First up, new Tron merchandise including the street bike armor. Very cool idea. And why the heck wouldn't you get the light-up version. Of course, for me, $1000 for the entire ensemble, or just $500 for the jacket is way overpriced for something that's intended to leave it's mark on the road so you don't leave yours (as my motorcycle instructor said when asked about why he wore a jacket to ride, "Better to leave dead cow than my own skin on the pavement"). (point to by Dan)
An article on the heritage that Glen Beck embraces and continues. It was a nutcase argument back in the 60s, it's still a nut case argument.
A take on the whole if you raise taxes people have less incentive to work, which I've called bullshit before. Really? It's like the person on Scalzi's blog that liked to say if a "friend, who makes $70,000, and his wife takes another $70,000, that in reality, after she covers (daycare quoted at a rate you could hire a nanny for, and covering all the extra expenses like 2nd car, gas, driving, taxes, etc, like everything we all work for in the first place) would only get $10,000 free and clear at the end of the year, so she won't do it." What a lazy ass argument that is. Really, an extra $10,000 free and clear and you don't think it's worth it?
The NPR story about corporate spending. Two take aways, 1) those people who supported the Citizen's United ruling and said, "It won't really change a thing" lied (either knowingly or out of naivety) and 2) Another reason why the argument of "industry self regulation" is also horse pucky (notice how the forms are not completed, because there is no penalty for not completing them, and there's no government oversight to make sure they do fill out the paperwork properly).
So much for the principled stand against earmarks. Also, promising someone a committee seat (article is on John Boener promising new candidates seats on the Appropriations Committee, where they can steer money to their districts, all while saying they're fighting earmarks) when you're 1) supporting an untested candidate and 2) not in power yet shows an immense hubris and willingness to say "Screw you, I've got mine." Also, there's the quote "Boehner spokesman Michael Steel (Boehner's press secretary, not That Other Michael Steel that's the NRC Chairman) reminds me that the Republicans are currently operating a self-imposed earmark moratorium," to which I call bullshit. My congressman, a Republican through and through, has one earmark for our village (and a few more scattered around his district - ours is for a stop light at our school intersection which is a whole 'nother discussion). So, yeah, self-imposed moratorium my ass.
So, when you get nominated with your whackaloon ideas, I guess running in the general on them isn't such a good idea. Then of course is the wow, there was bad feedback, maybe I should moderate only to be left behind by your supporters. And that's another problem I see with the extremist agenda. While there's a lot of talk about how the Tea Party is all about the fiscal stuff and yet they've only helped nominate solidly social conservatives. While many who support the movement are just "fiscally minded" it's the other crap your nominated candidates and nominal spokespeople bring to the table that worries a lot of America. Of course, there's even darker shades to this.