I don’t know if this is true, but given the loony bins that modern universities have become I can easily believe it:
Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield
When I read this story, all I could think was WTF? I mean WTFF?
The White House is looking at a list of cost-cutting candidates to head the Office of Management and Budget, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, may be on it.
Would that be the same Tom Delay who said that there was no fat left in the federal budget? That “cost-cutting candidate”? That appointment would indicate that the administration is completely unserious about cutting spending (not that there hasn’t been abundant evidence of that over the past five plus years).
The good news for each party is that they only have to run against the other, and not against a competent one. The bad news for each party is that the same thing is true for their opposition. As I’ve noted before, it’s like the Special Olympics of politics or something.
Yes. Whenever I see these approval ratings, I’m always amused at the thought of how many people will draw false conclusions from them. There is no point during his administration at which, had you asked me, I would have expressed approval of George Bush. I’ve thought that the country is on the “wrong track” my entire life (to cite another stupid poll question). Yet I was glad he won both times, because the alternative was much worse. I strongly disapprove of the Republicans in Congress. I disapprove of the Dems even more. I don’t know how many are like me, but if there are a lot, then one can’t draw any grand conclusions about the Dems’ electoral prospects from simple approval ratings of either the president or the Congress.
I wonder how much support there would be for a party that was generally libertarian, except with a sane (i.e., not isolationist) foreign policy. I know I’d sign up in a New York minute.
[Update at 4:30 PM EDT]
Russ Mitchell has similar thoughts.
Arthur Brooks says that liberals are heartless. Errrr…sort of. Anyway, you might be able to say they’re mean spirited.
Let’s dispense with righteous rhetoric and look at what really counts: behavior, starting at the level of heart in personal relationships. Consider two groups of people under age 30: those who say they are liberal or extremely liberal, and those who say they are conservative or extremely conservative. According to General Social Survey in 2004, liberal young Americans are significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones. For example, progressives under 30 are significantly less likely than young right-wingers to say they would prefer to suffer rather than let the one they love suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for the one they love. (The practical implication of this is that you might want your daughter to marry a Republican.)
Even after forcing the government to back down, and guarantee them jobs for life (if they can get them), the students in France are still protesting. Give them a centimeter, and they’ll take a kilometer.
France–a country run by college students. All is now explained.
Even after forcing the government to back down, and guarantee them jobs for life (if they can get them), the students in France are still protesting. Give them a centimeter, and they’ll take a kilometer.
France–a country run by college students. All is now explained.
Even after forcing the government to back down, and guarantee them jobs for life (if they can get them), the students in France are still protesting. Give them a centimeter, and they’ll take a kilometer.
France–a country run by college students. All is now explained.
Senator Coburn has put up a government web site to track government waste and overspending.
What does Spiderman creator Stan Lee have to do with Hillary?
“Doug from Upland” has the answer:
Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with legendary superhero creator Stan Lee. The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.
On the link above – 4th false FEC report – turn to page 34. You will see that a $225,000 in-kind contribution is attributed to Stan Lee personally.
Lee was very surpised when I told him that, on the 4th FEC report from the Hillary 2000 campaign, he is listed as the largest donor — $225,000. He could not understand how that could be. He has testified under oath that he never gave any money. He didn’t have any money to give. He told that to the FBI, to the FEC, and to the Justice Department.
Treasurer Andrew Grossman, Hillary, and, of course, David Kendall, know very well that this is the fourth fraudulent report. They know very well that Lee gave no money. This continuing crime is being pulled off in broad daylight, and the Justice Department does not seem to want to do anything about it.
That report is the 4th time that Andrew Grossman and Hillary Clinton have had the opportunity to tell the truth to the FEC. Four strikes and you’re out? Apparently, not in Hillary’s world.
As someone over there points out, if I were Stan Lee I’d sue her Highness for defamation of character, for accusing me of such a thing.
This is amusing as well:
Note: although Hillary has been removed as a defendant (it will be appealed) in the case Paul v. Clinton, she will be ordered to testify. She and her defendant husband are expected to be in Los Angeles for a sworn deposition in as soon as 60 days. Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?
No, actually. I have no recollection of that…
What happened to Hillary’s books?
…here is a FASCINATING observation I have made. I have thus far seen NOT ONE of the Hillary books at either flea markets or thrift stores. Have you? Think about it. This book supposedly has MILLIONS of copies floating around out there and yet somehow they just don’t make their way thru the normal book recycling system like other books. So what happened to all the Hillary books?
…Could the vast majority of the Hillary books (except for the autographed copies sold for profit on eBay) end up in warehouses? That is my suspicion and most likely they are still SITTING there. And who bought those books only to warehouse them? Labor unions? Other organizations? Using Freakonomics observations makes me suspicious that Hillary has received campaign contributions via PHONY book sales.
Someone might want to look into this. But most won’t.