

A LOOK AT CHUCK HAGEL’S PRIMARY CHALLENGER.

NETROOTS FAVES oppose immigration.

DENNIS MILLER GOES NUCLEAR.

With Harry Reid’s favorable ratings now in the teens, I’m guessing he’s not the only one to feel that way.

While Bush’s approval ratings are famously low, the public seems to regard the entire government, regardless of party, unfavorably. Which suggests that people have been paying attention.

IS REAGANOMICS coming to France?

HEATH SHULER ON WILLIAM JEFFERSON: “I strongly believe that for the good of this Institution, for the good of our Nation, and for the good of the people of the Louisiana’s 2nd District, Mr. Jefferson should resign his seat immediately.” (Via Ed Cone).

MICHAEL TOTTEN IS GOING BACK TO IRAQ and is asking for your support. I just sent him twenty bucks — if you think his work is worth your support, consider doing the same.

Our podcast interview with Michael is here.

ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY: A tribute to both Congress and The Sopranos, in a special edition of Ham Nation. So does Mary Katharine Ham smoke cigars the rest of the time, or just on camera?

AUTHENTICALLY KRUGMAN: In his latest column — link here for Times $elect subscribers — Paul Krugman complains about the cult of “authenticity” in politics, and how it makes people like John Edwards come across as phonies. FDR was a rich guy who cared about the poor, he says, so why can’t John Edwards be?

Well, John Edwards is no FDR. But the answer to Krugman’s complaint is found in the post 1960s political zeitgeist. Back before identity politics, and the notion that “the personal is political,” the idea of a rich guy representing poor people was entirely plausible. He could be rich, but still have ideas about poverty, and care about them. But now that we have identity politics and the like, that’s impossible: If only a woman can represent women, only a black person can represent blacks, etc. — Barbara Boxer even suggested that Condi Rice couldn’t understand mothers because she was childless — then obviously only a poor person can represent poor people. And since there are no poor people in American political office, poor people perforce go unrepresented. Thus, the “progressive” causes of identity politics and personalization mean that the progressives’ key clients can’t get “authentic” representation. This is probably bad for the country, but it’s certainly a bed that the progressives have made for themselves.

Of course, maybe Krugman’s column on how Really Rich People can authentically Care About The Poor is just a stealth defense of the New York Times’ advertisers:

Did anyone else read the NYT magazine this weekend? It was all about poverty and income inequality. Some articles were better than others, and I didn’t read them all, but the hilarious part wasn’t in the articles. It was in the ads. On page after page, the magazine hawked luxury condos starting in the 8 figures. Pictures of these glorious $10 million-plus pied-à-terres with 24-hour doormen, room service and Master of the Universe views of Manhattan were punctuated with ads for financial advisers and garish jewelry — and, oh yeah, essays on what to do about the poor. There was an almost Edwardian irony to the whole thing; a magazine for the New Aristocrats discussing the poor and how they live with a mixture of dispassionate, almost academic, bemusement and charity ball passion.

It’s all making sense, now . . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Somehow, this post from Mudcat Saunders seems fitting, too. Plus, Ed Cone identifies a “grievous error” on Krugman’s part!

MORE: Further thoughts from Ed Driscoll.

IS IT OKAY to laugh at Mormonism?

GREGORY SCOBLETE: Forget Iran: “The truth is Pakistan represents a far greater danger to the U.S. than Iran, at least for the foreseeable future. Let us count the ways. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Iran is not. Pakistan has a proven track record of proliferation, including a dalliance with al Qaeda.”

Maybe instead of fighting proliferation we should embrace it — nukes in Taiwan and Poland, huge thermonuclear weapons in Israel, etc. Why should we be the only ones trying to keep the lid on while other alleged civilized powres help Iran, North Korea, etc.?

Okay, it’s a bad idea. Letting people worry that we might embrace it if we don’t get more cooperation might not be, though. . . .

BOOTED FOR BLOGGING A BASEBALL GAME.

DANNY GLOVER looks at how blogs shaped the immigration debate.