After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.
The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.
What this doesn't tell us is anything about overall consumption of pornography, just online pornography. And the problem with that is that I would assume that online consumption of pornography is highest where offline availability of pornography is lowest.
And that could be an issue in a nation where seven of the last eight presidential elections have been won by the candidate widely perceived as cooler, more likable, more popular: Reagan, Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Bush (arguably primarily for these reasons), Bush, and Obama. (I consider the 1988 election a draw in terms of uncoolness.)
Let's think about this for a second. Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who finished sixth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, or the guy who was the president of Harvard Law Review? Who's more likely to be cool, a fighter jet pilot or a "community organizer"? Who's more likely to be cool, the guy who married the daughter of the local beer distributor, or the guy who married a lawyer?
Heck, I didn't vote for the guy, but one of the things I found endearing in him was that he acknowledged his geekiness. Remember this photo of him?
Now that's some major geekage there. And that's okay; a forty-something dad out for a ride with his family (that metal contraption at the back was attached to his daughter's bike) is not supposed to be cool.
Air America Listeners Want to Shred the Constitution, Torture People
And the amazing thing is that their editor-in-chief wants us to know about it:
Air American's aren't buying the Klein solution. They want the whole lot thrown in jail. No trial necessary! A whopping 90% of our 9000 respondents want to see Bush and Company pay for their crimes with either hard time in the pokey or hard time in the pokey after enhanced interrogation techniques. (Shocking!)
Glenn Greenwald blasts the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg for mentioning him in a post on how the one thing the far left and the far right agree on is anti-semitism.
His link to "Israel-bashing" in the penultimate sentence -- as in: "The Buchananites have even recruited Jews to do their Israel-bashing for them" -- is to an article I wrote for the January 26, 2009, issue of The American Conservative, an article in which I documented and criticized the lack of any disagreement or genuine debate in the U.S. Congress over America's ongoing, one-sided support for Israel generally and for Israel's attack on Gaza specifically.
Of course, this raises the obvious question. Whey would the American Conservative run an article by lefty writer Glenn Greenwald? And of course the answer is, because it was anti-Israel. Now I know that Greenwald loves to pretend he's a real conservative, but is there anybody out there still fooled by that?
The anti-Israel mob moans constantly when anybody says they're anti-semites, but you gotta wonder. How much time does Greenwald (or the American Conservative for that matter) spend covering the abuses of, say, Syria, versus those of Israel.
Greenwald notes triumphantly that these charges have less power than in the past. One of the reasons for that is that the Left has now so thoroughly absorbed the anti-semitism of the Buchananites that it's effectively the mainstream media position.
Time puts together a laughable list of its top 25 blogs. To save you some time, here are the "conservative" blogs that made it:
The Bleat
Whereas the portside is rather better represented:
Talking Points Memo Crooks & Liars Paul Krugman Huffington Post Andrew Sullivan
I'd suspect that some of the other blogs that I don't recognize incorporate some leftism into their content as well.
Where's Hot Air? About the only good thing you can say is that at least none of the conservative blogs were included in the "overrated" category, unlike Daily Kos.
That, in my opinion, is what faces the Republican Party unless Barack Obama does indeed turn out to be another Jimmy Carter. John Hawkins revisits 2008 and comes up with a laundry list of suggestions, most of which are pretty sensible. But I had to wince at this:
Additionally, Bush and his Republican allies in Congress systematically alienated their conservative supporters by almost totally ignoring their concerns on issues like spending and immigration, even to the point of gratuitously insulting conservatives who disagreed with them. The Party then topped this all off by choosing the single least popular man in the entire Republican Party with conservative activists, John McCain, as the party’s presidential nominee. This resulted in the GOP’s base becoming incredibly dispirited, which deprived the party of money, volunteers, and much needed defenders — particularly in 2008, a year when the mainstream media went ga-ga for Obama.
Well, gee, I can't think of anything I want more in my political party than the folks who get incredibly dispirited when the party nominates a candidate they don't like. Read him (and his supporters) out of the party! That's the way to victory!
Uh, no, it's not. There's an old joke about the easiest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large fortune and lose part of it. The easiest way to make a small political party is to start with a large political party and start kicking people out of it. If you want to know why I haven't been blogging much lately, it's because I spent the better half of 2007 and 2008 pulling arrows out of my back from my nominal allies. I no longer feel like the Republican Party (or the conservative blogosphere) has much room for me; and I backed the winner.
I gotta think that The Moderate Voice is a gag title with articles like this. After laying out the Biblical injunctions against charging of interest, Jazz Shaw opines:
But what really happens in the process of money being lent at interest? In essence, one party is drawing cash out of the system while doing nothing productive in the business in question. They create nothing, they provide no materials, they perform no labor, yet they draw profit out of the process.
The lender provides no materials? What does the borrower do with the money then, leave it in the bank account? The lender performs no labor? What about analyzing and papering the loan?
This is that ridiculous "lenders are parasites" nonsense that is so common among the members of the far left (but noticeably less frequent among "moderates").
But thanks to the centrists, we're getting the cheapskate version of the gargantuan version: They've done absolutely nothing to widen the terms of debate about what should go into the bill, and they've shaved off just enough money to reduce its effectiveness if Paul Krugman is right - but not nearly enough to make it fiscally prudent if the stimulus skeptics are right.
This means that if the damn thing doesn't work, we won't even know whom to blame. But it wouldn't be crazy to start by blaming the centrists.
I have a hard time believing that's intended seriously. It might be too small and it might be too large at the same time?
Here's something I did a few years ago on the NFL teams that have had the longest wait for a playoff appearance, playoff win, Super Bowl appearance and Super Bowl win, updated as of this season.
Longest Wait for a Playoff Appearance: Never made the playoffs (years missed in parentheses): Texans (7) 1999 Bills, Lions 2002 49ers, Browns, Raiders 2004 Rams 2005 Bengals, Broncos 2006 Jets, Chiefs, Bears, Saints 2007 Patriots, Jaguars, Cowboys, Packers, Seahawks, Bucs, Redskins 2008 Titans, Steelers, Dolphins, Chargers, Colts, Ravens, Giants, Panthers, Vikings, Cardinals, Falcons, Eagles
Longest Wait for a Playoff Win Never won a playoff game (years missed in parentheses): Texans (7) 1990 Bengals 1991 Lions 1993 Chiefs 1994 Browns 1995 Bills 2000 Dolphins 2001 Ravens 2002 49ers, Bucs, Raiders 2003 Titans 2004 Falcons, Jets, Rams, Vikings 2005 Panthers, Redskins, Broncos 2006 Colts, Saints, Bears 2007 Seahawks, Jaguars, Giants, Packers, Patriots, 2008 Cardinals, Chargers, Ravens, Eagles, Steelers
Longest Wait for a Super Bowl Appearance Never Appeared (years missed in parentheses): Lions (43), Saints (42), Browns (40), Jaguars (14) and Texans (7)
Note: Years given are the year as of the beginning of the NFL season. Per numerous league rulings the current Cleveland Browns are the same team that played in Cleveland until 1995, and they are considered to have gone dormant as a franchise for three seasons.
Observations: In the last ten years, every team has made the playoffs at least once with the exception of Houston, which has only been in existence for seven of those years. In the past 12 seasons, over half (18) of the NFL teams have made it to the Super Bowl. Joe Montana led Kansas City to two playoff wins in 1993; aside from those games the Chiefs have not won a postseason game since Super Bowl IV.
I love this post, because it exposes how "moderate" the liberals over there are:
My advice to Joan Walsh would be: If in fact Limbaugh and Palin are the new face of the GOP; if in fact they are the new leaders of the Republican party; if in fact 55 percent of Republicans think their party should be more like Palin; if it is going to be “Limbaugh-Palin ‘12″, or “Palin-Limbaugh ‘12,” just relax and enjoy the ride, it’s going to be great—and I wish Democrats could actually take credit for promoting or influencing such a magnificent leadership for the GOP.
Now, a real "moderate" voice would be decrying (perceived) extremism in the Republican Party, whereas a liberal would be loving it (at least, right up to the point where the Republicans get elected, when suddenly there would be shrieks of dismay).
Back in 2004, a smart, good-looking moderate Republican Hispanic ran for Congress. At the time Victor Elizalde was just under 40 years old and working as an executive at a big-time Hollywood studio. As an ethnic minority, a family man and a rare open conservative in an industry dominated by liberals, Mr. Elizalde represented hope and change for the Republican Party.
Yet because he was running for Henry A. Waxman´s safe seat, Mr. Elizalde got no support from the Republican Party . In fact, no one in the party´s leadership took notice of him. As a result Mr. Waxman trounced Mr. Elizalde with 71 percent of the vote.
The "cretinous b*stards" who run the Republican Party will gladly throw away millions to support useless RINOs like Lincoln Chafee, but let a real conservative fight to win a primary, and watch how those overpaid geniuses at the GOPHQ "cocktail party" treat him like a leper.
The idea that there was some level of support that the GOP could have given Elizalde that would have resulted in a win is ridiculous. In Hollywood? McCain brings up the case of Lt. Col. Allan West. West at least appears to have had a chance to win; he lost by 10 percentage points which is not an unsurmountable deficit.
Chafee is a liberal weenie, no denying that. But anybody who thinks a "real conservative" is going to win in Rhode Island, one of the most liberal states in the union, needs to have his head examined.
