Mallard Fillmore

[CitizenDan]

I can't think of a more perfect antidote to all the 9/11 commemmorative drivel than this.

[Bennett Cerf]

I wasn't even aware of this particular bias of the liberal MSM.

[lukpac]

And is that due to how well the government pays or the types of jobs the government has?

And listing "BEA" as a source isn't very helpful.

[Bennett Cerf]

I think the Cato Institute is the real source, with Tinsley finding it at TownHall.com.

[krabapple]

Great, then let's reform the civil service *and* the society-warping wage gap in the private sector.

That is what the concerned citizens at Cato are calling for, right?

[Rspaight]

That's ignoring the real outrage, which is of course that Tinsley gets paid *anything at all* for his zero-effort cut-n-paste doodles.

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

[Bennett Cerf]

Goddamn Democrats.

[lukpac]

Goddamn Democrats.

Hasn't this rise in average wages happened much faster under a Republican House, Senate and President?

[Bennett Cerf]

Three weeks from now, I expect the duck to take on the latest patriotic clothing scandal.

[Bennett Cerf]

Hasn't this rise in average wages happened much faster under a Republican House, Senate and President?

Yes, but George Soros is pulling the strings.

[lukpac]

Three weeks from now, I expect the duck to take on the latest patriotic clothing scandal.

This might make his head explode, though:

This, according to the ACLU of Michigan, may violate the students' rights, particularly because it allows students to wear clothing that encourages school spirit but bans other forms of expression. ACLU officials have said that they plan to look into the constitutionality of the dress code.

[MK]

A bit OT, but I remember reading somewhere that the ACLU (at least the national organization...not state chapters like the ACLU of Michigan) became far more politicized in the early 90's...that's probably too vague, but I think the idea was, when you look at the cases they accepted and the briefs they submitted, political motivation became a bigger factor. This became a big deal with more controversial cases, like R.A.V. vs. Minneapolis. It involved a kid who burned a cross on an African-American family's lawn. The motivation was pretty clear, there was no doubt regarding who did it and why. The problem was, the kid was charged with a poorly written hate crime law - as written, the law was incredibly broad and intruded on the first amendment. Since that was the only law used against the kid (they could've charged him with vandalism and arson, among others), if law was found unconstitutional, it meant a complete acquittal. You can imagine how that was portrayed in the media, and how any argument that could lead to the kid's acquittal could be misinterpeted as racism. Even worse were individuals who were actually motivated by prejudice in their defense of the kid, and when they became vocal about it, it undermined any legal argument regarding the viability of the ordinance involved.

Anway, the ACLU was involved and submitted an amicus brief for the defense (something the defense had requested), but rather deal with the first amendment issue at the heart of the case - i.e. the actual ordinance used against the kid - the ACLU wrote an awful brief that pretty much dealt with the political controversy, not the actual legal issues of the case.

[Bennett Cerf]

What the...?

[lukpac]

I'm sure Mallard will offer a witty clarification tomorrow.