I hope your Valentine’s Day was not as exciting as theirs was.
A proper apology for an honest screwup is never a bad idea.
I guess investing in North Korea could be a good idea. Seems awfully risky to me, though.
You go right ahead and keep alienating unmarried women, Republicans. Some more of this should help, too.
I wish I could do literary criticism like that.
Negative campaigning is universal.
“In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal. Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.”
Since I’ve mentioned Pinterest, I should also mention that there are potentially serious copyright issues with it.
Why libraries are vitally necessary.
Presidential campaigns are not as expensive as you might think, at least historically speaking.
Rick Santorum stopped being funny a long time ago, if you ask me.
If you have to ask how much it costs to build a Death Star, you can’t afford it.
The panel to discuss Viagra distribution will meet tomorrow afternoon.
One reason why piracy happens.
Money in and of itself does not corrupt the political process. But it’s awfully hard to say there’s insufficient evidence of unlimited, unregulated money having a pernicious effect.
Mars, baby.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is being dishonest? Heaven forfend.
In a just world, every misogynistic moron who ranted about the evils of birth control and feminism would die without ever knowing the touch of a woman.
More like this from Occupy Wall Street, please.
The guy responsible for the greatest headline ever has been denied parole.
Sandra Fluke is my new hero.
“Presidential campaigns are not as expensive as you might think, at least historically speaking.”
A rather odd choice of comparisons. The election of 1896 is the classic example of the subversion of democracy by corporate money. One corporation alone, the notorious Standard Oil Trust, raised more for the plutocracy’s candidate, McKinley, than did the entire Democratic Party, which managed to make a race of it on guts and reformist ardor anyway. Why does Klein (normally a good political observer) compare the plutocratic candidate of 1896 with the progressive candidate of 1960 (or 2008)? Obviously we need to be going in the opposite direction: a very short campaign (back to a few weeks rather than years), with all media obliged to give equal time to the exposition of each point of view. Anything else leads to overwhelming corruption.