From an e-mail from Sojourners, with the subject "Tell the Associated Press to stop using the ‘I’ word":

Dear Doug,

Too often the media is part of the problem when it comes to changing the national debate on immigration. Following the standards set by the Associated Press Stylebook, journalists label undocumented immigrants as “illegal.” This dehumanizing term robs people of their dignity and prejudices readers against the needs and concerns of our immigrant brothers and sisters.

Why stop there? We’re calling people who break other laws the same thing, and worse! "Criminals", "Offenders", "Perpetrators"! These dehumanizing terms rob those people of their dignity, too.

Right?

But then there’s, you know, the truth. People who break laws are doing something illegal, by definition. But for some reason, Sojourners would like to change the language for a specific type of law-breaker; those who break our immigration laws.

As Proverbs 15:1 reminds us, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” Ending the use of this controversial word by the media would create a more compassionate and accurate conversation about immigration. It is a small change that could make a huge difference. You can help make that happen.

The truth will set you free, folks. And it will also allow us to have a reasonable discussion about the problem of illegal undocumented immigrants. If we can’t even agree on what you call someone who has broken the law, we can’t have an honest, compassionate, and, above all, accurate conversation.

Good morning.

1. For those who believe polls are useful tools.
2. Center of mass and the bullet.
3. More grist for the drone/symmetry discussion.
4. Trust, equilibria, and the economy.
5. The Arab “Spring”, which still demands the scare quote.
6. A gift, response and interview.
7. How not to avoid negative propaganda.
8. Mr Obama’s ironic “you’re not being specific” critique, which alas was probably not intended as irony … but there you are.
9. Speaking of irony. What’s a mass murderer have to do these days, eh?
10. Japan and Guadalcanal.
11. Two phrases that should never appear together “humungus challenge” and “toilet availability”.
12. Unscientific poll.
13. For the uniformed the reason for the criticism is the former President met with the families instead of sending a form letter. It’s about contrast.

Good morning.

1. An unfortunately named insurgency/terror group folds.
2. Of reward and result.
3. And buzzword compliance.
4. The bike and the bike.
5. Somebody (Worx) is betting silly sells.
6. Our job is set ahead of us, to whit that growth, which we need to fight tooth and nail.
7. And why? To stop advances in medicine like this one.
8. And to prevent this sort of thing from becoming the norm. Excellence? Put a stop to it right now.
9. Thinking people need no longer apply.
10. Some words on that thing which has a first order effect on our climate, unlike CO2.

This is what you get when you try to soak the rich.

President Obama proposes to pay for his $447 billion jobs bill mainly by limiting tax deductions for wealthy Americans. Unfortunately, if enacted, this policy will likely dampen charitable giving and further shift perceived responsibility for social welfare from individual donors to the state.

The President’s plan calls for lowering the rate at which wealthy taxpayers can take itemized deductions—from the current rate of 35 percent down to 28 percent, beginning in 2013. The change would affect individuals making more than $200,000 (and families making more than $250,000) per year.

So how much would we be talking about?

The result of President Obama’s proposal will likely be several billion dollars in decreased revenue each year for hospitals, educational institutions, and nonprofits that help the poor. While giving would probably drop only a small percentage, the anticipated amount would total more than the combined annual operating budgets of the Ameri­can Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude Chil­dren’s Research Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association.

Those who are served by these institutions aren’t the only ones who would be hurt by decreased giving. Many people’s jobs would also be threatened.

Perhaps most importantly, Obama’s proposal sends the message that federal bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than civil society can. Decreasing an incentive for charitable giving implies that the state should assume responsibility for people’s needs, even at the expense of vital nonprofit organizations. Churches, ministries, and other community-based institutions, however, are often better equipped to serve people in need. And they often do so at reduced costs.

If Republicans vote against this, be sure that this analysis will not be mentioned. Instead, by protecting charities, Republicans will be said to be "against jobs".

Well, at first I was out this morning but thing happened and I’m back ensconced in my office nest.

1. Dostoevsky and Chavez.
2. Giddyap.
3. Incitement with purpose.
4. A Democrat slips his chains.
5. Palestine using drones?
6. Hmm.
7. Noted at the High Court.
8. Is this right? And … do ya think the same would occur if the shirt was plugging the other party?
9. Is this a plug for nuclear power?
10. Ethics and study.
11. Putting the “employment uptick” in context. More here.
12. China’s Solyndra problem.
13. Pedestrians and the roundabout.
14. On bicycles and helmets. I’ll add in at least one crash I experienced in a race, I definitely felt the helmet smack very hard into the asphalt and it cracked. I suffered no concussion and was unharmed (except for the usual road rash). I credit the helmet.  If you crash and you have a helmet, replace it even if you think the helmet looks fine.
15. Of online morals debates.
16. The Chicago way.
17. Ms Warren and her legal practice.
18. Japan and the single life.

I know I’m biased, but Romney was mopping the debate floor with Obama last night. Even on the ObamaCare vs RomneyCare situation, he’s came out on top.

Some of the big-name liberals were astonished as well. Jeff Jarvis, media critic at BuzzFeed tweeted, "How did Obama get backed into the corner defending the death panel?" Indeed, Sarah Palin deserves an apology. Bill Maher had to admit, "i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter". Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos top liberal blog lamented, "Nobody likes seeing a prevent defense in action, and that’s what Dems saw tonight."

Some good Tweets from the Right, too.

James Taranto: It’s a close one, but I’ll say Obama had a better night than Lehrer.

David Limbaugh: Again — listen to Obama- in almost every answer he focuses on what is and isn’t fair. He never addresses what will work esp 4 growht [sic] & debt

Blogger Ace of Spades quotes a pollster: Frank Luntz: "I have not had a group that swung this much. This is overwhelming for Romney. This is a big deal."

Again, I know I’m biased, but I think Romney won on substance as well as style; explaining the $716 billion he would put back in Medicare (and why), why RomneyCare was at least passed in a bipartisan way (as opposed to ObamaCare), and, as I said, getting Obama to admit and even defend "death panels".

It was a great first day of the rest of the campaign. Hopefully, this will translate into votes.

Ooh, in the office today … for a while.

1. The debate as seen by/from France.
2. Garbage.
3. Porn of sorts, here and here.
4. Automation, why food, clothing and other goods are is cheap today while medical care remains expensive.
5. Irony and wit from Iran — really.
6. Why would an incumbent admit to burying and ignoring the majority of his listeners? Oh, who was it? Never mind.
7. Obamacare looking more and more like a cunning plan.
8. A report on the beginning of the debate from an academic sociopath.
9. He watched something else, I read books and worked out.
10. Libya.
11. Einsteins most famous equation (relation?) revisited.
12. Remember more detainment means you don’t have to kill them all. So why is less detainment seen by the left as more ethical?
13. A book noted.
14. Mr Obama and his Volt.

Well, … life intrudes.

1. Ah, some suggestions for Mr Romney for the first debate.
2. On those cricket races.
3. So, still no mention of the magical Obama roadmap to a nuclear (weapon) free world.
4. (One) Religious freedom returns to Germany.
5. Death of a bad man noted (HT: CB)
6. “Call me a Luddite” … no I’ll call myself confused as to why the person named as the architect of one of the reasons for the success of the 9/11 attacks still has a job in Washington (recall her “wall of separation” between agencies was one of signal factors blamed for our failure to detect the actors).
7. Let’s re-write history … or not.
8. Flower children.
9. A book noted.
10. Land of the free? Or incipient police state.
11. When speaking with others.
12. A question not answered well to my knowledge.
13. Administration lies and the liberal echo chamber hasn’t noticed.

Religious folks who have traditionally voted Democrat are (finally) beginning to reconsider.

For the first time since the black community’s political realignment with the Democrat Party in the 1960’s, a nationally prominent black Pastor has called on the black church community to leave the Democrat Party in a movement dubbed "EXODUS NOW!" Bishop E.W. Jackson’s call to "come out from among them" is apparently being heeded by many black Pastors and Christians across America and creating a stir in many churches. There is concern at the highest levels of the Democrat Party.

And here.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki from Springfield, Illinois, is getting attention after making some strongly-worded comments about those Americans who opt to vote for President Barack Obama in November. In a column and video that was posted by Catholic Times, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Springfield, Paprocki targeted portions of the Democratic platform that “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” He also warned that supporting certain politicians could place peoples’ “eternal salvation…in jeopardy.”

While he noted that it’s not his job to to tell people who do vote for, the faith leader said that he has a duty to speak out about moral issues. Despite his stated problems with the Democratic Party platform — the initial removal of God, its stance abortion and its support of gay marriage – Paprocki spoke relatively favorably of the Republican platform.

If you hold to a particular religious belief, or even if you hold to none at all, whatever beliefs you have ought to inform your vote. No, this is not a case of some "religious test" that would be Constitutionally prohibited. The Constitution applies to government. The government cannot prohibit someone from running for office based on their religion. The people, however, are free to apply whatever standard each one wishes.

And now we may be seeing the beginnings of something of a backlash to policy and platform decisions by Democrats. When people start to take their religion seriously, it could change the political landscape dramatically. It ought to.

Drones. In the past years we’ve been using Predator drones and the like more and more to effect our will in unsafe territories. Dones have the advantage of not endangering US life and are very effective, but on the other side of the coin are very bad press for the US in those regions they are used and often cause civilian casualties. Drones have been used attacking targets in countries with which we are not at war.

Question: What principle decides when and were to use drones in neutral countries and how does that principle apply when considering other countries using the same rational to fly drones against targets in the US?

Good morning. So, last weekend we toured (one) school in the process of getting my #1 daughter into college. She’s very much down on the Jr college->4 year college route.

1. Regarding the “open the window” kerfuffle.
2. Still a Deda fan.
3. Drone use.
4. Missing the point, it seems to me.
5. Bang … or … Snblorg!
6. Losing the committed left.
7. and those committed left polls.
8. Of charter and union.
9. Innovation in China.
10. Fer your continuing education, an introduction to three seminal papers by a really really smart fella.
11. Changing pedagogy.
12. Disproving the “there are no dumb questions” postulate.
13. Raising of the taxes in recession, Mr Obama did.
14. Will elicit a notable reaction from Ms Minerva, I suggest.
15. Demographics and history lessons.
16. Of Mr Obama and Iraq.
17. Ms Warren’s litigation history and unions.
18. Blogging in Vietnam, unsafe at any speed.

Continuing the debates:

Arguably the very first big decision a President must make is select his running mate. Can you indicate three most important criteria you see in your selection of a running mate.

Good morning.

1. Ya throw like a gurl … with diagrams.
2. A feminist lesbian who didn’t get the memo that homosexuality is not a choice.
3. Slurp.
4. A little pro-google humor.
5. Pedagogy with a bang.
6. Elementary math.
7. For the conservative fence sitters.
8. A little conservation on the range.
9. At the end of the day (not the end of days).
10. For the teacher who perhaps unintentionally labels himself and his students as diseases.
11. Consider the drone, actually I think mass bombings of populations in WWII were later shown to have the wrong effect, i.e., they hardened not softened the will of the people. What is the psychological effect of drone attacks vs guided manned planes vs infantry?
12. OOh, Ms Warren tries the Dukakis tank picture opportunity, which worked so so well. I wonder if she can double clutch? Actually, I’m certain she can’t. What I really wonder is if she knows what that means.
13. Bad wrapping around to good.

First, Senator Harry Reid comes out with an allegation that Mitt Romney had times in the past 10 years when he paid no taxes. His source remain some anonymous person formerly of Bain Capital. He beats this drum for weeks, in the media and on the Senate floor, insisting Romney prove his innocence instead of Reid prove his guilt.

Then Romney releases a summary of his past 20 years of tax returns. At no time in the past 2 decades did his effective tax rate dip below 13%. With that allegation proven false, does the Left demand accountability of Harry Reid, for making these unfounded charges? Do they ask who his unreliable source was?

No, they ask 10 more questions of Romney!

Y’know what this sounds like? It sounds like the Birthers who, after Obama produced his birth certificate, asked more and more questions of him, and dissected the PDF file that was given to them.

And what’s really telling is, if you look at the comments on that second link, there are those who are upset — upset — that Romney did not take his full charitable deduction for the $4 million he gave to charity so that he could say he never paid less than 13%. "That jerk; he gave more to charity than he took credit for!" Wow, really? Is that the petard you want to hoist yourselves on? And really; if he had taken the full deduction and brought his effective rate down to 9%, you would have been OK with that?

Yeah, right. The screaming would have only been louder.

It’s Birtherism for taxes. I  need to come up with a catchy name for that.

Continuing (for a while … if this keeps getting ignored I’ll probably stop) the debate … a question for our candidates:

Strategy amounts to setting long term goals and objectives, tactics is the means of getting from here to there. Arguably we’ve been without a coherent Middle East strategy for decades, and we’ve replacing any strategy with a disconnected set of of short term tactical responses to developing situations. What would you identify as the key elements of a US Middle East strategy, Could you briefly describe what you envision as our strategic goals and objectives for the region?

Follow up: What do you see as the first tactical step moving in that direction?