Beck + Palin = OMFG!

Now this really is a whole lotta stupid. If you have ever considered either of these two nimrods insightful, if you have ever considered voting for either one for a public office, if you have the least bit of interest in the what the "conservative" movement has become...

... then watch this video of perhaps the most inane 13 minutes I've ever seen on television.

Here are my thoughts as I was watching.

1. Okay, okay, Glenn tries to disarm critics in the first few minutes by predicting "they're going to call us stupid." Nice try, moron.

2. McCain, the evil progressive, was for TARP bailouts. Wait a minute! I distinctly remember both of these yahoos were for the TARP bailouts, too!

3. Alaska made "adjustments" for the oil companies? Wait a minute! Those are taxes, ie, re-distribution of oil wealth to the people! Socialists!

4. How the hell is health insurance reform a violation of the 10th Amendment? Did she go to the John Yoo School of Constitutional law?

Sure enough, Media Matters has great documentation to corroborate my memory. This is a real problem for the Republican party and for the conservative movement since only the most irrational voters could find such inaccurate pabulum the least bit palatable.

Then try to harken back to the days when conservatives had an intellectual foundation, when Bill Buckley roamed the airwaves and sought out liberals with whom to cross swords on broad ranging topics. Today's conservatives would rather laze about in a beach house smirking to each other about the Statue of Liberty and misinterpreting the 10th Amendment.

Buckley, whether you agreed with him or not, bravely tilted into the breach:

McGwire "Lies" and media has double standard

From Eschaton:

Just to compare and contrast Mark McGwire with, say, Rudy Giuliani. While McGwire was called a "liar" yesterday, last week when Rudy said there were no domestic terror attacks under George Bush it was said -- hours later -- that he was "not quite correct".

Ooooh, and Brian Williams is miffed! (Fourth estate, yeah right.) And Pierce nails it, short and sweet.

Democrats excuse racism?

Okay, a quick post, no references. This weekend Liz Cheney castigated the "liberal establishment" for being "silent" on Harry Reid's "racist" 2008 comment about then-candidate Barack Obama's light skin and lack of a "negro accent" and compared it to the public dressing down that Trent Lott got when he was Senate leader.

All Harry Reid said was the truth, white people would indeed view Obama differently than, say, Jesse Jackson, the use of the word "negro" notwithstanding. Poor Trent Lott, on the other hand-- he didn't mean nuthin'.

Let's remember the real history of why Trent Lott lost his job. Trent Lott said, in couched terms when praising Strom Thurmond's presidential run in 1948 as a segregationist candidate, that we would have been "better off if we had followed Strom's lead." Now this really is a racist statement and shows that little Liz has mastered the Orwellian technique of re-writing history.

And yet again, nobody calls out Liz Cheney on the substantive difference in the comments of Reid and Lott. If they were to do it just once maybe Dick's daughter would shut up.

Oh yeah, and remind me again what qualifies Liz Cheney to be on the Sunday talk shows over, say, Glenn Greenwald or even the Rude Pundit for that matter.

Giuliani wins the Orwell Award of the Week

If the internet tubes survive the cataclysmic destruction of Western civilization I will return to this clip from my mountainside bunker wi-fi connection for the gentle reminder of what precipitated our demise as a culture.

This is only one example of the hysterical lies that are currently being expounded and expanded on every news show I have seen in the last two weeks.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ya. No terrorist attacks on Bush's watch--- except for the 4,000 civilians killed on 9-11!!!

Did history begin on 9-12-2001? Was Bush not required to know about the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998? Or the bombing of two US embassies in the 1990's? Or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000? Terrorism has been around for a long time, even dating back to the Beirut barracks bombing in which hundred of US marines were killed, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc, etc. Of course, not only did a terrorist attack happen on Bush's watch... but it was the WORST terrorist attack in US history.

Rudy learned the lesson of George Orwell. If you are going to tell a lie, make sure it's a BIG fucking lie. In fact, make sure it's the biggest fucking lie you could think up.

The fact that an asshole like Rudy Giuliani (and multiple other Republican tards) can go on cable or network show and breezily lie about Bush's "clean record" on terror is one thing, but the unbelievable bit of this clip is the complete lack of push back by the supposed pundit intelligentsia. The duty of the fourth estate is to protect society from the propagation of these very untruths.

I love Mika's face on this clip: blank stare. I wouldn't expect Scarborough to call out Rudy, but the panel that morning also included Mike Barnicle, the crusty newspaperman, and Willie Geist, the slightly sarcastic pop culture aficionado. Perhaps the media are just becoming fatigued from the daily onslaught of lies by GOP operatives the past 10 years. It's like the fire hydrant principle: the flow is so voluminous, what's the point of trying to stop a few drops?

On another show, Giuliani let fly the exact same falsehood to George Stephanopoulos who also let it go unchecked. Later, George issued an apology: “All of you who have pointed out that I should have pressed him on that misstatement in the moment are right. My mistake, my responsibility.”

From wiki: "The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past..."

I'm not sure if Giuliani actually believes these lies the he tells over and over, or if he is purposely trying to deceive, and I'm not sure it even matters. Why anyone would seek out Giuliani's opinion on anything is beyond me. These guys are bad. Really just bad people.

"Yeah, but, you never said why they attack us"

Greenwald has a typically excellent piece concerning the disregard we have for motivations of the terrorists. If you read one column every day, you should make it Greenwald.

Does anyone perform surgery without knowing why it needed to be done?

Special note should be made in the video at how the venerable Ms. Thomas is summarily dismissed by the next correspondent asking a question. Abhorrent.

Mumbai versus Mayo?

Crazy Beck helps with a question I've always wondered about. Thanks, Glenn.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Glenn Beck Chooses the Mayo Clinic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

WTF, let's do two Stewart videos about Fox tonight.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Underpants of Terror

Tom Tomorrow:

Tiger, time to find Jesus?

Brit Hume proselytizes the Chosen One, and disses Buddhism in the process:

When does apparently well-meaning evangelism become naked arrogance? (And yes, I did punctuate with a cavuto.)

Cheney, the lone nutjob

Other Bush officials seem to disagree with former VP Richard Cheney. From Meet the Press today:

Bush CIA and National Security Agency chief Mike Hayden: "I am heartened by the fact that the president consistently says we are at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates."

Bush Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, regarding Current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "I've known her for a long time. She's got a good skill set, she's got great experience, her heart's in the right place, and I, I heartily endorse her."

This is not to say that a major failure of of our security apparatus has not occurred, obviously it has.

Dick Cheney: dumber than Bush

At least Bush has the common sense to STFU*. The recent terrorist attempt by the briefs bomber has brought out all the whackos--- with Dick Cheney leading the way. Of course, Michigan's very own Pete Hoekstra has been in rare form as well.

Personally I kinda like that Barack Obama didn't go off on a tirade about the flub up by the State Dept, or the CIA or whoever screwed up. The nature of law enforcement is that it entails a bureaucracy, and these large bureaucracies, while necessary, are inherently inefficient and problematic.

As has been said multiple times over the last eight years, the terrorists only have to be right once, but we have to be right every single time. What is lost in the current discussion is that several attempts have been thwarted the past few months. It's a scary world, and leave it to the Republicans to wet their pants at every provocation.

Anyway, Maddow has a terrific review of the insanity:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(*Altho I still maintain that the former president is suffering from a medical form of dementia that will be announced within the next couple years.)

Tiger Woods: Person of the Year?

From Frank Rich:

What makes the golfing superstar’s tale compelling, after all, is not that he’s another celebrity in trouble or another fallen athletic “role model” in a decade lousy with them. His scandal has nothing to tell us about race, and nothing new to say about hypocrisy. The conflict between Tiger’s picture-perfect family life and his marathon womanizing is the oldest of morality tales.

What’s striking instead is the exceptional, Enron-sized gap between this golfer’s public image as a paragon of businesslike discipline and focus and the maniacally reckless life we now know he led. What’s equally striking, if not shocking, is that the American establishment and news media — all of it, not just golf writers or celebrity tabloids — fell for the Woods myth as hard as any fan and actively helped sustain and enhance it.

For what it's worth, when given the choice, I've always rooted for Mickelson... and if he's using steroids it could only be Premarin.

"Have you heard of the Heidelberg Appeal?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I don't expect Pat Buchanan to understand environmental science, but I would expect him to understand a document written in English. He invoked the Heidelberg Appeal as evidence that "4000 scientists including 72 Nobel Prize winners" do not believe that climate change is a problem. Buchanan then went on to call climate change the "biggest hoax" perpetrated on mankind.

What is the Heidelberg Appeal? It's a document written in 1992 with signatories who call for the advance of science and warn against pseudo-science in the public sphere especially when drafting policy. If asked, I would feel very comfortable signing this document myself:

Text of the Heidelberg Appeal

Addressed to the chiefs of state and governments

Heidelberg, April 14, 1992

"We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

"We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.

"We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational pre-conceptions.

"We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind. We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than an extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations. We intend to assert science's responsibility and duty towards society as a whole. We do however forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.

"We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.

"The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases."^[1]

What the Heidelberg does NOT say is even more important: it says nothing about climate change, polar ice caps, greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, or any other specific item germane to any current debate. Heidelberg is merely a general invocation of the value of true science for solving the world's problems.

And Buchanan is scientifically proven to be an ass-hat.

Leaked Tiger Woods Sex Tape

Leaked Tiger Woods Mistress Sex Tape - Watch more Funny Videos

Before Climategate, there was...

... the Oregon petition, among a multitude of other organized scams to make global climate change appear controversial. New Scientist outlines a number of purposeful deceits put out by global warming skeptics over the years, some hatched by carbon industry operatives and others by unknown folks.

So why are scientists held to a different standard? My brief time in academia showed me that the competition is fierce for grant money, publication and prestige within the scientific community. Likewise with industry and the fear that must be rampant concerning a change in the status quo. If one is going to rale on about the east Anglia emails, then they should also recognize the skeptics' lies.

On a related theme, Jared Diamond, author of Collapse, has an op-ed in the NYT recently that praises large corporations for their "green" technologies and policies. Sure, these policies are mainly cost-saving, such as using less gasoline and recycling materials, but Diamond's point is well-made: that conservation can be business-friendly and the government may have a role in promoting such tactics.

(Yet another) Tiger Woods Song

[video]

Climate and vested interests

New Scientist has an excellent article that goes point-by-point over the East Anglia emails and explains why they do not indicate a "conspiracy" about climate change.

I'm not a climate scientist and the only way I could possibly know if the planet were warming and by what cause would be to review data collected by scientists and consider their interpretation. I would have to weigh the evidence for and against the hypothesis as best I could and would also have to factor in any motivations by the proponents of the thesis as well as the skeptics.

We have a friend in town who is an environmental professor at the local university. About 10 years ago we had a conversation about global warming (this was before the term climate change, before Al Gore's movie, before all the latest controversy) when I broached the subject. This professor is level-headed with no axe to grind and has no affiliation with corporations or movements related to climate change. He has never published climate related research. He unequivocally stated that he had no doubt, after having reviewed the peer-reviewed articles, that climate change was occurring and it was due to man-made greenhouse gases.

Can it be possible that nefarious influences are promoting a hoax upon the world community about the dangers of climate change? Sure. But it certainly could also be true that opposing nefarious forces, with much more at stake financially, could be influencing the debate from other camp. Oil, gas and coal interests have an immense amount to lose if carbon emissions become taboo and I would think that they would have a huge motivation to do everything in their considerable power to distort the debate.

Of course, motivation alone does not equate to wrong doing. The fact is that we will know for sure in time if the planet is warming, and we will likely continue to gather data and research about it's causes. Scientists in the field are already convinced about the change and the cause, and slowly the rest of us will gain insight as well.

I would also be quick to add that even George W. Bush, the oilman-turned-president, eventually came to the opinion that not only was the planet warming, but it was via man-made factors. In other words, on this issue there is hardly a photon of difference between his view of anthropogenic climate change and the man who beat him at the polls in 2000.

If indeed anthropogenic climate change is a reality, who is likely to be the last to be convinced? If the data were presented to everyone, which population would be the most likely to deny it? Answer: those whose lifestyle would the most negatively impacted. It's tough to realize that your very way of life runs counter to your long-standing world view.

Jared Diamond in his book Collapse relates story after story of civilizations that denied the step-wise relentless preventable destruction of their habitat which eventually led to their respective demise. What thoughts went through the Easter Island inhabitant's head as he was cutting down the last visible tree for firewood? Did he think some miracle would replenish their forest? Or some new technology would make trees unnecessary? We'll never know because that civilization became extinct shortly after that tree was cut down.

Recently, I joined a discussion on Facebook about the merits (or lack thereof) of the theory of evolution. It all started with a disparaging remark by Christian minister Rick Warren: "It takes a greater leap of faith to believe that nothing created everything." Of course, I took issue with this idiotic swipe at biology's greatest thinker, especially on 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's opus, The Origin of Species. I got the usual evangelical push back, testaments of their faith in their sky wizard, an outpouring of prayers to save my heathen atheist soul and, finally, this masterpiece from a commenter named Pete:

We believe in creation not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. The Lord Jesus is revealed in the Bible to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-3), and He is for Christians the Lord of all and the Head over all things, including science (Acts 10:36, Ephesians 1:22). Jesus said something about science in John 5:45-47, namely this: If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we must believe Moses' writings. What did Moses write about first of all? He wrote about the creation of all things by God. So we judge science by the Bible and not the other way around. "We walk by faith, not by sight." ([2] Corinthians 5:7)

And it hit me. There will always be Petes in the world and no amount of rationality will ever change them. The investment in their world view is unshakable. After 150 years of geologic evidence, fossils, paleontology, genetics, chemistry, etc, that all corroborate the great thesis of Darwin, we still have 45% of the US population who don't accept the science of evolution... that's a big steaming pile of stupid. You could exchange the term "internal combustion engine" for Jesus Christ and "gasoline" for Word of God and pretty much sum up the debate on climate change today. Just as light bulbs went on above the heads of serious scientists in 1859, the fundamentalist Christians and other irrationalists dug in their heels for the fight against evolution; their goal was not to understand the science, but rather to defend their embattled world view. The irrationalists were seasoned in the fight because they had been to battle many times before against the astronomers, the physicists, the navigators, who dared to developed hypotheses that ran counter to their entrenched religious dogma.

Now we are at it again. This time the irrationalists are not necessarily Christian, but the motivations are the same. The leadership-- carbon-based fuel producers, oil, gas and coal industry-- has a vested interest in the status quo just as the Church leaders of yore had a vested interest that was threatened by Galileo's solar system or Darwin's natural selection. The lemmings merely follow.

Our political process is never completely discernible, but to me it's fairly clear that the public will not support any sweeping changes to our lifestyle until there is visible and palpable evidence that our way of life is in danger. That's how we roll. That's why we have been so successful at denying other inevitabilities: the harm of slavery, the idiocy of racial discrimination, the counter-productivity of unnecessary wars, the ongoing foolishness of ignoring the health care crisis, prohibiting gay rights., etc, etc.

Maybe scientists are wrong and climate change is no big deal, but I doubt it. Unlike Darwinism, however, the denial of climate change has the potential of threatening our habitat. Denying evolution merely makes you ignorant; denying climate change could be devastating.

Perino: "No terrorist attack during Bush's term."

Yes, the history books will show that 9-11 and the anthrax attacks happened under Bill Clinton.

Stafford: "I can throw the ball..."

"...if you need me to throw the ball." (at 4:30 on the video).

Remember this kid is 21 years old. I think Detroit has found their Hula Blue Jesus.

Sarah Palin Whines to Oprah

Boo- fucking -hoo. Palin's kids are off limits!! Except when she purposely inserts them into controversial political and social discussions.



Bristol tells Greta Vansusteren all about abstinence and birth control.

Piper is a Superstar of the anti-abortion movement.

Whether you like Obama or not, his kids are not used as tools to promote his political aspirations or social agenda.

And can someone tell Ms. Palin that, ever since Nixon, whiners don't become president.

Ticonderoga #2 and #3 Pencils

Ayn Rand: The bitch is back

Barry Ritholtz discusses the GQ story.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/

Sarah Palin "Going Rogue"

She's such a bad-ass. (Isn't it a bit weird that she named her book after the line written and popularized by comedienne Tina Fey?)

The remarkable thing about the pre-publication buzz is the willingness of McCain operatives to go on record with their disdain. If these folks regarded her as politically viable, I don't think they'd be distancing themselves from her. These are not anonymous statements; they are on record.

Former McCain strategist John Weaver slammed Palin for using the book for “petty and pathetic” score-settling.

“Sarah Palin reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the movie 'Harvey,' complete with imaginary conversations. All books like these are revisionist and self-serving, by definition,” Weaver wrote in an email to POLITICO. “But the score-settling by someone who wants to be considered a serious national player is petty and pathetic.”

“The problem wasn't who her interview was with, the problem was her interview,” he added. “Couric asked no trick questions."

Since We May Never See Lou Dobbs Again...

Let's watch the old clip from Estaben Colberto.... Giganteeeeee!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Lou Dobbs
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

Feldstein and the Loophole in Healthcare

Martin Feldstein has a long history of being full of shit, so I have little doubt his recent op-ed in the Washington Post is riddled with inaccuracies. Frankly, I've been a bit busy lately and have not read through the entire 1990 pages of the current House bill, but Feldstein claims that forgoing health insurance would be cost effective for most Americans because the House bill contains a provision whereby the uninsured can purchase a policy after-the-fact of becoming ill or injured. On it's face this sounds preposterous, but that's what he said and the Washington Post published.

The debate about health care has contained so much bullshit from its opponents that my reaction is to disbelieve everything that is said by them. Obviously, financial interests by the health insurers and pharmaceutical companies have spent lavishly to lobby against this bill, but I could certainly envision the possibility that a gaping loophole was left. If Feldstein, "an independent outside director for Eli Lilly", is lying on this-- as he was in July-- then he and the editorial board WaPo should all be castrated and the bill sent to their respective insurance companies.

Ritholtz lays into Buffett

Barry Ritholtz seems a little annoyed at the folksy Oracle of Omaha. I gagged after the third of fourth time I heard Buffett's narrative of his recent railroad purchase. "I had my assistant take me over to the office and the purchase took about 15 minutes." Aw shucks. (Some of the comments on Ritholtz' site are priceless.)

Stewart channels Beck

Perfect! Jon Stewart in a tour de force performance captures the essence of Glenn Beck's cognitive dissonance and narcissism. The nations's court jester has been knocking on the door of perfection for quite a while, and now he has made it through. Unless you watch the Beckmeister the value of this skit may be lost, but the only thing missing was the red phone. Whoever said that comedic material would be lacking after Bush left the White House never watched Fox News.

Is the US' infant mortality really that bad?

Short answer: No, actually we have probably the best perinatal health care in the world.

This story in the New York Times is just about the most misleading item I've read in a long time. The Skeptical OB has an excellent detailed review, but I'll list the salient points.

When comparing infant mortality in the US vs Europe:

1. The US has a higher population of women of African descent which is an independent risk factor for pre-term birth.

2. Other countries often do not count extremely premature infants in their mortality statisitics.

3. The numbers do not correct for multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.) due to assisted reproductive technologies, which are used more widely in the US.

These are fatal flaws when comparing the US infant mortality to other developed nations. One odd comment by the statistician conducting the survey, Dr. Marian MacDormand, who said that "the strong role prematurity played came as a surprise to her." Huh? Prematurity has been recognized as by far the number one cause of infant mortality for, oh I don't know, the last 10,000 years.

Another oddity is the willingness of the medical director of the March of Dimes, Dr. Alan Fleischman, to throw the "US health system" under the bus, calling these findings an "indictment" of the poor way in which we care for women and children. I'm the first to say that the US health care system needs an overhaul, but not because of any incompetence of our perinatal services.

In fact, the issues of limited access that have adverse effects on overall US health care are almost nonexistent in regards to prenatal care and perinatal services. State-run, federally-funded Medicaid sets the income requirement very leniently for pregnant women thus allowing all pregnant women access to timely care.

If one were to correct for the larger numbers of multiple gestations and premature births in the US and the higher percentage of women of African descent, in fact the highest in the developed world, the US may still have higher infant mortality, but I doubt it and it certainly isn't shown in this study.

One modifiable risk factor is the liberal use of artificial reproductive technologies in the United States, and perhaps governing bodies should emphasize the importance of reducing multiple gestations.

Cheney's Memory Deficiency

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Our Dick Going Soft?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Every time I see Dick Cheney I wonder why he isn't in jail, but then I understand the rule of law and the 5th Amendment, yada, yada, yada. Of course, the hundreds of detainees in Gitmo and other illegal centers have likely done far less damage to our republic than Mr. Cheney, yet were imprisoned with far less evidence against them.

The real question is why sociopaths like Cheney are accepted by the electorate composed of supposedly rational human beings... and I cannot help but think that this basic flaw in human nature, this allowance for truly criminal and destructive behavior in our leaders, will someday lead to the end of our species. I just hope it's more than forty years hence.

SPY: Wolfe Wave?

This is what keeps bears up at night: the appearance of a suspicious Wolfe Wave bullish pattern. I still remain net short, but this warrants close observation.

Sweetness

Nobody did it better than the great Walter Payton.

Glenn Beck fixes healthcare!

If anyone can find a more annoying person anywhere, please let me know so I can be sure to avoid him/her. I saw the headline so I figured, what the hell, maybe Beck has some good idea about health care reform. Wrong. Just the usual sarcastic bullshit.

This is the guy in high school who sat in front of me in trigonometry class, had the latest TI-30 calculator, wore a Tiger print nylon disco shirt with pocket protector, blew dry his hair straight back, bragged incessantly about his reel-to-reel tape player, gossiped about the student council president, worked on weekends as a wedding DJ... and he never ever shut his fucking mouth. I always wondered what on earth he'd do for a living and it turns out that Fox News has hired a whole bunch of these narcissistic trolls. Who knew?

Why I love Fox News...

Here's one reason:

They're shameless in their silliness.

A few years ago when they promoted illegal war and torture I pulled my hair out, now I just laugh.

Links to Drink By

Grab a beer... here's what I've been reading and watching:

If you see a dollar in the street, kill it.

All the lovely medical experts amongst us.

Look who says the Oath Keepers are *right*

Alan Grayson is the new star of the progressive left. Here's why. (discussion regards ACORN).

I suppose any job can put you to sleep.

The biggest f*&king reason to watch the World Series.

How did our oil get under their sand?

Frontline episode on the "dark market" (when you have an hour to spare)

Bartlett tries to educate Kudlow