It seems to be based upon one slightly negative comment by one GOP back bencher.

This is really too funny and obvious to need comment, but just for giggles: Cheney is a GOP back-bencher? He's slightly negative?!?!?

Elephant dung, this one's too low even for you. Really. Cheney is a slightly negative back-bencher the way Stalin was slightly fascist.

And the irony in all this: who knew that GW would be the one to have a bit of brains and decency, post-administration? To recognize that Obama "deserves [his] silence"? Meanwhile, Cheney, a war criminal in my and lots of people's books who ought to be strung up for high treason, has the gall to continue running his mouth about matters on which he's long been discredited. It's extraordinary. Unprecedented. Really.

Seriously in the running for ass of the year, if not decade, on salon. It's between you and something stinks. We'll let you know.

This part of my response still holds true, regardless of everything else:

And the irony in all this: who knew that GW would be the one to have a bit of brains and decency, post-administration? To recognize that Obama "deserves [his] silence"? Meanwhile, Cheney, a war criminal in my and lots of people's books who ought to be strung up for high treason, has the gall to continue running his mouth about matters on which he's long been discredited. It's extraordinary. Unprecedented. Really.

And your post, above, shows exactly where you're coming from. Thanks.

I could think of some other words, but not many of them are printable in a public letters column. It's laughable to me that repubs are whining about the crippling debt that we'll pass along to our children vis-a-vis the Obama budget and spending plans. The debt from the Bush years in terms of not only the economy, but politically, morally, ethically, and just overall the U.S.' standing in the world is far, far greater, and will largely prove impossible to pay off.

So, since the election, Palin's achieved the following:

1) gone on a tour to continue her rant against the "elite" media that ruined her candidacy;

2) been invited to speak at an RNC event which her staff confirmed, apparently without her knowledge, and instead of smoothing over the misunderstanding, went public, and saw the whole thing blow up in her face when she was disinvited;

3) had a public snit-fit with the young man she tried to railroad into marrying her daughter.

Am I missing anything? Yes, Sarah, everyone's out to get you. But you make it so, so easy...

Oh, please don't feed stinko's paranoid fantasies... He's sitting in a dark room getting off on this shit, the more people try to assail him with logic, the longer he can keep this going, the better. it's really gone far beyond comedy at this point, but he's the only one who hasn't gotten the joke.

let it go.

As I read this story I grew more and more interested and excited about the possibilities of this for poetry. Then I got to this:

For Japan I actually found myself ransacking old notebooks from the days when I first tried short (when I even embraced the fumy term "prose poem," quickly abandoned as unwise for an aspiring comic author)

Once again promoting the old cliche / misconception that "poetry" must be dull, serious, and unfunny. There are lots of poets who can and will take advantage of this new form, hard as it will be for them to let go of their quill pens and parchment paper.

What's even more exciting to me about this is the blurring of the line between author and reader, professional and amateur, "literature" and low culture, which so many new writing movements -- yes, even in poetry -- claim to want to do but often don't.

Anyway, thanks for stirring up some possibilities...

a very sad day indeed, as i was lucky enough to witness the joy of same-sex couples taking vows at city hall the day after newsome began allowing gay marriage in SF. however, this issue will ultimately have to be decided by voters. mores are a reflection of societal attitudes, and laws are a reflection of shared mores. the supreme court wants no part of this debate, and as the california debacle proves, court rulings mean little if some sort of reasonable consensus on the part of voters isn't behind them. that's especially true in california, where the f-ed up referendum process will ensure that courts will literally have to continue to follow voters' lead.

fivethirtyeight has five of her cases going to SCOTUS, three getting overturned. which, as others have pointed out, is still below average -- and hardly a large enough sample size to make any sort of argument one way or another.

liberty (& your ilk), the fact that limbaugh "predicted" she'd be a supreme nominee back in 199-whatsis -- and that you'd lean on that as some basis for your alarm -- really makes me laugh out loud. even an assbag hits the target some of time.

look, the way things are shaping up, unless she's found with a bag of coke and a dead hooker in her hotel room, she should sail through the confirmation process. even repubs are slowly starting to come around to this fact. this appears to be another savvy move by obama. deal with it.

...I love it! the unintentionally funny line of the day.

not that it would make a whole lot of sense even if he'd gotten it right. just to run with it, though: i hope those vultures swoop down from the mist and feast on the rotting carcass of the GOP.