Well, how's this one for starters? "EPA waives fee requests for friendly groups, denies conservative groups" http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529609#.UZIq1hQ69Ts.twitter (h/t Glenn Reynolds)

It occurred to me this morning. If you were in Obama's position, and you had scandals closing in on you from all directions and you weren't going to be able to weasel out, what would you do? Well, one possible solution: have your sycophantic friends in Hollywood try to get the nation's attention focused on Angelina Jolie's thingamabobs. I mean, it could just be a coincidence that this is coming out right now ... but ya gotta wonder ...

I wanna know ... apparently there were 9% of students who think the federal government should take an active role in Americans' day-to-day lives, except for their own. What were they thinking? This is disturbing. Maybe I should be glad that it's only 9%, but that still seems like a lot.

Now Don Henley has to write a song about a "bubble-headed brunette" ...

Something powerlineblog.com hinted at: Now that he's come out, if he's not picked up by any NBA team next season (he's a free agent) there will be a lot of howling about how homophobic the league is. The notion that maybe no team might have room for a 34-year-old who shot 31% last season with about one point per game just wouldn't be relevant to the talking heads.

The number of incidents involved does make this look highly suspicious. In this particular case, however, if the block was being done by a program and didn't involve any human decision, then I wouldn't make too much of it. Automated programs that look at a site's content just can't get this sort of thing right all the time. (I've been having problems with AOL and other services treating legitimate e-mail as spam, for instance.) Still, I wonder what could have been on the SBC web site that would have triggered a block. And there still has to be a mechanism by which a human can override a decision made like a program. So, no, this doesn't look good, but there's still some possibility that this one is innocuous.

Well, you know what they say about stopped clocks...

"You might try actually digesting what Prager wrote. Why is it the university's job to give a very partisan and false "perspective" rather than to teach truth to the best of their ability?" The link from insidehighered.com that I mentioned makes it appear that the university is bringing in partisans from *both* parties, and it's part of a program to let students hear from those in the field instead of solely from ivory-tower academic types. If they're bringing people in equally from both parties, then I don't have a real problem with it, especially if these students are exposed to both conservatives who can speak intelligently and liberals who can't do more than name-calling rants. :)

Glenn Reynolds pointed to an article that said this: "But what the critics haven't mentioned is that Sragow isn't a Ph.D. academic devoted to a life of scholarship. He's a political partisan who happens to teach one course a year at USC through a program that recruits political partisans (Democrats and Republicans) so that some political science courses will be taught by practitioners, not academics." If this is accurate (and if they're giving somewhat equal time to both parties), it sheds a whole new light on things. I'm as concerned as Dennis with partisan indoctrination in universities, but this doesn't seem like a good example. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/15/video-instructor-usc-sets-controversy-context-missing

Don't ever believe liberals when they say they want a conversation or a dialogue. Their notion of dialogue always means they talk and everyone else just shuts up and listens. We had that recently in the Presbyterian Church (USA) with regard to ordaining practicing homosexuals. The church kept voting against it, but the supporters kept saying that we have to keep dialoguing, we have to keep the dialogue open, blah blah blah. Eventually, they had another vote and their side won by a slim majority. Now the same side suddenly doesn't see the importance of dialogue. The issue is settled, and bringing it up again would be divisive, which is a sin. Someone needs to start calling them on their lies.