But, on the off chance that he wins, can we call him adjunct president or visiting president just so he knows he only won by de-fault, the two sweetest words in the English language?

Other ideas for Romney policies:

Train the unemployed to sniff out truffles.
First National Festival of Plain Toast.
Running Man style competition in which blond women try to out-maneuver Gingrich.
Reduce the size of the school bus fleet by putting people crates on top and transporting children in those.
more to come, maybe, unless I find something interesting to think about. . .

In other news, Florida, aka America’s wang, is on deck in the Republican primary today. I would say it’s moot, but apparently it is not. It’s much less consequential than that. Mittens gets his second win, Newt yells at some people who keep insisting on bringing up things he’s said and done, the media ignore Paul and Santorum, Obama smiles, the Republic sheds a tear.

The questions were written with regard to this Charles Murray article contrasting the growing divergence of two hypothetical neighborhoods. As Murray’s focus is on the elites who influence the norms and mores, or in this case ignore bad ones, the questions in the quiz were designed to show how little the true elites, who would presumably score around zero, know about those they are purporting to help or save from themselves.

Commenter jz offered two concise summations:

One of Murray’s concerns is the elite class making decisions for others with absolutely no understanding of their values, behavior, incentives of the lower class.

and

One of Murray’s prescriptives was music to me; he states,
“The best thing that the new upper middle class can do is to drop its condescending ‘nonjudgmentalism’. Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.

One step toward dropping that condescending nonjudgmentalism is understand those who need to be judged. The idea may be foreign to those of us reading this, but there are really people out there who are wholly ignorant about those living between the coasts. Those elite ignoramuses are powerful and increasingly dangerous.

I don’t have a bubble, but my kids will. I was born to a blue collar father, I’m not afraid of cans of beer, I enjoy fishing, and I don’t get holier than thou if a person smokes. At the same time, I am in management, I’ve attended Rotary lunches, and I don’t consume much mass entertainment.

This dividing line is new and it both feeds and is fed by atomization, atomization which arises from our hyper-individualistic solipism. Even die hard lefties can sound like Ayn Rand when discussing their space and their stuff and their rights. The hippie boomers and the cult of me has won. Me doesn’t want to be with you, especially if you aren’t a mirror of me.

My kids likely won’t live in a neighborhood like the one I grew up in where there was my blue collar family on this corner and a doctor on that corner. We kids played together, our parents carpooled us to school, and we weren’t too acutely aware of our differences because they were material. We all had parents who were married and our lives weren’t that dissimilar.

Things have gotten much uglier since then.

[The] normalization of single motherhood, and the concomitant decline of marriage, led to both the marginalization of black men and–with an assist from welfare reform–the success of black women. . .

Feminism and sexual permissiveness are moving America toward matriarchy, a state in which men are increasingly superfluous and, as evidenced by the high black male incarceration rate, dangerous. Black women’s economic success is to be applauded, but the broader picture is cause for worry, not optimism.
-James Taranto

That’s not from a regular crank’s blog, that’s from Taranto’s Best of the Web Today which appears on the Wall Street Journal’s website. (The X Files was on Fox, Murdoch owns the WSJ, now the truth that is out there is being published. Coincidence? I think not.)

Many might quibble with his assertion that we’re moving to a matriarchal society and instead state it in the past tense, but to those Cassandras I say, “Be more like Pollyanna.”  It’s always darkest before the dawn and all that shit.

Great jam:

Say what you will about Perry – corporatist, opportunist, status quo – his campaign highlighted just how ridiculous the nominating process has become. We don’t care about the resume, we only care how telegenic a person is. Spengler’s Law applies to much more than just gender relations. Perry isn’t a smooth debater, and it is an important predictor as super awesome president and strong talking points regurgitator Obama exemplifies, so he lost. Romney, who has won one, one!, election continues to hoist the electability petard over a soma-addled electorate, Newt Gingrich is not being ignored, the Libertarian wing continues to put all its eggs in the Ron Paul basket, Rick Santorum wears vests, and normally sane people are actually wishing Palin had run.

Obama is going to coast to reelection.

May this absence be a true aloha, replete with a final hello.

Second, Chris Dodd supports SOPA, ergo I do not.

Is Google, itself no great champion of free markets and competition, being totally on the up and up about its opposition? Very likely it is not. One thing I’ve read is that it will cost them ad revenue when access to sites is blocked. Sounds plausible.

I am not going dark for the day, but I do hope these bills die ugly deaths. We have enough regulations. The problem is not lack of regulation, the problem is regulatory capture and corporatism. Though SOPAPIPA seems to bother the corporatists, it’s just a few tweaks away from changing sides. Also, it’s supported by Chris Dodd.

Update: Chuck elaborates on an angle I chose not to explore. I won a round against the WordPress app. I didn’t want to press my luck with a long post.