October 2004 Archives

One of the more interesting stories in the blogosphere this election cycle concerns Pete Guither and Drug WarRant. Pete took on an ambitious task this year, looking at a number of races around the country. He's from Illinois, and his featured race is a congressional contest between incumbent Republican Jerry Weller and Democrat Tari Renner, Pete endorsing Renner.

Pete's endorsement has become a major issue in the race, with Weller running an ad accusing Renner of...well here's part of a Chicago Sun-Times article:

Speaking of smears, Weller, in the closing days of the campaign, is running a radio ad and sending out a direct mail piece noting that Renner is endorsed on a Web site called "DrugwarRant.com" and implying that Renner is somehow aligned with a group promoting heroin use. The race is featured on the site, but Renner is not for what they are for and told me he never asked for their help. Said Renner, this is "as low as it's gotten."

And, WHOI News:

And the highlight was Renner blowing up over allegations he supports the use of all drugs including heroin.
He called the attack scurrilous and said Weller stepped way over the line.
Weller says Renner accepted a campaign donation from a website that also has directions on how to inject heroin.

Emphasis mine. Pete responds:

I don't even know how to inject heroin. And I don't support the use of heroin. Never have. I do support changes in how we deal with it because our current policies are abject failures.

In case anyone from Illinois' 11th district wanders by in the next few days, you should know you've got a liar for a congressman. Vote him out.

While reading about this I was reminded of where I'd heard Weller's name before. It was in the news a few months back when he became engaged to Zury Rios Sosa, a lawmaker in Guatemala. Her father is Jose Efrain Rios Montt, the ex-dictator of the nation. I've written about him before.

The two plan to keep their political offices after the marriage.

Just 'cuz it's true doesn't mean it's not funny.

Warning: Naughty language.

Several people have linked to David Hogberg's "Libertarian Guide to Bush vs Kerry." DH says he isn't a complete libertarian, and I'll go over the issues again.

Abortion. DH gives this issue to Kerry for being more pro-choice. But there is no real philosophical libertarian stance on abortion. Libertarianism is about individual rights, but as a political philosophy it makes no determination on what counts as an individual. It happens that more libertarians think a fetus doesn't have rights, but plenty do. As the L.A. Times noted today, "Abortion is a stickier question among Libertarians, and Badnarik describes the party as split on the issue." So it depends on which Libertarian you ask. Advantage: Both

Taxes: This is perhaps the clearest winner for Bush. He cut taxes for everyone who pays income tax, and Kerry has plainly stated he wants to raise taxes for wealthier citizens. Advantage: Bush

Social Security: Yup, Bush wants to 'give' people individual accounts. It's sort of like having the choice between a jail cell with a view, or without. I guess we take the view. Advantage: Bush

Gay Marriage: Bush said he's not against civil unions! Anyone believe him? At least Kerry doesn't want to mess with the Constitution on this issue. Advantage: Kerry

Government Spending: HB says that Bush hasn't done well on spending, which is quite an understatement. Terrorism isn't the only serious issue in this election. We are quite capable of ruining the county without outside help, and Bush's expansion of the federal government can be seen only as highly destructive. Kerry isn't philosophically opposed to such expansion, but perhaps he won't be able to spend as freely. Advantage: Kerry

Health Care: Bush supported, and achieved, an enormous expansion of the federal government into the health care market. Bush has some pro-business reform ideas that may marginally help consumers. Kerry wants to get government even more involved in healthcare, and deny it as he might, he wants to get closer to a purely socialized healthcare system. What a couple of losers we have on this issue! Advantage: Bush (while retching and gagging)

Education: Again, Bush lead a huge federal expansion of spending and control over education. He also wants federal involvement in private schools with faith based initiatives and the like. Kerry wants to keep the current sytem, except to spend more on it. Advantage: A two way tie for last.

Affirmative Action: Bush talks a good talk about equal protection under the law, but talk is all it is. Kerry wants to defend favored groups affirmative action. Advantage: Neither

Minimum Wage: Kerry wants to raise minimum wage, Bush doesn't talk about it, but I don't doubt he would raise it if he thought he could gain a political advantage. Here's a dirty little secret even Libertarians don't talk about - this issue doesn't matter. Wages in almost all parts of the nation have been well above minimum wage for quite a while, so even if minimum wages are increased it will effect almost no one. Advantage: Neither

Tort Reform: DH notes that Bush suuports medical liability reform, but it's an error to give Bush the advantage on libertarian grounds. We are trying to level the playing field, not just tilt toward one side or the other. On the other hand, having Edwards on the ticket is almost enough to support Bush regardless of stated policy positions. Advantage: Neither

Energy: This one is exactly as DH says: "I can see little good in either of their plans. Both are big-government, incentive-laden, regulation-riddled garbage. This issue is a wash." Advantage: Neither

Welfare Reform: Bush supports some minor tweaking, but nothing notable. Kerry, well who knows. Advantage: Neither

Judicial Activism: Bush claims to want only "strict constructionists" on the bench. Which means we'll soon see an end to the drug war, the Patriot Act, IRS seizures without trials, and every other federal program not authorized by the Constitution.
If only.
Advantage: Neither

Environment: Kerry supports Clinton style wilderness designations, closing vast areas of the West to the general public.Bush might be too cozy with business, but at least we get some benefit from our public lands. Advantage: Bush

I really enjoyed Hogberg's list, as you can see by my imitation here, but I have to wonder about any (even small 'l') libertarian who doesn't look at these next issues - -

Drug War: Bush has continued the trampling of the Constitution under the guise of the drug war. The issue is on the back-burner of public awareness behind terrorism and the war, but it still effects people's daily lives. Incarceration rates are at record highs. Could Kerry be worse? Possibly. His record says there's not much he won't sacrifice for law and order. Advantage: Neither

Human Rights: Closely mirroring the drug war issue. The Bush administration has insisted that terrorists can be held without trial. Who is a terrorist? Anyone the administration says is is a terrorist. Remarkably, in his Senate career Kerry has been arguing for very similar government powers when it comes to law enforcement. Civil rights activists who expect Kerry to roll back the abuses of the Bush era will be sorely disappointed. See here, for instance. Advantage: Are you kidding?

The long history of the U.S. suggests that freedom as the primary political value is the most successful base for the country. Both of these candidates fail to appreciate this, as do most of our politicians. If we're to continue being a vibrant culture and economy it will be in spite of these two, not because of them.

Profiling Michael Badnarik:

In a race in which a state or two is "decided by a hair," Badnarik "could be the kingmaker," said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.

He cited Wisconsin as a possibility.

If Bush loses and the Libertarians are blamed I expect we'll see some states move to restrict third party ballot access, considering how hard the Democrats are working to keep the Greens off the ballot.

More of that evil bipartisanship.

KSTP in Minneapolis:

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

Well then. I don't think this is the sort of thing that should sway votes, but the news media sure will make hay.

Via Hesiod.

They've been using U.S. dollars as legal currency in Cuba for about a decade now. In what looks to be an effort to keep up with rising oil costs, Cuba's government has changed the policy and is buying the dollars back, paying 90% value in Cuban pesos.

Looks like they might start using Euros instead.

Here's an important bit of news. Seems that one of the more important pieces of evidence corroborating global warming is indeed mistaken.

This doesn't prove anything. Global warming may be happening, and may be human caused. But the evidence for it just got a lot weaker.

This is one of those testing moments, when we can use people's reactions to this news to gauge their political motivations. As news it's just a piece of scientific progress, but to some it's an obstacle on the road to a political goal.

Voter registration fraud in Colorado! No one could have foreseen this. Almost no one.

Of all publications, the L.A. times runs an op-ed defending jury nullification.

via Howard Bashman.

It's all in the way you present the issue. Instead of being a tax protestor or drug war victim the defendant in the case was charged with fraudulently cashing disability checks from Social Security.

So lose your principles! Ramesh Ponnuru:

The dumb case against Bush regards him as having betrayed the historic Republican commitment to keep spending down from year to year. This history stretches all the way back to January 1995, and all the way forward until the fall of 1996. But the dumb case against Bush doesn't pause to acknowledge that Reagan increased spending, too, especially in a first term of recession and defense build-up, or that the Gingrich Congress cut a big-spending budget deal with Clinton in 1997. The case, in its dumbest form, assumes that anti-spenders can, by denying Bush reelection, cause Republicans to return to the true path. Maybe this would even make sense — if it were not the case that much of the country likes increased federal spending just fine, and far more people like than dislike increased spending for any given program. That's why spending has gone up, after all, and not just under this president.

Don't blame Bush for spending, because,
A. All Republicans do it, and
B. people like it.

Funny, I've been voting against Republicans for years because of these things. By Ponnuru's logic we'll have smaller government by making it bigger, and less spending by spending more.

Remember, he's a professional pundit.

Radley Balko and others have been writing about some glaring problems with Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who says he'd blow up the UN building "after giving occupants a week to vacate," who has equated FDR to Hitler, and who suggested we chain convicted felons to their beds until their muscles atrophy.

Some of Badnarik's rhetoric is just that, loud talk by someone who has no chance of winning the election. But some of it is lazy thinking. A large part of his reasoning about the income tax is the idea that there is no actual verbiage in IRS codes requiring people to pay income taxes. I wrote about this version of tax protest about a year ago:

I've read Schiff and others who share a similar philosophy about the tax, and what they're saying is loopholes in the law exist that make it illegal for the IRS to collect income tax they way they do. This may or may not be true, and the IRS says it isn't, natch, but it's not important. If the courts ever do find the income tax to be illegal, and many people stop paying, Congress will quickly act to close the loopholes. When they do they will act with the support of the people, who as noted above, want the government to spend that money in the public interest. At best a handfull of lucky resistors will avoid paying the tax and beat the system in court. Bully for them.

I'm saying that in order to end the income tax you have to convince the voting public that the tax is bad, who in turn elect representatives who will overturn the tax.

In spite of this I'm voting for Badnarik. As Jim Henley says,

"Badnarik is clearly a few cells short of a spreadsheet. This hasn't especially bothered me on the grounds that Michael Badnarik has no chance of becoming President. I view a vote for Badnarik as a vote for the party rather than the man. Now, the LP is itself a few cells short of a spreadsheet I realize. When I say "a vote for the party," I really mean a signal to the Republicans that they've blown their small-government credibility."

I'd add that I'd like to also send a signal to Democrats that they have lost their free-the-common-man credibility, but I doubt they care.

5280 Magazine, a Denver monthly, has started a new blog featuring a couple of established local bloggers. Talkleft's Jeralyn Merritt and Colorado Luis (Luis Toro), both left wing bloggers, are posting there while continuing to maintain their personal blogs.

You may remember Dave Cullen profiled this blog as well as a few others for a 2003 issue of 5280.

Caught on video, the wife of Democratic state legislator Mike Merrifield removing his opponent's campaign signs.

Which sort of evens out this Republican twit who actually knocked himself out while stealing Democratic campaign signs.

"IN AMERICA, WE have a two-party system," a Republican congressional staffer is supposed to have told a visiting group of Russian legislators some years ago.
"There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party."

He added: "Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called-bipartisanship."

from a Peter Brimelow column, via David Friedman.

The man who was perhaps the most important DJ in the history of radio has passed away while on vacation in Peru.

The Detroit News, an editorially conservative newspaper, endorsed George W. in 2000. This year:

Agonizing choice comes down to this: Neither Bush nor Kerry meets our endorsement test

This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president[.]

None of the above! There must be some sharp people down there at the News.

Via Catallarchy.

On celebrity political endorsements:

"So, shut the hell up and look pretty. That is what we pay you for, after all."

Chris Leinster of the Denver Libertarian Party has a voter's guide for ballot issues this year.

Here's the short version: No, no, probably not, no, no, yes, no, and no.

Very good, then.

I'm pleased to see that Ari Armstrong has a piece in the Rocky today, the anti side of a point/counterpoint feature on Amendment 36. You might remember that's the one that would apportion Colorado's electoral votes by percentage of the popular vote.

Ari:

Have you heard the Yankees beat the Red Sox? You should have: The Yankees outscored the Sox 45 to 41 over seven games. But, you say, the Sox won the series by winning four of those games. Explain that to the supporters of Amendment 36, the measure that seeks to split Colorado's electoral votes for president.

The presidential election is a little like a "best of 50" series (plus one for Washington, D.C.). The difference is that some of the states are bigger, so they count for more votes, and all the contests are held at once.

Excellent.

From the opinion page, a pair.

First, Dan Haley talks down to the voters:

Voters also are more likely to approve [school] bond issues in presidential years, according to Fox's data. That can be attributed to a more diverse group of voters casting ballots during presidential years. School-tax curmudgeons - often elderly people without kids in local schools - are more regular voters in all elections.

Funny, I don't feel so old. I have an alternate theory: perhaps people who vote in more elections tend to be better informed on the issues and realize that our schools are awash in money.

Second, an editorial titled, Organ donation raises legal, ethical concerns:

Hickey paid $295 a month to advertise his plight on a donor match website and then paid for the donor to come to Colorado. The Internet broker is a for-profit company.

And

And what about the risks? We would not want to see Hickey's case spur people in need of a quick buck to sell an organ without considering the long-term consequences. "We don't want people jeopardizing their health to benefit financially," Wheeler said. "In this case, now you have a person who will have potentially bad health long-term."

The biggest problem [Donor Alliance spokesperson Nikki] Wheeler foresees is that sick people could become easy prey for Internet brokers. "They'll do whatever they can to save their lives," she said. "We don't want them taken advantage of."

Neither do we.

The Post's skepticism of people's ability to act in their own best interest is deplorable. Why do they raise the issue of the for-profit company? I can't think of any better way to increase the availability of donated organs than to allow people to sell their organs, which is currently illegal.

Remember the drug suspect roundup in Tulia, TX, that sent 46 to prison on trumped up charges? Some spent considerable time behind bars before being exonerated or pardoned.

Here we go again. Austin blog Grits For Breakfast:

[...]a recent, massive drug bust in Anderson County, TX by the Dogwood Trails task force that netted 72 defendants -- 56 charged in state court and 16 in federal court. Here's the DoJ press release bragging about it. That number dwarfs the 46 arrested in Tulia. It's so many they can't even fit them all in the county jail.

I grew up two counties over from Anderson in Tyler, TX, and can relate to readers that Anderson is quite a rural place. The notion that 72 crack dealers live there simply is absurd -- there's barely enough population density to support seven of them.

That was found via Drug WarRant, where Pete gives us the statistics:

Now, according to the government's national data, approximately .3% of the population uses crack. The number goes up to .4% in the south, but down to .2% in rural counties, so let's use the .3% figure. That means we can expect that there might be 165 crack users in Anderson County. So a 72 person crack cocaine distribution network? Boy, now that's service!

Oh, it gets better! Scott Henson, the Grits For Breakfast blogger, got to see the list of arrested suspects:

First, all 72 defendants are black -- every last mother's son and daughter of them. In Tulia only 39 of the 46 were black. In Palestine, they've made it unanimous. While I wasn't given a complete list, a DA's employee showed me the full list while he was copying by hand the names he would give me. I had enough time to read down the race/gender column on both pages twice, just to make sure -- the list said B/M or B/F on every last one, including the names that weren't checked as releasable to me.

Regular readers here know I'm not the sort to easily blame social problems on racism, in fact I think actual institutional racism is rare in the US. Not quite rare enough, perhaps. The drug war has made arresting people too easy.

The establishment had to be dragged kicking and screaming, but a Colorado man who bypassed the system received his kidney transplant today. Kudos and Godspeed to a pioneer.

Background here. Summary: we can't have ordinary people just doing their own thing, can we?

I should note that the hospital in question is just a few blocks from the house and is where the twins were born back in July.

You learned all about the Independence depot bombing in grade school, right? Maybe you should have.

Colorado and other western states had a serious terrorism problem in the late nineteenth and early twentieth ceturies. It stemmed from a brutal conflict between mine owners and the Western Federation of Miners, a violent labor union. The union's first strike, at Cripple Creek in 1894, was a success due to violence against non-union strike breakers and sabotoge of mining property.

The leadership of the WFM turned socialist by 1899:

Bill Haywood, the sectretary-treasurer of the organization, and other leaders in Denver, suggested to Cripple Creek members that they had a right to steal gold because the nation's wealth belonged to those who produced it. This attitude caused mine owners to police the mines which of course caused more tension and hostility.

In 1899 union strikers blew up an Idaho mine facility, killing two. In 1901 a strike at Telluride turned into a gun battle, three men were killed.

Bill Haywood (allegedly) hired one Harry Orchard as a professional terrorist, and in 1903 Orchard began a notorious career by planting a bomb in the Vindicator mine in Colorado. He intended to kill a crew of non-union miners, but placed the bomb on the wrong level of the mine and killed only two. A few months later he was a bit more accurate and placed two crates of dynamite under the train platform at Independence, Colorado, and killed 13, and seriously injuring about 15 more.

He also planned to assassinate the Governor of Colorado and two of the state's Supreme court justices, a very real threat considering that in 1905 he successfully killed former Idaho governor Frank Steunenberg. Orchard was caught, confessed to all these things and more, and implicated Haywood and WFM leaders in the string of violence.

Clarence Darrow represented Bill Haywood in the Idaho trial for the assassination, and won his acquittal in what was then called the trial of the century. In 1921 Haywood jumped bail from a different criminal case and fled to Moscow, where he became an advisor to the Bolshevik government. When he died in 1928 some of his ashes were buried in the Kremlin.

The Colorado labor war killed a total of 33 men. It's remarkable that it's so little remembered these days. Many more people remember the Ludlow Massacre, an incident in a later strike in which 25 striking miners and family members were killed by militia brought in to quell the strike.

Colorado blogger Dave Cullen, writing in Salon Mag, on the whole Cheney-lesbian-daughter-gate affair:

First, let's dispense with the comic aspects of the parental indignation:

# Mary Cheney has been happily out of the closet for at least a decade, so John Kerry was hardly dragging her out against her will.
# She spent the late '90s working as a veritable professional lesbian, as gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co.
# Dick Cheney himself has been using her sexuality on the campaign trail. Click here to watch a Human Rights Campaign ad with him on the stump on Aug. 24, 2004: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter ... "
[...]
But they just don't get it. Much of the gay population is incensed. At the media.

The only thing offensive about Kerry's statement to us gay people was that he had to pause mid-sentence and gulp and sputter the terrifying word out: "Dick Cheney's daughter, who is ... a lesbian ..."

Graphic lifted from Jed.

Joshua Sharf explains exactly how fradulent voting can occur in Colorado.

Easier than I thought, even.

Bill Hobbs is keeping track of voter fraud stories here. Check back through election day, at least.

This is just about enough to get me to vote Republican:

"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

That's from the official Democratic Colorado election manual. Ugh.

Stephen Green:

If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

Yes, I don't trust Republicans much, either. But at least they don't put their planned dirty tricks right in the election manual.

Update: Here's the entire section of the manual, for context.

The results are in, and it looks that just about anyone who wasn't on stage tonight lost. Sleep well, all.

Last night a Kerry volunteer was at my door. She was working from a voter list, probably the official list, which I've noted is quite inaccurate.

She asked me if (previous resident) was there. I told her no, he passed away several years ago.

But, I said, smiling, "I'm sure he's still voting."

Here it is, click away:

Some great blogs are represented, and it prompted Instapundit to comment:

But the blogosphere is a big place. Judging from the complaints I get from some readers that I'm not writing enough about stuff they consider important, InstaPundit is not, in fact, a one-size-fits-all blog. And neither are any others! I think it's important for people to find blogs they like. Lots of people come to InstaPundit and read it, and a few other blogs that I link to a lot, and don't venture further into the blogosphere. I try to encourage people to get beyond that because (1) I might not be around forever; and (2) I think those other blogs deserve more traffic, too. The blogosphere is more important than any one blog, and no single blog is everything to everybody, or should try to be.

Thanks to Glenn's notice the Roundup had nice traffic. We'll try to get on a regular schedule again, so if you're a Rocky Mountain blogger and would like to host, drop me a line, walter@walterinden... .

... to Hooper Bay, where most all the citizens have firearms, except the police.

Via Publicola, who has much more to say.

Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and his Libertarian counterpart Michael Badnarik were arrested last night trying to get into the debate.

I want to see some politico try to spin this:

R 3752 has been amended in the Senate Commerce Committee to put crew and passenger safety on an equal footing with public safety. This sounds like motherhood and apple pie, but if you think about it for a second or two, you discover that this is a Bad Thing.

Bottom line: HR 3752, as amended, would stop all manned private space flight in the United States.

Seems the fledgeling private space industry has been a shade too successful of late, and some existing agency/industry is trying to stop it, through accomplices in the Senate. Can there be a legitimate reason for this legislation?

Some wonder why I insist on voting Libertarian.

It's time for another edition of the Rocky Mountain Blog Roundup. A click on the image above will take you to Fusilierpundit's place. Send him your best post of the last couple of months if you are a Colorado blogger, or ex-Colorado blogger, or close to Colorado blogger.

Thanks to Zomby for the neat-o pic.

Reason Magazine has run the numbers on the Bush tax cuts. They find that a typical couple earning between $50,000 and $75,000 have saved between $1899 and $4627 over three years, depending on the amount of deductions the couple takes.

These calculations suggest that, contrary to John Kerry and other critics, the Bush income tax cuts have in fact put real money in the pockets of typical American families.

But the fact remains that Bush's cuts have reduced the amount of income tax we all pay. Though Kerry will certainly suggest otherwise in Friday's debate, the trouble with Bush's budget policy isn't that he cut income taxes. It's that he hasn't cut spending. Indeed, perhaps the strongest case for electing Kerry may be that he will usher in an age of divided government that will restrain federal spending and the various problems that accompany it. That's what happened the last time a Democratic president squared off against a Republican Congress. At least in fiscal terms, the results were pretty good, with discretionary spending increasing only a (relatively!) measly 3.4 percent annually under Clinton. It's a shame that we won't hear Kerry making that sort of argument in the next debate. It's just the sort of thing that might get him a few more votes from limited-government advocates who are disappointed with Bush.

Emphasis mine. Not much left to say on this subject.

Now on the second of the silly season, Andy's got the debate thing down cold.

Andy notes that Ken Salazar is running a grossly misleading ad in his campaign against Pete Coors.

This is what it means to cede control of your health care to the government:

The heartbreaking dilemma over Charlotte, born three months premature last October, was dramatically revealed as Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust asked the court for an order allowing its doctors not to ventilate her again if she has life-threatening breathing difficulties.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Hedley was told by Trust counsel that all doctors now agreed that Charlotte's quality of life was so terrible that ventilating could only lead to her suffering further pain and indignity. But the baby's father Darren Wyatt, 33, originally from Birmingham told the judge: "When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone, you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say you will get a different egg."

Hey, but at least it's free, right?

Political columnist Peter Blake in today's Rocky chides Colorado's congressional delgation for failing to bring home the pork:

From the figures, it looks as though the people we've elected to bring back boodle from Washington are amateurish and ineffective.

Just 10 years earlier Colorado received $1.06 for each dollar. The foundation said no other state suffered as complete a collapse in its federal spending-to-tax ratio during the decade.

That's such a cynical view of the voters, as if they elect their representatives with the intent of looting the Federal treasury. It would be hard for any politician to have noble goals if he's listening to Blake.

How was work for you today?

It was noted that the animals of both sexes objected to being stroked or having their feet, tail base, or genitals touched by the authors.

From How do Porcupines Make Love?

Link via Jed.

to Sadie Rose Ellis.

Jim Henley:

What a couple of unpleasant people to watch.

Brooke Oberwetter:

[...] this isn't about picking the lesser of two evils--it's about distinguishing between two different but equally horrible kinds of evil.

The Pixies show was last night. I was there, happy.