Beautiful Woman

Midweek Rule 5, via Guns and Bikinis:

Needed a little diversion from politics. See also Bob Belvedere, Theo Spark and TigerHawk.

Germany Pays Off Reparations Imposed at Versailles — 92 Years Later!

Fascinating piece, at the Times of London, "First World War Officially Ends" (at Memeorandum):

The First World War will officially end on Sunday, 92 years after the guns fell silent, when Germany pays off the last chunk of reparations imposed on it by the Allies.

The final payment of £59.5 million, writes off the crippling debt that was the price for one world war and laid the foundations for another.

Germany was forced to pay the reparations at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 as compensation to the war-ravaged nations of Belgium and France and to pay the Allies some of the costs of waging what was then the bloodiest conflict in history, leaving nearly ten million soldiers dead.

The initial sum agreed upon for war damages in 1919 was 226 billion Reichsmarks, a sum later reduced to 132 billion, £22 billion at the time.

The bill would have been settled much earlier had Adolf Hitler not reneged on reparations during his reign.

Hatred of the settlement agreed at Versailles, which crippled Germany as it tried to shape itself into a democracy following armistice, was of significant importance in propelling the Nazis to power.

"On Sunday the last bill is due and the First World War finally, financially at least, terminates for Germany," said Bild, the country's biggest selling newspaper.

Most of the money goes to private individuals, pension funds and corporations holding debenture bonds as agreed under the Treaty of Versailles, where Germany was made to sign the 'war guilt' clause, accepting blame for the war.

France, which had been ravaged by the war, pushed hardest for the steepest possible fiscal punishment for Germany.

The principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, John Maynard Keynes, resigned in June 1919 in protest at the scale of the demands.

"Germany will not be able to formulate correct policy if it cannot finance itself,' he warned.

When the Wall Street Crash came in 1929, the Weimar Republic spiralled into debt. Four years later, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany.

Yes, Keynes was right (see, The Economic Consequences of the Peace), but it's a much more complicated story. The United States was deeply implicated in the harsh settlement at Versailles. Americans would not agree to inter-Allied debt forgiveness for Britain and France, both of whom were facing financial collapse from the war, which in turn compelled them both, and especially France, to demand a punitive armistice with steep reparations. (And then there's the infamous "War Guilt Clause," Article 231, which made Weimar Germany responsible for damages caused by the war. There's a bit of historiographic controversy on this, discussed at Wikipedia. The word "guilt" appears nowhere in the article and it was actually designed to make Germany responsible only for the civilian costs of the war and not TOTAL costs. See William Keylor, The Twentieth-Century World and Beyond. That said, historical memory imputes tremendous symbolism to the war guilt clause, and over time it has come to represent intense allied vindictiveness and short-sightedness. Note how the Times article above is sure to cite it.)

Versailles. A flawed peace. Paved the way for the Second World War.

Obama Loves Gangsta Rap

Well, yeah.

Lil Wayne doin' time for attempted weapons possession, yo! And some lefty lamebrains have issues? You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP? (That's paraphrasing Fox Nation, before anyone gets uptight about it — hilarious, if you ask me!)

She's on fire
Put her out, as a matter of fact, take her out
Got on my knees and asked my lord to keep me clear from the devil cause my girl
She's on fire

Yeaaa, And everything is so cool
I want them back shots
I said shorty let me play up in them matchbox
shorty she’s on fire,
shorty let a n-gga rub this stick cos this a matchbox,
she’s steaming, she’s screaming,
she’s she’s screaming
she’s feinding I redeem it
I get between it, like her, like her,

now hit me,
now shes on fire,
Yeahh, I let the steam blow, yeah
but everything is cool...

RELATED: "Lil Wayne Readies New Album as Release From Prison Nears."

'9-11 Frame Up/Inside Job'

"Idiots."

Says Ann Althouse, "Pictures from the periphery of the Obama rally":

Bob Beckel Goes Off on Pamela Geller: 'You Better Be Very Careful About Saying Who I Carry Water For'

He's a Democrat. They're assholes. It's understandable:

Jennifer Grey on 'Dancing With the Stars'

Everybody's talkin' about the Palins, Sarah who was (allegedly) booed and Bristol who was voted up. But I just loved Jennifer Grey, and I love stories of beating cancer:

Digby Says F*** The Taliban

And that's the American Taliban, for the record.

Responding to the Fact Check rebuttal to Rep. Alan Grayson's vile campaign ad this week, Digby writes:

At this point in the United States it is permissible for Republicans to attack Democrats as treasonous, Godless/Muslim socialists and compare them to Hitler and Stalin but Democrats are only allowed to attack Republicans for their differences in policy. Can we see the asymmetry here? Is it any surprise that they have dominated politics for the past 30 years? Sure, every once in a while there are moments when their act gets old and the nation will look for hope and change rather than fear and loathing, but let's just say that their willingness (and institutional support) will give them the advantage most of the time.

It's a long post, so read the rest. Digby digs up some obscure religious explication to rebut the Fact Check rebuttal. In other words, Republican Daniel Webster really is an American Taliban!

Sally Menke, 'Pulp Fiction' Film Editor, May Have Died of Heat Stroke

I tweeted this story earlier today. Heat stroke is dangerous yet fascinating. The effects of high body heat apparently cause a rapid deterioration of function. I remember a few years ago a boy and his father died of heat exposure in Landers, not far from mom's house in the high desert east of Palm Springs. See, "A Father-and-Son Desert Trip Ends in Death." I recall that their car got stuck in the sand, and after passers-by helped them out, they gave them "extra" water bottles as thank-yous. That was 100 degree weather. Yesterday it was 113 in Los Angeles, all the more dangerous for the 'Pulp Fiction' film editor.

See KTLA:

The Los Angeles County coroner's office says a longtime Quentin Tarantino film editor may have died from heat stroke while hiking.

The body of 56-year-old Sally Menke was found early Tuesday morning in a residential area near Canyon Drive, just on the edge of the sprawling 4,200 acre park, Los Angeles County Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter confirmed with KTLA.

Coroner's Lt. Fred Corral says investigators Menke died of hyperthermia.

Menke and a friend were hiking in Griffith Park Monday morning when the editor complained of feeling dizzy and said she would return to her car.

Another hiker reported seeing her disoriented on a trail, but Menke refused help.

She was reported missing by her friends after she failed to come home in the evening.

My prayers go out to Menke's family.

David Horowitz at 'Securing America's Future' in Beverly Hills

Here's the scene as I walked up to the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills Sunday night:

It's an old-fashioned venue with a balcony and ornate interior. Kinda fun. Here's a shot of the crowd a few minutes before opening introductions. The event was well-attended:

The event press release is here. Michael Medved moderated. And the panel was awesome: Cliff May, Mona Charen, and David Horowitz.

Medved's opening question asked the panelists: "What was the most important threat" facing country today?" Medved tapped David Horowitz first. Without hesitation, Horowitz said that "Islamo-Nazism" was the most important threat facing the United States. And he noted that it wasn't just the threat of Islamist terrorism but the even greater danger of the "fifth column of the international left" (hellbent on America's destruction). Mona Charen followed Horowitz. And she agreed, although she stressed that the Western European democracies have suffered from a loss of self-confidence. They have turned inward and are ready to submit to creeping Islamization. This hollowing out indicates Europe's long abandonment from the defense of Western civilization. Charen added that in the American case, the party in power (the Obama/Dems) was working on the Europeanization of the United States. But she stressed that the American people have refused to capitulate to the left's statist power grab. The U.S. continues as the bastion for the defense of the West. And the coming election in November was looking to bring about a major reckoning in American politics. Last to respond was Cliff May. He agreed with the others but placed the debate on security in the context of America's support for Israel and our leadership in the war on terror. "Israel is on the front lines," May said. The security of Israel directly affects the security of the United States.

As this was a bit uniform, Michael Medved broke out of the moderator's role to suggest that the "bankruptcy" of America's fiscal policy was perhaps the greatest threat to America's long-term security. "This will destroy the American dream," he said. Cliff May and Mona Charen seemed fairly warm to that discussion, but David Horowitz placed the current huge budget deficits in historical context, suggesting that as a percentage of GDP the deficits America incurred in WWII were much larger than today's, and after the war we paid them down and went about building the postwar prosperity. "The deficits are a problem of political will" not economic crisis, he said. Horowitz was to return to the theme of political willpower throughout the night.

While I was impressed with both Cliff May and Mona Charen --- and I was thrilled at the chance to see them speak --- the night truly belonged to David Horowitz. During the audience question time, one attendee --- sitting in the front row a few seats to the left of me --- asked about Israel's security, that by defending the country by force didn't Israel "risk World War III?" This question really animated David Horowitz, and he came back again to the issue of political willpower. He said the it wasn't just the PA or Hamas that rejected Israel's right to resist, but the Palestinians themselves. They'd been trying to drive the Jews into the sea since the 1920s. Current efforts at "peace" were thus systematically doomed to fail since there is no support among Palestinians for the preservation of the Israeli state. Whenever Israel had made concessions to the peace process the security situation has deteriorated. What the Palestinians would understand is hard power. Israel should have "carpet bombed" Gaza after the rockets started raining down on schoolyards in Sderot after the 2005 Israeli withdrawal. Until the Israel government is willing to "crush" the Arabs militarily there will never be any movement toward lasting peace.

Horowitz belts it out when he gets on an emotional roll, and he elicited huge applause a number of times. I stopped taking notes just after a few minutes, as I was so enthralled with this discussion --- and not just Horowitz. Michael Medved is a deeply thoughtful man and eminently reasonable. He appealed repeatedly to the humanity of the Jewish people and in closing he implored attendees to visit Israel --- 80 percent of American Jews have not been there --- and also suggested they get involved with their communities and synagogues. One more question from the audience asked whether President Barack Obama was likely to be reelected to a second term. I'm straining my recollection here, but Mona Charen returned to the notion of the November reckoning once more, and David Horowitz indicated that he was supremely optimistic, stressing that the polls were probably underestimated the likely scale of Democratic losses; and that tea party movement has turned out to be the salvation of American politics. And Horowitz further stressed the importance of taking back the grassroots from the left. Despite the total destruction of communist ideology after the collapse of the Soviet Union --- and he hammered the point that today's Democrats are a true hard-left party, carrying the banner of international socialism --- the left continues to push on relentlessly, despite objective failure, until they hit the brick wall. "We have to be that brick wall," Horowitz said. We have to engage and participate at the grassroots just like the left has.

Medved thanked the Jewish Policy Center upon wrapping up, and both Cliff May and Mona Charen exited surprisingly quickly. David Horowitz lingered for some time, however. Audience members approached the stage. I saw Orly Taitz speaking to him, for example. (She's an incredibly beautiful woman, by the way.) And I was fortunate to catch his attention, and he gladly signed my book, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future. A great night all around:

'Super Rich' Law Professor Todd Henderson Bails on Blogging After 'Electronic Lynch Mob' Attack

Glenn Reynolds had this earlier, but you gotta read Kashmir Hill. She's got the best off-beat take on all things the web. See, "‘Super Rich’ Law Professor Retires From Blogging After ‘Electronic Lynch Mob’ Attacks His Position on Taxes."

Naturally, it's the comments at his post that freaked him out. I'm still winding my through them, but this stuff is mild compared to the excrement Sadly No! will rain down your blog. Professor Henderson apologized for the post here, and he announced his blogging retirement here. One of my rules is not to blog too much about my personal life, and especially details about my family. No one says it better than the professor himself:

The reason for this note is because I’ve decided to hang up my blogging hat. I was a fool, and I didn’t anticipate how this kind of thing could happen. As many of our readers and my students know, I’m opinionated and willing to push boundaries. This is what I think is the role of a professor, and blogging allowed me to do it in an informal and diverse manner. But I misunderstood the technology, and the consequences are devastating for me personally. I wish I had just stuck to blogging about corporate law and such, but I couldn’t help myself. Self restraint would have been the better course. Perhaps someday I will return and limit my commentary to my academic areas of interest. For now though, I have to say good bye. I’ve enjoyed the experience and the interactions I’ve had with readers and, of course, my co-bloggers. I am sad to leave, but my family has to come first, and my blogging has caused them incalculable damage.

Kashmir Hill responds:

That, with all due respect, is the wrong move. By exiting from the conversation, he’s losing a strong defender of his ideas, as well as the chance to take back control of his Google footprint. His post was a huge success, generating a serious conversation about a tax hike and how to define “rich.” Among the productive comments driving the conversation forward were personal attacks on Henderson, as noted and lamented by Henderson’s co-blogger Larry Ribstein. “If the comments to this blog over the last week represent the state of the discussion we are having about economic policy,” wrote Ribstein. “Then I truly fear for this country’s future.”

Again, as I'm posting this, I'm still working my way through the comments. I've yet to find something truly vicious. (And recall I recently had a commenter suggest: "... get over yourself douchebag, you're nothing but a bag of meat and your thoughts and desires are meaningless and you are a worthless" piece of shit.) That said, I'm astounded at how a few of the comments indicate that Professor Henderson isn't entitled to keep his own money, nor decide how he should spend it:

The gist of it is this guy is whining that his GARDENER and his HOUSEKEEPER will suffer and you are CRYING for him??? Shame on your greedy little hearts. He’s going to have to give up extra lessons for his kid? He may have to *gasp* enroll them in PUBLIC SCHOOL??? Will the tragedy never end for him? I love the (implied) impossibility of finding a home with a lower mortgage in a less chic area (by the way, before you hop on your fear stallions, not everything that is “less chic” is a “cesspool of seething drug crime”. Even in Chicago).

No one ENVIES this putz. We PITY him for his tremendous effort to cling to his undeserved entitlement issues. This isn’t an “increase” in taxes. It’s a roll back.

Think of it like this: you get a coupon from the supermarket and now cereal is cheaper. Then the coupon EXPIRES. Then you cry and sue the supermarket. Wait… you DON’T cry and sue the supermarket? Then, please, shut up. Whiner.The tax rate is going BACK to what it WAS. Was this guy BORN in 2001? If not, he survived prior to the roll back.

And again, in another iteration:

The entitlement issue is being able to afford a gardener, a maid, a nanny, private school and side classes for his kids and still have money left over because he gets to keep the temporray tax rate and make it permanent. If he isn’t “rich”, then the private school, gardener, et al, are sacrifices that will cost him just like they would the REST of us “not rich” folks. Hey, guess what? Most of us DON’T GET THOSE THINGS BECAUSE WE CAN’T AFFORD THEM (being “not rich” and all).

Only someone who BELIEVES he DESERVES those things would cling to them in a time of financial crisis. That sounds like an “entitlement issue” to me (See… it means he believes he deserves it= “entitlement” and it is causing him stress and problems= “issue”. Get it?).

Scrolling down, I found a pretty angry attack on Professor Henderson, which concludes:

Your essay was not amusing. It illustrates the selfish, mean-spirited, whining, wimpering, short-sighted, scrofulitic tone that now pervades politics from the right.

But that's about the meanest thing I've found, and I've learned that "scrofulitic" means "morally degenerate." And for what? As one of the commenters defending Professor Henderson pointed out, the guy's already paying $100,000 a year in income taxes. His spending is out of whack, sure, but whose isn't? Brad DeLong takes him to task for that and uses poor family budgeting as a case for paying more in taxes. If it were me, I'd see if we could cut spending, especially on Social Security, Medicare, state welfare entitlements, and education. And yes, defense spending. Americans are over-taxed. Maybe Professor Henderson should have been more judicious in his blogging, not to mention his household budgeting. But what's really alarming is how the leftists think that what he earns is theirs. And that's anti-American.

Record-Setting Heat in Southern California

At KABC-TV Los Angeles and Los Angeles Times. It was 108 degrees in Irvine at 3:30pm, when I picked my oldest son up from his high school. I called my youngest son's after school program to make sure they kept him inside. I'll update if I see any reports on claims of "global warming."

Dan Webster's Wife Blasts Alan Grayson's 'Taliban' Attack Ad

Well, yeah.

At Politico (via Memeorandum):

Twenty-four hours after Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson launched a scalding TV attack comparing his opponent to the Taliban for his positions on women’s issues, Florida Republican Daniel Webster is pushing back.

In a statement from the campaign Monday afternoon, Webster’s wife and campaign manager derided Grayson’s ad as “shameful” and “ludicrous.”

But the response does not refute any of the charges leveled in the ad – titled “Taliban Dan Webster” - which claimed that Webster, a former state Senate majority leader and state House speaker, wanted to make divorce illegal and deny abused women health care. Grayson’s ad even claims that Webster “tried to prohibit alimony to an ‘adulterous wife’ but not an adulterous husband,’” and that he “wants to force women to stay in abusive marriages.”

Webster’s response also does not address footage in the ad of Webster saying, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husband,” and “She should submit to me – that’s in the Bible.”

In her statement, Sandy Webster said: "Alan Grayson's latest attack on my husband is shameful. Mr. Grayson seems to have a problem telling the truth and no problem misleading the public. Dan has been an amazing husband and father, and the finest man I have ever known. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed of his nasty smears against my husband."

Even if the facts are correct --- and I don't care either way --- it's shameful that policy differences would lead Grayson to compare Webster to the Taliban. This is the Daily Kosification of congressional elections. It's dishonest and despicable. (And that's why Digby's down with it.)

Trust in Congress Falls to Record Low in New Gallup Poll

There's a decline in trust of all the three branches of government, but especially in Congress. See, "Trust in Legislative Branch Falls to Record-Low 36%":

A record-low 36% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust and confidence in the legislative branch of government, down sharply from the prior record low of 45% set last year. Trust in the judicial branch and trust in the executive branch also suffered sharp declines this year but remain higher than trust in the legislative branch.

Gallup has measured these trends each year since 2001 as part of its annual Governance survey, and prior to that on an occasional basis in the 1990s and the 1970s. While trust in the legislative branch has been steadily declining for years, trust in the other two branches of government -- the executive and the judicial -- had risen in 2009 compared with 2008. All in all, between last year and this, trust in the legislative branch fell 9 percentage points, trust in the executive branch fell 11 points, and in the judicial branch, 10 points.

Trust in the legislative branch was highest, at 71%, in May 1972, and remained generally high from that point to the mid-2000s. It then dropped to 50% in 2007, 47% in 2008, and 45% in 2009, all record lows at the time they were measured. This year's 36% legislative confidence rating marks still another record low, and is the lowest trust level in any of the three branches of government in Gallup's history.

RELATED: At Pat in Shreveport's, "Obama Under Water." The link there is to Politico, "Poll: Rocky road seen ahead for Obama." And also at Politico, not worth believing, from CELINDA LAKE, DANIEL GOTOFF, AND MATT PRICE, "Poll analysis: Competitive midterm landscape for Dems." (I say "not worth believing" because Celinda Lake is a Democratic political consultant and I doubt current polling is capturing the historic scale of voter discontent. That is, the tidal wave that's coming on November 2nd will be bigger than the most dire assessments for the party in power. This is historic. I can't wait.)

BONUS EXTRA: If you're not hip on the Ramirez cartoon, see Warner Todd Huston, "Mentally Retarded Now Have ‘Intellectual Disability’."

Marilyn Monroe

A belated Rule 5 post, since William Teach missed my entry on Blake Lively.

Hat Tip: Ghost of a Flea.

'Morning in America'

From Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign. At that time we'd had some of the worst economic circumstances since the Great Depression. Voters returned Reagan to office overwhelmingly (over Democrat-socialist Walter Mondale, who pledged to raise taxes). I'm betting Barack Obama will be a one term president. One of the main reasons is because he too wants to raise your taxes. And in 2012, he won't be able to campaign on the promise of "Morning in America."

GOP Taps Tough-On-Immigration Hispanics in Fall Campaigns

At WSJ:

A deep lineup of Hispanic Republicans is running for high office this year, giving the party new avenues to court the growing bloc of Latino voters who have largely deserted the GOP in recent years but will be crucial in the 2012 presidential election.

In a twist, many of these candidates are defending the strict, new Arizona law and other measures cracking down on illegal immigration—appealing to white conservatives and to the portion of Hispanic voters who share concerns about border security.

In Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and elsewhere, GOP candidates with names like Martinez, Rubio and Sandoval are staking out tough immigration views.

"There is a stereotype that Hispanics must be in favor of different policies than I am expressing, and that's not what I'm finding at all," said New Mexico GOP gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez, who would be the country's first elected female Hispanic governor.

Ms. Martinez, a prosecutor, has aired television ads in which she stands at the border and promotes her record convicting criminals who sneaked in from Mexico. She promises to end state laws that she says make it easy for illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, is stepping down due to term limits.

The three most prominent Hispanic Republicans on the ballot in November—Florida U.S. Senate hopeful Marco Rubio, Nevada gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval, and Ms. Martinez—are leading in polls and performing well among Hispanic voters. Hispanic GOP House candidates in Florida, Texas and Washington are presenting a similarly conservative agenda.

Within the Republican Party, some strategists see the unusually large number of major Hispanic GOP candidates as key to correcting a misstep in the party's outreach to the nation's fastest-growing voter bloc. Many Hispanics are attracted by the GOP's opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

When ex-President George W. Bush made an effort to win Hispanic voters, his share of that electorate rose to 40% in 2004, from the 34% he won in 2000.

The trick will be for conservatives to highlight the racism and anti-Americanism that's inherent to the hard-left Democrat-Hispanic agenda. Get a few more folks like Loretta Sanchez speaking out against other minorities on the record, and fair-minded pro-American Hispanics will bolt the Democrat Party.

RELATED: At Left Coast Rebel, "Van Tran Denounces Loretta Sanchez, Controversy Carried in Los Angeles Times."

Amanda Colmenero

No doubt she started smokin' pot. That's how people get introduced to hard drugs, like cocaine, and crystal meth for Amanda Colmenero.

See, "Amanda Colmenero Discovers the Downside of Using Her Vagina as Meth Storage Facility":

Leave it to those wacky meth heads to provide zaniness and hijinks where ever they go. 22-year-old Amanda Colmenero was busted in Coos Bay, Oregon this week on drug charges. When she entered the jail, she was given the standard strip and cavity searches...

But being a forgetful meth head, Amanda decided to store her chemical intoxicants deep in her vagina, lest she get too high and lose them. And because she stored them so deep, deputies missed them during her cavity search ...

Our hero was placed in a holding cell. But when jailers checked on her the next morning, they found her unconscious and nearly dead. While Amanda had taken special care to not misplace her meth, that same care hadn't been given to the bags she used to hold her dope. One of them broke, which caused the meth to seep into her vaginal apparatus, which in turn caused her to be in deep shit.

She was rushed to a hospital where doctors discovered her secret storage compartment and removed the offending items. She's now in critical condition. Detectives believe this will teach her to use name-brand bags from Hefty in the future, instead of relying on discount products not recommended for vaginal drug storage.

Another poster girl for drug decriminalization. Just JBW's kind of woman.

Hat Tip: iOWNTHEWORLD.

Securing America's Future

I'm heading out to Beverly Hills for a talk at the Saban Theatre, "Michael Medved to Host September 26 JPC Forum in Los Angeles."

Washington, D.C.- The Jewish Policy Center today announced that it will hold its next national policy forum event in Los Angeles, at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills on Sunday, September 26, at 7:30 pm.

Moderated by author and nationally-syndicated radio talk show personality Michael Medved, the event is titled "Securing America's Future."

Confirmed panelists for the September 26 forum include David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Mona Charen, syndicated columnist, author, and political analyst.

"This group of experts will explore the many issues that concern Americans at this critical time," said Matthew Brooks, Executive Director of the JPC. "Energy, the War on Terror, Obamacare, the role of government, and foreign policy - there is no shortage of topics that will be covered in this interactive and wide-reaching discussion about securing America's future."

More blogging later.

'Holy War: Should We Be Afraid of Islam?'

Christiane Amanpour announced an upcoming special report on ABC News:

And we just also wanted to give you a word about a special program next week. The plans to build that Islamic center near Ground Zero has unleashed an international debate, raising questions about America's uneasy relationship with Islam. So next Sunday, we're going to hear from all sides in this debate. It's called to be called "Holy War: Should We Be Afraid of Islam?" You can submit questions to on my Facebook page or at our Web site, abcnews.com/townhall.

And this coming Friday, Diane Sawyer anchors a special edition of "20/20," reporting on Islam and taking all the questions and answers.

Maybe this woman will submit a question. I saw her down by the Freedom Tower on September 11:

San Francisco Chronicle: No Endorsement in California Senate Race

This is another thing I've been saying all year. At SF Chronicle (via Memeorandum):

Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year. The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. The challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina, has campaigned with a vigor and directness that suggests she could be effective in Washington - but for an agenda that would undermine this nation's need to move forward on addressing serious issues such as climate change, health care and immigration.

It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.

What I'd stress differently is not that Fiorina wouldn't move forward in addressing the nation's needs, but that's she's basically RINO. Yeah, she talks the good talk on fiscal policy, etc., and has tooted the right notes on immigration, etc., but down deep she's got some radical leftist sensibilities, on feminism and the role of the state in the social sphere. (See, "McCain-backed GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina hearts Jesse Jackson — and radical gender politics.") That said, I'm more inclined to vote for Fiorina than I am for Meg Whitman. It's the same story in the governor's race, as I noted previously. We have weak candidates all around. The state remains in the grips of the Democrat-SIEU corruption complex. Spending is out of control. Voters have repeatedly rejected big tax-and-spending projects placed before the electorate. As for Barbara Boxer, she's a classic Democrat Party hack. Up and down the line it's big government, radical leftist politics and the expansion of the state sector. Looking at the attack ad above all she can really do is attempt to smear Carly Fiorina over the air waves. It's all distortion, and she knows it, which is why she refuses to meet Fiorina for face-to-face debates. She'll be hammered as a corrupt out-of-touch bureaucrat, and I have to give Fiorina props on her ability to defend her record as HP CEO. In the end though, it's the voters who lose. Candidates are spending big money to gain and hold power, and they're refusing to really provide the electorate with the information and contact that would facilitate choice and accountability. If 2010 means anything, especially at the national level, when the Obama-Dem-Socialists get the boot, it's that the country's up for a realignment of our political ethics. People really want to take back government. They want responsiveness and good policy. They want elected officials to put the needs of average folks first, especially on the economy. Democrat pork-barrel projects have obviously not revived the economy, and voters don't think the recession's ended. But the beauty of democracy is that change is possible. And we're heading into that perfect storm this year. I can't wait.