Blue Crab Boulevard

Inquiring minds want to know. The Washington Post has a report that shows that FBI's "Mental Defective File" of people barred from purchasing guns has more than doubled - due to the enrollment of California residents.

Since the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, the FBI has more than doubled the number of people nationwide who are prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems, the Justice Department said yesterday.

Justice officials said the FBI's "Mental Defective File" has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000, primarily because of additions from California. The names are listed in a subset of a database that gun dealers are supposed to check before completing sales…….

……The vast majority of the individuals who were added to the FBI's list were identified by California, which provided more than 200,000 names in October, the Justice Department said. Ohio provided more than 7,000 new names, and the number of states reporting mental health data to the FBI this year grew from 23 to 32, officials said.

Let's see: Ohio reported 7,000, California 200,000. The original list was 175,000. I think maybe this proves something else that was out today. California is arguably one of the most liberal states in the US. Gallup reported on mental health and party affiliation:

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education…… 

…..One could be quick to assume that these differences are based on the underlying demographic and socioeconomic patterns related to party identification in America today. A recent Gallup report (see "Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health" in Related Items) reviewed these mental health data more generally, and found that men, those with higher incomes, those with higher education levels, and whites are more likely than others to report excellent mental health. Some of these patterns describe characteristics of Republicans, of course.

But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

Interesting, isn't it? Oh, the left did not like this poll result incidentally. But the FBI numbers might just prove that there is something here that is not easily explained away.

In a sure sign that (T)Hugo Chavez is actually worried as heck that even his control of the levers of elections in Venezuela might not be enough to ensure "democratic" approval of his taking on the position of dictator for life, he is lashing out wildly in all directions. Trying to drum up voter hysteria is nothing new for the red-shirted thug, but this time there is a wildness to it that stinks of desperation.

Chavez has tried to rally his followers in the last days of the campaign with fiery rhetoric against opponents at home and abroad, and he warned at a huge rally on Friday that he would retaliate if the U.S. government interferes in the referendum.

"There will not be a single drop of oil for the United States," Chavez bellowed to hundreds of thousands of cheering supporters in downtown Caracas. "And if they want to come and take our oil they will face 100 years of war in Venezuela."

Most polls show a statistical tie for the "Yes" and "No" votes in Sunday's referendum.

Chavez's heavy spending on social programs has made him popular with Venezuela's poor majority but critics accuse him of seeking dictatorial powers and many moderate supporters are concerned that the reforms would give him too much power.

He portrays the vote as a plebiscite on his rule. "Whoever votes 'Yes' is voting for Chavez, and whoever votes 'No' is voting for George W. Bush, president of the United States," he said.

Chavez has for long accused Washington of backing a failed coup against his rule in 2002. Venezuela provides about 12 percent of U.S. oil imports and the leftist leader has often threatened to cut off the sales, but he has never done so.

Political analysts say he wants to convince supporters that Venezuela is again at risk and they need to rally around him by voting to expand his powers.

Chavez also threatened on Friday to cut ties with Spain and nationalize Spanish businesses in Venezuela if King Juan Carlos does not apologize for telling him to "shut up" at a recent summit in Chile.

Something tells me that Chavez is more than a little worried right now. His economic policies are already beginning to make the Venezuelan economy suffer, many long-time political allies are very publicly deserting him and decrying his takeover attempt and things are really not looking good for Chavez right now. Will it be enough to stop him? I don't know. But he looks like he is feeling cornered. He does not look like he is holding a winning hand. We'll see.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Post:

CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 30 — On the eve of a referendum that President Hugo Chávez has cast as a plebiscite on his rule, the populist leader is escalating his verbal assaults on foes real and imagined, picking a fight with neighboring Colombia one day and assailing Catholic Church leaders as "mental retards" the next.

Chávez's behavior appears increasingly unpredictable, but some political analysts say the bluster may be a tactic designed to generate support for the constitutional changes that Venezuelans will vote on in Sunday's referendum. Although a few weeks ago the proposals had been expected to receive easy approval, polls released last week showed that the opposition could ultimately prevail in a tight contest.

"He's decided that his best tactic to recover the control of his movement is to instill fear in his people that there's a world conspiracy against Venezuela," said Demetrio Boersner, a political analyst and former diplomat. "It's a tactic that uses histrionics as a weapon to unite the people so they vote for him on Sunday."

He's used this same old, worn out shtick to whip up support before. At some point, people get tired of the calling of "Wolf!" Maybe this time he'll get a surprise.

In an exclusive score for the blogosphere, Jim Lynch, proprietor of bRight and Early, the essential coffee-fueled blog, has discovered the next sponsor for a Presidential debate. It is absolutely inspiring! None other than the Home and Garden Network!

In a cable television coup, the Home and Garden Network has landed the next presidential debate. It will be co-hosted by Martha Stewart and that irritating gardening guy with the goofy mustache.

“We heard about the large number of plants in the past two debates and realized that we would be the logical choice for the next forum,” a spokesman for the network announced.

(read it all, there's more.) But that, of course, got we inhabitants of the Crabitat thinking. So we called up our vast technical resources and brought the good folks from Magic 8-Ball Photography and Roadkill Removal, Inc. back with their patented Future Fotography® system (used so perfectly once before.) They managed to capture an image from the next debate. We're so proud.

The New York Times probably won't get anymore lucrative ads from the Sudanese government, at least for a week or two. They claim that the demonstrations in Sudan calling for the execution of Gillian Gibbons, the "Teddy Bear Teacher", were orchestrated by the Sudanese government itself and consisted mainly of government employees.

The protesters, some carrying swords, screamed, “Shame, shame on the U.K.!” and, “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

They were calling for the death of Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in jail. Under Sudanese law, she could have spent six months behind bars and received 40 lashes.

Despite the display of outrage, witnesses said that many of the protesters were government employees ordered to demonstrate, and that aside from a large gathering outside the presidential palace, most of Khartoum was quiet. Imams across the city brought up the case in sermons after Friday Prayer, but few of them urged violence.

“This woman gave an idol the name of Muhammad, which is not acceptable,” said Ahmed Muhammad, the imam at a mosque in Khartoum 2, an upscale section of town. But, he added, the proper response was more nuanced: “We have to first respect ourselves, and then others will respect us.”

Well, the government of Sudan put paid to that then, didn't they? First they provoke an international incident over what is - at best - a cultural misunderstanding, then they escalate the situation by sending government workers out to call for the head of a 52 year old school teacher. Yep, a sure ticket to respect from others.  

Gerard Baker compares the relative merits of the celebrity endorsements that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just scored, Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Streisand respectively, and judges the probable impact of each. Decision: Obama got the better deal by far.

Streisand long ago crossed the blurry boundary between celebrity and politics. She is yesterday's news, proudly waving the banner of liberal preposterousness since 1965. Her only memorable recent cinematic performance, for all the wrong reasons, was as the oversexed sexuagenarian alongside Dustin Hoffman in the utterly tasteless Meet The Fockers sequel.

Her intervention this week is fitting, though, precisely because it captures what looms as the largest impediment to the increasingly troubled ambitions of Mrs Clinton ? that what the former First Lady is offering is a better yesterday. Mrs Clinton's campaign might in fact be summed up in the lyrics of Streisand's most famous locution, back when she was still a bona fide celebrity:

Memories, like the corners of my mind,

Misty, water-coloured memories

Of the way we were

Despite her efforts to portray herself as something new, voters know well enough that Mrs Clinton represents a restoration rather than a revolution. For many Democrats, angry and bitter about the direction of US politics these past eight years, this is just fine ? the dewy memories of The Way They Were in those aquarelle days of the 1990s is good enough.

But there's clear evidence now that this won't do: 2008 is shaping up to be what political strategists call a change election. It is not just eight years of George Bush that voters want to consign to the past but the whole political culture of the past 20 years or so.

Even the press release that Streisand put out announcing her support for Clinton made sure that Streisand got top - and bottom billing:

Legendary filmmaker, artist, and Democratic activist, Barbra Streisand, today endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Streisand cited Clinton's ability to bring about change and the historic nature of her campaign as reasons why she is supporting Hillary's candidacy.

[Insert obligatory mention of someone else]

Barbra Streisand is a singer, theatre and film actress, composer, film producer and director. She has won Oscars for Best Actress and Best Original Song as well as multiple Emmy Awards, Grammy Awards, and Golden Globe Awards. She is considered one of the most commercially and critically successful female entertainers in modern history.

As Baker points out, Streisand is so very yesterday. Will celebrity endorsements be enough to tip things? Who knows. But what obscure book last became a best seller because Streisand endorsed it? Think about that for a moment.

Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at recent developments in Iraq and notices the sudden shift in public opinion - and in the politicians who have been opposing it. It's Alice through the looking glass time.

Unfortunately, many Democrats saw the change-of-heart in the electorate as a blanket endorsement of their own alternate universe. But it wasn’t necessarily so. The voters were not necessarily interested in new ties with terrorist Syria, restoring diplomacy with Iran, gay marriage, abortion, minority-identity politics, new spending programs, open borders, closing down Guantanamo, an end to wiretaps of suspected terrorists, or the repeal of the Patriot Act.

The people were mad at the war not because they felt it was amoral or unsound policy, or because they hated George Bush, or because they wished liberals instead to end it in defeat — but simply because they felt frustrated that we either were not winning, or not winning at a cost in blood and treasure that was worth the effort.

That Pattonesque national mood (“America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”) is not quite entirely gone, and was entirely misunderstood by most Democrats. Somehow instead they saw their new popularity as connected to the appeal of their politics rather than their shared anger at the mismanagement of the war.

So in their exultation, they welcomed in extremists and fringe groups — as if the worldview of a Michael Moore, Moveon.org, or Daily Kos might further resonate with the American people. The result was a Harry Reid now declaring the war lost and Gen. Petraeus disingenuous; a Hillary Clinton all but suggesting Gen. Petraeus — soon to be the most popular American general since Dwight D. Eisenhower — was untruthful (“suspension of belief”); and Moveon.org ads alleging that Petraeus was a near traitor.

Despite the self-destructive nature of such extremism, the frenzy at least kept up fixation on the war — and not on the Democrats’ own political agenda. After all, this November voters were supposed to hear of Congressional timetables, forced withdrawals, and a cut-off of funds — not presidential candidates backing away from just those erstwhile demands to ponder driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

Hanson has hit on something here with that one quote from General George Patton, “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser.” I argued from the moment the Democrats began saying that the election gave them a mandate to lose a war that they were badly misreading the results. I believe John "Pork-o-Rama" Murtha's sudden reversal yesterday about progress in Iraq (despite his extremely hasty "clarification" today) reflects some ugly internal polling results. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and a host of others have cast themselves as losers. Let's hope Patton was right. As Hanson concludes:

Once you live by the daily polls, and mortgage lasting principle to transient popularity, then you become enslaved by them as well. So all eyes once again turn to the looking glass of Iraq.

The drama is not whether the Democrats once again will make the necessary political adjustments here at home just in time for an election — but whether it will work yet a third time.

There is an attempt to "reframe" the argument against the war, yet again. This time to say that yes, the surge is reducing violence, but there hasn't been enough political progress. Recall, if you will, the cries that the surge had failed - before the troops were even in country. But those political goals were only part of the intent of the surge. Political progress can only come when the violence is tamped down. That has happened, now there can be a chance for the political progress. Just like the screeching that the surge had failed was premature, calling the surge a failure because of an artificially imposed timeline is also out of place.

America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. It would be wise to keep those words in mind.

The man who took at least two hostages at a Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire has surrendered.

ROCHESTER, N.H. - A distraught man wearing what appeared to be a bomb walked into a Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign office Friday and demanded to speak to the candidate during a hostage drama that dragged on for nearly six hours before he peacefully surrendered.

Shortly after releasing the last hostage, Leeland Eisenberg walked out of the storefront office, put down a homemade bomb-like package and was immediately surrounded by SWAT team with guns drawn.

The suspect — clad in gray slacks, white dress shirt and a red tie — was put on the ground, handcuffed and taken two blocks to the police office in the back of a tactical response vehicle.

Thankfully, nobody was hurt. The man appears to have a history of mental problems and has been well known by the Rochester police.

Evel Knievel, the daredevil motorcycle jumper, has died at his Florida home after a long illness. He was 69 years old.

He began his daredevil career in 1965 when he formed a troupe called Evel Knievel's Motorcycle Daredevils, a touring show in which he performed stunts such as riding through fire walls, jumping over live rattlesnakes and mountain lions and being towed at 200 mph behind dragster race cars.

In 1966 he began touring alone, barnstorming the West and doing everything from driving the trucks, erecting the ramps and promoting the shows. In the beginning he charged $500 for a jump over two cars parked between ramps.

He steadily increased the length of the jumps until, on New Year's Day 1968, he was nearly killed when he jumped 151 feet across the fountains in front of Caesar's Palace. He cleared the fountains but the crash landing put him in the hospital in a coma for a month.

His son, Robbie, successfully completed the same jump in April 1989.

In the years after the Caesar's crash, the fee for Evel's performances increased to $1 million for his jump over 13 buses at Wembley Stadium in London — the crash landing broke his pelvis — to more than $6 million for the Sept. 8, 1974, attempt to clear the Snake River Canyon in Idaho in a rocket-powered "Skycycle." The money came from ticket sales, paid sponsors and ABC's "Wide World of Sports."

The parachute malfunctioned and deployed after takeoff. Strong winds blew the cycle into the canyon, landing him close to the swirling river below.

On Oct. 25, 1975, he jumped 14 Greyhound buses at Kings Island in Ohio.

Knievel was a genius at self promotion. You can't take that away from the man. Rest in peace.

Thanks to Maggie in the comments section, we now have evidence of the Canadian Beer Menace.

All in favor of organizing a relief expedition to Canada to alleviate the menace by taking all the beer, raise your hands. Remember, it's for the children. Bring coolers.

A man has taken two Hillary Clinton campaign staffers hostage in Rochester, New Hampshire. The man reportedly showed the workers a bomb strapped to himself with duct tape.  

ROCHESTER, N.H. — An armed man has taken two campaign workers hostage at the Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, police said.

Officials with the campaign confirmed that there were two workers taken hostage in the office on 28 North Main St.. A woman and her baby told workers at a neighboring business that she was released by the hostage-taker.

"A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape,'" witness Lettie Tzizik said.

There are several police officers positioned across the street from the office, crouched down behind cruisers with guns drawn, according to a reported at the scene.

I'm checking for more details now.

UPDATE: The hostages may have been released - at least one has for sure. The media is basically just speculating at this point.