Redstate

CNN/Gallup poll shows Hillary garnering grassroots support and galvinizing voters with an astonishing 16% "Yes" result in a Presidential poll.  "It's in the bag" said a seasoned but pointy headed Clinton advisor who spoke on condition of perpetual anonymity before returning to the Help Wanted ads.

Responding to Karl Rove's statement about Dems unwillingness to monitor terrorist activities  Kerry said, "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make Switzerland safer."

This is your brain on partisan politics.

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

Quite the interesting story.  I don't know why they needed a study to corfirm as much.  Not saying on not just as guilty as the next guy/gal, but to the contrary.  It's kind of embarassing when you think about it.  We are actually putting on blinders and actively disengaging out brains.

If you find (or have found) details of the study, please post them here.

http://news.emory.edu/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html

The study was by Drew Weston of Emory University.  All I can find is the press release, Maybe someone has access to the actual published study.  If anyone is at school and can log into the one of the University library networks, please try to find it.

Not Weston, sorry.

Go Kerry Go!

Remember Ohio!

A chicken in every...er....pot for every chick!

Mr Bin Laden, blow   up   this   mall!

I love the smell of manicure in the morning....

I love the Norris line....

Good stuff...

Way to go John Kerry.  Wait until the 11th hour, 55 Republicans in the plus column, along with 3 Dems.  Wait until several in your party said they wouldn't support a filibuster ... and then make your strong stand against Alito.  Wow.  Not THAT'S leadership.  If he can lead his party this way in the Senate, imagine what he could do in the United Nations.

to find out where the parade was going, then run and get out in front of it.

Roman Moronie says: Dive Into That Dumpster, You Bastages!

"My meals have become more diversified because I find surprises," she says. "Things I probably wouldn't buy in stores, like endives and avocado. I wash them well and I know where there's clean garbage...

...

"Anyone want wheat grass? Kale?," he asked.He pulled out loaves of whole-wheat bread that had just passed their expiration date and retied the bag as a sanitation truck pulled up. Weissman, 27, is unemployed -- by choice -- and lives with his dad in Hackensack, N.J."

"It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for 2 years."

When the boogie man goes to bed he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation argues that the NSA would need the FISA court to issue warrants only for the successful matches of the automated spy programs.

I would argue that for every search, the NSA must ALSO first get FISA Court approval by submitting:

1. a list of the communication nodes to be monitored
   
   
2. an adequately detailed summary of the American citizens and organizations that would be affected
   
   
3. the search terms to be used
   
   
4. the names of all individuals who will be involved in implementing the search and gathering results
   
   
5. suitable documentation that the search was conducted as ordered (search logs)

Thus the FISA court would have the means to limit or reject the NSA's use of automated searches on a case-by-case basis, while ensuring that records of every search will be reviewed (and kept) by the court to protect against abuse.

is desirable why?

NSA is a military unit largely staffed by civilian specialists.  It falls under the sole command of the President as Commander in Chief of Armed Forces.  Its members have no role in the judicial system, unlike police or US Attorneys they are not officers of the court committed to justice.  Once Congress declares war or passes a "use of force resolution" [pc speak for war, after all] any pretense of the President appearing to follow the Congress's unconstitutional limits on NSA activities is political cover or strategic deception.  

Please see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html

NSA cannot live in your house without paying rent or spin straw into gold, but that is about it.

I have a fever, and the only cure is......more Cowbell!!!

I don't think it's a cut-and-dried as you make it. Consider this Justice Department paper, issued post 9/11:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then . . . In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative plan to change FISA to make it easier to get warrants that would allow the National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

Maybe I'm being a prude here, but is anyone else a little turned off by the ad about the news story on men picking up children on the right side of the main page?  The picture (though blurred out) and the header look like a porn ad until one lookes closer.

I know the news story is valid (as is an ad for such a story), but this ad seems to me to be in poor taste.  I'm open to being wrong on this one, as no one who knows me would call me a prude, but dude...

I kind of agree with you about the ad's tastelessness, but looking at the source, what are you going to do?

... I don't see how the source matters.  If the editors think I'm being to much of a prude (and I've already admitted that I might be) they can just laugh me off.  But perhaps I'm not, and others like you and I are somewhat offended by the ad, and the editors might rethink such an ad.

If it's just me then it's just me and I'll laugh with others at my own expense.  I trust the editors at RS to do what's right with their site.  They do a great job.

....matters only so far as their lack of morality and integrity.

I too don't like it; I'd probably not let that ad run; I'd probably not accept any ads from any major media outfit; I am too cheap and technically-challenged to run my own website.

Joking aside, you are correct.  And by you bringing it up, the website administration has a chance to rectify the situation.  The only way I personally could fault you're 'prudishness' would be if you were to raise a gigantic stink over the ad and boycott the site, or something like that.  Sometimes in our attempts to be polite & tolerant, we do not publicly take a stand.

Just for fun, could one of you guys read the comments between Fersboo and myself on this "ad matter"?

What do you think?  I support whatever you guys think, but I'd feel better knowing you guys are aware the issue exists.

Are we being prudes, do we have a point (albeit not a good enough point to retract the ad), or do we have enough of a point to warrant a second look by the editors?

I hope it is clear that no one is raising a major stink about this.  We just think running the ad is kind of odd for reasons mentioned previously.  Thanks, and keep up the great work.