"On Sept. 8, 2008, five days after Palin’s national debut, some members of the group discussed producing coordinated propaganda designed to wound Palin and boost Obama."

Writes Jonathan Strong in The Daily Caller:

Ryan Avent, then a freelance blogger for the Economist, now an editor there, complained that Obama’s supporters were missing a chance to attack. “If we were the GOP, we’d be taking this opportunity to shout long and loud how unprepared Palin is—‘She doesn’t even know what Fannie and Freddie are…in the middle of a housing crisis!’….That’s the difference in the game as played by us and by them.”

Michael Tomasky responded: “So why aren’t Dems doing that? Just wundrin’.”

Luke Mitchell, then a senior editor at Harper’s magazine, asked Tomasky if his paper would be able to help: “Michael – Isn’t this something that can be fanned a bit by, say, the Guardian?”...

“... [I]t seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times.

“Open question: Would it be a good use of this list to co-ordinate a message of the week along the lines of the GOP? Or is that too loathsome? It certainly sounds loathsome. But so does losing!”

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist, quickly jumped in: “Nope, no message coordination. I’m not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character,” he wrote.

So we see the suggestion of propaganda/message coordination, presented as probably too loathsome to do and then immediately nixed by the list founder, Ezra Klein. The headline of Strong's article is "Journolist debates making its coordination with Obama explicit," suggesting that they were coordinating, but this was just the point where they openly talked about what they were doing... except they only talked about doing it in the future.

An empty wheelchair... "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot."

John Callahan leaves the wheelchair forever.

Oh, no! Ron Johnson wants to move the BP oil spill to Lake Michigan!

The graphic in this new Russ Feingold ad had us guffawing.

At the Sunset Café...

... you can cling to the last shreds of the real...



... or become complete abstracted....

Gayfeather.

The flower that made me stop...



... as I pedaled the Capital City Trail today.

Is it important to sleep through the night in the same bed with your mate?

A lot of people don't. There's snoring. Inconsistent habits having to do with TV/computers/iPhones. Keeping different hours. Let's assume a solid couple, really committed and loving. What's wrong with separate rooms if it helps you both get a good night's sleep... and a chance to do other things you like?

Paul C. Rosenblatt, a psychiatry professor at the University of Minnesota, interviewed 42 couples for his book “Two in a Bed: The Social System of Couple Bed Sharing” and came to some surprising conclusions.

Co-sleeping is better for your health. His subjects mentioned seizures, diabetic shock and other medical emergencies that would have gone undetected if not for a proximate partner.

Co-sleeping is better for your sex life. “I talked to plenty of men (and women) who think that sexual intercourse is far more frequent if they have access to their partner,” Dr. Rosenblatt said. “If you want it, share a bed.”

Co-sleeping is better for your security. Women, in particular, feel safer from intruders when sleeping with another person.

I'm not sure those reasons are really that great. Is frequency even the right test of how good your "sex life" is? Frequency gained by simple access because you're in the same bed? I think it's nice to have enough room in your house or apartment so there is a separate bed to go to if you want it. It's nice to know you're sleeping together because that's what you want, and it's nice, when you are sleeping together to know there's somewhere else to sleep (or sit up reading/watching TV/hanging out on line) if that would feel better.

"Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand..."

"... even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday."

The WikiLeaks document dump. Let's try to understand.