…which is fine, because it might be the most hilariously terrifying piece of journalism I’ve read in possibly ever (thanks to the senator, not Debs). Here’s an excerpt:

Solomon: You have also been a vocal critic of the president’s plans to close the naval base at Guantánamo and to try some suspected terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court, in New York.

Inhofe: I’ve been to Gitmo. Why don’t you go? I’d like to invite you. You know, I consider Gitmo a real resource. The people there are treated probably better than they are in the prisons in America. They have more doctors and medical practitioners per inmate. They’re eating better than anyone has ever eaten before.

You think the detainees at Guantánamo eat better than you do?

I’m talking about before they got in there, what they ate back in Yemen or wherever they came from. One of the big problems is they become obese when they get here because they’ve never eaten that good before. Can you tell me one reason to close Gitmo?

Because it’s on foreign soil, where prisoners don’t have the same legal rights as prisoners tried here, and we want to apply the same laws to everybody.

You want to apply the same laws to terrorists that are captured as you do to criminals in America?

Yes.

Wow.

Because we have to take the high road as Americans.

I see. That’s an interesting concept.

—New York Times

[via CTRL+W33D]

Me:

No problem, XXXX, I’ll get these changes back to you asap.

Question:

[First clarifying question about project edits]

[Second clarifying question about project edits]

Let me know ASAP and I’ll get this back to you.

XXXX:

Thanks!
XXXX

Me:

XXXX, did you see my questions? I need some clarification to what you’re looking for so I can get these back to you asap.

Thanks,
me

XXXX:

Sorry, I didn’t see your questions.

Yes, is it possible to get the blue a little bolder?

[via ClientsFromHell]

[via Growing]

1. My loving boyfriend/partner/husbear/whatever

2. Our quirky, needy, smelly hounds

3. My fantastic friends (and even a few frenemies)

4. My family (biological and adoptive)

5. My job(s) and co-workers

6. Google Reader (bitch has saved my life)

7. Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fable 2, and Assassin’s Creed 2 (the boyfriend is less thankful for these)

8. The fact that I have practically nothing in common with the dude who approached me at the gym today, asking (a) where the young gays hang out and (b) what the age of consent is in Louisiana. Yeesh.

9. Licorice!

10. Krispy Kreme Divas!

In no particular order, of course.

Cory Doctorow has written a really interesting comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and in the process, he’s made a great point about evolving notions of “authority” and “expertise”.

In a nutshell: we, as info connoisseurs, have become highly media savvy, and that’s given us a jaundiced of news anchors, journalists, bloggers, and even previously unimpeachable sources like Britannica. We’re wary of grand pronouncements, we understand that news outlets can have agendas, we’ve learned that following the money (e.g. all the way back to creepy-con Rupert Murdoch) can shed some very bright light on “objective truths”. And thus:

While the Britannica says, *These facts are true*, Wikipedia says, *It is true that these facts were reported by these sources*. The Britannica contains facts, Wikipedia contains facts about facts. [BB]

Of course, skepticism works both ways: liberals laugh at Fox “News” and conservatives vilify the MSM. (Frankly, I think the fact that cons equate “liberal” with “mainstream” should tell them something about their worldview — but then, navel-gazing is clearly liberal territory.) Still: critique is an awesome thing.

All of which begs a question that’s been repeated for centuries: is there such a thing as truth, and do we want to become so relativist as to throw up our hands and say that nothing is certain?

And more importantly: don’t I have less depressing, more helium-filled things to contemplate on Thanksgiving Day?

…do you really need a bandanna to tell the world you’re chubby?

[via The Boyfriend via CTRL+W33D]

[via TrainWrecks]

TV AD: The family budget. In today’s economy nobody is more committed to helping family budgets go further than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart saves the average family about $3,100 a year, no matter where they shop.

What?! OK, how can Wal-Mart save you money if you don’t shop there? Well, they say, other stores cut their prices to compete.

CHRIS HOLLINGS: The overall level of consumer prices are lower essentially anywhere you shop.

Chris Hollings is at IHS Global Insight.

HOLLINGS: So you do not actually have to shop at Wal-Mart to get these savings.

Hollings led the research Wal-Mart uses in its ad. He says by tracking Wal-Mart’s expansion, his team was able to isolate an economic Wal-Mart effect. Today he says prices for retail goods are 3.6 percent lower across the board because of the chain. But to save more than $3,000 a year a, quote, “average family” would have to spend more than $83,000 shopping.

CHARLES FISHMAN: This headline number is technically accurate but misleading.

Charles Fishman is author of the book, “The Wal-Mart Effect.” He points out that the median household income is less than $51,000.

FISHMAN: A family earning $51,000 a year saves about $640 a year compared to what they would otherwise have had to spend.

— full story at Marketplace