3:10 PM, 7 March 2014
Jim Miller on Politics
jimxc1 at gmail.com
Jewish World Review
Monsters and Critics
Real Clear Politics
*Daily Mail (UK)
Globe and Mail (CA)
Investor's Business Daily
Le Figaro (FR)
Le Monde (FR)
The Local (Sweden)
New York Times
The New Yorker
The Spectator (UK)
U. S. News
Wall Street Journal
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Census Quick Facts
Dave Leip's Election Atlas
How Stuff Works
ABC News Note
The American Spectator
Front Page Magazine
New York Sun
The Weekly Standard
My Group Blog:Sound Politics
The American Empire
Clear Fog Blog
Federal Way Conservative
Public Interest Transportation Forum
Northwest Progressive Institute
Washington Policy Center
West Sound Politics
Zero Base Thinking
Ace of Spades HQ
Armies of Liberation
La Shawn Barber
Daniel W. Drezner
Flares into Darkness
The Long War Journal
Grasping Reality With Both Hands
The Jawa Report
Little Green Footballs
Minding the Campus
*The Monkey Cage Mudville Gazette
No Watermelons Allowed
*The Optimistic Conservative
The Ornery American
Power and Control
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Screw Loose Change
Sense of Events
The Spirit of Enterprise
Stability For Our Time
Sweetness & Light
Taking Hayek Seriously
Talking Points Memo
VDH's Private Papers
Winds of Change
Five Feet of Fury
The Devil's Excrement
Venezuela News and Views
Butterflies and Wheels
Egyptian Sand Monkey
*Le Monde Watch
This is Zimbabwe
Science Blogs:The Blackboard
Cliff Mass Weather
In The Pipeline
Roger Pielke Jr.
A Voyage To Arcturus
Watts Up With That?
Media Blogs:Andrew Malcolm
*White House Dossier
I Wasn't Going To Mention This Mistake, which seems like the kind of slip all of us make from time to time, but then the White House decided to try to hide it.
The White House stenographer appears to have given President Obama a little too much "respect."What's interesting is that he recognized his mistake, but didn't correct it at the time.
(Some of you will want to hear the song, having been reminded of it. Here's a later, live version, and here's an explanation for why the song is important to some people: Franklin's version "was a landmark for the feminist movement".
There are many songs of hers that I like better, for example, "You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman".)
- 3:10 PM, 7 March 2014 [link]
"HHS Doesn't Know How Many Uninsured Are Signing Up For Obamacare" The main purpose of ObamaCare, you will recall, was to insure the uninsured.
So, how many of the uninsured have signed up? They don't know. In fact, they aren't even keeping a count of that number.
How many uninsured people are signing up?Gary Cohen is "the soon-to-be-former director of the main implementation office at the Health and Human Services Department", so, if he doesn't know, most likely no one knows. Officially.
But the findings of two recent surveys can not bring cheer to Cohen, and the rest at Health and Human Services.
The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway in signing up Americans who lack insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal, according to a pair of new surveys.To be fair, insuring the uninsured is not an easy thing to do, as any insurance salesman can tell you. But we would have been better off, in the long run, if those backing the bill had been more honest about that difficulty.
- 9:38 AM, 7 March 2014 [link]
So What Did Obama And Putin Talk About During That Hour? I can't be the only person who is puzzled by the length of this conversation.
President Barack Obama held an hour-long telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday afternoon in an effort to resolve the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, according to the White House.Urging Putin to "work towards a diplomatic resolution" would take one minute, or five minutes if they are talking in diplomatese. Warning Putin about sanctions would take two minutes, or ten minutes in diplomatese.
That gets us up to about fifteen minutes, max.
I fear that Obama filled that hour by repeating his arguments, which would at first amuse Putin, and then annoy him.
(It's possible, of course, that Putin is responsible for the length of the phone call. Some of his predecessors were famous, or perhaps infamous, for their long speeches.)
- 9:05 AM, 7 March 2014 [link]
A Family Of Smart Crooks Finally Gets Caught: For years, I've wondered about the explanation for this fact: Prisoners have lower than average IQs. (And from time to time, you read about criminals who demonstrate that lack of intelligence, in spectacular fashion.)
There are two not-necessarily-conflicting explanations for that relationship: Crime attracts people who aren't smart enough to see that it isn't a good career option, and we are more likely to catch the not-too-bright criminals.
The long, and one would have to admit, very successful criminal career of the Bogdanov family provides, at the very least, an example for the second explanation.
The suburban Chicago family stole with startling efficiency from toy stores, booksellers and coffee shops from Maryland to Texas, its matriarch often dressed in a bulky black dress outfitted with compartments for stuffing large merchandise, federal authorities said Wednesday.Millions of dollars from shop lifting, and shop lifting mostly relatively low value items at that. These three, Branco Bogdanov, his wife Lela, and their daughter Julie, knew how to go about their illegal business.
They did get caught a few times at individual stores, and paid fines. What finally tipped off authorities to the scale of their thefts was the fact they used a single fence, who sold the stolen items on eBay, from a single account. When a large batch of thefts matched items there, the detectives had the clue they needed.
The Bodanovs, according to the article, are immigrants from the "former Yugoslavia". We may have made a mistake letting them in.
- 2:23 PM, 6 March 2014 [link]
What Happened When Michelle Obama's Lunch Standards Were Imposed On School Lunch Rooms? Pretty much what anyone who has paid attention to bureaucracies and kids would have expected.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.The Department of Agriculture says the new standards are "proving popular".
Not with the kids who, if they don't have free lunches, are having to pay more for less food.
- 1:48 PM, 6 March 2014 [link]
Has Putin Finally Gone too far?
Vladimir Putin has put President Barack Obama’s vacation plans on hold.
- 12:54 PM, 6 March 2014 [link]
NPR Makes an amusing, and possibly significant, mistake:
Just now on NPR’s Morning Edition (yes, I often listen) a story on yesterday’s failed vote on Debo Adegbile began “a handful of southern Democrats joined Republicans yesterday to defeat president Obama’s choice to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division.”And then, according to commenters, did a stealth edit, so that if you listen to the story you will hear the host (probably Renée Montagne) say a "handful of Senate Democrats".
The story that follows lacks balance and insight.
The story was all about how effective the Federation of Police was in the lobbying, but did not mention the lobbying on the other side, or explain why many find the case against Adegbile so compelling. Nor did it explain why President Obama and Majority Leader Reid decided to go ahead with this vote, even though they should have known they were going to lose.
(The most likely explanation, in my opinion, is that President Obama insisted on the vote, believing that he was standing up for justice. It was a political mistake to nominate Adegbile, and it was a worse political mistake to force senate incumbents to make this difficult vote in an election year.
Note: I put up a post for a few minutes after I read the Goldberg post and listened to the edited introduction, saying that Goldberg had heard it wrong. After reading the comments, I am almost certain that the recording was edited. My apologies for not making one more check.)
- 8:39 AM, 6 March 2014 [link]
Andrew Klavan Is Having Way Too Much fun.
House of Cards, the Netflix series about a lethally unscrupulous Washington politician, is a wonderful show, but it does sometimes stretch the limits of credulity. I have no trouble believing that a Democratic congressman would push a reporter in front of a train, but the idea that anyone in the press would try to expose him for it is flat-out ridiculous. After all, Barack Obama has been pushing reporters under the bus for six years and nobody’s said a word. Ah, well. If the show gives leftist politicos nightmares about being held accountable for their actions by American journalists, they can simply keep repeating, “It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie.”But Klavan is making some serious points, along the way.
In the third paragraph, for example, he describes a famous error by Andrew Rosenthal, who was rewarded for that error (and others) by a series of promotions, and is now the editorial page editor of the New York Times, (Being the son of the executive editor, A. M. Rosenthal, may not have hurt his career.)
(Full disclosure: I haven't seen House of Cards and currently don't intend to, but may have to, given its popularity in our capital.)
- 6:28 AM, 6 March 2014 [link]
More On Moazzam Begg: Three days ago, I put up a post on the jihadist, arguing that he belonged in Guantánamo.
Here's a brief and very well-informed article supporting that position
Moazzam Begg and his allies claim he was wrongly detained and tortured. Human rights organizations and civil liberties groups have repeatedly endorsed this version of Begg’s life, making him one of the chief spokesmen for the anti-Gitmo crowd. Amnesty International and the ACLU have enthusiastically promoted Begg as a truth teller.There's more in the article, especially this: "And when the Obama administration sought to build additional support for resettling detainees in Europe, Begg was seen as an ally."
If you are like me, you'll find that both infuriating and amusing, but more infuriating than amusing.
- 7:04 PM, 5 March 2014 [link]
The Senate Rejected Debo Adegbile,
The Senate voted 47-52 Wednesday to reject controversial nominee Debo Adegbile to lead the Department of Justice's Division of Civil Rights.The seven Democrats who voted against him are Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Walsh (Mont.), Chris Coons (Del.) and Bob Casey (Pa.).
Heitkamp, Manchin, and Donnelly represent states where Obama is especially unpopular. Pryor and Walsh face tough races this November. Casey and Coons represent states where there has been extensive coverage of that killing.
What's interesting is that other threatened Democrats did not vote against him, even though it must have been obvious that he was going to be defeated.
If you are wondering why he deserved to be defeated, you can find the answer here.
(Fun fact: Mr. Adegbile's last name can be re-arranged to spell "aged bile".)
- 12:58 PM, 5 March 2014 [link]
The Barack Obama, Chris Christie, And Cory Booker Scandals: Remember the government "shutdown"? The Obama administration deliberately closed facilities to make the shutdown as painful as possible. Most journalists seemed to think that this was not a scandal, just ordinary, hardball politics.
During his re-election campaign, several aides of Chris Christie decided to close lanes on a main bridge to punish a mayor who was not supporting Christie. Many journalists seemed to think this was a big scandal, and the only question was whether Christie, who appears not to have known about the closing, should resign.
Then there are the Cory Booker scandals. Have you even heard about them? Probably not, unless you are a Republican with an obsessive interest in politics. But there was a scathing column in, of all places, yesterday's New York Times, demonstrating that his time as Newark's mayor was a triumph of PR, but, on the whole, a failure otherwise.
There are a number of the scandals in the column; here's the first:
But a recent state audit underlines that the former mayor might have paid more attention to the prosaic business of running his city. Instead of shoveling driveways — he loved on snowy days to run about Newark with his shovel — he could have attended a meeting, just one, of his Newark Watershed and Development Corporation.Let me repeat, that's just the first of the scandals in the column. If you care about clean government, you'll want to read the whole thing. And after that, just for contrast, you may want to read this admiring Washington Post article, which asks whether Booker will be a "perfect senator for ‘This Town’".)
This collection of scandals seems far more important to me than Obama's petty behavior during the shutdown, or what Christie's aides did in the lane closing.
(It is not clear to me what the Watershed agency was supposed to be doing, but judging by legal notice at their site, they may not be doing it much longer.
Here's the Wikipedia article on Cory Booker. If you read it, you'll notice that it is, shall we say, incomplete.)
- 9:25 AM, 5 March 2014 [link]
No, The Niagara Falls Aren't "Frozen Over" But they are frozen more than in most winters, giving photographers the opportunity to take some beautiful and eerie pictures.
By way of WattsUpWithThat.
(A little bit of thought will show you that, if the falls were frozen over, there would be, immediately, massive floods up stream. Even in the winter, 50,000 cubic feet of water goes over the falls every second.)
- 8:16 AM, 5 March 2014 [link]
C-Sections And Later Obesity? There appears to be an association.
People born by Caesarean section are more likely to be obese later in life than those born naturally, a large analysis suggests.(Like the authors of the study, I would call this a "meta-analysis", since it is a study of studies.
There were different numbers of births used in different parts of the analysis, depending mostly on what data the previous studies had collected. The researchers identified 15 studies that met their main criteria, but used just 12 of those studies for their "Primary analyses". That's where that 38,000 number comes from. In other articles on the study, you will see much higher numbers.)
An earlier and similar study found this weight gain pattern.
On average, kids delivered by C-section were born slightly smaller - by less than two ounces - than those who went through vaginal birth.In both studies, the authors were careful to say that they had found an "association", and that they did not know what caused that association. But it is an interesting association.
And that isn't the only association that has been found in such studies, as you can see in this bit from the study itself.
Adverse effects of CS on the neonate immediately post-partum are widely recognised. CS is associated with the highest rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality of all modes of delivery , with increased risk of a low 1-minute Apgar , respiratory distress, hypoglycaemia and a prolonged stay in a neonatal intensive care unit .(CS = C-Section. If I wasn't fooled by my quick search, an "atopic disorder" is a "tendency to be “hyperallergic".)
By way of this brief New York Times article.
(If C-sections do make obesity more likely, how does that happen? I found two speculations about possible causes: Babies born in C-sections may not get the right symbiotic intestinal bacteria, or they might not have the right genes "turned on" by the stress of a normal birth.
The BBC prefers "Caesarean", the Times, "Cesarean". The first is how I would have spelled the word, but the second may be more common on this side of the Atlantic.)
- 4:50 PM, 4 March 2014 [link]
Andrew Malcolm's Weekly Collection of jokes.
It won't surprise you that Malcolm and I liked this one best:
Fallon: Obama tells supporters they’re doing God's work promoting ObamaCare. God said, “Whoa! Look, I’m flattered. But ObamaCare? That’s all you, man!”This one's pretty good, too:
SethMeyers: Although Ukraine has been all over the news for weeks, a survey finds 64% of U.S. students still can’t find Ukraine on a map. Said Vladimir Putin, “Soon, nobody will.”
- 8:35 AM, 4 March 2014 [link]
"Let’s Not Get Crazy About This Diversity Idea." Who said that? The far left Democrat, and New York mayor, Bill de Blasio.
Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, who vowed throughout his campaign to build an administration that mirrored the city, laughed off the idea of hiring Republicans this morning at a press conference announcing his latest pick.For the record, de Blasio has hired at least few people who worked for a Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani, but I think his joke tells us much about his plans, as jokes often do.
In Communist countries, the rulers often debated whether to fill posts with experts or ideologically pure party men. Mayor de Blasio favors the latter approach.
This news has even reached the New York Times, where Nikita Stewart begins her article on his hiring polices with these two paragraphs:
In Bill de Blasio’s City Hall, it seems more and more, there is only a left wing.Activists whose administrative skills are, shall we say, unproven.
(As you would expect, de Blasio had promised during the campaign to have an administration that mirrored the city; as you should expect, he didn't really mean that.
He had an unusual early life, beginning as Warren Wilhelm, Jr. and going through two name changes to become Bill de Blasio.)
- 7:37 AM, 4 March 2014
Correction: I was not paying enough attention to the date on the Politicker article — 22 December — and called de Blasio the mayor-elect, instead of the mayor, which he has been since 1 January. I have corrected the text.
- 6:18 PM, 4 March 2014 [link]
One More Time For Glenn Kessler — Health Insurance Is Not The Same As "Access To Health Care", No Matter How Many Times Obama Says So: And I plan to keep saying that until Kessler gets it right, and stops repeating Obama's statements confusing the two.
(I don't expect that Obama will ever straighten out the confusion he has caused on this, but that doesn't mean that Kessler should help Obama spread the confusion.)
Mostly for fun, let's start with the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech in 2008.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.(Emphasis added.)
Think about that part that I put in bold for just a moment. Obama was implying that no one provided "care for the sick" before his nomination victory. That got less attention than the oceans line, but it is far worse, because Obama was lying about the past, and the present, not making a wild prediction for the future.
Humans have always provided some care for the sick, and Americans have provided care for each other, in more and more organized ways, as we have become better able to afford it. In fact, we spend more on care for the sick — by a considerable margin — than any other country.
What Obama was doing with that phrase was converting a routine campaign promise, to extend taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to more people, to the absurd claim that we could begin to provide care for the sick.
(As far as I know, the crowd listening to him did not roar with laughter, but they should have.)
And, though his language has usually been less grandiloquent since then, Obama continues to try to confuse us into thinking that access to taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is the same as access to health care.
And the "Fact Checker" at the Washington Post continues to accept that Obama deception, as he did in this piece.
Obama claimed that the expansion of Medicare had resulted in seven million more people having "access to health care for the first time". Kessler showed, to his satisfaction, and mine, that somewhere between 1.1 million and 3.6 million had signed up for Medicaid insurance because of ObamaCare, and concluded that Obama was overestimating the effects of ObamaCare by millions.
Except that Obama didn't say what Kessler was refuting, but something far more grandiloquent, something more like that victory speech.
Let me give you first a personal example: I have not had dental insurance for years. Does that mean that, if I were to get it, I would, for the first time, have access to dental care? No. I have had access to dental care all my life, sometimes paid for by my parents, sometimes paid for partly by group dental insurance, and sometimes, now for instance, paid for entirely by me. (With, once, a tax break that cut my net costs a bit.)
With that example in mind, consider one of the findings of the famous Oregon Medicaid experiment, in which some low-income people were enrolled in Medicaid, and a control group was not: "On average, Medicaid patients spent $1,172 more than uninsured patients." Which is not surprising because they received more health services.
And how many in that control group had no "access to health care"? None, as far as I can tell, though many no doubt could not afford, or find, the kind of health care they might have chosen if someone else had been paying for part of the bills. We know that because on the average they spent some money on health care.
If none seems too extreme, consider this: Hospital emergency rooms are required to give emergency care to anyone who walks in, regardless of whether or not they have insurance, or even cash. So everyone in the United States has access to some care. And some of the best and most effective medical treatments, vaccinations for example, are so inexpensive than anyone can afford them.
So the correct conclusion is that Obama's Medicaid expansion provided taxpayer-subsidized insurance to somewhere between 1.1 million and 3.6 million, but "access to health care for the first time" to approximately no one.
(I've sent one email to Kessler pointing out this mistake in an earlier Fact Check. I'll send him another this time, and every time he makes this error.
Credit where due: "Patterico" spotted the same mistake.)
- 7:51 PM, 3 March 2014 [link]
Congratulations To Gary Locke: This reaction to the departure of our ambassador to China suggests to me that he was more of a success in that job than many of us expected.
That personal attack suggests to me that the rulers of China are genuinely worried about the example he set. (Although I have to admit that it isn't as good as some of their past rhetorical efforts such as "running dog of imperialism".) And for that, Locke deserves some credit.
Cross posted at Sound Politics.
(If you aren't up on racial slurs, by calling him a "banana", they were saying that he is yellow on the outside and white on the inside.I am old enough to remember how some in the Northeast were surprised when they saw the late senator Henry M. Jackson carrying his own bags during the 1972 presidential campaign — and how I was surprised that they were surprised.)
- 1:53 PM, 3 March 2014 [link]
After Reading Today's Paul Krugman Column, I wondered, briefly, whether the price for straw had gone up in the Princeton, New Jersey market. Over the years, Krugman has constructed so many straw men that you begin to suspect that he has, all by himself, driven up the price in his area.
In part it reflects the belief that the government should never seek to mitigate economic pain, because the private sector always knows best.Now I don't doubt that you could find a few people who hold those views, but they are not the views of the conservative economists that Krugman is attacking in the column. (And I don't think it is accidental that the only two economists Krugman criticizes by name, Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter, passed away years ago and so are unable to reply to Krugman.)
It is especially unfortunate that Krugman used these straw men in today's column, because he has a legitimate point to make. He is right to say that many economists, not all of them on the right, expected more inflation from the Federal Reserve's easy money policies than we have seen. If he had spent less time constructing his straw men and more time discussing why we haven't seen that inflation, readers might have learned something.
(Here's a review of the straw man argument. Not so incidentally, President Obama is quite fond of this particular fallacy.
And, if you want more examples, you can find them here, from some acolytes — and I use the religious term deliberately — of Professor Krugman.)
- 1:25 PM, 3 March 2014 [link]
Science Denier Tim Egan: New York Times columnist Tim Egan denies a basic biological fact, a fact that has been known since the 19th century.
As a corporation, Hobby Lobby asserts that life begins at conception. It opposes the health care law's birth control mandate. A day-old zygote is a person. Preventing the implantation of of a fertilized egg with a standard intrauterine device, or I.U.D., is a form of abortion in their argument.(Emphasis added.)
Actually, Mr. Egan, it's not just Hobby Lobby that asserts that human life begins at conception, but every reputable biologist.
A person, even a "mainstream" journalist, can accept that scientific fact and still favor abortion, but apparently that's too hard for Egan, who wants to pose as being on the side of science, even while he denies a basic scientific fact.
- 7:26 AM, 3 March 2014 [link]
October 2002, Part 1 and Part 2
November 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
December 2002, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
January 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
February 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
March 2003, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
April 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2003, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2004, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2004, Part 1, Part 2. Part 3, and Part 4
October 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2004, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2005, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2005, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2006, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2006, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2007, Part 1 and Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2007, Part 1 Part 2, and Part 3, and Part 4
June 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2007, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2007, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2008, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
May 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2008, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2009, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2009, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. and Part 4
January 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2010, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2010, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2011, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2012, Part 1 Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2012, Part 1, Part 2 Part 3, and Part 4
August 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3and Part 4
December 2012, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
March 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
April 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
May 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
June 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
July 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
August 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
September 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
October 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
November 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
December 2013, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
January 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4
February 2014, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4
March 2014, Part 1
The Unknown Bush
The Gang of Four
Chomsky Cult Program