Nate Silver actually discussed Palin's chances of winning the Republican nomination, not the Presidency. Her chances of becoming President are barely discussed except insofar as they are dismissed as unrealistic.

@1) You are correct. I've clarified.

Re National Debt: Or we could, you know, cut spending. I know, what a concept!

Can people stop getting an erection over Sarah Palin stories? She won't get the nomination, the Republicans aren't that dumb. They aren't going to make it that easy. MOVING ON.

& of course the Republicans will end up voting to raise the debt ceiling, they're just playing hostage-taker again because they saw how awesome it worked out for them last time. & they're not gonna stop until the Dems show some balls, aka they're not gonna stop.

@3: And maybe stop cutting taxes on people/corporations who aren't going to pump their tax breaks back into the economy. But apparently any tax increase is tyrannical.

Did anyone else see the video of hapless drivers in Colorado careening into each other on an icy street?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5exATIaQ…

The President reads David Mitchell? I feel like I've already seen his nipples.

No Queen. No muppets. This is a sad morning news.

@7, and he's reading the new John le Carre skullduggery as well, which is as if he gave me a little sniff of his balls.

@8, I miss Queen today as well, so here's a favorite of mine, which heads into high fuckery around 3:30, banging back to earth only in the final minute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMtB5wUGZ…

Nipplers unite! Why doesn't this "President" want us to see his? BECAUSE HE HASN'T GOT ANY. Come clean, Obama. Why don't you have nipples? Where are you from? Orly Tait will be on this right away.

OLYMPIA — When Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed a budget that would cut many programs that help Washington state's poor, she said it was "up to us as a community" to help fill the gap left by state government. . . . People who normally donate to charity may not have the resources this year to continue their level of giving, and some may even end up becoming the ones in need.

I'm sure that we could, as a community, fill the gap (or at least a good part of it) left by reduced revenues from taxes. Although it sucks be unemployed (I know, I've been there), approximately 90 percent of Washingtonians still have jobs and many people are making a shitload of money at those jobs. Plus there's the money that people rake in from investments. I'm not suggesting it's only people who are wealthy, or wealthier, who could step to to the plate -- everyone could forgo a few non-necessities and give that money to a charity instead -- but people who are wealthier certainly have more resources to share.

So...do they? Here's an interesting story in the New York Times from back in August: The Charitable-Giving Divide

For decades, surveys have shown that upper-income Americans don’t give away as much of their money as they might and are particularly undistinguished as givers when compared with the poor, who are strikingly generous. . . . [Piff's] study...found that lower-income people were more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth. They were more attuned to the needs of others and more committed generally to the values of egalitarianism.

“Upper class” people, on the other hand, clung to values that “prioritized their own need.” And, he told me this week, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others.” Empathy and compassion appeared to be the key ingredients in the greater generosity of those with lower incomes. And these two traits proved to be in increasingly short supply as people moved up the income spectrum.

We're Not Going to Be Writing About Rachel La Corte: She says on Twitter that she's taking a year-long sabbatical.

Who is left?
Everett Herald's Jerry Cornfield
Austin Jenkins
Seattle Times mostly phones it in.
Stranger reads other peoples reporting and then complains.
Publicola sends somebody, sometimes.
The Olympian eh.

Hopefully AP will have a competent reporter covering the 2011 Session.

May Austin Jenkins please, please not find a better job elsewhere - he's a treasure. Still, local pols hoping to keep scoring cheap points slamming Olympia must be cheered by the news of Rachel's departure - the fewer hard-to-spoonfeed journalists calling bullshit on them, the better for their quick n' dirty strategy.

I don't get why Queensland is the Alabama of Australia? Flooding? After all, I think its capital ranks third in size after Sydney and Melbourne, there is the Great Barrier Reef, the Outback, the wet tropical region that is famous for containing a near complete record of plant evolution on the continent, Bundaberg rum (the flooding may damper the production)... Those all make it sound like a delightful place and a great holiday destination. I think we even have a few Sloggers from Queensland, too? I hope they are all safe and not suffering, because of the flooding.

@15, it's the long tradition of ultra-right (and racist) politics, led by 20-year premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Though the comparison I've usually heard is "the Texas of Australia". And Brisbane is the Dallas or even Las Vegas -- all glitz and new skyscrapers. The Texas connection also comes from the ranching tradition; ranches there can dwarf even the King Ranch in Texas.

The state is largely seen as hillbilly and backwater, with a recent veneer of cheeseball glitz and neon. The old joke about Queenslanders is that the reason they're the only Aussie state that never adopted Daylight Savings Time is that the station housewives were afraid it would fade the curtains.

Ta for that, Fnarf.

Kim, you are more correct than Fnarf (not that I've ever been to Alabama). It's a great place to visit, and a great place to live (just too hot for mine).

Fnarf, sure, Bjelke Petersen maintained power as Premier for 19 years (until he was forced to resign in 1987)... thanks to the gerrymander introduced by the Australian Labor Party (Left) Government in 1949. Queensland politics has been dominated by the Labor party before and since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiers_of…

Brisbane is not "all glitz and new skyscrapers", but it has taken off socially and economically since the World Expo in 1988. A lot of new buildings have been erected in that time, but a lot of old, historically significant buildings remain. In a city of 2 million people, you can live in a freestanding house within a mile of the centre of the city (and that house may well be 100 years old).
http://www.publicworks.qld.gov.au/brisba…
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/brisbane_a…
http://brisbaneblog.com.au/wp-content/up…

Regarding Daylight Saving Time (really?), it was trialed there in 1971 and 89 - 92 (and it was observed across Australia during the world wars), and it was defeated by referendum with a 54.5% 'No' vote in 1992.
And the (sensible IMO) reason it was rejected? Because the north of Queensland approaches 10 degrees South latitude (think Costa Rica in the Northern Hemisphere). Even Southern Queensland is at 28S (think southern Texas and Florida). There's alreay TOO MUCH daylight in summer, thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Aus…
http://www.nodaylightsavingqld.com/Faded…

Ta for that, Cynic Romantic.

I've not been to either place. Given the choice between the two, I'd visit Queensland because you can't take the science lover out of me and I love listening to you all speak, too.

Obama doesn't want you to see his nipples because he has eight of them, like a cat.