I suppose it would have been perfectly ok to have said to Clarence Thomas, "What you talkin' about, Willis?", since it has become part of the American vernacular.

That phrase hasn't entered the vernacular of educated speech. Notice that even today it requires a character name from the program in which it originated. "What you talkin' about?" alone would have been an unacceptably rude question in Congressional hearings, irrespective of the race or gender of the individual on the stand.

Joan's argument is that a phrase that would be perfectly acceptable if directed toward a pale male FEMA manager represents "shocking" ethnic disparagement if directed toward Sotomayor, because the phrase was originally written for a Cuban-American performer.

Is that true Econ? how did you come to find that out? Reader did you admit to that kind of low level ass buggery?

Obama08Now acknowledged it in his last post, in Reader's unmistakable oleaginous jargon. Click at the sig. Reader, realizing his blunder, now can neither confirm nor deny his campaign, which will define him forever as a political operative in the Segretti mold. His pose as a man of reason is no less fraudulent than his pose as an Obama supporter.

Any Indiana shyster who gets close to Palin will, we hope, be examined under a microscope and exposed when it is most useful.

http://letters.salon.com/ea48b10ac32fb23520991bce9e4b713a/author/

...the FIRST time Dow hit 9000. In other words, an indication of how poorly it has performed long term, whatever the momentary gains.

>If we're looking at true long term performance, why don't we look back 20 years?

Because the Dow hit 9000 today, not 2000. Eleven years of futility is the present benchmark, whatever the Dow's triumphs before Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the ascent of China.

Read and parse her words carefully. There's no lie, just a straw man. Her WriterWriter is a pro.

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Notice that her statement does not actually assert that there is any such proposal.

War Room should honor the troops and quit makin' things up.

An underachiever! Our 48-year-old Commander-in-Chief, whose name will be remembered to the end of time, has a résumé that fails to impress a sniping anonyblogger.

Your personal site is identified with a Malware Warning from Google, reported to damage PCs that browse to it. Guessing an infected blog comment.

Home page headline:

Size matters

Does BMI make you unfit to be attorney general?

Members of Table Talk weigh in

A general is a general.

Not the "fair" you were expecting...

Its competitors, CNN and MSNBC, didn't fair much better in the poll.

...like "Fox News" itself.

“No one would say that Dylan is the 'male Joni Mitchell,'” she has said. She's right. Men are allowed to be “great” with no qualifiers; women are often only “great” in relation to other female artists.

The reason nobody's known as the male Madonna, or Tina, or Mariah, or Alison, or Aretha for God's sakes, is that these ladies are preeminent in their fields, held back by nobody, with no man even presuming to approach their sound.

Dylan (and Judy Collins) moved light years beyond Joni and her ilk, and she imagines her issue is gender rather than professional stagnation. Far from being shortchanged by gender, she enjoys, through the Dylan comparison, reflected glory that is unearned.

No, Ms. Benfer didn't pull this absurd notion entirely out of her hat. The throwaway sentence in the Science Progress article reads:

Although the lack of an ejaculation does not affect the quality of orgasm, urologist Harry Fisch claims this side effect will preclude many men from considering this contraceptive: “I don’t think a lot of men are going to take this … The ejaculate coming forward is a significant part of a man’s sexuality.”

And where, per footnotes, did the Science Progress author find these words from urologist Harry Frisch? In a Traister piece in Broadsheet!

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/12/01/male_pill/index.html

Rebecca was excerpting a conversation with "a truly obnoxious group of guys interviewed in yesterday's New York Daily News." Frisch was among them, his comments subsequently elevated to scholarly writ in a bizarre game of telephone.

Of course the claim that ejaculation doesn't impact the quality of orgasm isn't Dr. Frisch's; it comes from Science Progress author Lisa Campo-Engelstein, grafted on to the urologist's comments, which included some refreshing guy talk: "I wouldn't do anything with it. Nice try." Damn right.

Ladies, you speak of which you know not. The ejaculation is mandatory. It is the vaginal port of call that is entirely optional.

That urologist's name, quite appropriately, is Harry Fisch, not Frisch.

Swim on, boys.

But he was elected to public office as recently as 1998 for crying out loud.

...and the tax laws and budget lived well into 1981. The predecessor has responsibility for anything that happens before September 12th of the inaugural year.

I'm not blaming Carter for 30 years of deficits. But Reagan bears no responsibility for those of 1980, and little for those of FY '81. Noted in the spirit of factuality, not partisanship. Read through my posting history and you'll see how much of it is mere error checking.