is the title of the introductory college textbook that I picked up from the "Free Books" box at my local library today.  The introduction, by the two authors, Erich Hausman and Edgar P. Slack is dated August 1, 1939, this  second edition having been printed November 1942.  

This book may seem ancient to some of the younger people here, but its just about my age, and no one ever considers their own life span that long.  It was written when the world was at peace, but by the time it was first distributed, Germany had invaded Poland, and the world's most disastrous war had begun.

Dueling with the San Diego Daily Paper

It's the only daily covering the entire county with a circulation of around 300,000. The San Diego Union Tribune has always reflected the conservative nature of this largely military town.  

What makes it interesting, is in the last few years, the newspaper is going through a change, not becoming moderate, but rather extremist from both sides. Unlike the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, where their editorials are reflective of their relative sides of the political spectrum, the UT often has two main editorials (not columns or OpEds) that reflect a deep political division.

Democrats don't want this law.  Republicans don't want this law.  But Barney Frank, John McCain, Chis Dodd and others who get the bulk of their campaign funds from financial interests do want this law, so it will pass.  And President Bush, who had opposed it, will most likely sign it into law since it will pass with a veto proof majority.

I've written about a dozen diaries on this subject over the last few months and always include a poll, which I will do here just to be consistent.  The polls usually show the vast majority of those on this site oppose this law, and we are of the party that is promoting it.

And those who think the economists who support this bill are promoting what is best for the country should read this article, in this months Mother Jones magazine. It shows the power of financial interests that systematically dismantled laws that would have prevented the proliferation of these deceitful mortgages. It is these corporations who will ultimately be bailed out by this bill.  

The DFH diary is this one "To Senator Obama, from a Dirty F*ing Hippie" I feel a bit paternalistic toward it, since I knew it when it was just a fledgling diary, with it's future unknown.  I read it soon after it appeared, and contributed this 25th commentObama you're off the pedestal on Dkos, of what is now 1400 and counting.

I knew if it made the rec list it would be a blockbuster,  It stayed on the list for almost a day, collecting hundreds of recs and TJ hits, which is amazing on a diary that a month ago, would could well have been treated with contempt here.  

Now we have had a refutation of this diary, not only on the rec list, but with more TJ recs than the original, with this title:  It's called context - and some diarists don't provide it..  

The New York Times has another editorialdemanding that the current bill be passed immediately.  This must be the tenth editorial with this sentiment over the last few months, with none of them indicating the negatives to this bill.  

Let me explain my view of why this is so wrong, in so many ways.

This one is actually interesting.

It begins like this:

Welcome to Toastmasters, June 13, 2033. That's right: 2033.

Today Rick Campbell, one of our senior members at age 87, is here to
reminisce a bit and give us a history lesson. He says he is so old that he
learned to drive an internal combustion engine car (remember those) with a
manual transmission. He once owned a typewriter. He remembers when bicycles
had one speed, phones had two-party lines, and cameras had something called
film. As incredible as this may seem, he says that when he was young, it
was common for people to smoke in restaurants and public places. He is from
a different time; almost a different world.

I'm sure all of us are far too familiar with the tragic events of 2010,
so Rick is not going to plow that fertile field again. Instead, he is going
to give us a personal look back at the conditions which led up to that
fateful year, in a speech titled "2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be
President."

It was just going to be a day at the county fair--no aggravations, no politics, just enjoying the simple tradition of kids delighted by the rides, prized goats on display and entertainers often far beyond their best days.  What a treat to see on the schedule, none other than Pat Boone, someone from my earliest memories whom I didn't even know was still on the circuit.

My wife warned me, "Isn't he somewhat of a right wing zealot."  But what the heck, he wasn't going to turn this into a political religious revival, was he.  "Was he?"

One week ago I posted a diary on a concept, one of jurisprudence and political principle entitled The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  I wrote at that time to soften the anger over Obama's FISA position, which many saw as his betrayal of our constitution.

Yesterday the decision on Gun Ownership, the meaning of the Second Amendment was announced. It happens that this decision to open the floodgates of gun ownership is informed by this same concept, this time damning of the majority decision for flouting a principle that was first articulated by Thomas Jefferson, and numerous Supreme Court Justices down through the years.  

There is a cascade of diaries today sharply criticizing Senator Obama for his acceptance of the FISA compromise that just passed the house. Perhaps I am less disappointed than most, since I never shared the unbridled enthusiasm towards him that has (had?) become the norm here.

Those who claim that Obama is betraying the constitution, are ignoring a long history of this documents flexibility  that is characterized by the title of this diary, well chronicled in the Wikipedia article on the expression.

Instead of the county fair, I went to the meeting of the North County Transit District (NCTD), the board that makes policy for the public transportation of Northern San Diego County, where we moved about seven years ago.

It was a toss up between the County fair, where I could have chatted with my favorite columnist from the San Diego Union Tribune, and looked at the exhibits and eaten some really bad food, but there was going to be a public hearing on cuts in service, and ending of one program that would have affected us.

I stopped by the Senior center to see how many people were using what is called the FASTservice, where people were picked up for only two dollars from anyplace in our small city.  Although my wife and I had never used the service, as we age the time could come when we could need it, and I hated to see it abruptly ended.

Yesterday I spent a half hour attempting to refute the characterizations of this site by the right wing media.  I said, "It's an open forum, so there may be individuals who write hateful vicious diaries and comments,but they are usually ignored"

"No sale," said my conservative neighbor,  but I had tried.  Soon after returning home there was this diary entitled "Trolling Alert" that reported the increase of "trolls."  I use the quotes since use of the term has implications destructive to this site, and the idea of free discussion itself.

This articlein today's New York Times illustrated one example of the failure of the profit motive to prevent disease.  

Dailykos is a leftist blog.  Our opponents call us Liberals, we describe ourselves as Progressive.  But there are those who use stronger terms.  Calling us Communists is simply the same as our calling Republicans Fascists.  It is the epithet that is so emotionally charged that it is not really an opening for discussion. They have become "fighting words" devoid of actual political implications.

In this country, in most academic settings, Communism and Fascism are discarded relics of an era long gone. You don't get an academic assignment or a book deal, if you are even tainted with this extreme positions.  

Yesterday, the Public Editor of the Times, Clark Hoyt, weighed in; starting with this summary of Luttwak's Op Ed:

Under "Muslim law as it is universally understood," Luttwak wrote, Obama was born a Muslim, and his "conversion" to Christianity was an act of apostasy, a capital offense and "the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit." While no Muslim country would be likely to prosecute him, Luttwak said, a state visit to such a nation would present serious security challenges "because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards."

Similar hysteria, got us to go to war with Spain in 1898, and in Iraq in 2003.  Such hysteria requires an object of hatred.  It can be anything, Saddam Hussein, Jews, Blacks, Communists, Atheists, or any group that you don't belong to, or individual who leads a movement.

Almost all Dailykos participants, many Democrats and the Editorial Board of the NY Times have caught the bug.  Once there is a perception of unanimity, there is an escalation of hatred, with no one to suggest that the consensus has become unmoored from reality. The latest expression of this insane hatred is that Senator Clinton's gaffe was a threat against Senator Obama.

And no one calls this what it is, insanity.  I wrote a diaryabout this yesterday referring to Robert Kennedy's son's reasonable reaction to this.

For the first time, I will not be answering any comments.

From the New York Times article

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview Friday evening. "I’ve heard her make that argument before," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."

Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton’s comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.

Not John, but Elizabeth.  

Those reading this diary know that right now John Edwards is appearing on every news channel giving his endorsement to Senator Obama for the nomination.

This New York Times articledescribes the split this way:

The Edwards endorsement, though, is singular. Elizabeth Edwards is not scheduled to add her voice to the growing Democratic chorus rallying behind Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Publicly, Mrs. Edwards has said that she favors Mrs. Clinton’s health care plan. Privately, she has told several associates she is unsure if Mr. Obama is the party’s best candidate.

Yesterday I wrote a diarythat looked at the simultaneous interviews Sunday morning.  Obama by Tim Russert on Meet the Press and Clinton on on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.  I focused on one element, what I saw as Clinton's signaling that she would accept the second spot on the ticket with Obama; and I provided a poll of how the readers would accept such a hypothetical.  

Of all the columnists at the Times, I find Brooks one of the most open minded.  In today's column, he also compared the two appearances as I did in my diary, and does an analysis of their differences that is spot on.