UPDATE: Read Chris Anderson's response to this news story here.

Hanauer recently gave a TED talk on income inequality that apparently was too scandalous to be put online and shared with the world. TED curator Chris Anderson explained his reasons for not publicizing the talk in a series of emails with Hanauer:

"But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party. And you even reference that at the start of the talk. TED is nonpartisan and is fighting a constant battle with TEDx organizers to respect that principle.
...
"Nick, I personally share your disgust at the growth in inequality in the US, and would love to have found a way to give people a clearer mindset on the issue, without stoking a tedious partisan rehash of all the arguments we hear every day in the mainstream media.
"Alas, my judgment - and it is just a judgment, and that's why my job title is 'curator' - is that publishing your talk would not meet that goal."

I can understand Anderson's bind, being perceived as an organization that is overtly partisan can be bad for business. Look at what happened to Susan G. Komen for the Cure earlier this year.

While at times the book reads like a collection of the usual conservative talking points about the budget and the deficit, it also has other curious elements. The first half of the book is concerned about the science of happiness and the morality of capitalism.

This creates a strange tension: it seems that Brooks wanted to write a book about the latest research on human happiness, and how best to achieve it. (One is reminded of David Brooks' The Social Animal.) He also wanted to write a book that can defend the morality of capitalism since he thinks that the "materialist" case doesn't suffice.

Yet its not clear those essays really fit with a book that quickly transitions into a general endorsement of the Paul Ryan plan for America. There will be more to write about this in future posts. This is not just a policy document, there is an emotional story being told here as well, and its not clear if the policy and the emotion really fit.

Brooks writes that he believes in a free market system that rewards earned success. But here's the question: how much of the astonishing increase in the "success" of the wealthiest Americans over the past generation is "earned"?

For example:

It's an article of faith among U.S. conservatives that the countries of southern Europe are in trouble—not because of the Euro currency—but because of excess public spending. It's an article of faith that the U.S. is in imminent danger of following.

On the other hand, the professional economists from whom Mitt Romney gets his advice believe neither of these things. And it's a fair bet that Romney inwardly agrees with his economists more than his base. 

Now carefully read this extract from Romney's interview yesterday with Jim Geraghty of NRO:

The questions are getting so interesting that choosing one is becoming an arbitrary action—so much so that I think we're going to start backlogging the surplus for a rainy day. Today's choice falls on this from @Babss46:

"What's the best advice your mom ever gave you?"

My mother, Barbara Frum, for those unaware, was the leading Canadian TV and radio journalist of her time. When my sister and I were starting in journalism, she offered this advice for how to do an interview:

Any man can find a twerp here and there who will go along with cheating, and it doesn't take all that much manhood. It does take quite a man to remain attractive and to be loved by a woman who has heard him snore, seen him unshaven, tended him while he was sick and washed his dirty underwear. Do that and keep her still feeling a warm glow and you will know some very beautiful music. If you truly love a girl, you shouldn't ever want her to feel, when she sees you greet a secretary or a girl you both know, that humiliation of wondering if she was someone who caused you to be late coming home, nor should you want any other woman to be able to meet your wife and know she was smiling behind her eyes as she looked at her, the woman you love, remembering this was the woman you rejected even momentarily for her favors.

A sensible counter-argument would be that Saverin's exodus is a sign of how complicated the US tax code is and that changes in how the IRS collects income (and less cumbersome paperwork requirements) could have kept Saverin a U.S. citizen. This is the position taken by Reason, by Dan Mitchell at Cato, and at the Heritage Foundation.

That is not the argument made by Aaron Ross Powell at Libertarianism.org, a "Project of the Cato Institute" that is "a resource on the theory and history of liberty, broadly construed."

Ross Powell doesn't think Saverin owes the state anything. The reasons given are abstract, and yet the post is one of the most popular on the website's blog:

Now I happen to think that many of the potentially "boring" picks are actually supremely competent and would be an asset in a Romney administration. Rob Portman and Mitch Daniels in particular bring a lot of positive attributes to the table.

But if the GOP wanted to show that it represents all of America, and that it supports merit and not identity politics (see: Sarah Palin) then how about selecting Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal? The case for Jindal has been made before and now the argument is joined by Grover Norquist:

Romney would do well to have a wing man who can astutely explain the flaws in President Barack Obama’s policies and lay out the GOP’s innovative, pro-growth alternatives. There are many attractive prospects out there, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal can do not just all that, he has already implemented the sort of bold reforms at the state level that are now desperately needed at the federal level.

Education could be the No. 1 civil rights issue of our time and has major implications for the nation’s future. When it comes to education reform, Obama has offered gimmickry, with contests and calls to throw more money at the problem, lest he upset the teachers union bosses who help bankroll Democratic campaigns.

Adam Verslype: Could American politics ever sustain a competitive third party?

Mike Dobbs: One of the defenses offered up by the hard Right is that extremism is the same or worse on the Left. Is this a legitimate argument or is it an outdated one?

Danny Case: How much would vigorous campaign finance reform really curtail the influence of lobbyists?

The book goes to Danny Case, who will receive his Kindle copy of Patriots later this morning. He should check his Facebook account for a message from Noah Kristula-Green. I'll offer short answers to Adam and Mike as well: