Why weren't stimulus $ used for infrastructure?

  So why was so much money wasted on stupid projects, most of which aren't even worth listing here again because it's a waste of energy. The question is, now that our Dear Leader is trumpeting "investing" in infrastructure and really stupid things like high speed rail, why doesn't he explain why he didn't spend that 800 billion or so dollars on the last blowout on important things like bridges and roads, instead of monkeys on cocaine, skate parks and why college students drink.
  So now Chris Matthews is doing some girlie wailing about why we don't have high speed rail, like the French and the Germans.
  Over at Newsbusters:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's so awful. They are so awful. Look I'm gonna say this. They are so awful and the Democrats are just as bad. Because look if they hadn't built the railroads this country wouldn't be, there wouldn't have been a Manifest Destiny without the rails. If Ike hadn't built, with a Democratic Congress, a highway there wouldn't be a 95 going to Florida. They're wouldn't be a 70 and 80 crossing the country. You wouldn't be able to see the America and the U.S.A. – you wouldn't be able – in your Chevrolet. It wouldn't happen. We would be riding around in county roads trying to figure out how to get from here to there in some crappy little road somewhere. And today we have superhighways. Eisenhower did that. I just wonder why we don't have what the French have, fast railroads. We don't have anything like that, the Italians have them. Not knocking the Italians but they are so far ahead of us, I was just over there. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, all have fast rail, they all have infrastructure and we're diddling around here [John] Heilemann. Is this president really gonna shove that, that throttle, forward tomorrow night and say "Let's join the world in getting around?" Are we gonna catch up?

The birther thing....HUGE development...

Very interesting....maybe Hillbuzz is right....an insider says Abercrombie says there IS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE...as we discussed before, this whole thing is very strange and has been oddly handled by the Obama people. What is there to hide? Are they trying bait and switch, trying to make a certain segment of the population look stupid for following this story? And why not release the certificate if it exists? Or is it possible that, as Hillbuzz has suggested, that the name on the certificate is Barry Soetero, as Mike Evans calls Obama, or is it possible the certificate DOES NOT EXIST IN HAWAII? Mike Evans is a fairly reliable Hollywood reporter...not excitable or a liar. 

About that Obama jinx....

Recently affirmed AGAIN. 
As if we didn't know. 
Bears take a licking.
Is Obama bad luck for teams? Politico
Politics. Long Island Press.
Hawaii.
It's pretty clearly established by now.
People are talkin.

Can jobs be found in Plato's Cave and other interesting questions for a lazy January afternoon

  By now, you've heard that our president's paradoxical speech will cover two topics: 1) the need for more jobs   2) the need to spend more money. 
  So obviously, those jobs are going to be more government jobs, an idea whose time has surely come, after all the tea party protests, the concern over our tremendous burden of debt and the over-regulation of business.
  Hinderaker at Powerline suggests the motivation behind that idea might be doling out more money for Obama cronies. Read it here.
  The eloquent Clarice at American Thinker has a few thoughts on the pillorying of Sarah Palin, with relation to the Plato's Allegory of the Cave:

In my view, the media tarring of Sarah Palin respecting the Tucson tragedy is an event which -- perhaps not this week, but soon enough -- will be remembered for having exposed the political class and cultural elites as the puppeteers projecting their own ignorance and violent hatred of Sarah onto her.  Those who uncritically followed the media will come to see that they have spent too much time in the cave and need to get out into the sunshine and face some realities.

Bill Jacobson pointed out that for all the contrived bleats of Sarah's detractors that they want more civility in public discourse, it is Sarah who has been the target of the most vile calumnies and death threats.

  Victor David Hanson wonders how our president can be quiet while his cronies and supporters pillory a woman like Palin, while at the same time calling for civility long after it would do any good:

How can a president subtly distance himself from the macabre and revolting behavior of his left-wing base while simultaneously editorializing on unhinged invective in general (e.g., without an embarrassing extreme, there is no occasion to call for moderation from others)?

Why did five days of presidential silence follow the shootings (so unlike instant editorializing about the Mutallab and Hasan incidents), when the likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Sheriff Dupnik, and the New York Times rushed in to scavenge political capital amid the carnage .

Kevin at Hillbuzz has a theory about Governor Abercrombie's mysterious pursuit of the ever elusive birth certificate of a prominent politician:

The fact that Obama was adopted by Indonesian Lolo Soetoro in the 1970s, and his name was legally changed to Barry Soetoro at that time, is most likely the reason he is spending millions of dollars to hide his birth certificate. He never filed the papers to change his name back to “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.”, so any birth certificate produced by the state of Hawaii would list him as “Barry Soetoro”. 

And a word from The American Spectator about the disappearance from the silver screen of one Keith Olbermann:

He was our national scold, our angry leftist father who bitterly denounced our right-wing sins. Who can replace him?

Well, apparently, MSNBC is going to have another angry leftist, Lawrence O'Donnell, take over Olbermann's 8:00 time slot.

  The admission must be made that the first thought upon hearing Olbermann was leaving was where the heck will he go? It now seems Olbermann left voluntarily, he's precluded from taking a contract at any other station or from talking about his circumstances.
  No one has ever had the illusion that Olbermann was anything but a loudmouthed pompous left wing hack. I never watched him, so his presence did not grate on me any more than any other O'Donnell, O'Connell or Maddow. Though good riddance is certainly in order, free speech and capitalism are the order of the day, although one certainly wonders how any rational capitalist could have gained much from Olbermann's audience.
  And American Thinker has a great article about another leftist attempt at murder....literal murder, not figurative.  This is another circumstance of the MSM's lack of interest in leftist violence.
  Oh, and as Weasel Zippers points out, the crazy leftist was trying to slit the throat of what he thought was the GOP Governor of Missouri.
  Oh, and be sure to catch the NY Daily News report on the fight between the renowned NYC public schools and the charter schools who need more space for their thriving and successful franchise. The teachers represented themselves very well with a terribly misspelled sign in support of their endeavors, which read: "Charter schools are like Hitler, tyrents trying to take what's not thiers!" and which they promptly blamed on the efforts of the students they had instructed. Huh. 
  Losing battle, that one.

Children fund high salaries for 9/11 memorial execs

  You may remember the story of local students Tad Menninger and his friends from Rossford, who decided to walk 650 miles to raise funds for the 9/11 memorial. It was a grueling trip; you can find their story here at Pittsburgh Live. They raised over $20,000.
  In fact, hundreds of other schoolchildren raised money for the 9/11 memorial. Other countries also donated money to the memorial, which hasn't yet been built.
  The NY Post today says that those funds have been lavished on a number of important executives' salaries:

But 11 staffers at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum each pulled down more than $170,000 in total compensation in 2009, according to the most recent filings. Four execs took home more than $320,000.

  You can read about the reason these important people need to make so much money, particularly on the backs of little old lady taxpayers and children who walk over 600 miles to raise the money.
  Hoist the caviar, glitterati, and raise your champagne glasses.
  We're sure you all deserve it.

Piven: Beck shouldn't be calling attention to what I say

  It's very uh hum, interesting, that the MSM is completely uninterested in threats, real or imagined, that rain down on conservatives, such Eric Fuller who threatened the Tucson tea party founder last week with death after taking his picture or the daily death threats Palin receives.
  Yet here we are with the NY Times defending Frances Fox Piven who claims that she has received death threats for her stand on worker revolution.
  The NY Times article indicates that Glenn Beck's interest in Piven stems from her 60s stand on overwhelming the system with welfare claims and demands for freebies for all. You know, the whole Al Sharpton "We want the same houses, same stuff, same dough as you all got" mentality.
  To be fair, the NYT article does mention that Piven is still functioning in academia and only recently called for a worker revolution that would look like Greece.
  From the NYT, this is what she said:

Her assertions that “an effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece,” and that “protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones,” led Mr. Beck to ask on Fox this week, “Is that not inciting violence? Is that not asking for violence?” Videos of fires in Greece played behind him

  This is what the Greek protests looked like:

Fromt the NYT article, Piven responds to what she really meant to say:

“That is not a call for violence,” Ms. Piven said Friday of the references to riots. “There is a kind of rhetorical trick that is always used to denounce movements of ordinary people, and that is to imply that the massing of people itself is violent.”

  So this rhetorical trick she's calling for isn't a call for violence. 
  Hm.
  Well, here's the deal, Ms. Piven.
  You're a public figure.
  You've made statements that sure sound and look like a call for violence to most average people.
  When you do things like that, people are going to have feelings for your positions on issue.
  This is no excuse for violence on the part of the people who are reacting to those positions, but it's absolute demagoguery to claim that the person who reported what you said is inciting violence against YOU.
  Please.

The birth records story that won't die

  There's something really strange about the presidential birth records story and a lot of questions are unanswered. 
  While it seems hopeless, slightly deranged and meaningless to pursue the story of the president's birth certificate, one has to ask if the president of the United States enjoys jerking the chains of those people chasing their tails trying to get to the bottom of the story.
  Certainly Abercrombie, now governor of Hawaii, was friendly enough with Obama to know going in that Obama wasn't about to release permission for the public to see the actual live birth record. 
  So why would he make it an imperative when taking the governorship?
  He had to know, as the rest of us already did, that those are personal records that a politician can't release unless, of course, the politician happens to be the owner of the records.
  So now why come out with a statement that the records exist but can't be released? 
  Why start this up again in the first place?
  And what is Obama up to, that he allowed Abercrombie to start the conversation but won't release the records?
  Why don't presidential candidates have to prove where they were born before the election anyway?
  Is he getting mileage from conspiracy theorists? How patriotic and loyal and honest is that, to allow Americans to continue this odd chase?
  Odd. Very odd.
  Here's the story over at AP.

Olbermann fired?

Again? 

Combat veteran Sarah Palin

  Wow. This is an amazing piece over at American Thinker about Sarah Palin. 
  It seems the rightwing blogosphere is showing true colors, either condemning/deserting Palin or defending her. No one's coming out for any particular candidate yet, but the truth is slowly being revealed about tactics, character and spine.
  Read and relish cuz it's the truth.
  I'd march into war with her.
  Wait. 
  Okay, so go on over there and read this. 
  It'll stir your blood and make some valid points you haven't heard before. American Thinker:

While Sarah is putting her life at risk -- staffers say that since the Tucson blood libel, she's getting death threats at an "unprecedented rate" -- Mitt Romney can't even bother to lead from the rear.  He's hanging around the country club, eating soggy cucumber-and-mayonnaise sandwiches, and waiting for Sarah to win the war. Then he'll gallop on to the battlefield, hair stylist in tow, and flash his Dudley Do Right grin. Naturally, conservative pundits will traipse along and dutifully applaud his "gravitas" and outstanding presidential "qualifications." So much worthier than Sarah, don't you know!

  What male candidate who is actually entertaining the thought of running for president on the Republican ticket has stood up to the onslaught as Palin? 
  What male candidate has shown the spine she has? 
  Herman Cain is out there, exploring, but we'll see. 
  We'll see.

More attempts to tarnish Reagan

  Let's just be clear about this.
  All conservatives are stupid.
  All charming conservatives are stupid and just putting on a deceitful act of charm.
  The country's favorite President Ronald Reagan is coming in for new slander, started by his liberal and somewhat hateful son Ron Reagan.
  Mother Jones is some pretty downright vicious leftism. David Corn is a pretty downright vicious leftist. 
  Mix these ingredients with a little LSM reporter Leslie Stahl and what do you get?
  An article supporting the idea of Reagan being senile in Mother Jones by David Corn, partisan.
  His take: Reagan was senile while in office, but we all covered up for him, including the press and his aides (ha).
  Remember Don Surber's interpretation of how the press views conservatives/Republicans. Conservatives are at least one, if not more, of these:

• dumb as a rock
• inarticulate
• crazy
• out of touch
• lousy parents

  Conservatives can have the same life circumstances, the same GPA (or better), the same family problems and yet they are depicted as evil or stupid.
  Make no mistake.
  This piling on to discredit Reagan is a deeper effort to discredit the conservative movement in general.
  Only a demented person would govern conservatively, right?
  Yeah, that's right.

Too bad we didn't message it better

  Heh. Really?
  In keeping with our ongoing theme this week of, "Are y'all CRAZY?", The Hill has a rundown on the expensive little vacation the dems are taking this weekend (on the government dime??? who's paying for the "glitzy Hyatt Regency resort on the shores of the Chesapeake"?) to reassess what "went wrong."
  They seem to think that they just didn't rub it into our faces enough, that they didn't celebrate their "achievements" enough, that people just really didn't understand how much they gave us in this Congress. 

“I said Madam Speaker, the problem with Democrats is we never give the public the chance to savor our victories,” Becerra said, as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the assistant leader, nodded in agreement. “What we didn’t do was take the time to do tap-dances about what we had just done, but we did the work of the people.” 

“Too bad we didn’t message it better,” he added.

  Oh, Madam Speaker, I'd say you did enough tap dances. I'd say you messaged it exactly the way you wanted to message it by making sure to walk in front of the tea partiers who came to DC from all across the country to try to stop the job killing so-called health care bill.
  Savor victories?
  Oh, I'd say you savored your victory.
  BTW, you wore that purple suit at last year's SOTU. Is it your victory suit? Because we haven't see you wearing it since last November.

  Now we're savoring ours. 

  Enjoy your weekend.

NBC now apparently wholly owned govt subsidary

  So a new czar is being appointed to advise the president on the economy and who better to do that than Immelt, the CEO of GE? Which also owns owned owns NBC? Can anyone see a problem here? 
  Apparently there's no problem with a conflict of awarding a job to a CEO whose tv network favorably covered the president for years. covering a president for whom the CEO works.
  (Apparently the sale of NBC is in the works but not yet complete.)
  Here's a comment from Salon: Notice the CYA contributions to Repubs from Immelt only.

Immelt has been a White House ally since the start of Obama's presidency, though his political contributions tend to be bipartisan and he financially supported Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney during the 2008 presidential elections. 

General Electric employees and their spouses, however, supported Obama over any other presidential candidate.

The latest leftist smear on, let's see, Beck

You could pick any conservative and find something like this out there but here is the clip and the CONTEXT, something liberals LOVE to omit.

Got that?

Okay, now let's hear the CONTEXT, which Patterico faithfully gives here:

The full transcript is here. When you read it, you will see that the word “you” refers to the leftist politicians in Washington and their pals in the media, and “they” refers to their radical leftist friends — who, Beck warns, actually believe there must be violent revolution . . . and if they don’t get what they want, they may start one.

Beck is warning the comfortable pols that the people who put them in power aren’t going to be satisfied with seeing just a little of their agenda accomplished. They want it all. Because they are revolutionaries at heart — people who have called for violence and never repudiated it. And if they aren’t satisfied, Beck tells the pols, they will come after you. Violently.

You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But they may shoot you.

Johnson wants you to believe that the “you” is Beck’s audience, whom Beck is inciting to violence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And here's a rationale for why the Left hates, let's say, Palin, which could relate to any conservative. Remember, conservatives are dumb. Don Surber:

The caricature of Sarah Palin served a greater purpose for the Lorne Michaels School of Intellect. It made it cool to hate Sarah Palin.

And most everyone under 30 wants to be cool. Which is why people under 30 tend to vote Democratic, until a recession hits. Then they stop voting or even — dare I say — vote Republican. 

  We've discovered something here. Wait. We all KNOW this but we're too nice, in general, to say this.
As Surber says, the real dummies aren't conservatives. The real dummies are liberals.
  Just sayin'. 

The swagger wagon

Disgust from around the web

  Ann Althouse from Rush:

"The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a dinner for the guy holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison...""... and the media does not get the irony of this at all."  

  And more from NRO/Krauthammer:

Here he [Obama] is honoring a man that is keeping in prison… the Nobel [Peace] Prize winner. And you hear the words of the Chinese president [on human rights], and you hear essentially nothing, offering nothing. 

  Another completely delusional, missed point, ignorant moment on the left can be found over at Big Hollywood. How do we read the same articles, watch the same news clips (ie Palin) and yet see completely different things? These ivy league educated folks are really, um, dumb. Or something.

  The original, misinterpreted article is crystal clear. 

 Hollywood has spent the last two decades hammering and insulting Middle America, Christians, and conservatives. Worse, they do it with sucker punches that insultingly come out of nowhere in what’s advertised as apolitical entertainment. Furthermore, this is an industry that prides itself on pushing the “edgy” envelope at every opportunity right in our face and when we least expect it. Sunday night, Hollywood got a taste of their own medicine and proved they couldn’t take it. It was revealing and it was deserved. Bravo, Ricky.

  In the same vein, Steven Crowder thinks SNL isn't very funny when it tries to mock conservatives. They just don't get it. 
  As long as we're on movies, who the heck thought The Social Connection was the best movie of the year? The King's Speech is by far and away the best, although admittedly a look back into the theater when exiting revealed that the crowd could all have been tea partiers.
  Take an insider's look at how obamacare affects doctors.
  Again at NRO, a roundup of the "new tone." 
  Like I said, they're all nuts.
  Just holdin' y'all accountable.
  We're trying, trying anyway.

Why does the Left hate women?

  Well, Malkin has done it again. She's put together an absolutely excruciating list of references to the Left's slurs against women. 
  Oh, not just any women. 
  It's always conservative women. This one involves a talk show host who decided, for no apparent reason other than ideological differences, to trash the Republican Lt. Governor who happens to be an attractive female. 
  It's pretty sickening, but to really understand what we are up against and the true misogyny of the Left, you need to go there and read it. Here's a bit. Much more over there:

The MSM coverage of this filth-monger dances around his exact sexual slurs — they refer to “explicit” slurs without explicitly informing you — which is why I spelled them out for you.

This is nothing new, of course.

I’ve written about the Left’s whore fixation with conservative women for years.

Liberal talkers’ anti-GOP misogyny is a incurable pathology that long predated Palin Derangement Syndrome. You’ll remember it has its own section in my illustrated primer on the progressive climate of hate:

Evening roundup

  Wow. The rhetoric is really getting heated out there. 
  One of the most seasoned, wise and articulate writers on the web is Victor David Hanson. He has a smackdown for Palin critics. Totally awesome. Here's a smidgen:

Someone like a President Palin could really blow it with a hickish bow to a Saudi Arabian autocrat or a rambling apology about American sins in Turkey of all places, or nominate some nut who would have a Truther past or resort to racism or a yokel who would brag about her hero Mao.

But more germanely, Palin need not run for the presidency in 2012 in the manner commentator and newly elected governor Reagan did not until 1968, and did not successfully until 1980 — all the while establishing a populist conservative persona as hated — and successful — during his near two-decade pre-presidential career as a younger Palin might be in the two decades ahead.

  Then we have a dopey guy over at the Palm Beach Post who is shocked, SHOCKED, that Giffords' doctor's parents who are also doctors have contributed to tea partiers.
  The frontal lobe of your brain may be trying to figure that out right now but it's just what you think....he's offended that Giffords's doctor's PARENTS....
  Groan.
  Then all over the news today are the complaints liberals have lodged against the Republicans for repealing the health care debacle:

• Republicans are Nazis-Steve Cohen
• Republicans are killing people-Sheila Jackson Lee
• Republicans are robbing citizens of 14th amendment protections & 5th amendment rights
• Republicans are anti-civil rights and racist-CLYBURN

  Somewhere behind MS LEE is a dopey shaky intern desperately trying to provide the appropriate picture background for Sheila Jackson Lee to make her dopey points. Her interview with Cavuto was pret-ty, pret-ty lame.

  Also the "memorial" motto seems to be cropping up everywhere: first at the Obama rally, then on t-shirts at the "memorial" and now on a bench in Tucson. Gateway Pundit:

  CNN apologizes for a guest using the "c" word. That's right. "Crosshairs."

CNN's John King: "Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term 'in the crosshairs' in talking about the candidates. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from that kind of language."

  This from the guy who, a month or so ago, screamed, "I wish I brought a gun to work" when some poor minion didn't perform adequately for his talent that day.
  This from the Crossfire station.

  We're trying, we're trying to not be critical.

  Did Obama high five Michelle after his "memorial" speech in exultation, completely forgetting the whole "memorial" idea? Does the mysterious Ulsterman's deep throat think there's something seriously, seriously wrong there? Read here.

  The nation awaits breathlessly for the anonymous book about O.

  And then there's this.

  Heh.

Why does the left hate her so much?

  It's true that the last 10 days have been breathtakingly vicious with regard to the treatment of one Sarah Palin, non-candidate for office. 
  Today there's a great deal of intelligent commentary around the web, not the least of which is Robin of Berkeley's commentary over at American Thinker. 
  Robin's name is, of course, a pen name for a "recovering liberal" psychotherapist who lives and works in the den of liberalism of Berkeley California. 
  Here's the link to the article entitled: "Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin."
  Robin's writing is always poignantly insightful; this article about the motivation of the left against Palin is excellent.

And then, out of the blue, Sarah Palin, like a majestic bird in flight, swooped onto the scene of a depraved and deprived nation.  With her children and grandchild, her religion and her patriotism, Sarah is the antithesis of everything the progressives stand for.  Palin is not just pro-life, but she emanates life -- and good, clean living.   

And what does the left do?  They try to drag her through the mud to sully her.  The hardcore among them want to eliminate her, even if this means putting her life at risk. 

The progressives "joke" about gang-rape, make pornographic movies about her, and leer at her legs.  (Would any of this be tolerated against Michelle Obama?)

  James Taranto, the writer of Best of the Web at the WSJ (link here), also has a point of view regarding Palin. Taranto says part of liberals' problem with Palin is her lack of "quality" (translate: Ivy league) education. 
  He also speculates that liberal women of the little grey mouse type seem to have an enormous problem with Palin; men use her as an excuse to exhibit misogynistic tendencies not acceptable in the liberal world with any other women.

They say she is uneducated. What they mean is that her education is not elite--not Harvard or Yale, or even Michigan or UCLA. They resent her because, in their view, she has risen above her station. 

  John at Powerline thinks it's time to forget about her as a presidential candidate, presumably because the liberals have won in defaming her:

The time has come to put any thoughts of Sarah Palin running for President to rest. I say that not because I dislike her; on the contrary, I'm a fan. I think she did an excellent job as a vice-presidential candidate in 2008 and has been an effective spokeswoman for conservative causes in the years since. But there is no way she is ever going to be elected President, and the sooner Republicans get over that idea, the better. 

  Professor Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection objects, questioning John's judgment and wondering at what point we simply refuse to accept the inevitable ridicule that the left and the MSM hurls at all conservatives:

Why is such an announcement necessary now, at the very moment that the conservative movement is trying to fight back against the mainstream media campaign related to the Tucson shooting?

You can throw Palin under the bus if you want, but what will you do when the next candidate faces blistering false accusations which drive negatives high after a mainstream media feeding frenzy?

Why not let the political and primary process work itself out.  We do not even know if Palin is running, or if she will garner enough Republican support to win. 

  It's interesting that so many writers are doing soul searching today about this topic.
  Why?
  Is it because we have never, never seen a woman in politics (a fairly recent phenomena in American politics) treated this way? 
  Although Hillary Clinton was abused by the Obamanots, never was she demeaned in such a way as this.
  While making no commitment to political support of this woman, any rational person has to see how hideous the liberal treatment of Palin has become. How these people justify their vicious attacks when they go home at night is inexplicable.
  In fact, witnessing this behavior from afar as a (not unbiased) observer has been disturbing, just as the pep rally atmosphere of the "memorial" one week ago today was disturbing. 
  Five days after the murders, family members of the murdered watched; some of the wounded sat in the audience while 13,000 people wearing campaign slogan t-shirts sipped their concession stand cokes between screaming and cheering at the mention of the victims of the attacks, at every syllable of the speakers, at the "cheering up" of the crowd by government officials, shouting in a "We love you!" to Dear Leader.
  It seemed a grotesque display of inappropriate behavior to televise to the nation a few days after the horrendous murders.
  And people who had absolutely nothing to do with anything were really, seriously blamed for the crime, while excuses were made by law enforcement for the perpetrator of the crime.
  Sure, we live in Northwest Ohio.
  Sure, people are pretty provincial around here.
  Sure, we don't know much about the beltway crowd.
  But from where we sit, it sure looks like the whole bunch has gone nuts, with little regard for human beings and a very great lack of the vaunted CIVILITY NOW! that has been demanded by the very purveyors of these invectives and politically staged events.
  Is all the world insane?