Sarah Palin has an article out today advocating drilling in ANWR.  Here are some highlights:

As I traveled throughout the country campaigning for vice president, I was glad to hear politicians, including Barack Obama, promise that “everything was on the table” to address America’s great challenges. I also found that when Americans were apprised of the facts, most people became supporters of responsible oil and gas drilling in Alaska.

…

Polls show a majority of Americans now support responsible energy development in Alaska. Unfortunately, some disingenuous special-interest groups are still fighting the public will in Congress.

…

If we don’t move now to enact a comprehensive energy policy that includes domestic oil and gas production, including ANWR, we will look back someday and regret that we failed to perceive a critical crossroads in the history of America. It’s not overly dramatic to say our nation’s future depends on the decisions made by the federal government over the next few months.

Oh yeah Obama and the dems were for drilling, whatever happened to that? I guess they cared about increasing our energy production in the same way they cared about reducing the defecit, that is they cared as long as votes were at stake.  Now that they are in Washington they will do as they damn well please, promises? HAHA

Its also funny, in a you know a “were so fraked it hurts” kind of way that we are spending nearly a trillion dollars on a government “stimulus” of dubious value, but we wont even allow private companies to develop ANWR.  If the dems were truly interested in stimulating the economy, not in increasing the governments power, shouldnt they jump at the chance to, at the stroke of a pen allow private companies to create thousands of new jobs in a fairly poor state?

Yes I know that oil prices are way down, which is nice, but the reality is they wont be staying down.  The current economic crisis masks, it doesnt change the fact that oil is a finite resource that the world has massive demand for.  Prices will go back up as the world economy picks up or over enough time as the world continue sucking up what remains of our oil reserves, its just inevitable.  I am all for alernative forms of energy, we should be researching them (though research isnt stimulative, it should be in another bill) but increasing our domestic supply is a logical and necessary thing to do as a “bridge” (as someone called it, perhaps Sarah during the campaign).  

That the dems are refusing to take this common sense step, demonstrates they lied to the American people throughout the campaign, and that the “stimulus” is being offered in bad faith, its not about stimulating the economy, its about increasing the governments size.

 

Did you know there is a movie coming out about murderous commie thug Che?  I didn’t either until I read this article. 

I have three comments on this:

1) I love how the article is structured! Having the Hollywood types give their opinion and then having responses from Cubans who were chased out of their country at gun point by Che’s buds is a great way of getting saying “Who are you going to believe the Hollywood story or those lying facts?”

2) Sodenburg kind of scares me:

“I’ve had people ask me: ‘How can you make a movie about a murderer? A terrorist?'” he said. “What they don’t understand is that I’m in support of everyone who appears on screen. I have to be. I take the position of everyone who’s on screen. I’m not judging them one way or another.”

At the same time, Mr. Soderbergh seems to harbor few illusions about just who Guevara was.

“I don’t know that there’s any place for a person like me in the society that he was trying to make,” the director said. “I’m the poster child for a lot of the [stuff] that he was trying to eradicate.”

That’s great, being objective is our friend.  But um the key to that is giving both sides, which based on this article the movie doesn’t appear to do.  Which begs the question, um why not be actually objective? If he knows Che was a murdering thug, why not portray that? What is his objective in doing the white wash? Is it just to sell tickets to stupid middle class white kids who don’t understand who Che was? If so, well I can appreciate the irony of exploiting Che’s image for the sake of making money, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  As we will see in point number 3, there is a lot of ignorance out there and while I certainly wouldn’t want any kind of legal requirement to educate the idiots, I think you have an ethical obligation when you make a historical movie to be I don’t know, historically accurate?  This movie is going to be the basis of many many peoples knowledge of Che and teaching them false history to make money is not really a good thing, something about those who don’t understand the past being doomed to repeat it.

3) Benicio Del Toro is dumber than a box of hair.  He not only seems to be ignorant of the basic history:

“Not knowing much about the history of Cuba, the history of Che, not being taught anything about it,” Mr. del Toro says of his motivation for helping to bring the picture to fruition. “The image that I have or what has been told to me about this character is that he’s kind of a cowboy – a bloodthirsty cowboy.”

But also seems to be incapabe of even grasping what the controvery is about.

Mr. del Toro doesn’t deny that Guevara’s persona had some darker aspects. “We have to omit a lot of stuff about his life,” he said, “but we’re not omitting the fact that he’s for capital punishment, which is the essence of that.”

Ummm no, that really isn’t the essence, any more than the essence of the holocaust was that Hitler was for capital punishment.  If we adopted Del Toro’s position wed be forced to draw a moral equivalence between Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Clinton, Pol Pot and Obama, because, hey they all support capital punishment right? And that is the essence of the issue afterall.

Moving on

In the movie, Guevara is shown executing a man. But the man is executed for raping a child, not for being disloyal to the cause of revolution. Troops are offered a chance to desert, and get nothing more than a scolding for their cowardice.

Mr. Valladares is less convinced of Guevara’s dedication to due process.

“Che Guevara executed dozens and dozens of people who never once stood trial and were never declared guilty,” he said. “In his own words, he said the following: ‘At the smallest of doubt we must execute.’ And that’s what he did at the Sierra Maestra and the prison of Las Cabanas.”

“They didn’t do it blindly; they had trials,” Mr. del Toro said. “They found them guilty, and they executed them – that’s capital punishment.”

But Mr. Radosh said it wasn’t as simple as that.

“Huber Matos was guilty of nothing,” he said. Mr. Matoswas a commandant under Fidel Castro, one of the revolutionary’s earliest followers and a fervent enemy of the Batista regime. But he was no communist, and when he saw where the country was headed, he wanted out.

“He didn’t even want to go into opposition,” said Mr. Radosh. “He simply said, ‘I don’t like the direction of the government, I don’t want to be part of the government, I’ll voluntarily relinquish my command.’ He was convicted of treason, and after a sham trial that Fidel presided over, was sent to prison for a 25- to 30-year sentence.”

Guevara was instrumental in the creation of Cuba’s forced labor camps, which were used to imprison and extract work from those who had committed no crimes but were thought to be insufficiently revolutionary.

The policy of extrajudicial imprisonment that Guevara favored would later expand to include political activists of all stripes, musicians, artists, homosexuals and others deemed to be dangerous to the maintenance of the Stalinist regime.

Mr. del Toro grew agitated when these prisons were described as “concentration camps,” a phrase that Mr. Valladares freely employs.

“I’m a survivor of those concentration camps. And I stand firm by my belief that they were concentration camps,” he said. “The forced labor camps where I also worked, where dozens and dozens of political prisoners were murdered, where thousands were tortured, that’s something that even the most ardent believers in Castro´s tyranny can’t deny.”

Critics of “Che” have suggested that the film whitewashes its protagonist’s legacy and that it’s impossible to understand the man by glorifying his more romantic aspects while ignoring his darker side.

“We can’t cover it all,” Mr. del Toro said. “You can make your own movie. You know? You can make your own movie. And let’s see. Do the research.”

Mr. Valladares is afraid that Mr. del Toro and Mr. Soderbergh’s film will make people forget the reality that was Che Guevara’s life.

“Benicio del Toro is just one of the many accomplices of the Cuban tyranny,” he said. “All the murderers of people have had accomplices and people who made excuses for them. Stalin had them, Hitler had them, Pinochet had them, all the dictators have had apologists for them. Che Guevara and Fidel Castro also had them.”

I believe the phrase Mr. Valladares is looking for is “useful idiots”.  Since Del Toro seems to like moral equivalency so much, ill play the game with him.  His making this movie, if it is as whitewashed as it appears (I haven’t seen it, since its not out to my knowledge) then he is the moral equivalent of a Nazi propagandist.  Making a whitewashed movie to glorify a guy who helped violently spread an ideology which slaughtered upwards of 100 million people in the name of equality, is morally no different than making a white washed moved about a guy who helped violently spread an ideology which killed upwards of 100 million people in the name of racism.

What he might have said was that the nations funding the majority of America’s public debt — most notably the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis — need to be prepared to sacrifice. They have to fund America’s annual trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. These creditor nations, who already own trillions of dollars of U.S. government debt, are the only entities capable of underwriting the spending that Mr. Obama envisions and that U.S. citizens demand.

Do you know who Peter Schiff is? No, he isn’t a relative of pretend NY DA Adam Schiff.  He’s actually a economist who predicted the housing bubble and economic crash, he even published a book in 2007 called “Crash Proof: How to profit from the coming economic collapse”. Yes in 2007, actually in February 2007, which I would assume would mean he wrote it in 2006. 

I bring up his bio to distinguish him from the bevy of economists who seem to have no clue what they are doing and failed utterly in anticipating the current problems.

Schiff has an article out today in which he basically says what logic appears to dictate and noone in power dares to say:   taking on more debt is not going to solve our fundamental problems, it will only make things worse in the long run and it isn’t sustainable because it depends on its own bubble.

Read the whole thing but here’s a taste:

Barack Obama has spoken often of sacrifice. And as recently as a week ago, he said that to stave off the deepening recession Americans should be prepared to face “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”

But apart from a stirring call for volunteerism in his inaugural address, the only specific sacrifices the president has outlined thus far include lower taxes, millions of federally funded jobs, expanded corporate bailouts, and direct stimulus checks to consumers. Could this be described as sacrificial?

These nations, in other words, must never use the money to buy other assets or fund domestic spending initiatives for their own people. When the old Treasury bills mature, they can do nothing with the money except buy new ones. To do otherwise would implode the market for U.S. Treasurys (sending U.S. interest rates much higher) and start a run on the dollar. (If foreign central banks become net sellers of Treasurys, the demand for dollars needed to buy them would plummet.)

In sum, our creditors must give up all hope of accessing the principal, and may be compensated only by the paltry 2%-3% yield our bonds currently deliver.

As absurd as this may appear on the surface, it seems inconceivable to President Obama, or any respected economist for that matter, that our creditors may decline to sign on. Their confidence is derived from the fact that the arrangement has gone on for some time, and that our creditors would be unwilling to face the economic turbulence that would result from an interruption of the status quo.

But just because the game has lasted thus far does not mean that they will continue playing it indefinitely. Thanks to projected huge deficits, the U.S. government is severely raising the stakes. At the same time, the global economic contraction will make larger Treasury purchases by foreign central banks both economically and politically more difficult.

With a hat tip to Drudge check out this smoking gun story. 

Add heroin to the scores of products that have been branded with President Barack Obama’s name. Cops in upstate New York this week broke up a drug ring that allegedly sold heroin under several brand names, including “Obama.”

….

The branding of illicit drugs is a favorite of pushers, who have previously sold bin Laden heroin, Harry Potter Ecstasy, bricks of Teletubbies cocaine, and green-tinted crack in recognition of St. Patrick’s Day.

I love it, that’s entrepreneurship at its best.  My favorite brand is the green crack for St. Patrick’s day.  I can just imagine some cracked out guy being like “Sorry EZ, Cube’s crack is more festive, so I bought from him. ”

As for the Obama(TM) Heroin, I can only assume it was so named because that’s what us sane people (you know the ones who don’t think the solution to a debt crisis is more debt) will need to get through the next 4 years.

BTW if you want to laugh, read politico’s expression of shock that the press-Messiah relationship is one sided.  This will never come to anything, ill be amazed if the press ever stops wiping the Messiah’s ass.  But its funny to watch the press be disappointed that “their guy”, doesn’t love them after all.

My instant reaction to The One’s speech? It was a campaign speech not a great speech worthy of America’s first minority President.  How many times did he overtly or by implication promise to reverse Bush’s policies? That is campaign rhetoric, not a historic speech. 

Ill admit my view may have been colored by the classless Bush taunting from the crowd and the flood of obnoxious emails in the last few days.  But cmon.

This was not a unifying speech, this was a preaching to the choir.  I got my ass up early to listen to this, and I wish I didn’t.  Does the Messiah not understand that 46 out of 100 Americans didn’t vote for him? Does he not understand the majority of Americans voted for Bush twice (though not me in 2004)?

It just seems very “its my way or the highway, I dont mereley disagree with my political opponents, those who oppose me are evil. ” 

Also “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”, does he have any idea who his apparent hero Lincoln really was?

Lincoln suspended habaeus corpus, imprisoned Confederate sympathizers without trial,  started a war without congressional approval and alienated the “international community” by illegally arresting and holding foreign diplomats.

In other words, he acted a lot like Bush.  

Lincoln is a symbol of all that is good, because he was willing to make difficult, ugly decisions for the common good.  I hope, because I happen to care about the country, that The One understands this, pretty speeches and comforting ideals aren’t enough, in the end he will be judged by whether he successfully defends the country or not, to history nothing else matters.

A grave danger faces the women of the world, and fortunately MSNBC is here to bring the danger to our attention:

Since launching its Imagine brand in late 2007, Ubisoft has confirmed what it already suspected: There’s gold in girl gamers. The company has put out 15 girl-centered titles since last year — games such as “Fashion Designer,” “Movie Star,” “Master Chef” and “Babyz.” And it’s sold 8 million copies of the games worldwide.

But some experts — and lay people — are concerned that gender-specific games can send the wrong message to young girls. When the games launched, more than a few bloggers took the company to task for seeming to trade on tired old stereotypes.

“I would love to know what else Ubisoft is doing for girls, other than shopping, fashion and pets. Anything?” wrote Alice Taylor on her Wonderland blog. Even Kotaku, a decidedly dude-heavy game site, put up a post with the snarky headline: “Ubisoft puts women in their place.”

…

Key points to the sales of the games as proof that they’re resonating with young girls. “Stereotypical? That’s kind of like painting a brush against an entire product line that’s actually performing very well and the audience told us (that) they really want,” he says. “We’re still largely unchallenged in the girl space.”

That’s not entirely true. Disney Interactive (formerly Buena Vista Games) has been making games based off their popular TV showsfor five years, starting with the girly Hilary Duff vehicle, “Lizzie Maguire.” And Bellevue-Wa.-based Her Interactive has been making its PC-based Nancy Drew games for girls for a decade

…

The success of the Nancy Drew line — 6.6 million copies sold — shows that there’s an appetite for smart, plucky heroines in games. And I wish there were more of them. I don’t have any problem with games about ballet and clothes, but why aren’t there more female adventurers (other than Lara Croft) in video games? Where are the female soldiers? The female athletes? Haven’t the good people at EA Sports heard about Title IX?

…

Females represent 38 percent of gamers, according to the market research company the NPD Group. Ubisoft made a good business decision with its Imagine line, and it’s certainly helped the bottom line. But can’t we do better for our girls? Shouldn’t we want more for them than a game where the objective is to become an A-list movie star? As a soon-to-be parent, I can tell you, resoundingly, yes.

Ok so did you catch all that? Girls are in peril because we are forcing stereotypes on them by only marketing “traditional girl games” to them, except that were not and some games aimed for girls in fact do put them in non-traditional roles, not to mention the many many “mainstream” games do in fact feature female protagonists (and no its not just Lara Croft, its far too many to list here, see the wikipedia entry for female video game protagonists also what kind of a “journalist” doesnt even google “list of female protagonists in video games” before writing a rant like this?)….so (sniff sniff) cant we do better?? 

Er what exactly would better be? Is the author seriously advocating a title IX for video games? Does she want video game makers to be forced to churn out titles aimed at girls that their market research shows wont be successful? Or does she want to restrict the number of games produced which males might buy until the video game market is 50/50 gender wise?

What kind of insane troll logic is this? Is the author ignorant of the video game market, or just so blinded by her ideology she cant see the forest for the trees?

It seems to me that if you look at the history of video games (which admittedly has been male dominated) the story of the past few years has been women’s emergence.  Instead of writing a reflexive feminist rant on “why oh why cant the market do what I want?” she could have written an illuminating story about how women are entering a traditionally male sphere and the market is responding to them.   Isn’t that a good thing? Shouldn’t feminists be pleased by this, not raising the spectre of government regulation?

I know Ive been light on the blogging, Ivebeen distracted with midterms.  I do have to comment on this IBD article though.  Basically it claims that Mexico is in as much risk of collapse as Pakistan.

“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that international conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone,” the report said.

…

First, the U.S. must find more money to strengthen and support the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative designed to professionalize Mexico’s military and civil forces to fight the well-armed and well-funded drug traffickers. The U.S. has given out the first $400 million, but in an era of big bailouts it should find room to give Mexico the additional resources it has asked for.

Second, U.S. defense contingency plans need to be stepped up, as the report implies. We shouldn’t be caught napping.

Third, we need to educate the public about the threat so that Congress will have less trouble scaring up the resources.

Well that’s one option, another would be suing for peace in the war on drugs so we can focus on the war where people are actually trying to kill us, not sell us products we want but our elites have decreed are bad for us.

Imagine if instead of redoubling our failed interdiction and eradication efforts we sat down with Colombia, Mexico and other nations who have shattered by  our exporting the drug war and said “Lets come up with a way that you can grow this product our citizens clearly want, in such a way that it will benefit your farmers and government rather than the drug cartels.”  It would be a difficult transition, of course you’d have to fight the drug dealers to take control from them.  But the profit motive would now be on the governments side and cartel profits would fall from the fact that naturally, the product can be more cheaply produced and transported to its eager customers legally.  Bringing drug sales out of the realm of the black market and into the light would mean it would become part of the economy, it would be taxable, provide jobs in impoverished countries and in time save us tens of billions in money being wasted on a “war” I don’t think anyone seriously believes is winnable.

Of course you can argue with my characterization maybe things wouldn’twork out as well I say.  You cant argue with the previous results of the drug war though, we’ve been fighting this war for almost hunderd years, hows it working out? Can anyone seriously claim that drug use is less now than when it was first legalized early in the 20thcentury? Can anyone provide evidence that the tens (if not hundreds) of billions spent on it has had any impact other than making drugs more expensive and cartels more profitable? Isnt it time to try a new strategy?

Blago just gave one of the most entertaining press conferences I’ve seen in a long time.  There is an MSNBC article about it here (hopefully they will add video).

It was his reaction to being impeached almost unanimously, it started with him talking about health care and he meandering to why is the legislature spending time impeaching him when there are foreclosures, later he tells the worlds lamest anecdote about being at the 1980 dem convention and hearing Ted Kennedy quote a poem..which lets Blago launch into a story about how hes the child of immigrants.  Eventually he quotes the poem.  At some point he promises to fight forever.

It was awesome, it was like a parody of Clinton’s impeachment day celebration on the White House lawn.

Anyways, I seriously am rooting for Blago, not necessarily to stay in office forever or because I think hes a good guy,  but to keep going and rubbing all of our faces in this corruption.  I just don’t see how his selling the Senate seat is worse than Patterson selling Sweet Caroline Hillary’s seat, and yes it is selling.    Why is Blago getting heat and Patterson a pass? Doesn’t seem fair, so go Blago! Keep showing us that ugly under belly of our politics!

And now im going to American Samoa!!! YAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!!!

 

Politico has an article about how outgoing DNC Chair Howard Dean has been basically thrown overboard by the Obama Administration.  Obviously I dont agree with Dean on very much, but its pretty difficult to deny he has done a great job.  When he took over the job the dems controlled nothing, now they run everything.  How do you argue with that level of success?

Here are some quotes:

The conspicuous absence of Howard Dean from Thursday’s press conference announcing Tim Kaine’s appointment as Democratic National Committee chairman was no accident, according to Dean loyalists.

Rather, they say, it was a reflection of the lack of respect accorded to the outgoing party chairman by the Obama team.

Despite leading the party in consecutive triumphant election cycles — as well as through off-year races such as when Kaine was elected Virginia governor in 2005 — Dean has become all but invisible since Election Day, passed over for the Cabinet position he coveted and apparently not in line for another administration post.

Indeed, when President-elect Barack Obama introduced Kaine at party headquarters Thursday afternoon, Dean was 7,023 miles and seven time zones away, closer to French Polynesia than to Washington, doing party grunt work in American Samoa.

….

“The snub today was no accident,” said one Dean ally. “I guarantee you he would have rescheduled his trip if asked to attend. It’s easy to [screw] over people when you are riding high in the polls, let’s see how many people are singing his praises in six months.”

…

It’s the most puzzling thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” added a longtime Democrat and friend of Dean, echoing the exasperation and befuddlement many close to him feel about his treatment since the election. “I have tried my best through [Obama advisers] Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and David Plouffe to ask if he ever committed some crime. I don’t get it. He’s been a good soldier.”

…

A fourth Dean admirer found some gallows humor in the doctor’s disappearing act: “He said he wanted to be in the Cabinet,” joked the source. “So they stuffed him in the Cabinet and locked the door.” 

…

Getting closer to the point, Trippi added: “You don’t have to look any further than Rahm Emanuel.”

Emanuel served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and battled repeatedly with Dean over party priorities in 2006. Emanuel, then an Illinois congressman, wanted to focus resources on competitive House races while Dean was more focused on expanding the party’s reach into red America as part of his “50-state strategy.”

…

“I talk to Rahm every day,” said the friend. “Neither he nor I have mentioned the name of Howard Dean. It’s just not on his radar screen.”

In any event, the friend said, Dean would know for sure if he was being shunted aside by the new administration.

“Rahm never stabs you in the back. He stabs you in front. But I promise that this was accidental.”

Like they accidentally forgot to consult with Difi the new head of the intelligence committee before appointing an utterly unqualified hack as DCIA? It seems there are a lot of “accidents” in the Obama administration (which hasn’t even started yet after all).  Maybe that’s part of the Chicago way?

Anyways this seems mind blowingly stupid, why alienate a popular, competent and loyal operative? Creating enemies for no reason is dumb, and I cant think of a worse enemy to have than a bitter successful ex party chair who is directly responsible for the election of many members of your own party.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say they will come to regret this when inevitably Obama’s popularity comes back down to the level of a mere mortal.

There are experts from an interview with Sarah Palin conducted for the upcoming documentary “Media Malpractice: How Obama got elected and Palin was smeared” posted on Big Hollywood (which for a site that’s about 3 days old is incredibly awesome). 

Its an interesting interview, I wish there was a transcript, there are a few things id like to comment on but am to lazy to re watch and make my own damn transcript. 

Suffice to say seeing Sarah express anger and emotion at the lies that were spread about her was nice, she should be angry! We should all be angry that the MSM has put political and class loyalties above their fidelity to the truth.  If this continues we wont be a Republic for long (if we even are now).   Jefferson put it better:

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”

That quote really resonates with me, I think it basically desribes the relationship between the MSM and democrat party.

The film maker commissioned a  poll the results of which are on his site, I think they say a lot about the ignorance of the Obama voter and the MSM (and the conneciton between the two):

35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.

McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.

Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.

Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.

Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.

Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)

Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)

Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)

Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)

Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)

Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)

First of all, not even half of Obama’s voters knew who controlled congress.  These are the people who voted for “change”, they didn’t even know what they were voting to change!  Its even more frustrating because of how the media lauds these voters and takes this movement serious, when clearly it shouldn’t.  Instead of talking about how Obama has made people hopefully and all this bs talk about the “age of Obama” the media should be asking why did the most ignorant segment of society support him? And why do we allow the most ignorant segment of society to run the country? Who thought this was a good idea? Who voted for this? Not me.

Of course the reason why the media isn’t interested in these questions is obvious from data in the same poll.  Exposure to the MSM correlates with ignorance, its pretty amazing that the highest levels of knowledge are among the media outlets which the MSM constantly berates and calls biased (foxnews and talk radio).

This is really depressing, but Sarah made me feel better. My favorite answer of her’s was in response to the question that was something along the lines of “would you do it again?” and she answers by acknowledging how its depressing and you think well even if I do this “they” (and I know exactly who that they is, the government-media complex which runs the country for its own benefit) aren’t going to fix it anyways..but she sort of comes to the conclusion you have to slog it out regardless and you betcha shed do it again. 

She really is an intelligent woman who has done a lot for her state and isn’t part of this corrupt system which is destroying the country.  She so didnt deserve the treatment she got, its a stain that will never leave the media and democrats.

I am looking forward to the chance for real change in 2012.