Gallup has breakdown of frequent church attendance

Interesting. Gallup reports that weekly or nearly weekly church attendance is up.

Liberals are at the bottom, of course. Blacks, Republicans, and conservatives tied for first place.

This author fully supports going to church. If only he can drag himself to do the same once in a while.

Kroger bans Rutherford paper for "hate speech"

The Tennessean is reporting that Kroger has banned the Rutherford Reader from it's stores due to a pattern of anti-Islamic rhetoric. This has led the paper to claim that Kroger is engaging in censorship.

The article points out that while government faces limitations on the extent to which it can censor material, no such restrictions exist for private entities. Kroger is "within it's rights" to ban such material.

NV Senate: Sharron Angle used to be a Democrat

CNN is reporting that Sharron Angle registered as a Democrat and stayed in the party from 1984-1988. The media is trying to make that an issue, but if you're like me, you're wondering, "Who cares?"

I mean, seriously. First off, according to her, she only registered as a Democrat in order to vote for a conservative Democratic candidate. She still voted for Reagan in 1984.

Secondly, the story is running under the assumption that this will make her toxic to her conservative base. That is nonsense and completely ignores a long history of Democrats turned Republicans who were successfully elected - including the Gipper himself.

Thirdly, this might even help Angle, because she can now claim to another similarity to Reagan.

Lastly - and certainly not least - let's not forget that Republicans love conversion stories. It goes part and parcel with their evangelical roots. For many there is nothing better than a come-to-Jesus moment. I'm not trashing Republicans here, I'm just stating facts.

This will cause about as big a stir as when Obama claimed that Reagan was a more "transformative" president than Clinton. Yeah, that mattered for like, an hour.

Angle has bigger fish to fry right now (like learning how to talk to the press instead of, you know, avoiding them).

U.S. man arrested in Pakistan; Says he was hunting Bin Laden

This takes vigilantism to a whole new level:

An American construction worker who was arrested with a sword, a pistol and night-vision goggles in northwestern Pakistan told investigators Tuesday that he wanted to kill Osama bin Laden to avenge the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Pretty hardcore. Misguided, but hardcore.

What Sontany's "skirt comment" says about many on the left

You've probably heard about the comment that Janis Sontany made about female conservatives in the state legislature:

"You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can't find out by how they vote."

Stupid comment? Yes. While I'm sure it drew a positive reaction from the crowd (the comment was made at an event to honor Jim Cooper), the idea that a member of a certain group has to vote a certain way in order to prove they belong is just utterly ridiculous.

Why do so many on the left insist on putting people in political boxes based on their socioeconomic group, sex, race, etc.? I like the way that Adrienne Royer put it:

Women on the left have determined that they decide the correct attitudes and opinions for all women. The rest of us should just follow them and issue fealty to the Democratic Party. They are the Voice of Women,™ and it is not our place to question it or diverge from the sorority.

While I'm sure that Sontany will have no problem securing the endorsement of NAARL, EMILY'S List, etc., don't look for this blogger to give her a round of applause.

Nikki Haley - the next big thing for the GOP?

The New York Times has an excellent article on the favorite to become South Carolina's next governor.

Now, she finds herself one of the brightest rising stars in the Republican Party, a Tea Party favorite, a Sarah Palin endorsee and the subject of national attention.

“I love that people think it’s a good story, but I don’t understand how it’s different,” she said in an interview Friday, in a voice with a faint watermark of Southern drawl. “I feel like I’m just an accountant and businessperson who wants to be a part of state government.”

SC Democratic nominee may be Republican plant

A few days ago I let you know about the unusual win of Alvin Greene, who one Tuesday's Demcoration Senate primary in South Carolina. To recap - he raised no money, had no staff, never gave a speech or even had a website. Yet he trounced his well-funded opponent, Vic Rawl, 59 to 41. Did I mention that he has been charged with a felony?

New details have emerged. Mr. Greene has been unemployed for the past nine months, has been receiving unemployment checks, and he is being represented by a public defender. The filing fee for the senate primary is $10,400. Many are wondering where that money came from, and there is speculation that it may have been given to Greene by Republicans.

But really, what motive would Republicans have to give the money to Greene? Was DeMint in any kind of electoral trouble? I doubt it. This is South Carolina we're talking about, and it's a midterm election. Minorities and low income people are less likely to vote.

Aside from the issue of money, there is collective head scratching among Democrats over how a man who didn't even campaign could win against someone who, well, did. While most of the stories I've read don't go into any specific explanations beyond "geez whiz isn't this unusual," the NYT blogger Kate Phillips noted that the Post and Courier in South Carolina have been speculating on the role that race played (Greene is black, Rawl is white):

State Senator Robert Ford, D-Charleston, who lost his gubernatorial bid Tuesday, said race could have played a role. The Democratic primary electorate is majority black, as is Greene, but not Rawl. “Vic Rawl had money, but he didn’t have enough. He wasn’t able to identify himself with black voters,” Ford said. “No white folks have an ‘e’ on the end of Green. The blacks after they left the plantation couldn’t spell, and they threw an ‘e’ on the end.”

That bit about how former slaves couldn't spell is a bit deeper than I wanted to go, but whatever. The assumption is that blacks back their own kind and the extra "e" at the end of Greene's name provided them with a racial voting cue. If true (and I'm not saying that it is true), it explains how Greene wouldn't have even needed to campaign at all.