Friday, May 28, 2010

Sestak Scandal Explained

I have been snoozing through the Sestak scandal. So the White House offered Mr. Sestak a "high up" job if he dropped out of the primary race against Arlen Specter. another back room deal, so what?

Now I understand. 18 U.S.C.§ 600 provides:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
As explained by Jonathon Adler on

The initial White House response was to deny that Sestak was ever offered a job, yet Sestak stuck to his story. So someone was lying. After a week or so of Administration officials saying nothing more than there nothing “inappropriate” occurred, the President has now promised an “official” response. Oddly, the President insists that “nothing improper” happened, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide the details — details he should have at his command if he is in a position to assure the press that “nothing improper” occurred.

In the meantime, the Washington Post reports Sestak’s brother (and campaign counsel) has recently met with White House folks about the allegations and the planned White House response. What’s the point of this if not to make sure everyone gets their stories straight so the issue will go away.
So, the bottom line is that the White House offer was criminal.

Anyone willing to bet that White House lackey A.G. Eric Holder will prosecute either the crime or the cover-up? Me neither

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Alabama Water

There must be something in the water in Alabama that we desperately need in the North. We previously reported on the great campaign ad of Dale Peterson. Here are more:

Rick Barber (Campaigning for Congress):

Tim James (Campaigning for Governor):

Anti Bradely Byrne (Campaigning for Governor):

Youg Boozer (Campaigning for State Treasurer):

Obama Mangles Laws of Economics

President Obama proved his lack of understanding of economics when he addressed a group of small business owners at the White House. Of course he was trying to pander to them, but his Marxist understanding* of economics (which mounts to a complete failure of understanding) came through (from Michelle Malkin):

Being a successful small business person isn’t just about collecting a profit or outperforming your competition. It’s about contributing to the success of this country’s economy.
Being a successful business owner is exactly about making a profit ... so you can grow, supply more and better goods and services to customers at a better price, and generally help the economy and provide employment.

This should not be an issue of big government versus small government. This is an issue that involves putting our government on the side of the small-business owners who create most of the jobs in this country.
Absolutely wrong, of course. Government should not be "on the side" of anybody. It should get out of the way of all businesses, large and small.

I want to acknowledge a couple folks before we get started. First of all, we’ve got some special guests who are here from wonderful states. They are doing great work. We’re very, very proud of them — Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.
He is praising the governor of Michigan, a state that is shrinking in population due to its anti-business, pro-union policies and politics.

The speech would be humorous if not so sad.

* I am not saying Obama is a Marxist per se. I am saying that Karl Marx is where President Obama derives his understanding of economics.

Monday, May 24, 2010

More MSNBC Fraud

MSNBC fraudulent? Who knew? Well, I did here, The Incredibly Dishonest MSNBC.

MSNBC is at it again. No scruples at all, it seems, when it released falsely edited transcripts of the far left Rachel Maddow interview with Rand Paul. Here is part of the description of the issue:

I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form...

If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes". Here it is, cued up to the exact moment:

It was merely some sort of insignificant vocalization to maintain the flow of conversation that was already made difficult by the satellite delay. Now he WAS laying out what the arguments would be for "yes", but he never actually said "yes". It makes a BIG difference to insert that word there.
MSNBC continues to dig its own grave, obliterating any trust that any reasonable person could have in it.

Moron of the Day: Sandra Soto Ph.D.

Above is a picture of a douche-bag professor intent on warping the minds of impressionalbe children. She used a commencement speech at Arizona University to make an ill considered political speech. Agree with her or not, she usesd exceedingly poor judgment to ruin a perfectly good commencement.

It will come as no surprise that she specializes in identity studies, e.g., gender studies, chicano studies, queer theory, etc.

To their credit, the students roundly booed her, watch:

It is good to see that Arizona University did not turn its student body into a bunch of mushheads.

Arizona Immigration Law Controversy

Famously, US Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano oppose Arizona'a immigration law, but admit they have not read it.

Arizona Governor justly lampoons them below:

Well, here it is! Read the bill, before actually having an opinion on it.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News has the following analysis:

KELLY: Not only did I read the law, but I actually read case law, U.S. Supreme Court history, and other interpretations of that law. And I have to tell you, this is the first time I've taken a seriously hard look at the claim that this is just like the federal law, and the claim that, you know, by the detractors that it's actually discrimination or will lead to discrimination more so than the federal law. And my legal opinion is, it is a little bit like the federal law, but if anything, it's less problematic. Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled a few years ago that under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers? For no reason. They don't have to have reasonable suspicion.

Read more:

Saturday, May 22, 2010 Is Up and Running

Glenn Beck now has his weinerfacts web site responding to the ridiculous attacks by congressman Anthony Weiner.

We have previously reported on Mr. Weiner's whining. If you want to know what kind of guy Mr. Weiner is, you can see for yourself here.

Mr. Weiner demonstrates himself to be a total doofus. Congratulations to him.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Moron of the Day: Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Jr.

This is truly weird. Mayor Ricard Daley demonstrates how effective gun control is by threatening to stick a bayonet and bullet up the butt of a reporter. Don't believe me? Watch for yourself:


How effective can Chicago's gun ban be if it fails to keep guns out of the hands of its nut-job mayor?

Mayor Daley demonstrates that reporters need guns to protect themselves from ... Mayor Daley.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Life Created in the Lab?

The BBC reports:

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.

The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.

The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.

The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.
I think we already have too many synthetic organisms and they are primarily in Congress.

Another Question for Horowitz

This is another questioner from the Horowitz speech at UCSD, but funnier. Listen, if you can get past the hideous valley-girl accent of the questioner.

Unfortunately for the questioner, even if the question were good, he manner of speaking detracts tremendously. If the lefties think Sarah Palin's accent makes her sound like a hick, this student's accent makes her sound like an air-head.

Like But, the, like, question wasn't, like, all that good, like, either. Likey-like.

Mass Teacher Firing Update: Teachers Rehired

In case you were wondering about the mass teacher firings I reorted on here and here, the union gave in and the teachers have been rehired.

It just takes the guts to go forward, I guess.

More on the story plus video here.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Moron of then Day: Co-Awarded to John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

This is unbelievable. That three stooges spooked Iraq out of tying up its oilfields to produce oil through an American company, Exxon Mobil. Instead the Iraqis inked a 20 year exclusive deal with China.

It’s the classic American political tale of self-loathing crafted by the usual suspects. With its government firm and its security at its post-surge best, the Iraqi government needed to quickly bring its oilfields online. It desperately needed the revenues. The summer of 2008 saw oil prices above $100 per barrel and Americans were paying $4 per gallon at the pump.

The best in the business – the best in the world – is Exxon-Mobil. And the government of Iraq turned to America’s Exxon-Mobil to bring undeveloped and underdeveloped fields online to rejuvenate its own revenue sources and ween itself and its people off of American aid.

But three American Senators would have none of it. Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) sent a public letter to the Bush administration’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, imploring her to derail the Iraqi deal. (See: ‘In China We Trust’: Senators Closed Door to US Oil Investment In Iraq.) As the Senate troika stated, “It is our fear that this action by the Iraqi government could further deepen political tensions in Iraq and put our service members in even great danger.”

You see, these three American Senators insisted that Iraq shall have no revenues until it passed an oil revenue sharing law that met their distant standards. Or at least, Iraq should have certainly had no additional revenue. Their letter was dismissed out of hand in Washington. But in Iraq, the desired consequences of the letter took hold. The Iraqi government became spooked as the reportage of the letter turned, as one would expect, into wrangling and infighting by those seeking to leverage it to their advantage in the hotly contested revenue sharing process.


Remember, Iraq was desperate for income; and oil is, was and will be for some time it’s primary resource. There was no time – nor a need – to wait for a final agreement before beginning to rebuild its oil industry. From the Iraqi perspective, despite the myopic gaming of American politicians, there was no reason under the relentless Iraqi sun not to sign a deal – immediately – with some other willing, unconfined partner.

So what did Iraq do? It governed itself where it could do so without the meddling of the Kerry-Schumer-McCaskill Troika. If these American Senators wanted to make a big stink about its selection of Exxon because it was an American firm, Iraq would turn elsewhere. And who stepped up? China and it’s China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Name ring a bell? That’s because CNOOC is the Chinese state owned arm that tried to buy America’s Unocal. And Marathon. And Hess.
Read it all here.

Were these three morons acting in the best interests of the United States? Hell no.

Now, China controls the oil out of Iraq, a country we conquered and continue to occupy.

If only there were a way to strip these morons of their respective citizenships and deport them. If only.

Ray Stevens Speaks Again

This needs no explanation. Enjoy.

Lib Campbell Brown Chased from CNN by Low Ratings

Campell Brown, the liberal news anchor on the 8 p.m. time slot of CNN, is out. Her ratings were invisible compared to competitors Bill O'Reilly, crazy Keith Olbermann, and Nancy "True Hyped-up Crime" Grace.

Why? Ratings. As she put it in her resignation letter, "not enough people want to watch my program...." About right.

When we get more news from another network's opinion shows -- like O'Reilly's -- you know that a network is in trouble.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Free Market Principles Arise in U.K.

In a heavily regulated market, a company has to find some way to compete, a way to stand out in the crowd. Hence we get stories like this one from the Daily Mail. The free market peeks through:
It was a cheeky and unexpected sight that greeted commuters as they boarded a Tube into work.

It was a cheeky and unexpected sight that greeted commuters as they boarded a Tube into work.

But the four naked men and women certainly livened up the usually dull journey for many people – attracting gasps from stunned workers.

Carrying handbags or briefcases to cover their modesty – and wearing shoes – the nudes travelled on escalators and rode in the carriages as though their lack of suitable attire was completely normal.

But, rather than trying to start a new trend on the London Underground, the group were promoting a TV series which sees staff at struggling businesses helping to turn their company around.

Steven Suphi, behaviour change specialist and leadership guru, believes stripping off in the office will help boost employees' confidence and develop trust.

You know you are going to view the rest of the images here.

"Epistemic Closure'" Update: Sanchez Responds

When it comes to the Cato Institute, I agree with far more than I disagree. when I heard Julian Sanchez on the Cato podcast discussing his theory of "Epistemic Closure," I was shocked by some of the things that he said and I need to set him straight.

Mr. Sanchez coined the words epistemic closure to describe the effect of a closed circle of information. When one gets one's information about the world from all the same sources, who all agree with each other, and who cite each other as sources, one necessarily ends up with false beliefs endemic to that circle of information. For example, a conservative may get information from Hannity, Malkin, the Washington Times, and National Review. This closed circle of media cites each other and even if a story is false, it gains traction from each source citing the other.

This is an interesting idea and I think it has some merit. Mr. Sanchez cites some of the alleged false beliefs as Obama not being born in the United States. OK, I agree that is false and I have blogged about that here and here.

He cites the "death panels" in the health care bills. Here Mr. Sanchez is wrong. The label "death panels" was a dramatization, perhaps, and maybe even melodramatic. Of course, no panel was created by that name. However, the label made the forceful point that under a government run system with limited resources, government bureaucrats would inevitably decide what conditions got treated and which did not (i.e., act as a, you guessed it, "death panel"). In a completely free market system, cost wold act as an invisible death panel. With our insurance based system, insurance companies act as death panels.

In the legislation as passed, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will be tasked with rationing health care. Death panel.

Mr. Sanchez is also wrong, in my observation, when he accuses conservatives of being more affected with epistemic closure (I hate that name). In my observation, the liberals with there more widespread liberal media are just as affected, if not more so. They pass around just as many false beliefs, such as the free market does not work; government will get it right this time (applicable to every new government program) even through it has no history of getting it right, and so on. To be persuaded that conservatives pass around more false beliefs than liberals, I would have to see studies, studies by people who recognize that "death panels" are a dramatization of reality, not a false belief.

The base notion of epistemic closure -- that people who get their information from a limited circle of media that agree with the person's worldview will tend to have false beliefs consistent with the worldview -- is probably essentially correct. It is important to expand one's sources of information.

Update: Julian Sanchez responds to my criticism of the death panels issue:

It’s worth remembering what the original “death panel” claim from Palin was:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

That is not a dramatization or an exaggeration; it’s an insane fabrication. Asked to defend her claim, Palin herself didn’t refer to the IAPB, but to a pretty unobjectionable provision dealing with wholly voluntary end-of-life counseling. But even if she had been talking about the IAPB, as you yourself note, any healthcare system involving third-party payments will necessarily involve some entity (or “panel” if you prefer) making very general decisions about which treatments are covered under which circumstances. I suppose you can choose to call these “death panels” if you’re so inclined, but they bear no resemblance to the ghoulish star chamber described above, evaluating each individual’s social productivity before deciding whether they’re worthy of care.

None of which is to defend ObamaCare, of course, but these bizarre claims make it harder to have a conversation about the serious objections to the bill.


Julian Sanchez
Research Fellow
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

Monday, May 17, 2010

Obama's Aunt Granted Asylum

A United States Immigration Court has granted asylum to Barack Obama's illegal immigrant aunt. According to the AP:

The basis for her asylum request hadn't been made public. People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.
At first blush this l looks like a who-you-know decisions, but I am not so sure.

There may be a Barack Obama connection, but not the one that is obvious. If I were arguing her case, I would suggest that deporting her threatens national security, because it makes her vulnerable to kidnapping and subsequent blackmail of the president over the safety of his aunt.

I would not make a big deal about this decision on favoritism grounds.

Why the GOP Should Block Kagan

I am not emotionally a Republican, although I vote in the Republican primaries around home. But the Republican party is the best chance of fighting the Obmanation slide toward more and more government. However, I boldly propose a plan for the Republicans in Congress. They are outnumbered, but not out-gunned, thanks to the filibuster threat in the Senate.

The Republicans can and should act unanimously to block the Kagan Supreme Court nomination. They should do so for many reasons, including big-picture tactics.

1. Elena Kagan does not have a Supreme Court caliber mind or and is not a Supreme Court caliber person. Her writing is uninspired and uninspiring. Her work as Solicitor General before the court was lackluster, at best.

2. Her writings show a decided socialist bent. She may or may not be the best anyone can expect from an Obama appointee (at least she is not a Maoist or self-avowed Communist), but she is still far, far from acceptable.

3. Set the stage for repeal of the health care bill. The Republicans need to demonstrate to Obama that he really must work with them if he want to get anything done. Obama has threatened to veto the repeal. So what. Let Obama know by this show of strength and solidarity that any veto of the health care repeal will be met with complete stagnation on any of Obama's policies, beginning right now.

4. Force Obama to moderate his far left ideology beginning NOW.

Blocking the nomination of an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee send a very strong message.

Send the message and send it whenever they must, although ideally the message is sent right after the November elections (which would be closer to the health care repeal bill hitting his desk).

Regardless of what happens with Kagan, the GOP needs to send the message, the Obama will get nothing important through the Senate without him signing the repeal.

Best Political Ad of the year (so far): Dale Peterson

I probably don't agree with all of his political positions, but this is a great ad.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Muslims Behaving Badly

This is a clip of Muslims trying desperately to prove that they are not fit for civilized society, certainly not any civilized society which values free speech.

They succeed in that proof.

Mark Golblatt at

There are times for interfaith dialogue, for mutual respect and compassion. This isn’t one of them. Shahzad’s car bomb was parked in front of the offices of Viacom, the parent company of the Comedy Central, which airs the program South Park. Last month, the creators of South Park decided to poke fun at the Prophet Muhammad—just as they’d poked fun at Moses and Jesus many times in the past. Death threats followed. It’s too early to connect the Times Square bomb plot to the South Park blasphemy, but police have not ruled it out.


Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam. Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough. But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”

Anti-Semitic Candor by MSA Representative

David Horowitz of the exposes a terrorist sympathizer at a speech in California:

Eric Holder Won't Say "Radical Islam"

While it is always fun to watch a liberal sqirm, this clip is, to me, quite frightening. It is obvious that Mr. Holder wants to put his head firmly in the sand (or elsewhere that the sun does not reach) to assure political correctness.

Memo to Mr. Holder: Radical Islam is behind nearly all if not all terrorist bombings and attempted bombings in the United states in the last 10 years.

How can you solve a problem that you are afraid to name?

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Laws of Economics Trump Entitlement Programs

With the exponential growth of entitlement programs, I have come into contact with the recipients of government aid, welfare, disability, Medicaid, more and more frequently. The most consistent thing I have noticed is that in most, but not all cases, the person needed some sort of assistance and in nearly all cases, the recipients has assisted themselves by cheating on the rules in some way.

Sometimes it is cash work "under the table." Sometimes it is phony rent receipts. Sometimes the rules discourage marriage by couples living together, because one partner would lose the benefits of the public dole. Sometimes it is lackadaisical efforts to find a job before unemployment runs out.

Usually these folks are not all that shy about their falsifications. Fraud is so common.

The lesson here is, again economics. If the government has a pot of money and a program to give it away, folks will go after that money by fair means or foul. Pots of government money create industries and the industrious who work to get their hands on the money.

They may not be honest, but they are not lazy or stupid either. They are industrious about getting their hands on money, an job they obviously deem more profitable for the effort involved than other endeavors.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Laws of Economics Trump War on Drugs

Continuing on a theme, Congress cannot repeal or amend the laws of economics any more than it can repeal or amend the law of gravity. The war on drugs is akin to an attempt to amend the laws of economics.

As long as there is a demand for mind altering drugs, there will be suppliers. The war on drugs makes it risker and more difficult (but obviously not impossible) for suppliers to supply the drugs. The war attack the supply.

The laws of economics kick in. Where there is a demand, but supply is limited, prices go up. As long as prices exceed costs to the supplier, the supplier can make a profit. Where there is a profit to be made, folks will fill the breach and make it.

But what are the other effects of the higher prices? With an addictive substance, demand is far less responsive to prices. The addicted will pay whatever the cost.

How? How will the addicted get the money?

Some of the addicted are employed and functional. They will earn the money, perhaps neglecting other obligations to pay for the drugs. What about the other addicted who don't earn the money?

The will burglarize and/or rob the rest of us if they can't get their fix money any other way.

Theft, including theft by violence is one of the may prices we pay for the War on drugs. We all pay it. We pay it in higher insurance premiums. We pay it in the loss of property (and lives) to theft and violence.

That is not even counting the deaths and kidnappings in the struggles between illegal drug cartels that exist only because of the war on drugs.

When will the government learn that it simply cannot repeal or amend the laws of economics? How many more people will die as a result of the government's stupidity?

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Laws of Economics Trump Laws of Men

This is a lesson that goofy liberals (uh, I mean, progressives) never learn. The laws of economics are like the law of gravity. They cannot be repealed. They cannot be amended.

The Detroit News is reporting, surprise, surprise, that landscaping workers would rather keep their unemployment than return to work. Refusal to work is the economic incentive created by the extended unemployment benefits enacted by Congress.

Only a moron -- or a "progrsesive" -- would think the world would work otherwise.

Elena Kagan, SCOTUS Nominee -- Updated

At first blush, Elena Kagan is at best an unimpressive nominee for justice of the United States Supreme Court. She has no track record as a judge and there are plenty of abysmal things in the record that she does have.

For starters, I would not trust any nominee by this president. He has surrounded himself with self-avowed Communists and Maoists. He is a seriously flawed man who thinks himself to be the transformer of America. Think cartoon.

Elena Kagan has many faults as a nominee.

She reportedly kicked military recruiters off the Harvard Campus.

According to Glenn Beck, she said in the Solicitor General confirmation hearings that people who are "suspected" for contributing financially to terrorist groups should be held without bail or trial.

She is accused of coddling leftist plagiarists at Harvard.

She has written that the right to free speech should be balanced against "social costs."

The Washington post has collected ssome of Ms. Kagan's writings. As I sample them, they are bland and uninspired. She is not a great writer by any means. The writings are, by and large, sleep-inducing.

I do not have a problem with Supreme court Justice nominees without prior judicial experience.

Elena Kagan is an uninspired and uninspiring progressive. She will probably sail through her nomination hearings on the theory that it could be worse. It could always be worse. I hope she does not sail through. I hope that the Senate Republicans send a clear message that whoever is appointed should be moderate, and she is not.

I wish it were someone older, much older. The term of the appointment is too long to appoint someone so mediocre.

Update: Unimpressive oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Further update: I am not alone in thinking Kagan's argument was unimpressive.

Monday, May 10, 2010


Due to the "too many things to do" syndrome, this blog is taking a vacation (not me, the blog). Check back from time to time, please.

Friday, May 07, 2010

Moron of the Day: Andre Carson (D-IN)

Himself making false slurs about tea partiers supposedly making racial comments, Rep. Andre Carson called the tea parties "one of the largest threats to our internal security."


Does any sane person consider these ladies as a threat to internal security?

Maybe Rep Carson misssed David Letterman's interview which I blogged about here.

Do't believe me. Rep. Carson's accusation of tea parties being a national intelligence threat is recored here:

Do you know what the real threat to internal security is? Morons like Carson getting elected to Congress.

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Interview With Armed Citizen in Walgreen's Gunfight

Worth watching. Harry J. McCullough III of Omaha, Nebraska, did everything right except that he did not have his concealed carry permit. He had the permit required to openly carry a gun in Omaha. He saved his own life and the lives of the innocents around him, although he killed the robber who wielded a short (sawed-off?) shotgun. It is not clear whether Mr. McCullough's gun was concealed or openly carried at the time

Video here.

The shooting happened April 26, 2010. The police ticket Mr. McCullough on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, but ultimately, McCullough was not charged. The police confiscated his handgun and have refused to allow him to register the replacement gun purchased from donations given to him by the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association. Story here.

Economics for Public Officials

It has become painfully obvious that our elected politicians as a group lack any basic understanding of economics. That is obvious, because their public statements and the laws they pass reflect that ignorance. Here is a video that every elected politician should see, or rather, study:

The demagogues of the Democratic Party like to howl about how lowering capital gains taxes favor "the rich."

No. Lowering capital gains taxes favors job creation and the economy overall.

Creepy Government Ad

Does anyone besides me find this Pennsylvania government ad creepy?

Moron of the Day: Michael Bloomberg

He has many times been a finalist for his foolish and illegal anti-gun activities, but New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg finally wins the award for his speculation on the New York car bomber last weekend: "If I had to guess -- 25 cents -- this would be exactly that, somebody ... home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something."

Bloomberg is thinking tea partier, no doubt. Their rallies have been so violent!

Instead, the "suspect" was Pakistan-born, naturalized American citizen, a follower of the Religion of Peace.

What? A Muslim? Really? Who saw that coming?

Read more: Katie Couric:

Gender Silliness