Economic Fundamentals

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece today, entitled "Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight":

The financial crisis that began 13 months ago has entered a new, far more serious phase.

Lingering hopes that the damage could be contained to a handful of financial institutions that made bad bets on mortgages have evaporated. New fault lines are emerging beyond the original problem -- troubled subprime mortgages -- in areas like credit-default swaps, the credit insurance contracts sold by American International Group Inc. and others. There's also a growing sense of wariness about the health of trading partners.

The article continues with the explanation for the economic turmoil, found in the deceleration of consumer credit and financial markets through "deleveraging, or the unwinding of debt."

While things are not likely to improve soon, the piece ends with a surprisingly upbeat assessment of the market's economic fundamentals:

One pleasant mystery is why the crisis hasn't hit the economy harder -- at least so far. "This financial crisis hasn't yet translated into fewer...companies starting up, less research and development, less marketing," Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said Wednesday. "We haven't seen that yet. I'm sure every company is keeping their eyes on it."

At 6.1%, the unemployment rate remains well below the peak of 7.8% in 1992, amid the S&L crisis.

In part, that's because government has reacted aggressively. The Fed's classic mistake that led to the Great Depression was that it tightened monetary policy when it should have eased. Mr. Bernanke didn't repeat that error. And Congress moved more swiftly to approve fiscal stimulus than most Washington veterans thought possible.

In part, the broader economy has held mostly steady because exports have been so strong at just the right moment, a reminder of the global economy's importance to the U.S. And in part, it's because the U.S. economy is demonstrating impressive resilience, as information technology allows executives to react more quickly to emerging problems and - to the discomfort of workers - companies are quicker to adjust wages, hiring and work hours when the economy softens.

This is exactly the relatively solid economic foundation John McCain referred to in his recent statement suggesting that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

So, we're having a tremendous financial shakeout on Wall Street, but Main Street's still doing reasonable well due to the American economy's size, diversity, and resilience.

Things may indeed get worse, although financial markets closed today on a euphoric note, as the Dow Jones industrials surged to a 410-point gain as buyers raced back into securities, almost wiping out yesterday's 449-point loss.

Meanwhile, members of the radical left are not only cheering Wall Street's crisis, but they're endorsing the collapse of American financial institutions for poliltical gain. Harold Meyerson boasts, for example:

Wall Street is vanishing before our eyes. And by the measure of their contribution to America's economic strength and well being, both Reagan-age government and Wall Street's investment banks plainly deserve to die.

Cernig at Crooks and Liars has gone absolutely mad in ejaculatory glee at the current crisis:

I believe that the U.S. and other governments must do what they must to save us all from the excesses of “laissez fair” financial markets that were self-rigged in favor of a few insiders out to asset-strip and make hay while the sun shone. The alternative is too horrid to contemplate.

Well, what's too horrid?

It probably would have been better for AIG to have been sold to a private concern than taken over by taxpayers. But, of course, both Meyerson and Cernig WANT a total financial collapse of the U.S. economy so they can better justify a neo-Stalinist nationalization under a Barack Obama adiministration, one that would make the last few days look like a PTA bakesale.

The hope, for left partisans, is to create a "new, new deal" should they be given the reins of power come January:

Obama offers hope for a “new new Deal” for America’s working families in the midst of a crisis much different from, but in many ways just as serious, as Americans faced in the ’30s.

Of course, the economic difficulties are not "as serious" as the 1930s, when Americans saw 25 percent unemployment, thousands of banks collapsed, and the nation experienced nearly a decade of hard-times before economic demand surged with the productive mobilization of World War II.

Note, as well, that Zachary argued today that the distinction between pure laissez-faire and state-regulatory centralism is simplistic in a modern economy based on legal a framework of contracts and property rights, and that regulatory structures that worked well in earlier downturns may not be suited for the needs of a high-tech and highly diversified economy like today's. Thus, a heavily state-centric regulatory solution to the current crisis may be problematic, as we are no longer in an economic environment analogous to the New Deal era, notwithstanding the hope of left-wing partisans to recreate one..

Epic Fail? Hackers Sought Damaging Evidence on Palin

The father of the e-mail hacker who breached Sarah Palin's personal files refused to discuss the case when contacted by Threat Level. It turns out that the suspect's father is a Democratic assemblyman in Tennessee:

A person who identified himself as the student's father, when reached at home, said he could not talk about the matter and would have no comment. The father is a Democratic state representative in Tennessee.

Threat Level kept the identity of the suspect confidential pending further investigation, but Gateway Pundit indentified the suspect as David Kernell, and the father is Democratic Representative Mike Kernell. David Kernell has been contacted by the FBI, and Representative Kernell's personal home page has been taken down.

According to the Knoxville Tennessean:

The son of state Rep. Mike Kernell has been contacted by authorities in connection with a probe into the hacking of personal e-mail of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Kernell told The Tennessean.

Note too, that despite the widespread rejection of political or ideological motives behind the Anonymous group's attack on Governor Palin, reports on the initial security breach among 4Chan hackers show disappointment that no incriminating evidence against Palin was found - a fact which supports the contention of an extreme left-wing ideological agenda to destroy the Palin family:

The generally apolitical 4chan pranksters, who have now been widely profiled in the media, are known less for their social activism than for their propensity for pulling online stunts designed to evoke maximum anger, shock and disgust.

But now the anonymous participants on 4chan's /b/ bulletin board--the home base of their community and launching pad for their pranks--seem to feel they blew a chance to do some real damage.

According to accounts so far, and chatter on /b/ itself, shortly after the password information to Palin's account was posted on the board, the account became inaccessible, either because too many people tried to access it at once, or because a dissenter from within /b/ changed the password.

Either way, the amount of information retrieved from the Palin account appears to be relatively small. A screen shot of Palin's account shows it contained 84 unread e-mails and possibly hundreds more, but only two have made their way online, suggesting the rest were not saved before the account was locked. If they were, wouldn't we have seen them online by now?

"/b/ is now 'epic fail /b/' for not finding anything good in Palin's e-mail," wrote one anonymous commenter on the site, slamming the board with /b/'s highest-order insult. "Seriously, /b/. We could have changed history and failed, epically."

"I agree," said another. "This is epic fail. How can there not be something good in those messages?"

One of the bits of data that appears to have been taken from the account is a text-only list of all the e-mails contained in its Inbox, including the subjects and names of the senders. The list, linked here, looks authentic and matches with the data in the screenshots of the account. (Note: this link was having trouble Wednesday night because of interest in this story.)

As I noted previously, Anonymous is claimed to have no political agenda, although the group has staged nationwide protests against the Church of Scientology, and is characterized ideologically as an anarchist organization:

From what I can gather, they likely think of themselves more as TRUTHTELLERS with an anarchist strain, and so may be of the left-libertarian anarchist bent.

While the hackers under suspicion may have been politically confused, the broader 4Chan membership fits the anarchist ideological specification of utopian revolutionaries who can be placed at the extreme left-wing of the political spectrum. As part of their ideology, anarchists are opposed to religion (coercive religious institutionalism, in particular). Hence, Anonymous' current hate campaign against Scientology - an organization identified as either a controversial religion or an opportunistic financial pyramid - reflects an anti-authoritian, anti-capitalist ideological agenda

**********

Added: See, "Palin E-mail Hacker Targeted Family and Staff, Investigators Say":

... there is widespread speculation about who was behind the attack and what the motivation was.

Jose Nazario, a senior security engineer with Arbor Networks Inc., said he knows “through personal contacts” that members of the group Anonymous were involved in the Palin e-mail attack.

He said Anonymous is a loose network of a few dozen people who live in the United States and abroad and range from teenagers to 30-year-olds who share what he said is a “sociopathic sense of humor.”

**********

One of the more fascinating aspects of the Anonymous is the group's "plausible deniability." Plausible deniability is the notion that members of an organization can evade blame for their actions in the haze of an amorphous or non-existent chain of command. Members or supporters of Anonymous can act in any way illegally, and leave no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Thus, in theory, there's no one to be held responsible.

What better way for the Democrats to destroy Sarah Palin than to infilitrate the 4Chan network with Democratic Party insiders, who can then claim that Anonymous in fact has no political agenda, and no formal organization structure?

Too bad for them, the hackers weren't the brightest kids on the block. The radical left has completely endorsed the Palin security breach, and the episode provides one more example in a long chain of depravities this year that has totally discredited any claims to moral decency among those on the hardcore Democratic-left.

Unmasking the "Anonymous" Protest Group

UPDATE, 4:00pm, 9/18/08: Please see the my updated post on the Palin e-mail hacking case, "Epic Fail? Hackers Sought Damaging Evidence on Palin."

**********

The organization originally alleged as hacking into Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, known as "Anonymous," has been identified as a "left wing group" by Caleb Howe (the group was videotaped staging some unusual protests at this year's Republican National Convention).

There's some question, however, as to the ideological identification of "Anonymous" as a leftist protest organization.

As one commenter at my previous post indicated:

I think calling Anonymous a group of "liberals" is a stretch. More like bored 14 year olds.

Further, according to information provided by Michelle Malkin:

Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.

The Anonymous hackers are associated with the /b/ message board groups of 4chan.org, an image-posting site modeled after a similar webpage in Japan. The New York Times recently published a feature story on Anonymous-style hackers, with this description:

Measured in terms of depravity, insularity and traffic-driven turnover, the culture of /b/ has little precedent. /b/ reads like the inside of a high-school bathroom stall, or an obscene telephone party line, or a blog with no posts and all comments filled with slang that you are too old to understand.

But the original agenda of Anonymous hackers in the Palin case has been to protest the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, and they've recently gone public with a series wider protests against organized religion:

Hackers who launched a massive online attack against the Church of Scientology are now turning to real-world protests to draw attention to what they call a "vast moneymaking scheme under the guise of 'religion."'

The loosely organized group of hackers, who meet up and coordinate attacks through Internet Relay Chat channels, have set Feb. 10 for a wave of protests at Scientology locations worldwide.

In anonymous postings on the group's Web site, organizers said they are trying to raise awareness about the threats to free speech posed by the church's lawyers, who, the group claims, aggressively try to silence critics by threatening lawsuits. The church said its lawyers follow standard procedures for protecting copyrighted materials.

As noted, in February, the group staged protests in Boston:

A group of more than 50 masked protesters gathered yesterday outside of the Church of Scientology of Boston headquarters on Beacon Street to demonstrate against the policies of the church. Protesters said the event was part of a worldwide demonstration against the church by Anonymous, an informal Internet-based group.

Donning Guy Fawkes masks modeled after those worn in the 2005 film "V for Vendetta," or face coverings improvised with T-shirts or scarves, participants began to assemble in front of the building at the corner of Beacon and Hereford streets around 11 a.m.

The story of Fawkes, an Englishman sentenced to death for attempting to blow up the House of Lords with kegs of gunpowder in 1605, was revived in the fictional "V for Vendetta," in which a crowd of people wear identical masks to challenge the government.

The Guy Fawkes paraphernalia is important in identifying the ideological orientation of Anonymous.

As fans of the movie know, "V" is a revolutionary anarchist who dresses with a Guy Fawkes mask. The film is explicitly anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian, featuring allusions to the "warmongering" policies of the United States government (read the Bush administration).

Anarchism itself is a radical ideology favoring the total elimination of the state and the eradication of private property (a tenet anarchists share with communists). The wearing of Guy Fawkes masks by Anonymous protesters signifies a complete identification of the state as the ultimate threat to human freedom, which is combined with a revolutionary agenda toward the destruction of state institutions and the establishment of a utopian society of universal liberty and human equality.

Further, Anonymous, in its anti-Scientology program - expanded this year to include all church organizations accused of forming a "vast moneymaking scheme" - can be identified ideologically as representing radical left-wing anti-clericalism.

Anti-clericalism is an extreme left revolutionary ideology that seeks to overthrow the iron alliance of church and state in all aspects of the political and public in state-society relations. Revolutionary anti-clericalism emerged particulary during the European Enlightenment of the 16th century, and it saw the full actualization of its violent ideological program against the Catholic Church during the Jacobin stage of the French Revolution of 1792.

According to the latest Malkin report, a lone hacker is claimed to have breached Sarah Palin's personal e-mail accounts. However, at present, the identification of the attacker is unsubstantiated. As Wizbang notes:

Everyday I am learning that there doesn't seem to be a rock bottom for the scum who support Obama. Today we learned that a left wing nut hacked into Sarah Palin's private - PRIVATE - email account and splashed the contents all over the internet. Gawker is a website without any scruples and is promoting Palin's private information even though it was illegally obtained.

Even even if it turns out that the Anonymous hacker (who ILLEGALLY breached Governor Palin's proviate e-mail files) is a solo, non-ideological operator, the response on the establishment political left and the netroots blogosphere has been absolutely disgusting, and is in essence a total endorsement of the violation of the Palin family's dignity and privacy.

See, for example, Lindsay Beyerstein, at the nihilist Firedoglake:

The contents of the inbox confirm that Palin was using her private account for government business. We already knew that Palin's advisers urged her to use private accounts, a la RNC email accounts, in order to circumvent FOIA requests and skirt subpoenas.

Beyerstein apparently has no problem with the hacker's reprehensible actions, which are subject to five years in federal penetentiary upon trial and conviction.

But, of course, that's typical of those on the political left. As Victor Davis Hanson noted yesterday, the current attacks on Sarah Palin and the GOP ticket have "no parallel in modern election history."

The hacking of Sarah Palin's personal e-mail files is so far the most diabolical attack on the GOP vice-presidential nominee to date. Even if we find that a lone, totally unhinged Internet "lulz" geek got lucky in breaching Governor Palin's personal data, the failure of the left-wing political establishment to completely and unequivocally repudiate this most vile "dirty trick" of campaign 2008 reveals the total, unremitting project of ideological demonization among political actors of the contemporary left-wing Democratic establishment.

In sum, there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that's beneath the radical left-Democrat Party alliance in its sickening, immorally grotesque grab for power this year.

Left-Wing Group Hacks Sarah Palin Private E-Mail!

UPDATE, 10:10pm: Please see the my updated post on the Palin e-mail hacking case, "Unmasking the "Anonymous" Protest Group."

**********

If the Democrats were looking to rekindle the public's outpouring for Sarah Palin's historic vice-presidential run - or to turn attention away from the turmoil on financial markets - they couldn't have found a better way than to hack into Palin's personal e-mail accounts AND distribute her confidential information online for the world to see.

It turns out that a left-wing subterranean protest group is claiming responsibility for the security breach, and Gawker, the liberal New York gossip blog, has already posted the Palin family's photographs and e-mail addresses online.

Michelle Malkin offers a concise analysis of this new depth of political sleaze:

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime....

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine — see here for all the background you need — has posted private family photos of Palin’s children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.

They have reprinted her husband Todd’s private e-mail address and son Track’s private e-mail address.

You think this is just a harmless prank? Those of you who have had to deal with break-ins and identity theft know exactly what a burdensome process it is to recover from crimes like this.

Gawker knowingly and deliberately published illegally obtained photos of the Palin children.

Where are the privacy absolutists now?

You think Palin Derangement Syndrome is bad now? These by-any-means-necessary lunatics are just warming up.

As readers will recall, I've already noted numerous moral outrages perpetrated by Palin's enemies - for example, "I Miss My Mommy" and Trig Palin's auction listing on eBay.

So yes, these folks are just getting started.

Caleb Howe says the hackers are "Obama Supporters 101":

The number of lines willing to be crossed in the Palin witch-hunt the last few weeks continues to grow. From spreading rumors about her children to questioning her as a mother ... hacking her private email account and posting her private family photos online fits in perfectly. I have no doubt we'll soon hear a defense of the importance of this illegal activity to the political process...

Yep, the leftists are already blaming Palin for conducting state business on personal web-based e-mail, and suggesting the case is a GOP ruse for Palin to dodge the Alaska state-troooper investigation.

In other words, it's more GOP incompetence and lies.

The radical left will sink this election for Obama, without a doubt.

Leftists Blame Bush/McCain for Yemeni Bomb Attack

In another sign of how unglued members of the radical left have become, prominent netroots bloggers are blaming "Bush/McCain" for today's terrorist bombing of the U.S. embassy in Yemen.

Here's the resident foreign policy expert at Hullabaloo:

Y'know, occasionally I catch some grief by saying I have come truly to despise Bush/McCain and their ideological cronies like Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, and so on.

Here's why: Because the Bush/McCain gang is so ignorant violent, mentally disturbed and powerful, they get hundreds of thousands innocent people killed. Sheer moral hygiene makes it imperative that this country say no to four more years of the same.

Matthew Yglesias add this:

I guess I don’t have a grand point to make about this, but it’s a reminder that if you want to curb radicalism it makes more sense to focus on ways to reduce its appeal in the places where radical movements are already strong (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.) rather than, say, by invading Iraq.

Not surprisingly, both of these guys fail to quote the New York Times piece to which they've linked, which indicates:

Yemen has long been viewed as a haven for jihadists. It became a special concern for the United States in 2000, after Al Qaeda operatives rammed the destroyer Cole in Aden harbor, on Yemen’s southern coast, killing 17 American sailors.

The Cole bombing, of course, took place on President Bill Clinton's watch, and was a prime example of the collapse of America's anti-terror policies during the 1990s under Clinton/Gore - whose failed leadership led to the attacks of September 11, 2001

Tristero's wild allegations at Hullabaloo are typical of those who blame the terror on Bush/McCain (while he offers no condemnation of the Islamist nihilists who murdered the 16 innocents in the attack).

Yglesias, on the other hand, has built up his whole foreign policy reputation as a purveyor of 1990s-style "liberal internationalism," an approach he mistakening assumes argues for the near-universal renunciation of the use of military force.

With his apparent "mainstream" foreign policy creds, Yglesias' blind recrimination against the Bush administration might seem counterintuitive, but in fact his comments are completely understandible when we recall that Yglesias is known to don terrorist garb in solidarity with the sworn enemies of the United States.

Hysteria Grips Democratic Ranks as Obama Slide Continues

Here's John McCain's new ad buy on the economy, "Enough Is Enough":

Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest television ad, entitled "Enough is Enough." With our economy in crisis, John McCain will meet this crisis by reforming Wall Street, enacting new rules for fairness and honesty and not tolerating a system that puts familes at risk. The ad will be televised nationally.

Meanwhile, hysteria has gripped the Democratic-left as Barack Obama struggles to regain the political momentum in an electoral environment overdetermined to favor the Democratic Party.

A leading Politico story asks,"Can Obama Really Pull it Off?

Can Barack Obama actually blow this thing? Can he actually lose in November?

We have a deeply troubled economy, an unpopular war, a very unpopular president and a historic reluctance on the part of the American people to elect the same party to the White House three terms in a row.

You look at all that, and you figure Obama would be leading by double digits. But he isn’t. The race is essentially tied, and not just in the national polls, which really don’t count for much, but in the Electoral College projections, which do. On Monday, MSNBC put its electoral count at 233 for Obama and 227 for McCain, with 270 needed for victory. That’s really close.

Some Democrats are getting very concerned, and they have been making their concerns known to the Obama campaign. “We’re familiar with this,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, told The New York Times a few days ago. “And I’m sure between now and Nov. 4 there will be another period of hand-wringing and bed-wetting. It comes with the territory.”

Bed wetting? Geez, things must not be going well for the Dems!

Indeed, Rick Moran's article captures the current mania on the left, "Markets Crash, Media Hysterical, Democrats Thrilled":

“McCain Loses Fox News” blared the headline at the liberal website Think Progress. And that appeared to be the least of the Republican nominee’s worries. From Wall Street to Main Street, Democrats could barely contain their glee over the sudden turn of events that culminated in the crisis in the markets on Monday.

When financial writers ran out of dire adjectives to describe the serious crisis in the markets, Democratic and liberal blogs helped them out by managing to find a few more. After all, business reporters are not generally given to hyperbole, and the adjective is something of a stranger to them. Thankfully, Obama-supporting websites had access to an online thesaurus or two which they were able to comb for exactly the right apocalyptic language that would freeze the blood while getting the point across that John McCain was at fault by reason of his association with George Bush and that it was time to make sure the windows on those Wall Street skyscrapers were suicide-proofed.

New York Times columnist, blogger, and resident hysteric Paul Krugman referred to the day’s 500 point stock market drop as “Black Monday.” The problem with that is that 1) the name has already been taken; and 2) it is hyperbole.

The real “Black Monday” occurred on October 19, 1987, when stocks lost more than 22% of their value. Today’s market “turmoil” (which is as hyperbolic as the New York Times feels like getting) resulted in a loss of 4.4% in the value of the stock market. This is serious for those of us who have invested in mutual funds (I would suggest downing a good, stiff, Glenlivet or perhaps a strawberry martini before checking your portfolio today) but hardly the kind of thing that will result in an economic collapse.

Read the whole thing, here.

In my essay yesterday, "No Panic From Banking Crisis as McCain Momentum Holds," a new visitor left this comment:

Don't you ever get tired of spinning every bit of news in a way favorable to your point of view. Don't you ever get tired of deception and outright lying? I mean you must know that what you're saying is partly bs. And why the meaness? Why do you call Americans who have liberal values 'lefties.' Why do you work so hard to make the situation worse? Why do you think it's patriotic to malign other Americans?

I don't know if this fellow's been around my blog much, but suggesting, as I do at the post, that the loss of momentum for the Democrats "must be painful" is hardly being "mean."

Notice how these comments don't attempt to actually rebut any of the points I make in the essay, like the fact that John McCain actually leads Barack Obama by 20 votes in Electoral College projections, or that McCain holds a four-point edge in weekend polling in Ohio, which might be the most important battteground state in 2008.

The truth hurts, I guess, which leads the lefties to hurl accusations of "lying."

No Panic From Banking Crisis as McCain Momentum Holds

Gallup reports that surveys from Saturday, Sunday, and Monday show little change in public perceptions of the economy:

An examination of single-night interviewing from Monday night, after the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 500 points and Sunday's financial calamities dominated the news, does not reflect a dramatic downturn in either views of the current economy nor perceptions about the direction of the economy.

As the week progresses, Americans' views of the economy may change further - particularly if the Dow Jones average continues to fall, or if further problems in the banking industry are reflected in the news. For the moment, however, Gallup's tracking data do not suggest that Monday's financial news caused an immediate downturn in the American public's views of the economy.

We'll probably see the numbers on the "getting worse" measure go up just a few points over the next few days.

Yet, considering the scale of turmoil in the markets, Gallup's numbers indicate that negative perceptions of the economy have probably topped out for the year. Of course, the lefties are milking any and all perceptions of crisis for all they're worth.

Meanwhile, the McCain/Palin ticket is leading Obam/Biden 227/207 in the Electoral College projection at RealClearPolitics, with 104 votes up for grabs in toss-up states. Also, Rasmussen has McCain leading Obama by one point in a statistical dead-heat tracking poll, although Sarah Palin beats Joseph Biden 47 to 44 percent a hypothetical head-to-head race for the presidency.

The election's shaping up to be largely a rerun of the key battlegrounds state contests we saw in 2004, with Ohio likely to be a must-wing state for both campaigns (and McCain's holding a lead there, 48 to 44 percent, in weekend polling).

All of this must be painful for the Democrats (either that or they're fooling themselves on the prospects for a comeback amid the market shocks), and the clock's ticking down for Obama's long-awaited game changer. If economic crisis on Wall Street's not doing it for "The One," it's doubtful that anything will.

Unprecedented Attacks on McCain/Palin

Victor Davis Hanson puts the sustained attacks against John McCain and Sarah Palin in perspective:

The sudden change in the polls the last 10 days, even though it may be temporary, has prompted a furor in the media that has no parallel in modern election history. Vicious words like "treason", "abasement", "liar", and "lying" are in the air now in an unheralded attack on McCain, often in association with the sex education ad, and the lipstick identification with Palin as a pig. (cf. e.g., Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen today). But as Byron York has shown, that ad alleging that Obama supported detailed information about matters of sex to be disseminated to younger children (for a variety of educational reasons), while tough and unnecessary, was nevertheless not a lie.

And as far as the silly lipstick moment, if one studies the tape carefully as Obama lets go with his similes, it is clear that the hooting audience at least seemed to make the association with Palin, and the further elaboration on a stinky old fish seemed to cement the allusion to McCain....

What we are seeing is a sort of meltdown in which the selection of Palin is associated with the first real possibility all summer that the messianic Obama may not necessarily ascend; that triggers a certain repulsion toward her in particular, and a general furor at the once likeable McCain (once likeable to present-day Obama's supporters in the past sense that in 2000 he was going to lose, perhaps divide Republicans, and was not George Bush), which, in turn, can conjure up all sorts of no longer latent demons, going back to Vietnam onto to Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

The problem (inter alia) with this vicious, loose use of "traitor" and "lie/liar/lying" and blanket condemnations of the US military is that it achieves the opposite of what the authors intend — and repelling most readers to such a degree that they are scared off from anything the writer seems to be advocating.

Lest one think Hanson's exaggerating, just check out this essay from Paul Slansky at Huffington Post, "Why Does John McCain Hate America So Much?":

The contempt John McCain has shown for the people of this country by plucking the wildly unqualified Sarah Palin to sit a cancer-prone heartbeat from the presidency leaves only one conclusion. John McCain hates America....

That John McCain is a shameless panderer who'll do anything to get elected president has become increasingly obvious over the eight years he's spent reversing every principled position he'd ever taken. That John McCain has renounced every shred of honor that ever attached to him is clear to anyone who bears witness to the parade of scummy lies he calls his advertising campaign....

John McCain likes to wrap himself in the flag and call himself a patriot, but foisting this dangerously inappropriate successor-in-waiting on the nation puts him at the opposite end of that spectrum. By disregarding the kind of risk his country will be at if this know-nothing reactionary ascends to the presidency, he reveals himself not as a patriot, but rather as a traitor. If John McCain dies in office, he should be posthumously tried for treason.

With this f**k-you to America, John McCain has proven himself to be - and I never thought I'd be able to say this about anyone - as despicable as George W. Bush.

And to think, I'll have commenters here telling me "in no way do Slansky's views represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party."

Yeah, right...

Obama Confirms Effort to Delay Troop Pullout in Iraq

Barack Obama's statement denying secret negotiations with the Iraqi government on the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in fact confirms Amir Taheri's allegations that the Illinois Senator made an end run around U.S. officials on the disposition of American forces.

Obama's own statements reveal he indeed appealed to the Iraqi government for a delay in the withdrawal plans:

In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri.

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open," Zebari reportedly said.

The Republican campaign of John McCain seized on the report to accuse Obama of double-speak on Iraq, calling it an "egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas."

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

There's lots of analysis online, but Captain Ed lays out the implications of Obama's confirmation of independent military diplomacy with the Iraqi government:

Barack Obama went to Iraq and interfered with the diplomatic efforts of the elected United States government, in a war zone no less, by telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the President. How exactly does that make Taheri’s column untruthful?

It wasn’t enough for Obama to fail at forcing the nation into a defeat in Iraq when he opposed the surge. Now he has interfered with our efforts to stabilize Iraq and provide for its security after the surge succeeded in keeping Iraq from falling into a failed state. And when he got caught working for failure and defeat, he tried making it into a smear against John McCain.

That’s not leadership America needs from a Senator, let alone a President. The Senate should investigate this as a gross violation of the Constitution and the separation of powers between the branches of government.

This story demands wide circulation.

See also, "Will the Biggest Obama Scandal of the Campaign Be Buried Alive?"

McCain/Palin's Fundamental Leadership on Economy

Here's the new John McCain ad buy on the campaign's economic leadership, "Crisis":

Barack Obama hammered McCain earlier today for his comment suggesting the "fundamentals" of the ecomony remain solid.

But it turns out that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg agrees with McCain:

I guess I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that's strong," Bloomberg said during a Blue Room press conference this afternoon in response to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch sale and teering of AIG.

"America's great strength is its diversity, is its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets, enormous natural resources," the mayor continued. "And the great American ethic of...We may yell and scream a little bit, but in the end, Americans get on with it. They go out and they find new careers. They start new companies. They want better for their children, even if it means hard work and sacrifice for themselves. Are we without problems? No.

Interestingly, Lawrence Kudlow, in praising Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's leadership during the crisis, confirms the soundness of McCain/Palin's approach to economic management:

There are many ... issues wound up in all this. But one thing's for sure. Keeping tax rates low, holding back cheap-money inflation, strengthening the dollar, and building a more effective regulatory structure that does not stifle free enterprise is what will promote long-run economic prosperity. For optimists like myself, the plunge in oil and gas pump prices is already producing a sizable tax-cut effect, planting the seeds of recovery for mortgage-holding consumers and everyone else.

Obama Alleged to Undermine President During Wartime

Via Andrew McCarthy, "McCain Responds to Obama's Reported Undermining of the Commander-In-Chief During Wartime":

The McCain Campaign has issued a statement responding to the report from Amer Taheri (see today's web briefing) that Sen. Obama secretly negotiated with the Iraqi government regarding U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation.

Fox News reports that Obama has denied the story, "Obama Camp Denies He Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of Troops From Iraq."

Just getting these allegations out into the press is damaging, but if independent corroboration emerges, this story is deadly to Obama's election chances.

Earl Hutchinson knows this, so he attacks the messenger, and then prays:

The Iranian-born Taheri who reports the alleged "private" conversation between Obama and Zebari has been roundly and repeatedly slammed as a rabid, political ax grinding neo-con shill. He may well be that and more. Still, the charge is out there, so Team Obama please say that it's nonsense.

What a potentially devastating surprise, and it's not even October yet!

Hat Tip: Memeorandum

Barack Obama's Screaming Negativity

Here's Barack Obama's new attack ad:

Ann Althouse offers a detailed analysis, including this:

This ad screams its negativity. The ominous music. The string of very ugly words: sleaziest... vile ... dishonest smears ... lie ... damned ... disgraceful ... dishonorable ... deception. And yet the ad seeks to inspire outrage about McCain's negativity. But we're not watching McCain's ads. The example of sleaziness is the one before our eyes now.

The ad screams desperation as well.

Also, don't miss the new 527 interest group ad from Born Alive Truth.

Babies Have a Right to Life, Senator Obama

A new 527 interest organization, Born Alive Truth, is distributing the testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen, seen at the video:

Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others…but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn’t be here.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted four times against affording these babies their most basic human right. I have serious concerns about Senator Obama’s record and views on this issue, given he voted against these protections four times as a state Senator. Just as abuse victims share their stories to educate the public, fight for the common good and hope that as a result politicians do what’s right, I felt it was important to come forward and give these new born babies a voice.

I am living proof these babies have a right to live, and I invite you to learn more about Senator Obama’s record on this important issue.

-Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen

See also, Dawn Eden, "Obama: "The First Thing I'd Do as President ...", on a President Obama's first legislative act of signing into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would reauthorize partial-birth abortions in the United States.

Plus, don't miss my earlier entry, "The Secret Life of Senator Infanticide."

McCain Holds Historical Advantage in Current Poll Trends

Gallup's got an editorial analysis on the firm's polling trends for the presidential election:

Some aspects of Democrats' "structural" election advantage have faded in the immediate aftermath of the Republican National Convention. Americans have become more likely to identify as Republicans than before the conventions, although Democrats retain a slight edge on this measure. The Republican Party is now seen almost as favorably as the Democratic Party. Democrats now have only a slight edge on generic ballots for Congress. A key question is whether or not these Republican gains will remain in place, or fade in the weeks after the GOP convention....

Barack Obama led John McCain by only an average of three percentage points (registered voters) for most of this summer. The two candidates ended up in a statistical tie just as the Democratic convention began. Obama then received a predictable convention "bounce" during his convention. McCain, in turn, more than matched Obama's bounce, and by ten days after the GOP convention, was maintaining a small advantage over Obama. The extent to which this slight, but meaningful, lead alters the structure of the election remains to be seen.

It's still too early to estimate election probabilities, but if McCain retains an advantage in the weeks after the conventions ended, history says that he has a better than even chance of winning the election.

There's more at the link.

The editors note that the potential impact of the current economic crisis on Wall Street is unknown at this time, if there's going to be any impact from the turmoil at all.

You can bet, in any case, that the left will be working its hardest to milk any inkling of bad economic news they can get. Time is running out, so look for leftists to be cheering continued market instability in the days and weeks ahead.

Atlantic to Apologize for Doctored McCain Photographs

Fox News reports that the Atlantic Monthly will apologize for pictures demonizing John McCain, which were posted at photographer Jill Greenberg's website. Greenberg worked under contract for the magazine in producing photographs for the Atlantic's latest cover story:

The editor of The Atlantic Monthly said Monday he is sending a letter of apology to John McCain after a woman the magazine hired to photograph the Republican presidential nominee posted manipulated pictures from the photo shoot on her Web site.

Photographer Jill Greenberg, who is vehemently anti-Republican and expressed glee that the photos would stir up conservative ire, took pictures of McCain for the cover of The Atlantic’s October issue.

During the shoot, she took several other backlit pictures, which she then doctored and posted to her site. In one photo, she added blood oozing from McCain’s shark-toothed mouth and labeled it with the caption “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer.” In another, a caption over McCain’s head says, “I will have my girl kill Roe v. Wade,” an obvious reference to his running mate Sarah Palin’s anti-abortion positions.

Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.

If you haven't seen them, Gawker's got Greenberg's additional "diabolical" McCain photos.

The Atlantic's got about as much credibility as Us Weekly, in any case.

Obama's Faith Merchandise

Beliefnet reports that the Barack Obama campaign is rolling out a line of "faith merchandise," including "Believers for Barack" paraphernalia:

The campaign's newsletter states:

Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We'll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay.

"Pro-family"?

In a 2006 speech at Saddleback Church in Orange Country, California, Obama declared:

We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth...

I guess Obama's "pro-family" work for God doesn't extend to protecting the lives of infant babies left to die in soiled-linen closests.

But wait!

The campaign indicates that they'll soon have available "Pro-Israel Pro-Obama" merchandise!

I'm sure the "Jewish Americans for Obama" network at the Obama official homepage is thrilled, considering that:

A growing number of bloggers such as Richard Cohen, Brigitte Gabriel, Sharon Hughes, Charles Krauthammer, Kenneth Blackwell, Naomi Ragen, Debbie Schlussel, Ed Lasky, and William Levinson are pointing out Barack Obama’s numerous connections to unsavory individuals and organizations that espouse and promote hatred of Jews, Catholics, white people, Israel, and/or the United States.

Don't forget that Obama, last February, refused to reject the endorsement of Louis Farrakan, who has condemned Judaism as a "gutter religion."

Of course, at the time Obama was still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, rockin' and rolling to Reverend Jeremiah's "greatest hits."

Dow Tumbles to 500-Point Decline

American financial markets have sustained one of the most significant collapses in recent history, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

The stock market suffered its worst daily plunge in nearly seven years Monday as the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings threw the U.S. financial system into an abyss, uncertain where the bottom of its credit-related problems lies.

Lehman's demise makes it the biggest casualty yet in the long-running credit crisis, which has so far seen torrents of red ink, restructurings and acquisitions, and shutterings of a few commercial banks. But until Sunday night, no Wall Street firm of such size and stature had suffered an all-out meltdown.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which languished with a loss between 200 and 300 points for most of the day, saw its losses accelerate in the last hour of trading to suffer its worst daily point drop since trading resumed after the 9/11 terror attacks. The Dow ended down by 504.48 points on Monday, off 4.4%, at its daily low of 10917.51, down 18% on the year.

All 30 of the Dow's components fell, led by a 60.8% plunge in American International Group. The Federal Reserve on Monday asked Goldman Sachs Group and J.P. Morgan Chase to help make $70-$75 billion in loans available to the company, according to people familiar with the situation. The insurer has been racing to restructure its business and raise fresh capital to avoid a downgrade of its credit ratings.

The number of big players on Wall Street is dwindling, but traders said it remains to be seen where and for how much longer the ill effects of soured credit bets will continue to surface. A series of events through the end of the week, including a Fed meeting Tuesday and stock-options expiration Friday, could shed more light on the state of the financial system and send investors on another dizzying ride.

See also the reports at the New York Times and the Washington Post.

As noted above by the Journal, we'll know more about the impact of the market crash on the financial system and broader economy later, but Barack Obama and the Democrats are wasting no time in hammering John McCain as out of touch on pocketbook issues:

Hours after Senator John McCain said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” Senator Barack Obama seized upon the remark on Monday and offered a blistering critique of the Republican Party’s stewardship of the economy as the Wall Street turmoil created ripples in the presidential campaign.

“We just woke up to news of financial disaster and this morning and he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?” Mr. Obama told voters at an afternoon rally here. “Senator McCain, what economy are you talking about?”

As he campaigned in Florida on Monday, Mr. McCain cautioned against panic as the stock market fell, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch was abruptly acquired. He acknowledged “tremendous turmoil in our financial markets” but said taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a government bailout.

“People are frightened by these events,” Mr. McCain said at a rally in Jacksonville. “Our economy, I think still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.”

Prolonged economic difficulty would benefit Obama, but as financial markets stabilize, and as the Dow rallies to recover from the slide over the next few days, the political impact of today's turmoil may not be enough to improve Obama's fortunes.

This raises dangers for the Democrats.

John McCain won plaudits coming out of the Saddleback Civil Forum last month, not the least because of his decisive optimism. Left-wing commentators are arguing that Obama needs to hammer harder against the GOP, and the Wall Street mess presents an opportunity. But the party will be poorly received for cheering hard times, especially in the light of the overall positive economic record of the Bush administration, and the federal government's well-received performance on Hurricane Gustav earlier this month.

The "sky is not falling," although many on the left are claiming otherwise.

What Happened to Sociotropic Voting?

I remember a funny term in graduate school called "sociotropic voting."

The notion is that voters look at the economy's performance and evaluate their electoral choices with the goal of maximizing "social welfare" in mind. With the current economic turbulence - housing and the subprime collapse, the Wall Street financial crisis, sustained high gas prices and inflation at the grocery store checkout line, etc. - it seems we'd be seeing more discussion along the lines of public interest voting, and thus signs of political rewards for the party out of power.

If one clicks on the Huffington Post, as I have the last few days, the website has adopted the old newspaper rack headline strategy of crisis. Clicking right now finds the blaring topic headline, "BLACK MONDAY." I checked over there last night to find Huffington Post trumpeting the recent Alan Greenspan quote, "ONCE IN A CENTURY ECONOMIC CRISIS."

As bad as things are, the feeling on the street is nowhere near that proportion. I'm seeing less "bank owned" for sale signs as I was at the beginning of the year, and even as national unemployment numbers edge up, the Southern California economy appears robust, with firms hiring and the morning crush on Los Angeles freeways signaling as big a traffic commute as ever (impressionist data to be sure, but nevertheless good indicators of a vigorous local marketplace).

Indeed, as tough as the economy seems objectively, individual concerns about market instability have been declining, as seen in a recent Gallup report, "Pessimism Declines Despite Job Woes."

So, where's the attention to sociotropic voting?

The Monkey Cage has a research update, "A Different Take on Sociotropic and Pocketbook Voting":

Dozens – hundreds? – of research studies have explored one particular aspect of the economic basis of electoral behavior: the issue of whether “pocketbook” considerations (one’s personal financial situation) or “sociotropic” ones (one’s assessment of the state of the broader economy) are more important. The standard modus operandi in such research is to pit these two possibilities against one another in horse-race fashion and determining which comes out ahead. Or, in more comprehensive treatments, the two possibilities might be included additively in models of voting, to try to assess the overall impact of economic conditions on voting behavior.

Mitchell Killian, Ryan Schoen, and Aaron Dusso (political science graduate students at, ahem, George Washington University) have a somewhat different take on this issue. In a piece that will appear in an upcoming issue of Political Behavior, they examine the possibility that “pocketbook and sociotropic economic assessments are not independent and alternative sources of voter turnout, but operate in tandem to shape electoral behavior.”

A draft of the research is here (in pdf).

The paper's blending macro- and micro-economic concerns among voters, synthesizing two strands of reseach. The dependent variable is "likelihood of voting," rather than "voting for policies that maximize 'social welfare,'" which is considered the main hypothesis in sociotropic models.

Still, the Killian, Schoen, and Dusso paper finds that:

The perception that one is falling behind economically relative to the rest of society spurs those individuals to vote more than individuals who perceive that they have been reaping relative economic gains.

Taking this logic further, perhaps current polling data predicting a large turnout in November's election can be correlated to feelings of "not keeping up with the Jones" among American voters; and if so, from a sociotropic perspective, we might expect the party out of power to benefit.

In other words, the Democrats should be pulling away in public opinion polling.

But they're not, at either the presidential or generic congressional level.

So, what happened to sociotropic voting?

Who knows?

The Politico reports that the "banking meltdown" is going to wallop the presidential campaigns, but frankly, the Democrats are facing an uphill battle in making the case for "Bush's third term."

Maybe Barack Obama needs to replace Joseph Biden with Hillary Clinton as running mate (so the Democrats can capture more of those "bitter" voters).

But I'll leave it the political science voting experts to sort it all out.

What if Obama Loses?

Consider this a perfect follow-up essay to my earlier entry today, "Voter Disenfranchisement as Racism Against Obama?"

It turns out that Harvard's Randall Kennedy has written about the potential reaction among black Americans at the loss of Barack Obama in November.

Before leaving a quote, I must say I'm intrigued that Kennedy's publishing his piece right now. I don't remember him writing anything on Obama all year (and I like Kennedy, too, an atypical scholar of black law and politics, who often questions the reigning shibboleths); so perhaps his post is one more tiny inkling of how poorly things are going for the Democrats - or perhaps it's another indicator of how far Obama's fallen, like Icarus, from the lofty clouds of messianic inevitablity.

But here's Kennedy:

After he was nominated in the week marking the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, Obama became the focus of millennial aspirations. "Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime black candidate," wrote a black student in a memo for my course, "our one shot, probably the only real contender that my parents and grandparents will ever see, and maybe the only contender my generation will see. All my hopes ride with him." Imagine the pain of such hopes dashed.

Black America, of course, is diverse. Some black conservatives -- columnist Thomas Sowell or Ken Blackwell, former secretary of state of Ohio -- will undoubtedly be delighted by an Obama defeat; he is, after all, their ideological foe. But there are also black leftists who oppose him. Writing in the Progressive magazine, Prof. Adolph Reed of the University of Pennsylvania urges voters to reject Obama (as well as McCain) because he is a "vacuous opportunist" who, like Bill Clinton, conservatizes the leftward end of the American political spectrum. A close variant is the camp of blacks who will be relieved by an Obama defeat because they fear that his victory would misleadingly suggest that America is no longer in need of large-scale racial reform. Still others, who believe that Obama has hurt himself by seeking the political center and declining to be more forceful in voicing a progressive alternative to the Republican ticket, would feel somber vindication.

There are blacks who'll be indifferent to an Obama defeat because they don't think that the outcome of the presidential race will have any real effect on their miserable fates. Others, protecting themselves against the pain of disappointment, have systematically repressed expectations. My mother will be sorry if Obama loses, but she won't feel disillusioned, because she hasn't allowed herself to get her hopes up. She has insisted throughout that "the white folks are going to refuse one way or another to permit Obama to become president." That she says this is remarkable, given the success of her three children, all of whom attended Princeton and became attorneys (one is a federal judge). Still, even though she has seen many racial barriers fall, she's simply unwilling to make herself vulnerable to dejection by investing herself fully in the Obama phenomenon.

If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I'll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I'll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.
If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn't win, and because in my view, the Obama ticket is obviously superior to McCain's.

But I hope that soon thereafter I'll find solace and encouragement in contemplating this unprecedented development: A major political party nominated a black man for the highest office in the land, and that man waged an intelligent, brave campaign in which many millions of Americans of all races enthusiastically supported an African American standard-bearer.

Note first, if Obama loses, and the election's close, the Democrats will have attorneys flaring out around the country - to Florida, Ohio, and other states - amid a national outcry on the left alleging "Rovian" fraud and "racist" ballot irregularities. The anger will be of the intensity following Al Gore's loss to G.W. Bush in 2000, with some added outrage on the scale seen on the African-American street after the white officers' aquittals in the Rodney King beating trial in 1992 (no prediction on rioting this time, but who knows?).

But I haven't actually thought that far ahead.

Barack Obama's already achieved history by winning the nomination of his party for President of the United States. Unfortunately, the Democrats need a "black Bill Clinton," that is, they need an African-American "New Democrat" who is willing to break free from the party's debilitating focus on identity politics and racial grievance. They also need, actually, someone's who's less about "hope and changiness" and more about patriotism and traditionalism.

That said, as readers know, I've been pumping up John McCain all year, and if Obama loses it'll seem a bit miraculous, given the Obamania of just a few months ago. Like Kennedy, I'll reflect on the history-making nature of Obama's quest, and I'll long marvel over the "millions of Americans of all races enthusiastically supported an African American standard-bearer."

But I'll simply be glad he lost, knowing that our country will be safer and our that our political culture and traditions will not only be preserved by a McCain/Palin presidency, but rejuvenated with the kind reformist, new-feminist change that's a wholly more refreshing kind of radicalism than anything the Democrats had to offer.