It's so much more efficient to gather in (through taxation) all of the money that might otherwise go to poorly chosen charities, and then distribute it all in a coordinated, well-aimed charitable program of government design. When you put all of that individual charity money into one big pot, there's less overlap, there's more leverage with the charities themselves, and there are fewer ill-informed choices made when poorly-prepared people try to identify the proper charities.

Democrats have done more for the dead than any other political party.

It's no wonder that they have the Dead vote sewn up.

So, what are the chances that these newly-captured unfortunates are NOT connected with spying in any manner? That the CIA, with all of its real spies quietly standing by, sees potential gold here, and manages to get quoted, quickly and to substantial circulations, that "dang, they done busted us!", , and "yep, that's my guy Bill there", because if the mullahs think Gawd has given them the US spy ring as a gift, they'll be easier to continue spying on.

See, when they say "the science is settled", it's really code for "the judge accepted the donation!"

(Ask the Alaskans - if polar bears are endangered, it's because of overcrowding.)

What is it with Rove and circular firing squads?

He seems to do this frequently. He'll be working on behalf of some Republican looking to run for an office. In that role, he makes gratuitous and denigrating comments about other Republicans, like his comment about Perry.

If Perry ends up as our candidate, we'll be able to enjoy lots of DNC commercials showing Rove saying, over and over and over, how Perry isn't presidential, and shows poor judgment.

Great job, Karl. We weren't really all that serious about wanting Obama unelected anyway.

Most e-mail systems - even internal corporate and public-entity networks - allow the user to designate originating internet addresses as spam sources.

Wouldn't THAT make for a funny headline: "68% of Wisconsin teachers designate AFT-W e-mail as spam."

1. Hugh's point was correct.

2. Hugh's lack of civility - interrupting Caddell to the point where he couldn't make any comment - should have gotten Hugh booted from the show. Why didn't Hannity take control? There's no "debate" when one side just screams over the other.

Thankfully, an accumulation of wealth here in the USA remains safe through the Rule of Law. Thus, investors who are willing to invest for a smaller-than-usual return in exchange for safety of their investment can opt for the low-risk bonds sold by, say, a national automobile manufacturer instead of shares of stock in that same company, knowing that, in the event the company fails, they will stand higher in priority for repayment than do the stockholders. The Rule of Law keeps those investors out of the reach of the rank cronyism of any existing "ruling class."

Similarly, highly productive workers who are able to earn higher-than-usual incomes are encouraged to do so here, since everyone understands that they actually do produce the rising waters that lift all of the boats, whereas in the more lawless short-term-thinking locales, people who do not earn large incomes sometimes band together and appropriate that person's wealth while reciting platitudes regarding "fairness" and "duty".

As well, people in the USA are free to use their accumulated wealth as they see fit; they can spend it or invest it according to their own judgments, and they need not fear that bands of people will decide that their investments are not popular enough to be allowed to remain whole. Indeed, in some areas of the world, investors in some segments of production - notably in energy-related areas such as oil and gas production and electrical generation - have found themselves demonized for their "excess profits", and shortly thereafter usually find that the mobs have taken those "excess profits" for their own uses.

Far worse, of course, are those Third-World pits in which ruling warlords claim to act "for the good of the people" by expropriating most wealth, ostensibly to be used wisely by the warlord for the benefit of the "contributors" as one would see in a normally-governed nation-state that taxed its citizens so that it could pay for common needs, but in reality those warlords simply ensure that all monies pass through their hands so that they can rake off some percentage with which to enrich themselves and their supporters. In such countries, any money left after the initial distribution to the warlord and his henchmen would sometimes actually be spent on the peoples' needs, but instances where any money remains after the first rake-off have been rare.

Thank God we're Americans, eh?!

"Things getting worse" isn't an abstract, philosophical-discussions-over-a- beer sort of occurrence. Things are bad right now, but in economic systems, if they get too bad - if the get bad enough to cross some lines - then it's like they start rolling down a steep hill, going faster and faster, and they can do some very real, very bad damage to real people when that happens.

If things get much worse, business closings are going to skyrocket, which means jobless people are going to stay jobless for quite a few years. Homes will be lost, marriages will end, and lots of kids are going to skip right past that "time to go to college" stage. Food production will drop as farmers can no longer buy as much good fertilizer. As business shut down, so will business travel, and several airlines and hotel chains and car rental companies will turn turtle and sink.

People are going to be hungry, because there will be less food, and it will cost more, and they'll have less money. Yeah, some people are going to starve - something this country hasn't seen in decades.

So, I'm hoping that he backs down and realizes that he's being - and looking like - an ass.

The city assigned this to a new prosecutor who had never once handled a jury trial.

It's tough enough for a prosecutor to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard with a jury. It appears the city threw this one for its union ties.