Were you wondering if the outrage over Sarah Palin's map "targeting"
various Democrat members of Congress for electoral defeat using
crosshair imagery was
phony and hypocritical?
Why, yes it was.
At the Corner, Daniel Foster notes
that the head of the Family Research Council suggests that his members
avoid donating to the Republican National Committee, due to the fact
that they'd probably blow that money on S&M lesbian strip shows.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if your tastes run
that way, why not keep the money and spend it on that yourself?)
Palin has asked to be disinvited to an RNC fundraiser.
Meanwhile, Ace notes the Republican Party is already going wobbly on Obamacare repeal. Prominent among the wobblers is Senator John Cornyn, who chairs another organization likely to ask for your dollars, the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Ace links to a Club For Growth list of candidates who have pledged to "sponsor and support" repeal legislation. (New Hampshire candidates who've signed are: Rich Ashooh, Kelly Ayotte, Bill Binnie, and Frank Guinta.) Ace's implied suggestion, and my explicit one, is to direct your dollars to people actually interested in fixing things, not merely in regaining their hold on the politics-as-usual process.
Strange Maps alleges that the entire US population
could fit into New Hampshire, and the resulting population density
would be "only" about the same as the allegedly inhabitable
Brooklyn, New York.
"The state would be ruined, though," Strange Maps helpfully points out. So don't do that. (Via Granite Geek.)
By sheerest coincidence, I also read this post
by Reason science guy Ronald Bailey, who comments on a New
Scientist editorial attempting to counter the
"impression that greens and environmental scientists are authoritarian
tree-huggers who value nature above people."
Which made it all the more serendipitous that the Strange Maps blogger noted that if all the people in the US did move to New Hampshire, "the rest of the country would be green and pleasantly devoid of people!"
Gosh, I'm not sure where the impression comes from that greens value "nature" over people.
Which reminds me. (Contains at least one barely-bleeped bad word.)
Some of my co-workers find Google's rebranding, announced today,
"weak" and "lame", but
I'm easily amused, and I hope you are too:
Explanation/further joke-milking here.