Okay, folks. Time to stop shying away from asking these questions for fear of looking silly, paranoid, or — potentially — downright deranged. I mean, shit, if Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison can do it, why not us, right? So answer me this, somebody: Did Barack Obama really attend Columbia? And if so, where’s the proof? I’ll admit to not having looked into this at all myself, so I can

Just thought I should remind you. — Oh. And I think now’s a good time to watch Brazil, if you haven’t yet done so. You’ll thank me later.

…which, for Democrats, is a feature! Fresh on the heels of Obama’s decision to have several newspapers who endorsed McCain removed from his plane, there’s this: “FCC Probe Signals Democratic Attack Machine”: A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington. The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation’s

Belief in God? Silly. Belief that your energy field is tainted by elation and hubris, and that you may be an unwitting agent in the plan of the fates to thwart the return of the Once and Future King? Evidently quite reasonable. Or, to put it another way: It’s official. We are Oprah Nation: In the den of his home in New Hope, Pa., a liberal Democrat sits tap-tapping at

Jesus didn’t tap: Decked out in sandals, a robe, fake beard and thorns, the 13-year-old joined 500 other students at his school’s Halloween celebration, and on this day, he was the chosen one – to go home. “It was offensive to some students,” Woinski said, when asked what school officials told him the reason for being sent home was. […] “I don’t think I overreacted,” Principal Joan Broe told CBS

Better me than him, people. Think about it. ***new posts below. Help yourselves. Spread the wealth!***

…Otherwise, there’s just really no explanation for the lengths his campaign is going to talk around the obvious. — Well, unless we’ve been taking his whole “I’d really like to win this thing” business far too literally.

Kim Crawford, whose O’Connor-inspired post I linked here a week or so back, responds to his liberal “critics” — most notably James Wolcott and Andrew Sullivan. — Both of whom, let’s face it, are approaching the latter Truman Capote-does-the-Merv-Griffin-show-in-the-hopes-someone-of-note-will-come-to-his-parties portions of their professional lives. May their fine terrycloth housecoats absorb their weepy despair in cool cotton comfort, is all I can offer them by way of commiseration. Though in a

Give Jack Cashill credit: attempts to get him off this story by progressive “intellectuals” intent on declaring it absurd on its face have done nothing to dissuade the professor from continuing his investigation. In my first post on the subject, I noted that I was unconvinced, at least to that point, by what Cashill had uncovered. Still, were his charges true, I noted that, under the conditions of such a