OUCH. “He’s here to defend Barack Obama and he had nothing to say. That’s a problem.”

I’ll say:

(H/T FamousDC)

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMMMMM

Kriston Capps:

More people have personally seen or felt the presence of a ghost than approve President Bush’s job performance. Which is in the basement. Where the ghosts live.

Typical liberal garbage. George Bush’s approval ratings, however abysmal, are still higher than the number of people who have actually seen a ghost.

TEE-HEE! Percy Bysshe Maguire is on the march:

Hillarymandias

I met a pollster from an antique land,
Who said–“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand, one in Texas…., one near Canton,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose brow, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The electorate that mocked them, and the press that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Hillarymandias,
Look on my resume and campaign fundraising, ye fellow Democrats, and despair!
Nothing else remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away. Heh.

WILL WILKINSON ON HAPPINESS: “the fact that you think you know what’s best for me doesn’t mean I don’t really need my nose hair trimmer or my stuffed armadillo. I have my reasons.” The more detailed version is here.

Personally, they can have my stuffed armadillo when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Update A reader, whose name I omit to protect the innocent, emails:

I don’t need a nose hair trimmer, my friends and coworkers need me to have a nose hair trimmer. And they have let me know on occasion.

Faster than you can say “negative externality“, it’s consumer products to the rescue!

THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITE THINGS

Possibly the best book cover ever. The book’s pretty good too, of course.

LUNAR ECLIPSE TONIGHT. Depending on your location, you may be able to see a red moon. Unfortunately, my location will be on at my desk in DC, working.

APPARENTLY, THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS CAMPUS SHOOTER WAS TAKING PROZAC, XANAX, AND AMBIEN. This is being reported as if it were something ominous, perhaps the cause of the tragedy. This seems a little much. It’s not exactly shocking to find out that people who go on shooting sprees are often depressed, anxious types with difficulty sleeping.

$160,000 TO HALT CLIMATE CHANGE IN SAN FRANCISCO The city of San Francisco has just created a highly paid job called the “director of climate protection initiatives“. I am hard put to imagine what the city of San Francisco imagines it can do, all by its lonesome, to halt global warming–the nature of international oil supplies, and fixed infrastructure investment, mean that any energy not used in San Francisco will simply be purchased by someone else at a very modestly lower price. The San Francisco Chronicle’s commenters are apparently as flummoxed as I am–only they’re also mad, because it’s their money being spent.

CNN is reporting that Obama just secured the endorsement of the Teamsters. I am unfortunately seized by a mental vision of Hillary Clinton pounding on the lid of her coffin as the final nails are driven in.

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE EASY BANKRUPTCY STATUTES Due to an extreme lack of popular demand, expressed during earlier blogging rounds, I’m leaving the hyper-wonky stuff, such as a discussion of bankruptcy, at my own site. However, my argument that lax bankruptcy statutes are actually good for the American economy is attracting a surprising amount of interest, so if you’re intrigued by that sort of thing, please stop by and check it out.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD “PLEDGED” IS Instapundit is always a great place to make stunning declarations–in 2004, it’s where I announced I was voting for George Bush. So here goes: Hillary is done. She cannot collect enough delegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates are not going to hand the nomination to someone who didn’t get a majority of the delegates, or the popular votes, in the primaries.

The Clinton camp is still crying “no surrender“, but with legitimate avenues to the nomination closed, they are going to have to investigate some sketchier ones. my Atlantic colleague, Clive Crook, notes that the campaign is currently exploring the notion that “pledged” delegates are not “bound”. The Politico reports:

The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”

“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

Even if Hillary won the nomination this way, there’s a very good chance that these antics would cost her the presidency–as well as the eternal enmity of a huge chunk of her party. I’m frankly flabbergasted they’re even considering this.

Both the headline number and “core” inflation–which excludes food and energy prices–rose substantially. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal think it won’t last. Of course, they were also surprised by the current figures.

Update Reader Peter Lentz emails:

May I humbly suggest that you post an update to your Instapundit post linking to the WSJ economists’ take on cpi prospects by directing readers to the comments. I do not believe I have ever seen such universal consistency of opinion in a set of comments: the 1) contempt for Wall Street economists’ forecasting acumen; 2) doubt that Fed policy can deliver what Wall Street expects; and most importantly, 3) the near consensus of the commentators to the WSJ Economics Blog (presumably populated by cohort of “dilettante or better” economic observers) that inflationary pressure will be the dominant factor determining the course of the economy. If expectations influence inflation, expectations seem to be on a definite incline.

My name is Megan McArdle, and I’ll be guest-blogging for Glenn this week, along with a dream team of other bloggers. (I am the notable exception). Normally, I blog for The Atlantic, mostly on economics and public policy. My email, if you want to reach me directly, is meganmcardle -at- theatlantic.com.

TONY WOODLIEF:

The University of California at Berkeley is looking to hire its first Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion, and I think it’s about darn time. I’m heartened to know that with this renewed focus on recruiting students and faculty from underrepresented groups, Berkeley’s agents will soon be scouring Iowa for devout homeschooled virgin boys. Young men returning from service in Iraq, likewise, may find a warmer reception than they would have received in years past. And no doubt many young parents, as well as retired executives, will soon be submitting their applications to the more equitable and inclusive Cal-Berkeley. Observant pro-war Jews, aspiring Christian filmmakers, chaste young pro-life activists — all are welcome under Berkeley’s big tent, right?

IF YOU WANT TO SEE ME IN PERSON, I’ll be a panelist at the New York Salon on Tuesday. Please come hear me talk about whether we should fear more than just fear itself.

DON’T WORRY, EZRA. I graduated from business school with a $1,000 monthly student loan payment, and I still managed to end up in one of the lowest-paying professions available to college graduates without a major drug habit.

YOUR ECONOMIST POST FOR THE DAY Sorry to inundate you with Economist bloggery, but we’re having a great week. From Democracy in America, our politics blog:

It’s now official: either taste-makers and pundits in New York and Washington are colossally wrong, or the polls are. Either Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are going to prove that it’s still the voters who get to vote, stupid, or these two are going to go down like lead zeppelins soon. But I, for one, am not going to accept for much longer that Republicans don’t know enough about Mr Giuliani (have you heard he’s pro-choice and had gay roommates?) to dump him, or that Democrats don’t yet know enough about Barack Obama (have you heard how charismatic he is?) to dump Ms Clinton. Both of those stories have been written over and over; the secret is pretty well out.

ON GLOBAL WARMING Let me clarify a little my position. I think there are a lot of questions about global warming: how much, and what, should be done. However, I regard two questions as basically no longer worth debating, at least by people with my level of science education:

1) Is AGW happening?
2) Should we do something about it?

The first is a technical question that seems to be largely settled; when you’ve convinced Ron Bailey it’s happening, you’ve convinced me. The second is a moral question that seems obvious: should I drive a huge, empty car many miles when doing so will help flood Bangladesh, merely because the comfy leather seats are right here where I can see them, and the dead future Bangladeshis aren’t? . . . this is a question that seemingly only has one right answer. I say this as one who is conscious that I could use less electricity, and should, and am trying to but not as hard as morality should require. But I digress.

Unfortunately, I think that politics renders the questions that are worth arguing, pointless; we won’t find a political solution to the problem because . . . mmmmmm, leather seats. I’m hoping instead for a technological breakthrough that renders the question largely moot. Meanwhile, I’m buying real estate in the Canadian hinterlands.

OVER AT CATO UNBOUND Brian Doherty—a highly amusing dinner companion as well as a brilliant writer—asks: “Did this libertarian movement . . . actually accomplish anything of unquestionable significance?”

Tyler Cowen* answers “Yes: Bigger government.”

You know what to do: read the whole thing.

* Also a highly amusing dinner companion, even though he recently declared that I am not a “real adult”.

TIM WORSTALL: Obama is so black . . . Black Irish, that is. Although he uses the phrase differently from my family. We say we’re Black Irish because we have dark hair and light eyes (and, of course, skin so white that epileptics have trouble being in the same room with me.) Mr Worstall, being a Limey, uses it incorrectly to mean an Irish person who is also a Protestant, when the correct term for that is “[Censored] Orange bastard”.

However, in this case, both uses apply. Does this mean Ted Kennedy will be stumping for him?

Update TIm Worstall emails:

I err, do have an Irish passport (as well as the UK) and am Catholic (nominally) myself.

Don’t you see that’s even worse?! You’re consorting with The Enemy! How could you have anything to do with the British?

TALK BACK Incidentally, I’ve opened up a comment thread at my own site for those who would like to chat about anything I’ve said here.

I DON’T KNOW THAT THIS IS AIMED AT ME, because frankly I doubt that Henry Farrell spends very much of his time thinking about me. But this certainly echoes an argument that he made to me in our Bloggingheads.tv debate:

Even so, his call for a pragmatic libertarianism seems on target to me (I’d vastly prefer a political debate in which smart libertarians acknowledged that global warming was a major problem in need of a political solution, and contributed insights from their own perspective, to a debate in which many libertarians either minimize the problem or suggest that no real political solution is possible).

I am very, very pessimistic that a political solution will be found to global warming. The costs of abatement are very high, and immediate, while the costs of the warming are diffuse, slow to occur, and will fall heavily on people who are not causing the problem: either people in poor countries like Bangladesh or any number of African states whose countries will become largely uninhabitable; or people, rich and poor alike, who are not yet born.

Most of the people with whom I have debated the matter, including, I felt, Henry, have treated my opinion as if it were an instrumental belief aimed at avoiding action. I’m in favour of action. I think America needs a whopping big carbon tax (and am braced for the flood of mail I know this declaration will trigger.) I would be happy to see a global cap-and-trade scheme. Changing someone else’s climate with your fuel consumption seems to me to be a classic violation of libertarian ideas about property and liberty, making a strong case for abatement measures. I don’t know what level of abatement I favour–I haven’t studied the matter closely enough. But it seems clear to me that some action is warranted.

But just because I think some action should be taken doesn’t mean that I think it will. Henry is saying, in effect: “We have a big problem. Why don’t you help me find a government solution?” That’s like my friend saying “I lost my car keys in Texas. Why won’t you help me search my house for them?” Answer: for the same reason I won’t help you search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I don’t think a government solution can be achieved. I mean, I can sit around and paint a very pretty picture of what it would look like, who would run it, and how we would control for the various informational and incentive problems that are bound to crop up . . . but this would be sort of pointless, because I think the chances of any such programme ever being enacted are vanishingly small. Name one government programme, in a democracy, for anything other than a war (on people, I mean, not ideas or natural conditions), that has ever forced the entire citizenry to do something as painful and inconvient as cut their energy usage by 20-50%. If you can do so, I will reconsider my stance. I note that Britain is in the early stages of just such a plan, and if it works, I will eat my words with a glad smile*. Until then . . . I feel Brink Lindsay’s proposed Liberaltarian alliance is not going to go far if the liberal half demands that we pretend to believe in the impossible as a condition of entry.

* Easy for me to promise, since I don’t have to pay up until 2050.

HE MAY NOT have captured Glenn’s heart, but I’m still quite fond of him, and not just because he gets all the robot questions at pub trivia. Happy 28th birthday to Julian Sanchez.

AMEN TO THAT! From The Economist‘s latest web experiment*, The Inbox, a blog where every letter to the editor we receive is posted on the web:

In Starbucks’ case, it’s not the ambience that puts off consumers, it’s the coffee. If only they roasted it a bit less. My colleagues agree that if they had another option they wouldn’t buy Starbucks but, since there is a Starbucks on nearly every block around our office in the District, our options are limited.

Any free market economists want to take a swing at this one? I too would prefer less roasting. I have two conjectures: either they’re benefitting from first mover advantage, or stupid Americans have some sort of macho attachment to burned coffee, as if that charred flavour makes it somehow more authentic and manly.

Personally, I think the manly thing to do is to drink the stuff with the most caffeine. And contrary to popular belief, that isn’t espresso; it’s regular coffee. (The longer you roast the beans, the more caffeine is destroyed.) Starbucks makes it even worse by overcooking their espresso beans. Anyone drinking burned Starbucks on the assumption that the smoky flavour must mean it carries a real kick–not so, not so. Char grilling is for steaks, not Arabica beans.

* Full disclosure: I work for The Economist, and manage one of its other blogs.

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID: Citizens of Dallas, check out what your police and fire pension fund has been up to. Citizens of everywhere else, worry about what your local government pension funds are doing.