P.J. O’ROURKE: “I looked death in the face. All right, I didn’t. I glimpsed him in a crowd. I’ve been diagnosed with cancer, of a very treatable kind. I’m told I have a 95% chance of survival. Come to think of it — as a drinking, smoking, saturated-fat hound — my chance of survival has been improved by cancer. . . . I have, of all the inglorious things, a malignant hemorrhoid. What color bracelet does one wear for that? And where does one wear it?”

IT’S PROBABLY NOT THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit to Halt Operation of Particle Collider:

A federal judge in Honolulu has dismissed a lawsuit trying to stop the running of a giant particle accelerator outside Geneva, dodging the issue of whether it could actually cause the end of the world. The judge, Helen Gillmor, said in her ruling Friday that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Large Hadron Collider, which is located on the Swiss-French border and was built by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, with help from the United States and dozens of other countries.

I think that’s the right decision. You want to sue over this, you’ve got to go over there.

JAY TEA ON THE BAILOUT:

So, to me, it seems abundantly clear that the Democrats don’t see the current situation as a crisis, and are acting like everything is business as usual. To me, that says — far more clearly than their words — that they don’t think things are anywhere as bad as they say they are.

And that is what convinces me that things are far worse than they think.

Because the Democrats have been consistently wrong on the whole situation, and have been for years. There is no end of videos of leading Democrats praising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s stability, of their performance, defending the leaders (most notably Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson), and thoroughly denouncing and scuttling numerous attempts to head off the problems that have started to come to a head in the past month or so.

It’s a kind of negative evidence, but it’s persuasive to me: the Democrats have a solidly established record of being utterly and completely wrong on the whole mess. They are now acting as if the situation isn’t so bad, and are still far more interested in playing their run-of-the-mill political games with the whole process. If they are still wrong (and the odds are highly in favor of that conclusion), then we are in real trouble and the bailout that they don’t seem to care about whether or not it passes is probably a necessary evil.

What’s scary is that it makes sense . . . .

Meanwhile, an important credit debate at IowaHawk.

UPDATE: Reader Richard Fairgrieve writes:

I am an investment manager based in London specializing in emerging markets. My wife is a financial jounalist for a major European business magazine who specializes in writing about asset backed securites like CDO’s & CDS’s. I’d like to make two comments about the current mess. The first is that she believes that since the credit problems emanate from the housing market there will be no stability in the financial system until their is stability in the housing market. Why not use the $700bn to provide increased tax relief on mortgages, help lower mortage payments for those under threat of foreclosure (a foreclosed house rapidly falls in value) and take other steps to shore up house prices? From a free market economic point of view this may not be the optimal solution but it seems to me a lot more palatable then giving more power to the Treasury for a program that is at best opaque and ordinary taxpayers find difficulty in seeing the benefit.

The second point I’d like to make is that markets, at least in theory, try to put a price on future events. Given the falls yesterday they are discounting a rapidly slowing global economy and the election of Obama. If you actually look at market action yeseterday, especially in commodities, it was not great even before the bill was passed. The markets are fearing that the impact of this crisis will be deep and global. Secondly, the results of the debate on Friday and the growing econmic stress are, according to the polls, allowing Obama to build his lead. An adminstration that undoubtedly will believe that the best solutions to the U.S. economic policies lie in Washington and revolve around higher taxes, more regulation and protectionism is bad for markets. Gotta run to work now and watch fear at work.

Yes, why not turn the mortgage interest tax-deduction into a refundable credit for a couple of years. Surely that would drastically reduce the default rate, wouldn’t it?

More thoughts on the bailout vote from Jeff Goldstein.

IF YOU’RE A DEMOCRAT, AND YOU MISHEAR THINGS AND GIVE A DUMB ANSWER, the press will helpfully explain things for you.

YEAH, THEY’RE NOT TREATING IT LIKE A CRISIS: “We’re on the verge of financial meltdown, but Congress can afford to take a day or two off? I understand that it’s a major religious holiday for some members, but this is an ’emergency.'”

PELOSI gave key Democrats a pass on the bailout vote.

UPDATE: Obama Campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. voted against the bill. (Via NewsAlert).

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Rezko courthouse visits fuel rumors he’s talking. “Convicted political fixer Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has been quietly visiting Chicago’s federal courthouse, setting off speculation that he may be spilling secrets to federal prosecutors in return for a lenient sentence. Prosecutors investigating Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration would plainly like to hear what Rezko knows, and there is plenty of incentive to talk.” (Via NewsAlert).

A CONGRESSIONAL DILEMMA:

12 congressmen need to switch their votes. But whoever does will suffer mightily not merely for voting for the hated bill, but for having flip-flopped. If the bill passes, and nothing bad happens, people will blame those congresscritters even worse than their fellows. And from what I understand, the people who voted no tend to be people facing competitive races in November.

Diogenes spent a lifetime searching for one honest man. Where are we supposed to find 12?

Well, I hate it that we have to start looking in Congress . . . .

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: “Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: “The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn’t so sure: “Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it.” Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they’re willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don’t have a future, I guess . . . .

ILYA SOMIN: “The stock market’s record 778 point drop today will no doubt lead many people to conclude that the House of Representatives was wrong to vote down the bailout plan backed by both the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already made that argument. Here’s why I think such claims are wrong.”

I keep hearing that opposition to the bill from constituents was overwhelming for members of Congress of both parties, with the House switchboard and website overloaded. And certainly the bailout polled badly. So, whether it was a good idea or not, the rejection would seem to meet with the voters’s approval. Of course, the politicians know that if it turns out badly, those same voters will still blame them . . . .

I’M NOT THEIR TARGET MARKET: Kid Rock Branded Beer Coming Soon.

MORE FANNIE AND FREDDIE HISTORY: “Holmes had it right in 1999. One might expect the New York Times to point this out a little more often. Instead, they continue to echo Barack Obama and blame ‘greed’ for the failure. There may have been greed at the bottom of this — but it was greed for political power.”

That kind of greed seems to get a pass.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? For the press? Ridiculous. “Shouldn’t the MSM look closer at the conflicts of interest in their own newsrooms? I’m not talking liberal bias, but issues like David Gregory’s marriage to a senior executive at Fannie and Andrea Mitchell’s marriage to Alan Greenspan.” Read the whole thing.

USING VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS to tell when politicians are lying. Can’t you just watch to see if their lips are moving?

SO THE HOUSE WON’T RECONVENE UNTIL THURSDAY? That seems like a sure loser. If things get better over the next couple of days, it’ll make it harder to do a deal and make them look irrelevant; if things get worse it will make them look like they slacked off at a crucial time.

Plus, thoughts on Pelosi’s speech:

Speaker Pelosi’s speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can’t, and doesn’t want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, “let’s pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later.” Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against “Bush” and “Republican” economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation. She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you’re not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. . . .

I have no idea why any particular member, or group of members, of the House, voted for or against the bill. All I’m saying is that if you are trying to rally the House to pass an emergency bill, you make it seem like there is AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, which more or less precludes partisan attacks. To the extent any Republican voted against the bill because of Pelosi’s speech, it may not be a question of them being offended by her partisanship, but the perspective that if Pelosi thinks that the situation calls for partisanship, it must not be a serious emergency, because leaders simply don’t engage in such antics when a true emergency is at hand. For that matter, if I were a Democrat skeptical of the bill, Pelosi’s speech may have discouraged me from voting for it for the same reason.

Plus, a more cynical take on Pelosi’s motivations.

EXPLAINING “EARMARKS AS A GATEWAY DRUG.” Like out-and-out bribes, the amount of the earmark isn’t a measure of the amount of harm it ultimately does. If I bribe a Congressman to fund a $50B program with a $50,000 bribe, the $50,000 isn’t the measure of the problem. Likewise, if $50 million in earmarks gets $300 billion in budget items passed, it’s not a $50 million problem, it’s a $300 billion problem.

A VERTICAL-TAKEOFF COMMUTER PLANE: It would be great, but I’m not holding my breath.

IRON MAN comes out on Blu-Ray tomorrow. I didn’t see it in theaters — is it worth buying?

SCORCHED EARTH.

Some related thoughts from Rand Simberg.

Plus, at Bloomberg, Silencing Critics Using the Barack Obama Method.

ROGER KIMBALL: Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

IN THE POST, MORE ON THE CLOSE CONNECTIONS between Obama and ACORN.

The movement’s biggest victory, of course, came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up the riskier loans – providing fresh incentive for banks to make even more of them.

No need to recount where all that led.

Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN’s side all along.

“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career,” he told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early ’90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – the radical “education reform” outfit Obama ran from ’95 to ’99.

Read the whole thing. Funny this hasn’t gotten more media attention. . . .

TAXPROF: Property Taxes: High in Blue States, Low in Red States.

THE BAILOUT BILL just failed in the House.

UPDATE: The Democratic leadership couldn’t hold its majority together: “As Jim Geraghty points out, a third of Republicans voted against the bill. But Dems are in control of Congress. The power of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama couldn’t convince loyal Democrats to vote for this bill? Seems shocking.” Well, Obama’s not really part of the Senate leadership. Meanwhile, I heard Rush Limbaugh condemning the deal earlier, then looked at my email to find a message from International A.N.S.W.E.R. condemning it too. Strange bedfellows . . . .

But if 2/3 of Republicans had voted for it, and if the Dem leadership could have gotten 2/3 of Democrats to vote for it, then it would have passed handily. Reportedly, though Pelosi’s harshly partisan speech alienated a lot of Republicans. Now why would she do that at a time like this? Did she want the bill to fail?

ANOTHER UPDATE: I think that should be 2/3 of Republicans voting against, above.

HMM: Boeing, Virgin, Join Group Committed to Biofuel Development for Commercial Airlines. “The mission of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group is to bring renewable fuel sources (that will reduce carbon emissions) into commercial aviation, while simultaneously lessening the industry’s exposure to the volatility of oil prices, and dependence on fossil fuels. The group is receiving support and advice from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).”