I don't have much to add about Mitt Romney's assertion
that he doesn't need to worry about the very poor on account of the
safety net he aims to dismantle and the Democrats he aims to unseat.
Except that you really should read Gail Collins.
My problem with the National Prayer Breakfast isn't simply a secularist one, i.e.
government officials should avoid any event with a smack of
sectarianism. What I object to is the political exploitation of the
importance of prayer in American life.
Weeks ago I ranted
about Fox News's absurd piece on how the new Muppets movie is out to turn
children into free-enterprise-hating liberals. Now the film's about to
come out in the U.K., and naturally Kermit and Piggy are doing press
around the release. Turns out they're perfectly capable of defending
themselves on their own.
It's not what the headlines are highlighting, but Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return
includes one impressive fact: his charitable contributions amounted to
$7 million. I know, this hardly put him at risk of losing one of his houses
and ending up out on the street till his driver could pick him up and
take him to one of his other houses. Still, giving away almost a third
of your income is nothing to sneeze at.
Among those of us who maintain that not everything the federal
government does should be either privatized or eliminated, it's common
to point out that income tax rates are a lot lower than they used to be,
especially but not only for the rich.
Till today, I had no idea how much I rely on Wikipedia for my day-to-day work. I imagine I'm not alone in this realization. No, the online encyclopedia is never the endpoint of serious research, but it's become the best starting point for exploring pretty much any factual question that comes up.
The New York Times has never been exactly hesitant to publish articles that look cluelessly down on the cultural life of U.S. cities with fewer than 8 million residents. So I'm not sure I'd blame nepotism alone for the A. G. Sulzberger clunker the paperpublished this week.
I enjoyed Charles McGrath's profile of Stephen Colbert.
McGrath's framework is that there used to be two Colberts, the man
himself and the blowhard-pundit character. Now there's a third: a real
live political actor. I think that's all about right. But I don't know why McGrath writes off Colbert's 2010 congressional testimony as part of the old paradigm.
It's rare for me to disagree with Mark Silk and rarer still for me to agree with Erick Erickson. But that's where I'm at when it comes to the politics of Rick Santorum's strong showing in Iowa on Tuesday.