Another stripper and ho scandal at Duke. But hey - it's called "art" this time, and I doubt any lacrosse players attended.
More on Al Qaida's quagmire.
Saudis take a strong, principled stand against Valentine's Day!
Valentine's gifts that guys do not want
Video games and the male brain
Who is the Republican core, anyway?
Per capita beer consumption, by country (h/t, Club for Beer Growth)
Radical chic, frozen in amber
Clinton campaign: It's not slipping away (Cartoon via Moderate Voice)
Global cooling crisis: Mumbai, Alaska, and International Falls
Venezuela after Chavez
Gilda's Club: The language they use
How McCain can win.
Big favors for trial lawyers
About "change", quoted from Newsweek at Betsy:
(Voters) know that presidential candidates have been promising to change the nation's capital as long as they can remember. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower swept to power promising to clean up the mess created by Harry Truman. Eight years later, in his speech accepting the Democratic Party nomination, John F. Kennedy made essentially the same promise to transform Eisenhower's Washington. "Dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America," he said. "It's time for a change." Jimmy Carter promised to sweep Washington clean after Nixon-Ford; Ronald Reagan promised to fix things after Jimmy Carter … and so it has gone in almost every election cycle before and since.
Voters are almost invariably disappointed by candidates promising to straighten out the mess in Washington. Presidents come and go; lobbyists and special-interest groups, it seems, are forever. That doesn't mean, of course, that the presidency is somehow inconsequential or that change does not happen. It's just that the change rarely has much to do with campaign promises, and everything to do with unexpected events, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11.
Only the young and/or naive believe that Washington will ever change.
