Hey, did anyone else forget that Sarah Palin's stupid bus tour was still happening? Because I did. Which is probably why she gave up on it, no one gave a sh*t.

There's hope for this country yet.

Join me in spelling her name $arah Palin?

Also, bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Obama. Enough already.

I'm not surprised really. She seems to quit everything, even being Governor!

The jury in Blagojevich's retrial has come to a verdict on most of the counts, after the previous jury deadlocked.

I read this bit in an msnbc report:

Umm, it took a study to figure that out? When jury's can't agree, it's because the case is complex and ambiguous. Published in the pages of Duh Magazine no doubt.
(I'm sure the study said a lot more than that, I was just amuse at how stupidly trivial that summary sounds).

I was curious so found this report giving more detail about the study. Has some interesting stuff.

"Complexity" isn't necessarily a "well, duh?" answer. Other things that came immediately to mind as possibly producing more hung juries were:

1. Number of charges. IF the indictment has 43 charges to consider, even if each is straightforward, do juries just kind of give up.
2. Duration of trial (the report I see does mention that and found that juries did not necessarily view long trials as more complex).
3. Power relationship of the parties (a friend was on a jury that hung after mroe than a year of trial and deliberations because one juror essentially said "I can't find a cop guilty.")
4. Perception of competence of the lawyers/judges.
5. Issues likely to produce nullification attempts by at least one juror ("I know technically he's guilty, but I don't like the law")
6. Social dynamics among jurors in deliberations. Interestingly (to me it seems counterintuitive) juries that hang take their first vote earlier in deliberations than juries that don't hang.

Oh, I know. Like I said, I'm sure the study went far more in depth about what defines complexity and all that. But on the surface, when boiled down to that summary, it's pretty silly-looking. "Really? So straightforward cases with clear, unambiguous evidence are less likely to result in hung jurries? No shi*t?"

I have no issue with Bachmann's husband receiving Medicaid funds while wanting to end medicaid. I don't consider it any more hypocritical than me cashing the Bush-era tax rebate check while opposing the decision to issue those checks. One can argue that the overall effects of an existing program are detrimental while legally taking advantage of that law without being a hypocrite, in my opinion. Perhaps if Bachmann has been vilifying those who do accept help (rather than vilifying the system itself), then there's some hypocrisy. I haven't looked very closely at what she's said about such programs, so I don't know.

But here's what I have a bigger issue with (assuming this is accurate - I just tried to verify it...but Minnesota's state website is shutdown. grrr)

This apparently is in the contract for the grant:

"XXIII.3 “GRANTEE agrees that no religious based counseling shall take place under the auspices of this grant.”


Front page of the Bachmann and Associates clinic website:

"Bachmann & Associates believes in providing all clients with quality Christian counseling in a sensitive, loving environment, and in treating all clients with the utmost professionalism, dignity, and care."

Ummmmmm

Wow, gotta love the balls on the editors of the Times UK.

On a day when their front page top story headline is "The Curse of the Celebrity Interview", they have the chutzpah to run this editorial cartoon



Cajones, they haz them.

Wow, yeah.



Speaking of wow, no discussion here of the Debt Ceiling debates? Hmmm.