A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. meetinthemiddle commented on Stuart Carlson 4 days ago

    Despite what it said on paper, Obama never had a filibuster-proof majority. The R lawsuit kept Franken form being seated for 9 months and by then Kennedy was out dying.

  2. meetinthemiddle commented on Stuart Carlson 4 days ago

    Interesting stat on Newshour last night – from the 1940s-1970s productivity rose 96% and wages rose 91%. From the 1980s-now, productivity rose another 80% and wages rose 9%.

  3. meetinthemiddle commented on Matt Davies 13 days ago

    With the crash in the price of oil, are the tar sands still economically viable? Is the pipeline already moot?

  4. meetinthemiddle commented on Tom Toles 18 days ago

    Section 16 is a bit muddled; it seems to be saying “You can be any type of Christian you want” (the “duty to our Creator” and “owing Christian charity to each other” parts). I was going on a course I had on the drafting of the Bill of Rights; the prof said that Mason wanted the first amendment to read more like Section 16 and refer to a basic Christian framework.

  5. meetinthemiddle commented on Tom Toles 19 days ago

    My understanding was that George Mason and several others of the VA delegation to the Continental Congress were staunchly opposed to the separation of church and state and wanted the constitution to explicitly state we were a Christian nation

  6. meetinthemiddle commented on Matt Davies 24 days ago

    Why would that be in Sting’s voice? It’s a Dire Straits song…

  7. meetinthemiddle commented on Tom Toles about 1 month ago

    Apparently Scalia says it was all constitutional because it wasn’t punishment since they were never tried. Others have pointed out that we have signed treaties against torture and the constitution says federal law and treaties supercede state law.

    http://on.msnbc.com/1AzcpLQ

  8. meetinthemiddle commented on Matt Davies about 1 month ago

    To borrow business jargon, the stuff was purchased by the U.S. military and then fully depreciated. When it had reached the end of its useful life (as determined by the military) it was sold for pennies (or fractions of pennies) on the dollar to local law enforcement. Yes the U.S. govt spent a lot on it, but a) was it really past usefulness to the military? In other words, are they casting stuff off just because they want shiny new ones? b) would it be better to destroy/recycle the castoffs rather than give them to local law enforcement? Those are decent questions – but to say local govts are blowing a lot of money on armaments and nothing on infrastructure is the flip of the argument we were having over the summer. That is to say the federal govt is just giving all this stuff away.

  9. meetinthemiddle commented on Matt Davies about 1 month ago

    Wait a minute – I thought the complaint over the summer was that the U.S. military was practically giving away surplus military gear to local police – that it was too cheap and easy for local police to militarize. Kinda the opposite point being made here.

  10. meetinthemiddle commented on Tom Toles 2 months ago

    The thing that amazes me is that the Crawford case in Ohio doesn’t get more attention. A black guy’s in Walmart buying a bb gun (among other things) that the store sells legally. White patron calls police and reports “black man with gun”. Police arrive and shoot him in the back without warning – and they’re not indicted. But no media fuss. The media ambulance chases conflict, but somehow this one didn’t generate any.