About That Stimulus: Paying Off Democrat Supporters

Stimulus Spending Goes Overwhelmingly to Areas that Supported Obama

All that talk about bipartisanship was just B.S. for the naive.

Sarah Palin's Legal Bills: It's No Lie

Liberals have been crowing that Sarah Palin lied about one of the main reasons she's quitting politics: that defending herself against a variety of bogus ethics complaints is draining her personal and the state's coffers, when the money could better be spent elsewhere.

You won't see moonbat sites quoting this story, though, since it notes Palin's explanation is--or, at least, could be--correct.

Palin says her family has racked up more than $500,000 in legal fees and the state has poured about $2 million of taxpayer money into investigating the complaints...

But the Palins have other assets and financial prospects: Their home is valued at $500,000 to $1 million, she has a book deal that could easily be in the millions, and Palin can make millions more with speaking tours and media opportunities.

She can also tap her immense popularity among the Republican base and raise tens of thousands of dollars to pay off legal bills with very little effort. An Internet campaign raised $130,000 from supporters in just two weeks.

Yes, Palin could mortgage her home, finish her book and then go on the speaker's circuit (I'm sure she'd then be accused of "whoring" around), but I have to ask how much should an individual who is not the Vice President have to pay to defend against frivilous ethical violations? Because it's fairly obvious that Democrats wanting to ruin Palin would continue to file charges regardless of their baseless nature.

This reminds me a little of SLAPP suits, which are designed to silence criticism by making such speech too costly. As noted earlier, Sarah Palin is the designated Hate Receptacle, and as long as she is in the public light, she will be attacked, along with her family, friends, city, state, religion and affiliations.

White House Press Corps Attends Obama July 4th Shindig...as Guests

I don't wanna hear any more liberals mocking conservatives for pointing out the bias of the MSM after the White House press corps attended Obama's Independence Day party as guests.

Reporters from roughly 30 television networks, newspapers, magazines, and web sites celebrated the Fourth of July with Barack Obama at the White House last weekend. Why didn't you know that? Because they were sworn to secrecy...

There is a cosmic irony at work here: The party was "closed press." (Ha!) It was covered, under onerous restrictions, by a pool reporter—the Baltimore Sun's Paul West. West was ushered in by White House staffers for a mere 40 minutes, so he could record the president's remarks. He was kept in a pen so that he wouldn't run amok and interview someone. He shouted questions at Obama as he worked the rope line, which the president ignored. Then he was taken away. West wrote up his blindered account of the party and then e-mailed it to the White House press corps, many of whom were actually at the party, outside of the pen, hanging out with all the other guests. And then, because they had temporarily signed away the right to do their jobs in exchange for facetime with staffers, a few cold Stoudt's American Pale Ales, and some corn on the cob, their news organizations picked up that pool report and used it to tell their readers what happened at the party. This is how the press covers the White House.

Astonishing.

Reporters do attend events as civilians, of course. And most news organizations get tickets to attend concerts, programs, plays, movies, and so on, which are usually snapped up by bigwigs and their families. But this is probably the first time that the White House press corps attended a White House event that was covered only by a pool reporter.

Mythical Cost Savings of Medicare

Nice article taking down many of the arguments that Medicare will reduce the costs of medicine. In a nutshell: many of the supposed "savings" are just billed in different parts of the government, not under Medicare. Read the whole thing.

Would That Andrew Sullivan...

Put this much effort into tracking the lies of Teh One.

Many of the things on this list are either merely Sullivan's definition of lie (such as "Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all." We all know that "began" can mean a lot of things other than breaking ground.) or simply unimportant (such as Trig Palin trutherism). Some are legitimate concerns (such as claims of abuse of power), while others are so insignificant as to be laughable (ZOMG1!!1!! Harry Potter!!!!).

The real chicken bone sticking in Sullivan's craw, and the reason for his Palin hatared, is this one:

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

How dare she not support gay marriage or belong to a church that offers an alternative to gay solidarity! In Sullivan's world, not embracing gay marriage means you are, in fact, "passing judgment" on gay people. Which is the real reason Sullivan doesn't spend his time tracing the many, many lies and flip-flops of Barack Obama, but, instead, worries about Trig Palin's parentage.

Bloggers Beware

Courts may not allow you to use journalists' protections in law suits.

A blogger sued for her online criticism of a software company on a porn industry message board cannot invoke New Jersey's press shield law, a Monmouth County judge says in a case of first impression in the state.

Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio's June 30 ruling allows the company, Too Much Media, to ask blogger Shellee Hale the sources for comments she posted on Oprano, a Web site that proclaims itself the "Wall Street Journal of porn."

Locascio also made a second novel ruling in the case, Too Much Media LLC v. Hale, MON-L-2736-08, holding the company can pursue damages even without a showing of pecuniary loss, based on postings that accuse it of criminal conduct and business incompetence.

In denying Hale protection as a journalist, Locascio said courts "are now being faced with the task of evaluating a virtually limitless number of people who claim to be 'reporting' on issues, but who are, many times, doing little more than shouting from a digital soap box..."

Though calling New Jersey's shield law one of the nation's broadest, Locascio denied Hale's motion because she failed to make a prima facie case that she was connected with the news media. The law protects persons "engaged on, engaged in, connected with, or employed by news media for the purpose of gathering, procuring, transmitting, compiling, editing or disseminating news for the general public."

Locascio found no evidence Hale ever worked for a newspaper, magazine or media entity. He discounted as a "sham affidavit, entitled to no credence" her certification saying she had published articles in one newspaper and several trade journals because she did not provide specifics and she lied in a prior certification concerning a jurisdictional motion, when she denied any knowledge of the plaintiff's residence or domicile.

There was "little evidence (other than her own self-serving statement)" that she "actually intended to disseminate anything newsworthy to the public." Also, Hale's failure to contact Too Much Media to get its side of the story "certainly does not suggest the kind of journalistic objectivity and credibility that courts have found to qualify for the protections of the Shield Law," wrote Locascio.

He analogized Hale's postings to the written public comments that often appear below articles published on Web sites of newspapers and magazines, noting such comments require no fact-checking or editorial review and there is "so little accountability" that it is nearly impossible to determine the identity of the poster...

Locascio also held that as a nonjournalist, Hale would not enjoy another protection afforded the media in defamation cases: the requirement that a plaintiff prove actual malice, rather than mere negligence, as a basis for liability.

In addition, he denied Hale's motion to dismiss based on the alleged absence of pecuniary damages, saying Too Much Media and its principals could recover for harm to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation and mental anguish.

Basically, the judge is throwing this blogger to the sharks, based on her lack of credentials and outrageous conduct online. This isn't to say that other bloggers might not enjoy protection under the law, but one must show a certain degree of journalistic integrity (don't laugh!) to be covered. This sounds about right to me. It's not fair that any Tom, Dick or Sally can say what they please about individuals and companies without fear of reprisal. There has to be some standard for these things, after all.

Obama's Approval Rating Slipping

This didn't take too long.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –3. Those figures reflect the highest level of strong disapproval measured to date and the lowest level recorded for the overall Approval Index...

Overall, 52% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. That, too, is a new low for the President. Forty-seen percent (47%) now disapprove.

It's all downhill from here.

BTW, George W. Bush averaged 67.9% in his first year in office.

Obamacare: Coming to a Hospital Near You

Best practices. It sounds so nice and simple. Everyone wants the best medical care possible, right? And we want doctors to use the best practices available to care for us, don't we? Well, "best practices" may not really mean best practices.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS.

The list of medications and treatments NICE bans or limits the use of are legion, including cancer treatments, back surgeries, pap smears and Alzheimer's drugs. My personal favorite is the restricted use of the drug Lucentis, which treats macular degeneration.

The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."

So, if you go blind in one eye, that's ok, since you have one eye. Get it?

This is the way health care rationing works. When the government is the health care provider--and it will happen if a public option is put in place--the government will determine who gets treated and why. And how much.

Lots of folks argue that we already have rationing because insurance companies dictate what procedures and treatments get covered and which do not. But there's a big difference in government bureaucrats making these determinations and market forces. For one thing, it's possible to get better coverage if you are willing to pay for it with private insurance. But a public plan forces everyone to get the same treatment. And then, if you want different treatment, you have to pay for additional insurance. If your government permits it.

And more to the point, socialized medicine requires rationing in a way you don't have to accept in private insurance. You can seek different insurance, or even pay for the treatment yourself. And the profit motive spurs innovation and invention in the medical industry, something that will suffer when a NICE board determines that you only get $22,000 for care in the last year of your life.

Special thanks to Chuck Serio for pointing out the WSJ article.

Cap and Trade Is a Job Killer

Even Democrats admit it.

According to Friday's Washington Times, the legislation includes language that provides, should it become law, that people who lose their jobs because of it "could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits—courtesy of Uncle Sam."

How generous are these benefits? Well, according to the Times, "Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill's 'climate change worker adjustment assistance' program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019."

Instead of being a the source of millions of new jobs of "green jobs"—as House Democrats are fond of saying over and over again—the provision is a hidden admission that their effort is a job killer, not just a massive new tax on energy.

Barack Obama's presidency may make Hoover look successful.

Laugh of the Day

It's a cynical, snide laugh, but a laugh none the less at Andrew Sullivan haughtily applying the double standard where Sarah Palin is concerned:

I find the notion that class snobbery is behind it to be silly. It's hard not to note the Judge Judy atmosphere that permeates Palinland, but some of us weren't born into privilege at all and simply expect minimal standards of effort, intelligence and integrity in public officials who come from nowhere.

Emphasis mine.

If only Sullivan had applied the same standard to Barack Obama. Now there's a public official born into privilege who needs to meet minimal standards of effot, intelligence and integrity.

Americans Becoming More Conservative

According to Gallup.

Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

Powerline is skeptical.

I'm tempted to say that the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are moving to the left as fast as people's self-descriptions are moving to the right.

But notes that on individual issues, Americans seem to be becoming more conservative.

Results like this sort of put the lie to liberals' claim that Americans are moving their way. But it doesn't explain the November election results. My take: the November elections were a fluke. Barack Obama was the first black presidential candidate in a generation and many were anxious to "break the barrier." Couple that with Bush (and Republican) fatigue, and you get the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress.

Some Americans are obviously having a case of buyer's remorse with Obama and the Democrats, and this is unsurprising. Perhaps people didn't really expect Teh One to crash the economy, take over the health care industry and push unemployment to 10%, but it's not like they weren't warned. Let's hope the "more conservative" ideology sticks through 2012.

Feminists and Sarah Palin

Violet at Reclusive Leftist has defended Sarah Palin's feminist chops before, but it's almost like she couldn't believe the piling on trash talk from the Left regarding Palin in this post.
I like Reclusive Leftist because, unlike other lockstep feminist sites, Violet takes women at their word when they claim feminism, even if those women don't embrace all the tenets of that cause. It's sadly amusing seeing Violet having her come-to-Jesus moment regarding leftwing feminists and conservative women.

Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

Violet's post is wonderful and should be read by all, but she doesn't really say anything that a lot of us haven't said before: What is it about Sarah Palin that drives the nutso left batshit crazy? What makes them lie about her positions on almost any and every subject? And knowingly lie?

This argument has been raging over at Common Sense Political Thought where the usual trolls are arguing that Palin is (a) a liar, (b) unethical, (c) a nut, and (d) a hypocrite. Oh, and she doesn't take the ridicule lying down, but rather, tries to defend herself.

I find those explanations to be only true if you want to believe all the lies about Palin. If you want to believe she charged for rape kits, wants Creationism taught in school, was controlling the sexual activities of her daughter (that's how a 17-year-old's pregnancy is your fault as a parent), and opposes sex education, then, of course, any information that doesn't confirm those ideas must make her a liar.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Palin walks on water. I think she saw an opportunity to leapfrog onto the national scene and she took the risk, even if she wasn't prepared for it. But the treatment of Sarah Palin is nothing if not a double standard, from the interview questions she was asked to the scandal about who is Trig's mom to how much money she spent on clothes. The "diva" talk is decidedly sexist, and Violet notes that, as well.

it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

Violet argues that Sarah Palin is the designated Hate Receptacle of the left, and that's about as close to the truth as we're likely to get. I've had this discussion with people I respect, people who are very intelligent about other things, yet have this blindspot where Sarah Palin is concerned. They were outraged at the way Hillary Clinton was treated during 2008, yet laugh with unmitigated glee at the viciousness and lies Sarah Palin has had to face. These people don't seem to get the fact that most of the nastiness about Palin had as much to do with her femaleness, her mother-ness, her abilities to do her job while being a woman as it did about any qualifications for higher office. They laughed off David Letterman's disgusting "slutty stewardess" joke as being a good shot at Palin, rathr than accept that such misogynistic characterizations smear all women who don't fit the preconceived stereotype. Don't feminists usually write screeds about all women being judged as sluts and whores on the basis of their appearance? Why is Palin any different?

IMO, feminism lost its credibility when it embraced sexual harasser in chief Bill Clinton. But no intelligent woman should accept the outrageous behavior of leftwingers towards Sarah Palin. As Violet says, it's like the NCAAP sponsoring a lynching. Who would agree with that?

UPDATE: Echidne of the Snakes, who is no Sarah Palin fan, notes the misogyny of the left, as well.

States with Garnishment Laws Have Higher Bankruptcy Rates

Another "Duh!" moment.

States that allow debt collectors to seize consumers' wages have sharply higher bankruptcy rates than neighboring states that prohibit or strictly limit the practice, an Associated Press analysis has found.

This link highlights a dilemma for credit-card companies and other debt chasers: By going after wages — an increasingly popular maneuver since the recession began, lawyers say — they risk pushing consumers into bankruptcy court, where judges can reduce or wipe away all sorts of financial obligations...

While bankruptcy rates vary for many reasons, the five states that prohibit or strongly limit wage seizures — North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Florida and Texas — all have drastically lower rates than their neighbors, with particularly striking differences along borders, where economic conditions are similar but bankruptcy rates are not.

It's easy to see the dilemma for credit card companies. What they should be doing is more carefully vetting applications instead of sending them to every Tom, Dick and 17-year-old out there.

Shouldn't He Be On the Clock 24/7?

I remember when the Left mocked George W. Bush for going to bed early while war raged in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember when the Left sneered at President Bush clearing brush on his ranch, instead of dealing with the important matters of running the country. And I remember how George W. Bush was vilified as not serious, stupid, a moron, for having movie nights in the White House, even after 9/11.

But all that has changed now.

When President Obama talks up the family-friendly vibe at the White House — the nightly family dinners, the flexibility to attend school presentations and join impromptu plunges in the pool with his girls — his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, sets him straight. “Family friendly to your family,” Mr. Emanuel counters.

Shouldn't Barack Obama be excoriated for playing with his children and taking a dip in the pool, as opposed to dealing with the heavy problems facing the country? Isn't that what a real president--not a stupid man, a moron--would be doing? And shouldn't his staff be happy to devote fewer hours per week (60 to 70, according to this story) than many first year attorneys? This is the White House, after all.

Happy Independence Day!

Amid the bickering and nastiness that is American politics, it's good to remember that the sacrifice of the Founding Fathers has given us the right to scream, protest, shake our fists and launch ad hominem attacks at each other without fear of government thugs arresting us or looking through government records for dirt to discredit us. Oh, wait.

Palin Resigns

I was surprised to hear that Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska.

In a stunning announcement, Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday morning she will resign her office in a few weeks.

Speculation has swirled for weeks, perhaps months that Palin would not seek re-election in 2010 as she pursues a political career on the national stage. The former vice presidential candidate has long been rumored to be considering a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Palin did not address those rumors at the press conference at her Wasilla home, during which she did not take questions from reporters.

Perhaps Palin is planning to use the time to brush up on national and international affairs, to make herself a serious candidate. It would certainly be a wise move on her part. OTOH, I have to wonder if any amount of brushing up would make her a "serious candidate" after the trashing she's taken.

Oops. Spoke too soon. Other sources say Palin is out of politics for good, tired of the nastiness aimed at herself and her family. This would make sense to me. Palin has a multimillion dollar book deal, and if she isn't in politics, she's free to do whatever it is she chooses to do. We'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Rumors are swirling that an "iceberg," in the form of an embezzlement indictment are coming. This would certainly explain Palin's announcement that she was stepping down as governor.

UPDATE x2: Media Research Center has compiled 10 months of media hate for Sarah Palin.

UPDATE x3: Best quote of the day:

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, the left would have been okay with it. If she hid Trig offstage and out of sight, all would be good. But treat the child as you would any other child, and that cannot be tolerated.

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

Obamacare: Pay For Insurance or Pay a Fine

Under Senate health plan, you pay either way.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.

I'm not entirely against such a proposal that mandates having coverage, but unless you can get the equivalent of liability insurance for your health, this is just another government imposition.

Is Facebook Racist?

Who knew that joining MySpace made you "ghetto" and Facebook made you "Ivy League"? I sure didn't, but that's the gist of this lecture.

Herein lies the reality that makes all of this quite messy to deal with. It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

This dynamic was furthered by the press, an institution that stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people. They narrated MySpace as the dangerous underbelly of the Internet while Facebook was the utopian savior. And here we get back to Kat's point: MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed. Those who are from privileged backgrounds tend to be far more condescending towards those who are not than vice versa. Many of us in this room come from privileged worlds where we want to "help" those who are not well-off. Here is where a privilege-check is necessary. How often do our language and mannerisms reflect a problematic level of condescension? Perhaps we should look at our teens. They are certainly speaking in a manner that reveals distrust and condescension.

I'll bet most people choose Facebook or MySpace based on where their friends are. My experience is that teens and college students tend to use MySpace and working adults use Facebook. Sure, that's an imperfect and highly unscientific study, but there it is. And worse, Facebook has old people, like me and my sister, our classmates from high school and people we've known since we were toddlers.

The author talks about homophily, which is a fancy word for the way people tend to associate with people who are similar to themselves. Homophily can be a good thing--strength in numbers--but too much of our society thinks it is a bad thing, that it is exclusionary and racist, sexist, homophobic. I suppose those things can be true, but they don't have to be true. As a mom, I like to talk to other mothers, not because I don't like or don't trust people who don't have kids, but because other mothers better understand my opinions and experiences. As a Christian, I like to talk to other Christians for many of the same reasons.

But as a white person? The privilege of whiteness is that I don't worry about my skin color. So, I don't seek out white friends to discuss our whiteness like I might seek out moms or Christians to discuss common interests. But do black people or Asians or Hispanics? I'm sure they do; because their experiences make them want to sympathize and empathize with similar people.

I suppose this is why I've never been bothered by self-segregation the way many liberals are. I understand that sometimes you want to be with people who are like you. The problem that I see with segregation, whether it's in a neighborhood, a school or MySpace, is when that segregation prevents people from becoming whoever or whatever they want. If advertisers flocked to Facebook because a lot of wealthy, better educated people used it as opposed to MySpace, I can't blame the advertisers; their goal is to attract people to buy their goods and services. What is problematic is if information and discussion becomes less available because of the MySpace vs. Facebook rivalry. The author doesn't really spend time addressing that.

Unfortunately for us, free choices like where you do your social networking online is seen as political every bit as much as who you voted for in November 2008. It is a big difference between your garden variety liberal and conservative (strategists are a different breed altogether). As a conservative, I don't worry about whether being on Facebook to visit with my family overseas makes me racist; I see it simply as a tool to keep in touch with people who are important to me. This is not the same way many liberals see these tools.

Unemployment at 9.5%

How's that recovery workin' for ya?

The rate is 16.4% if you include the people who have given up looking for work or who are working part-time. That's the highest since 1994. I forget. Who was president then?

From Hot Air:

Three months ago, Obama bragged that his stimulus had begun to create a “rush” to hire construction workers. Since then, the construction industry has lost over 120,000 jobs, and this month’s report shows that trend accelerating at a season when construction should normally be hiring.
Porkulus has utterly failed, as has the Obama administration’s fiscal policies. Businesses have conserved capital in the face of massive new taxes and costs associated with Obama’s stated fiscal policies, such as cap-and-trade, foreign-income taxation, and the higher interest rates that will spring from the massive deficits Obama plans to create. The capital necessary for growth won’t appear in the market under these conditions, as we have clearly seen. When will the media begin to hold this administration responsible for Obama’s economy-killing agenda?

Good question.

Here's Some Transparency

Washington Post to sell access to editors and reporters and the White House.

More at Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, and Patterico.