Big Ole Link Dump that is.

The Fundamental Value of the Ukraine Crisis

Here CDR Salamander lists some of the hard truths learned/relearned thus far from the Ukraine crisis.

You don't know the future: Do not think that just because you want history to leave you alone, that it will. Just because you want to be most concerned about the Pacific and Indian Ocean AOR - that doesn't mean history will let you. We need to be very careful following people who are so convinced about their ability to see the future. They can't. I can't. You can't. All you can do is maintain intellectual and operational flexibility against other nations' abilities, not their intention. Hedge, hedge, hedge.

Weakness invites aggression: Russia saw an opening to take what they have wanted since the fall of the Soviet Union; the Crimea. Ethnically and from a historical perspective, they have a leg to stand on. All they needed was for the time to be ripe. Kiev in chaos, NATO weak and thin, and the USA led by the C-team. Thinking like a Russian, I can't say I blame them. There were a few territorial loose ends from the breakup of the Soviet Union that they want to clean up. That leads to the next point ....

Hmmm: Mummified Michigan Woman Dead Since 2008 Managed to Vote in 2010 Election

Mummified remains were discovered in the Pontiac home belonging to 49-year-old Pia Farrenkopf last week, when a contractor was dispatched to the property when it went into foreclosure.

The remains found in the backseat of a jeep parked in the home's garage have not been positively identified yet, but authorities believe the body belongs to Farrenkopf.

Adding more mystery to the gruesome discovery is the fact that Farrenkopf registered to vote in 2006 and even cast a vote in the 2010 elections, though authorities believe she died at some point in 2008.

The GOP really needs to step up its mostly-dead, dead-dead, and un-dead voter outreach programs.

What's Really Behind the Ban Bossy Movement

Think about what's coming up in the next year or two and you'll see why the movement is starting up now.

Also The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics by our own Zombie.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:43 PM | Comments (811)
Post contains 1512 words, total size 17 kb.

Not just any deal mind you. No it's the best kind of deal...a bi-partisan one.

Two leaders of the negotiations —Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Dean Heller, R-Nev. — said in a statement that the deal would be retroactive to Dec. 28, when the emergency benefits program expired.

"We're not at the finish line yet, but this is a bipartisan breakthrough," Reed said.

Heller expressed satisfaction that "Democrats and Republicans have come together on a proposal that will finally give Americans certainty about their unemployment benefits."

...

Lawmakers said the proposal was fully paid for, with the bulk of the money raised by extending some customs fees through 2024 and changing how some companies set aside money for pensions, in effect increasing their taxes. More federal revenue would be raised by letting some companies make earlier payments to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which guarantees workers' pensions.

"Retroactive"? So people will be getting checks to cover the last 2/5 months? Ok.

And the deal is for 5 months so....we'll be back here in August doing it again. Just in time for the start of the campaign season and another round of "Republicans hate the unemployed".

Of course that's if the House passes this. And that's the rub. Because five idiot Republicans can't stay on script the House will now be pressured "to do something".

Prediction...after weeks of wrangling and MSM hits on the the House GOP for being big meanies, Boehner will bring this bill to the floor and let it pass with Democrats and a handful of liberal Repubicans.

Maybe we should just cut to the chase this time.

Here are the Republican sellouts.

5 GOP Senators on board with jobless benefits deal: Heller NV, Portman OH, Murkowski AK, Kirk IL & Collins ME

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) March 13, 2014

Ever notice the Democrats never have any problem finding Republicans who will sellout to help them? Even when the Democrats have 59 votes and the GOP is down to a rump caucus they can find a few turncoats. Hell, even when the GOP has a majority the Democrats can find allies across the aisle that will stymie the Republican message.

But yeah...go Team GOP. Yay! Or something.

Maybe if there were some evidence that endless unemployment benefits hurt people in the long run these idiots would do the right thing. If only. Oh wait.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:31 AM | Comments (308)
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

• Looks Like Russia Is About To Carve Up Ukraine Even More
  
• Justice Department Blocking Probe
  
• Apparently More Crappy Advertising Campaigns Are Going To Save Obamacare
  
• Paglia: Put The Sex Back In Sex Ed
  
• Russia Massing Military Forces On Border With Ukraine
  
• Russian Airlines Divert Flights To Bypass Ukraine
  
• Ron Paul: Putin Has Law On His Side With Crimean Invasion
  
• The AP Story On Abortion Opponents Is Ridiculous
  
• The Republican Party Is Changing, Deal With It
  
• Are You Ready For Transgendered People In The Military?
  
• Harry Reid Takes Money From Companies Under Investigation For Bribery Law Violations
  
• CDC Warns That Gonorrhea Is On The Verge Of Being Untreatable
  
• Scott Brown Launching Exploratory Committee In NH
  
• The Country That Makes Saudi Arabia Look Good
  
• Hockey Fans Sue Arena Over Beer
  
• Hilarious: Pug Picks A Fight With A SWAT Team (video)
  

Follow this old man on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:36 AM | Comments (472)
Post contains 152 words, total size 3 kb.

The bombshell from the WSJ is either right, right in the basics but wrong in the particulars (it wasn't the engines sending that data to a satellite, but an onboard system monitoring all systems), or just completely wrong, depending on who you ask.

I did good work today. I'm knocking off early.

Open Thread.

Oh: Maybe there should be some actual politics on a political blog.

So here's Chris Matthews saying the Senate is lost to Harry Reid.

And here's Harry Reid proving that old maxim from the Bible, "Wow, that old guy smells like ass and talks like stupid."

I think that's from Psalms.

A fuller explanation, from someone in or close to the CIA I think, for the current scandal alleging the CIA spied on Congress.

Via @rdbrewer4, somethin' cute:

Posted by: Ace at 01:56 PM | Comments (1117)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

As usual, Paul makes a sound point and then buries it in an avalanche of hyperideological crankery.

He's quite right that sections of nations ought to have the right to secede from the body of the nation. I'm not sold on this baseline assumption that randomly drawn borders from 1930 represent the best possible unit of self-governance.

I think the non-Allowite areas of Syria should be permitted to secede from Syria. I wish Iraq had simply been broken into pieces in 2004. (Although there are significant problems with doing so -- such as the Shi'ite areas having most of the oil and the Kurds the most of the rest, with very little in the Sunni-held areas.)

In a perfect world, I'd like to see a massive property exchange in Kashmir, so that Muslims can move (voluntarily) to areas closer to Pakistan and Hindus can move to an area closer to India; then partition it.

A lot of people are dying for a border some guy drew on a piece of paper 50 years ago, or dying for the right and privilege of having a political superiority over another Tribe of people.

So I don't object to Paul's basic point that a Crimean secession from Ukraine is somehow unthinkable.

What I object to is the rest of it, the denial of obvious facts as being ideologically inconvenient -- as regards the Russian invasion of Crimea, he says Russia has a treaty to maintain a naval base at Sevastapol, so, if I'm following this correctly, obviously they also have a right to send in tanks and APCs.

He also claims "we" are in there as well, that is, America and the EU. The fact that "we" did not bring our tanks and APCs seems to be a minor point that hardly merits a mention.

Paul has some points right, but then he buries those points in relentlessly anti-American "Empire" narrative no different at all from the same pap preached by Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone.

But you can be the judge.

Allah considers this all, as well as the possible impact on Rand Paul's candidacy.

So What's Going On Here? I'll ask since you didn't.

Most people would like to conceive themselves as idealists and do not like confessing to selfish impulses.

Now, much of isolation is predicated on a selfish impulse: Let them work it out themselves; we will not trade the lives of our boys to spare theirs.

This selfishness is... not a bad thing. It does make a great deal of sense to question, whenever America is going to undertake a military response, if the lives of the people we hope to save are equal in number and value to the lives we will be sacrificing in their favor.

How many foreign lives is one of our Boys worth? I'd say -- and you can say I'm selfish or I hate foreigners, but I'd just respond that I'm inclined to favor my own countrymen -- one of Our Boys is worth at least 100 foreign civilians, and probably more than that.

Now, I know those foreign civilians would see it differently -- but of course the foreign civilians are doing the same thing I am, valuing a life more highly based on its closeness and connection. An American is close and connected to me in a way an Iraqi frankly is not. I wish the Iraqis well, but of course I value American lives more.

So there is a selfishness here, or at least a self-interestedness, and this is also a subjective thing; I value American lives more because they are American. Period.

But people do not like admitting they are ever capable of being selfish or that they engage in subjective reasoning. They must always claim to be acting out of altruism, and engaging in purely objective reasoning.

So the real answer as to why we shouldn't go intervening everywhere around the world -- because we're selfish of our treasure and protective of those in the American Family -- isn't favored by those claiming to be Idealists.

And what do Idealists do, then, if the best explanation to justify their preferences doesn't seem elevated enough?

Well, what they do then is begin working to offer a different explanation, one that doesn't sound selfish or subjective.

And the explanation they wind up offering, most of the time, is that America is evil, American exercise of power is evil (and not merely misguided or a poor trade of American lives for foreign ones), and the evil done by foreign powers is either only as evil, or even less evil, than the evils worked by Americans.

Now they're speaking in terms of Idealism, not Selfishness: They, like interventionists, are crusading against evil.

It's just that that evil is principally located in the dark heart of the American Empire.

Rather than saying "I'm against going on crusades against dragons overseas," and acknowledge there are indeed evils afoot in the world which he will not support action against, the Idealist is still determined to go on crusades against an evil dragon himself: And that evil dragon is called the United States of America.

In this way many isolationists poison their movement and set people against it.

There is a great difference between two underlying theories for isolationism:

America is too good to put itself at risk for the benefit of the rest of the world

versus

The rest of the world is too good to be tainted by America.

Why people like Paul always have to come down to that second formulation escapes me.

Posted by: Ace at 01:02 PM | Comments (378)
Post contains 949 words, total size 6 kb.

Interesting interview at the Federalist.

Some observations he makes:

“The left indicts anything that it cannot immediately identify as leftist as political,” Mamet said and insisted that his early plays for the stage and screen, including the aforementioned trio critics called “anti-capitalist”, were “apolitical.”

...

“The combative nature of human beings in relationships with each other and in the understanding of themselves is the essence of the tragic view,” Mamet said before continuing, “The marvelous thing about my discovery of conservative philosophy and economics is that it made sense with my previous experience in the world. It is saying that there are things beyond our understanding, but by observing them we might be able to deal with them. We can never completely do away with the final remainder of discomfort, mutual loathing, and self-doubt, because that is part of the human condition. Whatever we do, the price of failure will be chaos, but the price of success will also be chaos.”

Mamet sees a lot of problems in modern society's determination to take the competitive aspect -- animal spirits -- of life out of life, to denature it, to neuter it. (On this point he would probably have a great deal of agreement with dissident feminist Camille Paglia.)

It is the well-intentioned, but destructive attempt to assuage the fear of matriculation ["matriculation" is Mamet's term for the passage from adolescence to true adulthood -- ed.], and the lack of incentive to prove one’s worth, competence, and skill, that have created a culture of conformity, weakness, and banality. “If one tries to save the young from the rigors and traumas of life, you’re saving them from life,” Mamet said.

He asks, regarding sex, and what (my words, not his) could be characterized by a Brave New World sort of "Orgy-Porgy" trivialization/juvenlization of sex...

“What’s happened when a 19-year-old American male is jaded about sex?”

And answers his own question:

“Part of the matriculation process for a young man has always been”, Mamet continued, “I don’t know how to make a living, but I better figure it out or I’m never going to get laid. When you take that away, you take away the strongest goad he will ever experience in his life.”

He discusses one of my personal obsessions, shibboleths, a bit, though he calls them "recognition symbols" (which is of course all "shibboleths" mean).

“What is college? Nothing. Students learn five recognition symbols that make them comfortable in conversation with other people who know nothing. And they don’t realize that they’ve learned to rely too much on others.”

He also talks about another pet obsession, which is the idea that modern society really can only be understood by accepting that it is still very much a primitive society on its fundamental level:

His study of the Native Americans, which began with an article for the Smithsonian National Museum on Buffalos and the “national shame” of American atrocities toward Natives, led him to the discovery that “One sees how a primitive society has all the elements of ours, which is just another primitive society with a lot more technology.”

He talks more explicitly about politics (and race, and LBJ's Great Society, and so on) but I'll direct you to the article for that.

I think his unifying philosophy is this:

Society has become too allergic to conflict and competition, and has created too many rules and penalties for such. This began (as most projects do) with a decent enough goal -- let's reduce conflict; let's make life not so terribly competitive -- but it has gone too far, and society now punishes these things too much, and therefore punishes basic human nature too much, and too strongly represses the vital animal spirits that propel humans and drive human betterment (on both a human and societal level).

And this tends to make people bored (he talks about the boredom of modern society a lot), cowardly, passive, unproductive and ultimately empty.

A "we had to destroy the village in order to save the village" sort of take on the project to denature the human spirit.

That's my guess.

Awesome: D-Lamp links this:

"MEN WANTED for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success.

Ernest Shackleton 4 Burlington st.

Now not everyone, of course, can be Shackleton. But we seem to admire men like him less and less.

Shackleton's achievement, in case you don't know, was born of failure: His expedition to the Antarctic failed catastrophically. I think his ship got iced in and was immobilized and then lost.

But what he did then was amazing: he led his crew back to safety, despite impossible odds. I think they ultimately used rowboats, paddling through the open polar ocean, to make their way to the southernmost tip of South America. And even when they got that far, they had a long slog back to actual civilization.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 835 words, total size 6 kb.

Which would have major implications.

Four hours of flight time would mean it could be anywhere in a circle with a diameter of 2,200 nautical miles. It could be in India; it could be in Mongolia; it could be in Japan; it could be in Australia. And of course all the thousands of square miles of ocean around.

But it's more than that: Because pilots don't just shut off their transponders and stop all communications without a reason for doing so.

U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. BA engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.

So, while the plane's transponders and radio were off, its engines were still sending out data to satellites. At least according to the WSJ's sources. And the engines sent out data for four hours past the plane's disappearance.

Which leads to this possibility:

U.S. counterterrorism officials are pursuing the possibility that a pilot or someone else on board the plane may have diverted it toward an undisclosed location after intentionally turning off the jetliner's transponders to avoid radar detection, according to one person tracking the probe.

Terrorism or some kind of skyjacking is not ruled out.

At Hot Air, Malaysian officials dispute these claims, and China is criticizing them on their response to the whole matter.

Via Nidermeyer's Dead Horse... An NPR interview with the WSJ reporter who wrote this story.

He says the new theory being explored is that the plane either landed, or crashed at some later point en route to a planned landing place. (Actually he doesn't clearly say that last "or" clause but it's implied by what he does say.)

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (551)
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree with this.

And not just because it's Mel Gibson. I'd say this about anybody. There is a penalty to be paid for making un-PC remarks: But that penalty should fit the actual crime. Gibson's crime was to say nasty things about Jews ("they start all the wars") and rant insanely at his ex-girlfriend.

These are grounds, certainly, for criticism and wondering if Gibson has anger and alcohol issues.

But they're not grounds for a nigh-complete boycott by the only industry he's ever worked in.

People have a tendency to take their Rules and push them too far, to the point of inhumanity.

The Rule against anti-semitic remarks (or homophobic remarks, or misogynistic remarks, or racist remarks) is a good one. I support that rule. I try to abide by that rule myself (and I inflict it on others in the comments).

But what should the penalty for deviation from the rule be?

People take a sound enough rule but then make a mistake: They decide (possibly without thinking about it) that if the Rule is good, ergo, no amount of enforcement of it can be disproportionate; in fact, each additional ounce of punishment must be good.

But this isn't true. This is the thinking that leads to unfairly punitive mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession. The thinking goes, "Drugs are a social wrong; selling drugs is worse; ergo, the stiffest possible penalties must be just and good."

But that's not true. There comes a point when draconian enforcement becomes a greater evil than the original ill one has sought to penalize.

Gibson's outbursts are upsetting, particularly for any of the groups he spoke about. And Gibson's outbursts do indicate he has some anger issues to work on.

But what tangible harm did he inflict on anyone?

From the moment he berated that cop, he was marked as someone who would bear the stigma of being called an anti-semite for the rest of his life.

That is in itself a heavy penalty. Racism, anti-semitism, etc. are now adjudged by most of polite society to be greater crimes than most actual crimes.

So, he has already been penalized. He will carry the burden of being judged a monster until the day he dies.

But at what point do those who go out hunting monsters become monsters themselves?

Because, at this point: Who is it who's actually working to deliver tangible, real harm and hurt on to another person?

As far as I know, it's not Gibson; it's the thousands of high-placed rule-enforcers in Hollywood who are enforcing a boycott against him, probably without even thinking about it very much, probably without even questioning whether or not it makes sense to continue punishing him.

Tolerance is a virtue -- that is the animating notion behind the campaign to stigmatize, and penalize, intolerance.

But this devotion to tolerance can itself become intolerant. And frequently does.

Tolerance is indeed a virtue. And so is mercy and forgiveness.

Another important virtue is this: a variation of the Golden Rule, to not inflict on others rules that one would find insufferable if inflicted on oneself.

If most people in Hollywood would find it unfair if they themselves were blackballed over some objectionable outbursts -- and I imagine most would -- they should not seek to impose that penalty on others.

It's very easy to judge other people so harshly. And that's why we do it. Because it's easy. It's also -- and few admit this, but it is true all the same -- pleasurable. To judge another feels good.

Judging gives each person two wonderful feelings: The feeling that he is intrinsically superior to another human being (and this feeling is magnified when the person judged is of a high status, because it feels just great to know one is superior to a former $20-million-per-film movie star), and the feeling that he is living virtuously by enforcing a code upon another person.

These things feel good.

Which is why they must be restrained. Anytime something feels good, a person is in grave danger of over-indulging in it. Making a new sexual conquest feels good; the pleasantly warm oblivion of drunkeness feels good; calling out another human being for scorn and ostracism feels good.

All of these things have a purpose. None of these things is necessarily bad, in and of themselves. But all of them will be over-indulged if not restrained.

This is particularly a problem with judgment. Sex and alcohol are, of course, already taboos in society, regulated by various rules and restraints.

But the zeal for zero-tolerance "Tolerance" is not so restrained. In fact, in many people's minds, it's an unambiguous good to indulge the urge to judge and punish as much as possible. There is no "mandatory minimum" sentence for a show of intolerance that they would consider excessive.

After all, if doing a little ostracism/Otherizing/ritual scapegoating is good, then doing a whole lot of it must be even better.

Right?

No. Doing a bump of coke at a party once a year might feel good but do it four times a day for a year and you've got a serious problem.

There are three contributing factors this ugly situation of never-ending scalp-hunting:

1. Cruelty is more pleasurable than most human beings care to admit. In fact, they will rarely admit this to themselves. Cruel actions are justified as "doing good." A gut-level, primitive-mammalian urge for dominance games is justified by ideology or philosophy, and hence is never recognized for being sadistic.

2. Guilt by association. One can never say something like "I think drugs should be decriminalized" without people saying Wow, you must really like drugs.

The assumption is that if you speak up in favor of a merciful attitude towards a social ill, then you must either not be opposed to that social ill, or are actually in favor of that social ill (that is, you don't think it's a social ill, but a social good).

Thus anyone who thinks it may be time to decriminalize pot must like pot.

Not true.

And thus, anyone who argues that the penalty Gibson has paid for his anti-semitic outburst must be not think anti-semitism is any big deal, or must actually be in favor of anti-semitism.

Also not true. I'm philo-semitic myself, and known to be anti-anti-semitism, but there does come a point at which the punishment seems to greatly exceed the actual crime.

Nevertheless, there is a penalty that is imposed on anyone who would speak up for Gibson: The sneaking suspicion that anyone who says anything in his defense must himself be anti-semitic.

And thus, Gibson has few defenders. Just this writer, Robert Downey Jr., and Jodie Foster, pretty much.

Most people decide it's not worth it to get branded themselves as anti-semites, so they remain silent.

And:

3. Social Competitiveness. Human beings love competing. They never stop competing.

We especially compete in a social environment. Most of us aren't athletes; many of us work in competitive fields, but few of us are really the best in our particular field.

But we can always compete in the social environment -- and, if we define the rules of the game to our own advantage, we can pretty much "win" according to our own criteria in every outing.

This leads to the bad phenomenon in which people who generally agree with a basic proposition begin attempting to compete for the prize of who is most strongly in favor of that proposition.

And so the bidding goes thus:

South bids: Four diamonds. Gibson's outburst was anti-semitic and unacceptable.

West bids: Four hearts. Unacceptable, indeed! In fact, his outburst proves that he intended an anti-semitic message in Passion of the Christ, doesn't it?

North bids: Double. In fact, one can trace a relentless message of homophobia, misogyny, racism, anti-semitism and Holocaust denial in all of his films, if you look hard enough. Can't you?

East bids: Redouble. You're certainly right -- in fact, I think Mel Gibson should never work in this town again.

You can see this dynamic in play in any meeting of people who basically agree on most things. Because they agree on the basics, they begin competing on another ground -- how passionately they believe in the basic proposition, and what amount of indignation, outrage, and penalization they are willing to inflict on others in advancement of that proposition.

Whoever is willing to do the most -- whoever is the most outraged -- whoever wishes to be the cruelest in vindication of that principle -- well, he wins. He is The Most at This Thing.

Now, this competitiveness -- this competitive bidding in favor of the most extreme possible position -- could be deflated and checked, were someone to venture the idea that "You go too far; you're nuking Gibson over a fairly small matter."

But the trouble is, few will say that, because of Factor 2: Guilt by Association. Hey, if you hate Jews so much, why don't you just join the Nazi party, buddy?

In a well-functioning marketplace of ideas, more excessive statements of the idea would be knocked down, and a more moderate (and merciful, and humane) rule would prevail.

But there rules are all set to privilege the least merciful and least humane rules, and they win most of the time.

And so it goes.

If anyone's interested in this line of thinking, I'd suggest they read Douglas Preston's 40 page essay, "Trial By Fury," available as an e-book ($2 to buy it, free to borrow with Amazon Prime). It's about a basic human desire for something called "altruistic punishment," punishing people on behalf of others -- that is, not punishing them for a harm they inflicted on the self (that would be self-interested punishment) but punishing them altruistically, for harms they inflicted (or are imagined to have inflicted) on others.

Altruistic punishment is in fact a very useful phenomenon. It works to improve human cooperation and mutual trust. It's a powerful tool we have, which generally has benevolent effects.

And we are rewarded for altruistically punishing other people, because it feels good.

But, like most things, it can be taken too far. It can be taken well past the point of a socially useful function and turn into pleasurable cruelty. And that cruelty will never be checked, because those indulging in the cruelty will never recognize it as such, but will instead call it "fighting the forces of evil" or whatnot.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (539)
Post contains 1762 words, total size 11 kb.

I've mentioned the RNC's new digital and data effort a couple of times. The idea is to modernize the GOP's voter targeting effort, make it a permanent program, and keep it in-house rather than revive it for election years with a different contractor every time. Then campaigns, committees, and vendors could use and update that data in near real-time across multiple simultaneous races. We're still waiting to see if that second part works out, but Rep-elect Jolly' surprise win in Florida was a good test run for the program.

RNC says its digital team is making headway, as proven by what the committee accomplished on the ground -- and online -- in Florida's St. Petersburg-area 13th district, where on Tuesday Republican David Jolly narrowly defeated Democrat Alex Sink. RNC officials said the party was still analyzing the results, but they pointed to a handful of new data gathering and analysis capabilities the party now possesses that they believe made a difference:

I can't in good conscience steal Drucker' list of the new tools, so you'll have to click over. I've been hearing about this for a little over a year, so it's good to see it working.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:58 AM | Comments (463)
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

• Outrage Porn: How The Need For Perpetual Indignation Manufactures Phony Offense
  
• Pete Wehner's Unconstructive Governing Agenda
  
• Congress, This Time It's Personal
  
• Help The Dems You Love By Hiding Sharp Objects
  
• Low Rated CNN Boob Exposed As Idiot By Newsbusters
  
• Has Ezra Klein Made A Huge Mistake
  
• FBI Suspects Leftwing Eco Terrorist May Be Hiding In Hawai'i
  
• Dems Should Be Scared About What FL-13 Means
  
• Lecture On Climate Change Cancelled Due To Blizzard
  
• Landmark Settlement Reached In Police Filming Case
  
• Good News For Monkeys
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:06 AM | Comments (393)
Post contains 95 words, total size 2 kb.