I'm nowhere near being able to determine whether Sotomayor's opinion's have "intellectual depth" or not. She seems to have qualifications consistent with the SCOTUS. But I can tell that the argument has pretty much played out the way I expected. Conservatives are racists, and liberals argue that Sotomayor should be confirmed because conservatives are racists.
Apparently she's a Serious Intellectual Centrist. Oh happy days. Of course, Obama could have picked a qualified Hispanic woman who's more progressive. Right-wingers are going to have the same fit about far-left judicial activists regardless. But why should he? Everyone knows the liberal pressure groups go starry-eyed whenever there's race or gender in play, but do they know or care what her actual judicial history or past opinions have been?
I'm not opposed to "affirmative action hires" if one wants to use that epithet. In fact, let's have more of them. But, as expected, Obama seems to go for the most milquetoast moderate he can find. At least Clarence Thomas was already taken.
27 May 2009
25 May 2009
And another thing
Dave Noon wonders why US presidents continue the tradition of sending a wreath to commemorate Confederate war dead. There's an interesting back-and-forth in the comments about Memorial Day being a generic holiday to honor the dead without making moral judgments on the righteousness of the conflict they were involved in. Which, as I note below, would exclude most conflicts in American history.
This would be palatable. It is not, however, anywhere near the way Memorial Day is actually celebrated. There can be no consideration of a war in which America was not on the side of Good and Right and Freedom. A cause is just when we decide to take it up. To think otherwise is to give in to the coldest kind of Unseriousness. From the Mexican War, the Indian Wars and the Spanish-American War, through Korea, Vietnam and the Great 21st Century MidEastern Clusterfuck, America was nothing else if not selflessly dedicated to Defending Your Freedom. How? God only knows. But I'm sure somebody somewhere has an explanation, right?
This would be palatable. It is not, however, anywhere near the way Memorial Day is actually celebrated. There can be no consideration of a war in which America was not on the side of Good and Right and Freedom. A cause is just when we decide to take it up. To think otherwise is to give in to the coldest kind of Unseriousness. From the Mexican War, the Indian Wars and the Spanish-American War, through Korea, Vietnam and the Great 21st Century MidEastern Clusterfuck, America was nothing else if not selflessly dedicated to Defending Your Freedom. How? God only knows. But I'm sure somebody somewhere has an explanation, right?
Here's what it's good for
Which military holiday is it again? They all seem alike to me.
.....
I'm a little confused. Apparently the United States has only fought one war in its history. At least, that's what I gather from the endless paeans to soldiers "dying for our freedom." It occurs to me that if Adolf Hitler didn't exist, America would have to invent him.
There was the Civil War, of course, but if you'll recall about half the country was actively fighting against human freedom in that one. Curiously it's the same part of the country most actively involved in canonizing the military now.
Perhaps when I hear that I'm just managing to miss the last clause. You know, "fighting for the freedom of American business to exploit whatever it wants." Yes, I'm sure that's what they mean to say.
.....
Of course, the deification of the military has some rather alarming consequences. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy largely persists because he-men in the armed forces apparently believe having to serve with out gay people will cause their penis to shrink. The proper response, as Stephen Suh pronounces in so many words, is to tell these folks that they will eat their veggies and like it, or kindly sod off. This doesn't happen, because the alleged civilian control is exceedingly deferential to whatever the sainted military man demands.
Then there is the increasing Christianization of the military, covered by the wonderful Jeff Sharlet in the May issue of Harper's. This was probably a smarter choice for right-wing Christians all along; rather than try to break through in the political arena, where you'll have to face criticism and dissent, it's better to take over the only unassailable institution in American public life.
A few weeks ago I was musing about the improbability of civilian resistance against the government's army. I was, at the time, referring to crazy righties who dislike paying taxes so much they're going to abandon civilization and fight a guerilla war through the mountains. But it's important for lefties as well. Because of the above fact, our democracy survives only insofar as the military accedes to the new government taking power. If, by some stroke, we were ever able to elect a genuinely left-wing government, we would have to aware of the possibility that the military, egged on by business interests, would move in to overturn it. Yes, it is a longshot, but it's a possibility that everyone, even moderate liberals, should consider when analyzing the out-of-control leverage granted to the military.
This nightmare scenario becomes more likely should the American right as a whole continue to lose popular political power and turn as a refuge to the one place where they'll always be welcome.
.....
I'm a little confused. Apparently the United States has only fought one war in its history. At least, that's what I gather from the endless paeans to soldiers "dying for our freedom." It occurs to me that if Adolf Hitler didn't exist, America would have to invent him.
There was the Civil War, of course, but if you'll recall about half the country was actively fighting against human freedom in that one. Curiously it's the same part of the country most actively involved in canonizing the military now.
Perhaps when I hear that I'm just managing to miss the last clause. You know, "fighting for the freedom of American business to exploit whatever it wants." Yes, I'm sure that's what they mean to say.
.....
Of course, the deification of the military has some rather alarming consequences. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy largely persists because he-men in the armed forces apparently believe having to serve with out gay people will cause their penis to shrink. The proper response, as Stephen Suh pronounces in so many words, is to tell these folks that they will eat their veggies and like it, or kindly sod off. This doesn't happen, because the alleged civilian control is exceedingly deferential to whatever the sainted military man demands.
Then there is the increasing Christianization of the military, covered by the wonderful Jeff Sharlet in the May issue of Harper's. This was probably a smarter choice for right-wing Christians all along; rather than try to break through in the political arena, where you'll have to face criticism and dissent, it's better to take over the only unassailable institution in American public life.
A few weeks ago I was musing about the improbability of civilian resistance against the government's army. I was, at the time, referring to crazy righties who dislike paying taxes so much they're going to abandon civilization and fight a guerilla war through the mountains. But it's important for lefties as well. Because of the above fact, our democracy survives only insofar as the military accedes to the new government taking power. If, by some stroke, we were ever able to elect a genuinely left-wing government, we would have to aware of the possibility that the military, egged on by business interests, would move in to overturn it. Yes, it is a longshot, but it's a possibility that everyone, even moderate liberals, should consider when analyzing the out-of-control leverage granted to the military.
This nightmare scenario becomes more likely should the American right as a whole continue to lose popular political power and turn as a refuge to the one place where they'll always be welcome.
24 May 2009
Robbing Peter to pay Paul
According to a recent survey, the most generous givers to charity by percentage of income are those making less than $20,000 a year. They are nearly 2% more generous than everyone else except those making over $100,000 per year, whom they still beat by 1.5%.
Surveys of charitable giving have always been a little suspect, so I'm not sure how much to make of this. Conservatives, for example, have long crowed over polls showing right-wing voters are more generous, as proof apparently that "ZOMG who needs taxes!!!" However, it's not quite clear how much of those donations are going to religious institutions, which are not always, or even often, the model of selfless charity. Likewise, the supposed generosity of the rich is often touted based on the total amount of money given but that, to no one's great surprise, appears to be overstated.
Surveys of charitable giving have always been a little suspect, so I'm not sure how much to make of this. Conservatives, for example, have long crowed over polls showing right-wing voters are more generous, as proof apparently that "ZOMG who needs taxes!!!" However, it's not quite clear how much of those donations are going to religious institutions, which are not always, or even often, the model of selfless charity. Likewise, the supposed generosity of the rich is often touted based on the total amount of money given but that, to no one's great surprise, appears to be overstated.
Threelio
I suspected this year's Indianapolis 500 would play out very similarly to last year's race and, rather unfortunately, that's the way it turned out. Helio Castroneves ended up on the top of the pile at the end of the day largely as a result of having the cleanest day on pit road and pulled away in the final 15 laps to secure his third victory.
In a carbon copy of last year's race, there were a number of accidents, each spaced perfectly to coincide with a normal pit window. As such, there was very little strategy shuffling at play which combined with conditions making it very difficult to pass on the race track led to a very static and stultifying experience. Limited overtaking can be overlooked in road racing, but it makes for a rather dull oval race, especially when combined with a high number of caution periods.
The problem seems to derive from the current tire compound used by Firestone, which has the double jeopardy combination of not being very raceable and causing a large buildup of marbles out of the groove; the latter has been the primary cause of most accidents in the past three races.
The remainder of a quite surprising top five was rounded out by Dan Wheldon, Danica Patrick, Townsend Bell and Will Power, all of whom, like Castroneves, got there primarily by having a trouble-free day in the pits. Two cars who did not were the teammates of Chip Ganassi Racing, who ran one-two for most of the race but slipped back over the final two stops.
In a carbon copy of last year's race, there were a number of accidents, each spaced perfectly to coincide with a normal pit window. As such, there was very little strategy shuffling at play which combined with conditions making it very difficult to pass on the race track led to a very static and stultifying experience. Limited overtaking can be overlooked in road racing, but it makes for a rather dull oval race, especially when combined with a high number of caution periods.
The problem seems to derive from the current tire compound used by Firestone, which has the double jeopardy combination of not being very raceable and causing a large buildup of marbles out of the groove; the latter has been the primary cause of most accidents in the past three races.
The remainder of a quite surprising top five was rounded out by Dan Wheldon, Danica Patrick, Townsend Bell and Will Power, all of whom, like Castroneves, got there primarily by having a trouble-free day in the pits. Two cars who did not were the teammates of Chip Ganassi Racing, who ran one-two for most of the race but slipped back over the final two stops.
23 May 2009
"I love it when he plays the Bush covers!"
Something sounds familiar.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| American Idealogues | ||||
| ||||
21 May 2009
I call shenanigans
I'm afraid of a lot of things. Fire, deep water, heights, death, my future, being alone in a strange city knowing no one, unwound cassette tapes. The whole gamut. I'm pretty much an expert on fear.
Yet I've never lost a wink of sleep worrying about being killed by a stray terrorist.
And I suspect no one else has, either.
So with all due respect to Glennzilla, who correctly marvels over the marvelous pants-pissing proficiency of our Gruff and Serious foreign policy establishment over the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to prisons in the United States, I don't believe real fear of turr'sts is a motivating factor. Yes, I'm saying Bedwetter Nation is a put-on. An affectation if you will. You see, it's not actually possible for someone to feel genuine fear over terrorism. You have a better chance of suffocating in the frozen food section of the supermarket. People know this instinctively. Assessing real threats is necessary for survival.
No, we exaggerate the fear of terrorism because we need an enemy. A real enemy, a dangerous enemy to give us our own history-defining war. In fact, the stupid jock posturing has been made worse by the fact that there is hardly any real danger. It's little more than a game to the great American Empire, and everyone on the cable chat shows knows it. Give them a real enemy with the power to cause a serious crisis to our survival as a society, and the screaming plump blowhards would get much more somber.
Remember the words of G..K Chesterton.
"It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself."
No, we're not afraid. But we need something to make small powers great.
And, of course, to have a reaosn to hate brown people for being brown.
Yet I've never lost a wink of sleep worrying about being killed by a stray terrorist.
And I suspect no one else has, either.
So with all due respect to Glennzilla, who correctly marvels over the marvelous pants-pissing proficiency of our Gruff and Serious foreign policy establishment over the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to prisons in the United States, I don't believe real fear of turr'sts is a motivating factor. Yes, I'm saying Bedwetter Nation is a put-on. An affectation if you will. You see, it's not actually possible for someone to feel genuine fear over terrorism. You have a better chance of suffocating in the frozen food section of the supermarket. People know this instinctively. Assessing real threats is necessary for survival.
No, we exaggerate the fear of terrorism because we need an enemy. A real enemy, a dangerous enemy to give us our own history-defining war. In fact, the stupid jock posturing has been made worse by the fact that there is hardly any real danger. It's little more than a game to the great American Empire, and everyone on the cable chat shows knows it. Give them a real enemy with the power to cause a serious crisis to our survival as a society, and the screaming plump blowhards would get much more somber.
Remember the words of G..K Chesterton.
"It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself."
No, we're not afraid. But we need something to make small powers great.
And, of course, to have a reaosn to hate brown people for being brown.
20 May 2009
A nursery rhyme
This bloated Pig masters Wall Street,
This little Pig owns your home;
This war-crazed Pig had your brother killed,
And this greedy Pig shouts "More!"
This Pig in Congress shouts "War, War!"
All day long,
These Pigs we'll send to market--
And will they squeal? You bet!
Down with Capitalism!
Long live the Soviet!
-from the December, 1934 edition of New Pioneer, an American Communist magazine.
This little Pig owns your home;
This war-crazed Pig had your brother killed,
And this greedy Pig shouts "More!"
This Pig in Congress shouts "War, War!"
All day long,
These Pigs we'll send to market--
And will they squeal? You bet!
Down with Capitalism!
Long live the Soviet!
-from the December, 1934 edition of New Pioneer, an American Communist magazine.
19 May 2009
Democrats sure are worthless
Democrats in Senate block money to close Guantanamo.
Nice of Harry Reid to finally find those purse-strings.
Nice of Harry Reid to finally find those purse-strings.
"We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”Right, because that's totally been suggested. Interpreted Reid: "We'll never admit that anyone we've apprehended may not be guilty of anything."
18 May 2009
Quatable IV
"Danny [Sullivan]'s arm is obviously not working as well as it would be if it weren't broken."
-Bobby Unser during the 1989 Indianapolis 500 broadcast on ABC
-Bobby Unser during the 1989 Indianapolis 500 broadcast on ABC
Rules of attraction
Ran across a journal a few days ago explaining the maxim that, regardless of what the male writers of situation and romantic comedies may think, people mostly end up partnered with someone on the same strata of physical attractiveness relative to their gender.
While this is essentially true across the board, I've found it to be particularly true among a certain population; evangelical Christians. Yes, the same subset of people most likely to vehemently deny the importance of sexual attraction in their relationships. In fact, that is pretty much the only criteria the potential evangelical mate can work with. The evangelical life is heavily gender-segregated, and men and women are encouraged never to become close friends with each other. Talking too much apparently leads to fucking; carnal lust being the sole relevant human desire and all.
I did occasionally marvel at what evangelical couples ever discussed. Those must have been the closest things to arranged marriages without being called as such in the contemporary world.
While this is essentially true across the board, I've found it to be particularly true among a certain population; evangelical Christians. Yes, the same subset of people most likely to vehemently deny the importance of sexual attraction in their relationships. In fact, that is pretty much the only criteria the potential evangelical mate can work with. The evangelical life is heavily gender-segregated, and men and women are encouraged never to become close friends with each other. Talking too much apparently leads to fucking; carnal lust being the sole relevant human desire and all.
I did occasionally marvel at what evangelical couples ever discussed. Those must have been the closest things to arranged marriages without being called as such in the contemporary world.
17 May 2009
Oh my Gawd
Salon introduced a new column last week where an anonymous conservative analyst answers your probing questions. This week he or...well, who are we kidding?...explains why the dumb citizens of other countries don't ditch their nationalized health care system.
Hahahahahaha!!!
.......
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
There are no words.
It is also true that most of the people who utilize the national healthcare systems -- to get stitches, to have broken bones set, to get regular checkups -- do not require innovative or life-saving techniques and so are probably perfectly happy with the inexpensive care the government can provide, pretty much without issue.Really? Really??? You're going to bat with that? In the United Frakking States of Tens of Millions of Un-to-Underinsured Not to Mention Bankrupted by Medical Bills America?
But, as one think tank director here in the United States told me, only a small percentage of Canadians have to deal, on a yearly basis, with the really bad outcomes, like a death caused by or contributed to by long waiting lines for diagnoses or procedures.
"If you have lost a family member because of the waiting lines, you are hopping mad and probably ripe for reform," the director told me. "For the vast majority of Canadians, though, the system has been fine. Until the day it isn't, that is."
Hahahahahaha!!!
.......
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
There are no words.
Get schooled
Let's give the libertarians their paradise.
It's fascinating to watch libertarians trail on about the inefficacy of the public school system as if this were somehow a point in the favor of ditching the system for a private, for-profit model. This is Thomas Frank's "wrecking crew" principle in action; after giving the economic rightists 30 years to run the government, one really shouldn't be surprised that they've proceeded to run the public civics system into the ground.
Indeed, a privatized school system would exacerbate all the problems associated with the present system while solving little and introducing new ones. The current de facto state, "you get the education you can afford," would be even further imprinted. Anything deemed inessential for producing good worker bots for the corporate oligarchy, like expensive liberal arts programs, would be slashed for everyone but the aristocratic class.
Libertarians, I suppose, are the one grouop of people who might legitimately claim that their ideology has never really been tried. Of course, it's proving quite difficult to convince many people in democratic countries to return to monarchism. At least there's always Somalia, or perhaps Estonia, though the latter still has public schools as best as I can tell.;
It's fascinating to watch libertarians trail on about the inefficacy of the public school system as if this were somehow a point in the favor of ditching the system for a private, for-profit model. This is Thomas Frank's "wrecking crew" principle in action; after giving the economic rightists 30 years to run the government, one really shouldn't be surprised that they've proceeded to run the public civics system into the ground.
Indeed, a privatized school system would exacerbate all the problems associated with the present system while solving little and introducing new ones. The current de facto state, "you get the education you can afford," would be even further imprinted. Anything deemed inessential for producing good worker bots for the corporate oligarchy, like expensive liberal arts programs, would be slashed for everyone but the aristocratic class.
Libertarians, I suppose, are the one grouop of people who might legitimately claim that their ideology has never really been tried. Of course, it's proving quite difficult to convince many people in democratic countries to return to monarchism. At least there's always Somalia, or perhaps Estonia, though the latter still has public schools as best as I can tell.;
13 May 2009
Works for me
Aaron Datesman has a plan for getting elected to Congress.
I won't tell if you won't.I have a simple platform, which I will scream loudly from every conceivable location until I turn red in the face. This will continue until I am elected. My message is this: “America’s military is worn down, and we’re practically defenseless! When I’m elected, I promise to spend $200 billion per year on the Department of Defense! That’s more than Russia and China put together!”
That sure is a lot of money! I think that there is no way this approach could fail. Once elected, I will then ensure my enduring popularity by spending the leftover $500-600 billion we were formerly wasting on “defense” to buy a puppy for every American. Also, guaranteed single-payer health care. And a free college education.
Do it do it do it
According to Roger Simon, the Republican National Committee is poised to pass a resolution rebranding the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Would that they were. But even though I typically get furious at misuse of meaningful political terms, I'm kinda hoping the Goopers go through with it and use it as much as possible. I'm not convinced that the recent resuscitation of red-baiting is doing anything besides make people aware that socialism exists and Republicans don't like it. And if there's anything that can revitalize your product these days, getting Republican denunciations is it.
Would that they were. But even though I typically get furious at misuse of meaningful political terms, I'm kinda hoping the Goopers go through with it and use it as much as possible. I'm not convinced that the recent resuscitation of red-baiting is doing anything besides make people aware that socialism exists and Republicans don't like it. And if there's anything that can revitalize your product these days, getting Republican denunciations is it.
12 May 2009
War crimes
War crimes are only committed by losers.
Did the Allies commit war crimes during the Second World War? Yes.
Were they as bad as war crimes committed by the Axis powers? Mostly not.
Was any serious attempt made in the post-war trials to account for crimes against humanity committed by both sides? Nope.
War crimes are only committed by countries without the wealth or military might to accuse their enemies of participating in crimes against humanity.
So when lefties are unmoved while liberal humanitarians celebrate war crimes charges brought to the Hague against a tinpot warlord in the third world, this is why.
Did the Allies commit war crimes during the Second World War? Yes.
Were they as bad as war crimes committed by the Axis powers? Mostly not.
Was any serious attempt made in the post-war trials to account for crimes against humanity committed by both sides? Nope.
War crimes are only committed by countries without the wealth or military might to accuse their enemies of participating in crimes against humanity.
So when lefties are unmoved while liberal humanitarians celebrate war crimes charges brought to the Hague against a tinpot warlord in the third world, this is why.
11 May 2009
Star Trek
Against all odds, this may actually be a good picture. I may have to discover a taste for crow. On the other hand, wasn't "angry Romulan with big ship tries to blow up planets" pretty much the plot of the last TNG movie?
Interestingly, a common refrain in many of the positive reviews I've seen so far is how much people are pleased that this isn't a typical "Trek" product. Meaning, usually, that the film eschews the usual high-minded moral and ethical dilemmas for a standard character-driven action movie. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, except that it's, well, somehow fundamentally not Star Trek without them.
I'm not opposed to a reboot of the franchise; in fact, I think it's been sorely needed for years. But if you're going to make "Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek"--which is rather insulting in itself to people who do--why not create your own universe with its own characters instead of recycling someone else's?
At least the film is continuing the Trek tradition of shoehorning an unnecessary and poorly-reasoned time-travel subplot. I haven't yet seen a good time-travel episode of Trek, but for some reason space opera writers keep going back to the well as if it's an inexhaustible fountain of plot-enhancing magic. The best film I've seen about time travel was a little low-budget joint called "Primer." It made little sense to me, but a serious treatment of time travel shouldn't be resolved lightly.
Interestingly, a common refrain in many of the positive reviews I've seen so far is how much people are pleased that this isn't a typical "Trek" product. Meaning, usually, that the film eschews the usual high-minded moral and ethical dilemmas for a standard character-driven action movie. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, except that it's, well, somehow fundamentally not Star Trek without them.
I'm not opposed to a reboot of the franchise; in fact, I think it's been sorely needed for years. But if you're going to make "Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek"--which is rather insulting in itself to people who do--why not create your own universe with its own characters instead of recycling someone else's?
At least the film is continuing the Trek tradition of shoehorning an unnecessary and poorly-reasoned time-travel subplot. I haven't yet seen a good time-travel episode of Trek, but for some reason space opera writers keep going back to the well as if it's an inexhaustible fountain of plot-enhancing magic. The best film I've seen about time travel was a little low-budget joint called "Primer." It made little sense to me, but a serious treatment of time travel shouldn't be resolved lightly.
10 May 2009
One-sentence Seriousness
Glennzilla puts it in a can:
...everything is different, and better, when we do it...MOAR
Thankfully, we're teaching the Iraqis what it means to be a "nation of laws." We Americans know how terrible it is to have a system where the politically powerful are permitted to break the law and not be held accountable. A country which does things like that can fall into such a state of moral depravity that they would actually allow people to do things like this and get away with it. Who could imagine living in a place like that?We need to pick up the slack before the guy goes slightly mad.
Bigger is better
It's not surprising given the current economic climate that a cottage industry would develop on the right claiming the New Deal was ineffective at ending the depression, and the country never truly recovered until World War II.
I don't know/care if this is correct. Let's say that it is.
Exactly what do the folks making this argument expect it to prove? That spending to create "make work" government jobs is a poor solution for economic recovery? What do they happened during the war? If anything, this argument seems to show that the initial New Deal programs weren't far-reaching enough.
Perhaps righties believe we're in a kind of video game world where a little pot of wealth bloops onscreen whenever a non-American gets whacked. I can believe that.
Not that I would necessarily endorse a wartime economy even without the war
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3a27d3a0-c961-4f33-9e77-209091a2ea78)
I don't know/care if this is correct. Let's say that it is.
Exactly what do the folks making this argument expect it to prove? That spending to create "make work" government jobs is a poor solution for economic recovery? What do they happened during the war? If anything, this argument seems to show that the initial New Deal programs weren't far-reaching enough.
Perhaps righties believe we're in a kind of video game world where a little pot of wealth bloops onscreen whenever a non-American gets whacked. I can believe that.
Not that I would necessarily endorse a wartime economy even without the war
09 May 2009
The air up there
Being four games over .500 on May 10 is making me feel a little....lightheaded.
Regardless of the overall record, though, beating the St. Louisians is always delightful.
Regardless of the overall record, though, beating the St. Louisians is always delightful.
08 May 2009
This just in
Sources of this blog have texted me reporting that David Souter is close to coming out of retirement to play quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings.
Stay tuned for more breathless non-information!
Stay tuned for more breathless non-information!
05 May 2009
Does the Supreme Court...
...ever hear cases on anything besides abortion?
Inquiring Serious Journalists want to know!
Inquiring Serious Journalists want to know!
02 May 2009
O RLY?
President Obama at the Summit of the Americas:
(h/t)
In other news, computer is still in the shop, so light posting will continue.
You take a country like Venezuela -- I have great differences with Hugo Chavez on matters of economic policy and matters of foreign policy. His rhetoric directed at the United States has been inflammatory. There have been instances in which we've seen Venezuela interfere with some of the -- some of the countries that surround Venezuela in ways that I think are a source of concern.Dear Mr. President; a source of concern, let me show you it.
(h/t)
In other news, computer is still in the shop, so light posting will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
