<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Alex Pareene</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/alex_pareene/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trump insinuates self into Romney campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/birther_fraud_trump_insinuates_self_into_romney_campaign/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/birther_fraud_trump_insinuates_self_into_romney_campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 21:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donald Trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12927028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How a toxic attention-seeker (not Newt) will likely end up speaking at the RNC]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So. Donald Trump again? Are we really doing this again? I guess we are!</p><p>There were stories, recently, in the usual places, about how Trump was being seriously considered for a major speech at the Republican Convention. I did not dwell on the story much, because I assumed that these rumors were a product of Donald Trump's prodigious vanity and powerful imagination. Ha ha ha, sure, the Republicans will <em>definitely</em> want the stupid make-believe TV mogul who pretends to fire people for a living, at their big party.</p><p>Now that "Celebrity Apprentice" is done, Trump is back to pretending to be a major political player. <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/trump-wants-form-classiest-most-luxurious-super-pac/52760/">He just announced his intention to start his own super PAC</a>, because he is a weird attention-hungry idiot with a bit of money to burn (though not as much money to burn as he would like you to think he has to burn).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/birther_fraud_trump_insinuates_self_into_romney_campaign/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/birther_fraud_trump_insinuates_self_into_romney_campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>86</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Luke Russert, nepotist prince</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luke Russert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hack List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12926399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Luke Russert is being groomed as a simulacrum of his father -- but without the inspiring rags-to-riches story]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim Russert was not the unalloyed saint of tough journalism that his celebrators describe in posthumous tributes, but he was at least a classic American success story, of the sort that we still enjoy pretending is common: Blue-collar kid from Rust Belt town becomes enormously successful thanks largely to brains and hard work. The story of Luke Russert, alas, is a much more common one in American life: No-account kid of successful person has more success thrust upon him.</p><p>Pretty much immediately upon the death of his father, Luke Russert inexplicably had a full-time broadcasting job, supplanting his part-time broadcasting job co-hosting a satellite radio sports talk show with James Carville. (That was a real thing that actually existed. Can you imagine a human who would want to listen to that?)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeland Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation Security Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12925982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats score the dumbest political victory of 2012]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Tuesday, a <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/228835-senate-moves-forward-with-increased-airline-passenger-fees#.T7vGjswN384.twitter">Senate Appropriations Committee vote</a> effectively highlighted everything that is stupid about politics.</p><p>The Transportation Security Administration, a universally loathed government agency, is facing a shortfall, despite its more than $8 billion budget. Instead of having a debate over what effective airport security might actually look like and how much should reasonably be spent on the honestly rare threat of commercial-air-travel-based terrorism, there was a debate over how best to come up with the money needed for all the radioactive naked picture machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The Democrats suggested passing on the cost of ineffective, cumbersome and intrusive security theater to citizens, via higher fees on airfares. The Republicans, even more predictably, suggested cutting spending that directly helps poor people to ensure there is enough to spend on stopping imaginary future 9/11s.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/senate_democrats_heroically_fund_tsa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arpaio goons sent to Hawaii for important birther investigation</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/arpaio_goons_sent_to_hawaii_for_important_birther_investigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/arpaio_goons_sent_to_hawaii_for_important_birther_investigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 18:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy theories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Arpaio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12925349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A member of Sheriff Joe's "posse" and a deputy search for the birth certificate we've all seen]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County and living embodiment of everything vile and rotten in contemporary American society, has been hard at work investigating whether the president of the United States is an American citizen, which the president is, case closed. Or rather, case closed for people who don't make a living stoking racist paranoia. For Arpaio, the more evidence we have that Barack Obama's biography is precisely what he's always said it is, the stronger the likelihood that this conspiracy goes <em>all the way to the top.</em> So now he's got his agents <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/arpaio_threats_unit_birther_hawaii_bennett.php?ref=fpa">traipsing around Hawaii,</a> trying to stir up trouble.</p><p><a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/arpaio_threats_unit_birther_hawaii_bennett.php?ref=fpnewsfeed">TPM rounds up the news</a>, from the Arizona Republic and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser: A deputy from Arpaio's "threats unit" and "posse" member Michael Zullo arrived at the Hawaii Department of Health Monday demanding proof of the existence of a document we've all now seen a thousand times. <a href="http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/152395115.html">From the Star-Advertiser:</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/arpaio_goons_sent_to_hawaii_for_important_birther_investigation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/arpaio_goons_sent_to_hawaii_for_important_birther_investigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>556</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Bilderberg endorse Rubio?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/will_bilderberg_endorse_rubio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/will_bilderberg_endorse_rubio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alex Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilderberg Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy theories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marco Rubio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12924135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Secret world-controlling society yet to weigh in on Mitt Romney running mate pick]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So when it comes to Mitt Romney's running mate pick, I like Rob Portman's odds, because he is incredibly boring and nothing will go disastrously <em>wrong</em> if Mitt Romney picks him. But on the other hand, there is a case to be made for picking Marco Rubio, and that case can be summed up as "Republicans think all Hispanics will vote for Mitt Romney if he runs with a Cuban-American." It's not just imagined ethnic solidarity that Rubio has in his favor, though: There's also <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0789C5EB-51AE-4678-B435-A462DAFEA098">the machinations of the mysterious Bilderberg Group!</a></p><p><a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0789C5EB-51AE-4678-B435-A462DAFEA098">Ken Vogel has the scoop</a> in Politico, based on <a href="http://www.infowars.com/washington-post-suggests-bilderberg-to-pick-romneys-running-mate/">some very intriguing INFOWARS reporting.</a></p><p>Everyone knows that the elite secret society known as the Bilderberg Group is one of the means by which the Lizard People exert their control over the shadow World Government. As hero journalist Alex Jones told independent cable news network Russia Today, <a href="http://rt.com/usa/news/bilderberg-jones-elite-years-331/">the elite will decide at the coming Bilderberg Conference in Virginia whether to support Obama or Romney in 2012.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/will_bilderberg_endorse_rubio/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/will_bilderberg_endorse_rubio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t mention income inequality please, we&#8217;re entrepreneurs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12923179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At this point, TED is a massive, money-soaked orgy of self-congratulatory futurism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a bit of a scandal last week when it was reported that a TED Talk on income equality <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516?mrefid=mostViewed">had been censored</a>. That turned out to be not quite the entire story. Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist with a book out on income inequality, was invited to speak at a TED function. He spoke for a few minutes, making the argument that rich people like himself are not in fact job creators and that they should be taxed at a higher rate.</p><p>The talk seemed reasonably well-received by the audience, but TED "curator" Chris Anderson told Hanauer that it would not be featured on TED's site, in part because the audience response was mixed but also because it was too political and this was an "election year."</p><p>Hanauer had his PR people go to the press immediately and accused TED of censorship, which is obnoxious -- TED didn't have to host his talk, obviously, and his talk was not hugely revelatory for anyone familiar with recent writings on income inequity from a variety of experts -- but Anderson's responses were still a good distillation of TED's ideology.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>67</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The National Review&#8217;s fake plagiarism scoop</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 23:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Warren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plagiarism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12923198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Updated: After falsely accusing Elizabeth Warren of plagiarism, the conservative magazine apologizes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Review says Elizabeth Warren is guilty of the gravest crime a writer can commit: Plagiarism. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/300502/plagiarism-2006-book-co-authored-elizabeth-warren-katrina-trinko#">Katrina Trinko compares passages</a> from "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Money Lifetime Plan," Warren's book with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, with passages from "Getting on the Money Track," a book by Rob Black. The passages line up perfectly. The wording and even the punctuation are identical. It's plagiarism all right. Except it looks very much like Warren is actually the <em>victim.</em></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/the_national_reviews_fishy_plagiarism_scoop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: Born in Kenya? (No)</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/breitbart_site_were_not_birthers_but_heres_a_thing_that_says_obama_was_born_in_kenya/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/breitbart_site_were_not_birthers_but_heres_a_thing_that_says_obama_was_born_in_kenya/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Breitbart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy theories]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12922708</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Updated: Right-wing hacks are again insisting that the president was born overseas, but say they aren't birthers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>[Correction Appended]</strong> One of the Breitbart dopes <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii">has a SCOOP:</a> Some sort of ancient press release says Barack Obama was born ... in <em>Kenya.</em> IMPEACH. Retroactively install John McCain, we have <em>so much Iran bombing to make up for.</em></p><p>This particular dope -- <del>Ben Shapiro, former boy-pundit</del> Joel Pollak, some guy -- says he is <em>totally</em> not a birther, at all, whatever gave you that idea, but it is very important that this forgotten old publicity pamphlet from a literary agent for a book project that never happened be unearthed and heavily hyped now, because the president was not properly "vetted" in 2008. (The idea that the president is a secret radical whose secret radicalism was not properly explored by the mainstream media is a stupid conspiracy theory that is <em>almost</em> as ridiculous as birtherism, by the way. We have proof that the president is <em>not</em> a secret radical leftist, and it is "his entire political career including his first term as president of the United States.")</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/breitbart_site_were_not_birthers_but_heres_a_thing_that_says_obama_was_born_in_kenya/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/breitbart_site_were_not_birthers_but_heres_a_thing_that_says_obama_was_born_in_kenya/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>281</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jon Huntsman for New York City mayor?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/yes_jon_huntsman_please_run_for_mayor_of_new_york/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/yes_jon_huntsman_please_run_for_mayor_of_new_york/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 17:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jon Huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12922107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, please. It would be very funny to see him lose]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Jon Huntsman should <em>definitely</em> run for mayor of New York, because I never tire of watching Jon Huntsman get rejected by voters. The best part of a Jon Huntsman campaign is when his well-heeled supporters very sincerely and tragically argue that the fact that no one wants to vote for Jon Huntsman is a sign that the Republic itself is in peril. They would get so sad and melodramatic when he got 10 percent of the vote.</p><p>Now, there is no evidence that Jon Huntsman is planning for run for mayor of New York City, but one of his annoying daughters tossed this one out there last night:</p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Trying to convince dad @<a href="https://twitter.com/JonHuntsman">JonHuntsman</a> to run for mayor of NYC. Thoughts? <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%2523whynot">#whynot</a>?</p>
<p>— Abby Huntsman (@HuntsmanAbby) <a href="https://twitter.com/HuntsmanAbby/status/202942537521049600" data-datetime="2012-05-17T02:04:06+00:00">May 17, 2012</a></p></blockquote><p><script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Why not? I mean sure <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/jon-huntsman-for-new-york-mayor.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nymag%2Fintel+%28Daily+Intelligencer+-+New+York+Magazine%29&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader">he has never lived in New York</a> and has no connection to the city, but why not?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/yes_jon_huntsman_please_run_for_mayor_of_new_york/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/yes_jon_huntsman_please_run_for_mayor_of_new_york/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ron Paul sets up Rand for 2016</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/ron_paul_sets_up_rand_for_2016/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/ron_paul_sets_up_rand_for_2016/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 16:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rand Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12921474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The cult libertarian hero keeps his campaign alive, barely, as he prepares to hand the reins to his son]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Ron Paul says <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ron-paul-suspends-campaign-revolution-rnc-tampa-republican.php">he is going to stop actively campaigning</a>, but his supporters will continue to rack up delegates by storming state conventions. What will he do with these delegates? <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/so-what-will-ron-pauls-delegates-do-at-the-rnc-convention.php?ref=fpb">That is still unclear.</a> (Barter them for gold?) What is the point of this strategy, exactly? Also unclear, but <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/15/ron-paul-s-sneaky-maneuver-why-he-s-scaling-back-his-campaign.html">the Daily Beast's Ben Jacobs today</a> says it's part of a "sneaky maneuver" to help his son Rand out. Ron will continue to consolidate power but will not appear to be actively sabotaging the party's nominee. <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/14/the_ron_paul_campaign_is_done_with_primaries_thanks.html">Dave Weigel says</a> the maneuver is less sneaky and barely a maneuver: He doesn't want it to be a huge embarrassment when he loses Kentucky, the state his son represents in the Senate.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/ron_paul_sets_up_rand_for_2016/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/ron_paul_sets_up_rand_for_2016/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>108</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans Elect defeated by American indifference</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/americans_elect_defeated_by_american_indifference/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/americans_elect_defeated_by_american_indifference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 02:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Americans Elect]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12920870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The well-funded group fails to find a superstar moderate candidate]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Poor Americans Elect. The well-funded experiment in fielding a third-party presidential candidate selected by the Internet is this close to giving up. It doesn't have a candidate. It was apparent <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/confessions_of_an_americans_elect_delegate/singleton/">back in March</a> that none of the declared candidates would meet the threshold of support necessary to qualify it for the online primary votes scheduled for May. Since then, no white knight has emerged.</p><p>John Avlon, the "No Labels" co-founder and Daily Beast contributor, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/15/americans-elect-failure-to-find-candidate-threatens-third-party-dreams.html">is very sad about the news.</a> He reports that they nearly called it quits last week:</p><blockquote><p>Late last week, leaders at the well-funded insurgent organization were planning to pull the plug entirely on this year’s effort. There was talk of focusing instead on building the organization at the local level going forward, following a model like Angus King’s independent Senate campaign in Maine. But this abandonment would be devastating to overall efforts that aim to inject increased independence and competition into the political process, effectively wasting the 2.5 million signatures the group collected to get on the ballot in 26 states to date.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/americans_elect_defeated_by_american_indifference/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/americans_elect_defeated_by_american_indifference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Let&#8217;s put Jamie Dimon on trial</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/lets_put_jamie_dimon_on_trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/lets_put_jamie_dimon_on_trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jamie Dimon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12919485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should explain why a megabank that accidentally loses billions is good for the economy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let's put JPMorgan Chase chairman, president and CEO James "Jamie" Dimon on trial. Mr. Dimon has a reputation for being the sagest guy on Wall Street and an expert at managing risk. JPMorgan emerged from the financial crisis not just unscathed but secure enough to step in and rescue Bear Stearns when the government asked it to. (He gets very mad when you say that his bank got bailed out by the government, and he insists that the government <em>made</em> him take all that free money.) Then his bank somehow <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396511420792008.html">accidentally lost billions of dollars last week, whoops!</a> And he is really embarrassed, but not embarrassed enough to fire himself. So, let's put him on trial and force him to explain what good he and his bank are.</p><p>The SEC <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/s-e-c-opens-investigation-into-jpmorgans-2-billion-loss/?hp">is investigating the massive loss,</a> but that will take a lot of time and the eventual report will probably be very difficult for novices to understand and probably they won't put anyone in jail. Dimon might have to be hauled before Congress to answer questions, but no one watches congressional hearings, and no one likes members of Congress. I think a big televised prime-time tribunal would be best. And then maybe some JPMorgan shareholders, unemployed people, journalists and angry bloggers can just ask him some really simple questions about why he thinks JPMorgan shouldn't be regulated at all.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/lets_put_jamie_dimon_on_trial/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/lets_put_jamie_dimon_on_trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>111</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jonah Goldberg&#8217;s desperation</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 08:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hack List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12917683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The National Review hack is a unique figure: Striving for seriousness, but too lazy to achieve it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist, author of books and National Review Online editor because his mother nearly took down Bill Clinton. He is, it's fair to say, aware of that fact, or at least aware that everyone else thinks it, and his insecurity has made him a uniquely pathetic figure in contemporary conservative thought: He aspires to be taken seriously as a public intellectual, but he is the world's laziest thinker. It is a grand and wonderful joke that Jonah Goldberg, of all people, would write an entire book about how liberals rely on clichés instead of original thought and intellectual argument.</p><p>On the back of my review copy of "The Tyranny of Clichés," Goldberg's latest, it still claims that the author "has twice been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize." That, of course, was revealed yesterday to be <a href="http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11608553-conservative-author-jonah-goldberg-drops-claim-of-two-pulitzer-nominations">utter bullshit.</a> He is a two-time <em>entrant</em> for Pulitzer consideration -- to enter requires solely an application and a $50 fee -- and while Goldberg claims not to have added that line to his bio, it appears everywhere he writes, and it's hard to believe he hadn't noticed it until this week. That said, I can't imagine a person dumb enough to actually believe that Jonah Goldberg had been seriously considered for a Pulitzer. (Well, OK, I can imagine <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/157254/big-time/kathryn-jean-lopez#">one person dumb enough.</a>)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/jonah_goldbergs_desperation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Brooks, &#8220;structuralist&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/08/david_brooks_says_welfare_state_is_unsustainable_buys_new_3_6_million_house/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/08/david_brooks_says_welfare_state_is_unsustainable_buys_new_3_6_million_house/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 18:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Brooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12916916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times moderate says the welfare state is unsustainable, and buys himself a new $4 million home]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Brooks is everything that's wrong with elite opinion in America. The president reads him and takes him seriously. That is why the opinions of venal faux "reasonable" clowns like Brooks matter. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/opinion/brooks-the-structural-revolution.html?pagewanted=all">Brooks today sums up</a> the new argument for not actually doing anything to alleviate worldwide unnecessary hardship: The problem is "structural," not "cyclical"!</p><p>Long Op-Ed short, Brooks says "cyclicalists" (unnamed) think we should deficit-spend our way to prosperity, because, according to Brooks, they believe that "the level of government spending is the main factor in determining how fast an economy grows." (No one actually believes this.) But according to Brooks, all of our problems are "structural," which is to say that the reason we have mass unemployment and debt and growing wealth disparity is because of "technological change" and crappy schools. And "special-interest deals" in the tax code.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/08/david_brooks_says_welfare_state_is_unsustainable_buys_new_3_6_million_house/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/08/david_brooks_says_welfare_state_is_unsustainable_buys_new_3_6_million_house/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No one went to jail, so why is Wall Street so mad?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/no_one_went_to_jail_so_why_is_wall_street_so_mad/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/no_one_went_to_jail_so_why_is_wall_street_so_mad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 19:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12916262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not prosecuting any of the parties responsible for the recession has just served to embolden them]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Newsweek, Peter Boyer and Peter Schweizer <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html">explore the question of President Obama's Justice Department's failure to press any major criminal charges against Wall Street.</a> We learn, distressingly, that "finance-fraud prosecutions by the Department of Justice are at 20-year lows." Ex-Countrywide whistle-blower Eileen Foster, to name one prominent critic of the Justice Department's inaction, is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/eileen-foster-countrywide-whistleblower_n_1453390.html">still urging the Justice Department to do <em>something</em> about her former colleagues,</a> but to no avail. What's holding them back?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/no_one_went_to_jail_so_why_is_wall_street_so_mad/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/no_one_went_to_jail_so_why_is_wall_street_so_mad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America&#8217;s idiot rich</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bain Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income inequality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12915257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 1 percent is complaining louder than ever. There can be no reasoning with people this irrational]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some unknown but alarming number of ultra-rich Americans are now basically totally delusional and completely divorced from reality. This is now an inescapable fact, confirmed by multiple media accounts of billionaire thought and an entire special issue of the New York Times Magazine.</p><p>Here's a brief list of insane things that are apparently common knowledge among the billionaire class:</p><ul>
<li>That President Obama and the Democratic Party have treated wealthy finance industry titans maliciously and unfairly.</li>
<li>That the fact that they are perversely wealthy and growing richer during a period of mass unemployment and staggering debt is a sign that the economy is functioning correctly.</li>
<li>That poor people, and not the finance industry, are responsible for the financial crisis and subsequent recession.</li>
<li>That the ultra-wealthy are wealthy because they are smarter and work harder than everybody else, and that they are resented for their success.</li>
<li>That the ultra-wealthy in general, and finance industry executives in particular, are the victims of widespread prejudice akin to that faced by ethnic minorities.</li>
</ul><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/americas_idiot_rich/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>198</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Book of Mitt</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/06/the_book_of_mitt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/06/the_book_of_mitt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mormon Church]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12914926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pundits still haven't figured out how to talk about Romney's Mormon religion. Here's everything you need to know ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"The precipitous mountain pass that led the [Mormon] pioneers down into the Salt Lake Valley and still is the route of access from the east on Interstate 80, was first explored by my great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt," Mitt Romney cheerfully writes in "Turnaround," the airport bookstore leadership manual he wrote in 2004 while governor of Massachusetts.</p><p>"He had worked a road up along 'Big Canyon Creek' as an act of speculation when his crop failed in the summer of 1849. He charged tolls to prospectors making their way to California at the height of the Gold Rush and even had a Pony Express station commissioned along his pass."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/06/the_book_of_mitt/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/06/the_book_of_mitt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>190</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans Elect canceling caucuses, has no candidates</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/americans_elect_canceling_caucuses_has_no_candidates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/americans_elect_canceling_caucuses_has_no_candidates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Americans Elect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Parties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12914521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Elites discover actual voters don't share their thirst for a "moderate" deficit hawk independent candidate]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Americans Elect is a weird experiment in applying a lot of money and time and resources into proving a common elite myth: That Americans as a whole are crying out for "bold," nonpartisan political leadership, and that their strong desire for moderate, independent solutions is stifled by the two-party system. So far, the organization has managed to win presidential ballot access in 26 states, which is a remarkable achievement. The only problem is, it has no candidate. And the process it developed to select a candidate is turning out to be a big, hilarious mess.</p><p>So <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/confessions_of_an_americans_elect_delegate/">any Americans Elect delegate</a> can "draft" a candidate, and any eligible citizen can declare him- or herself a candidate, but AE has a high bar for a candidate to be declared "qualified" to actually run in its online primary: "Insiders" require 10,000 clicks -- 1,000 people in at least 10 states -- of support from delegates. "Outsiders" require 50,000. Thus far, Ron Paul, a drafted candidate, has received 8,753 clicks. Buddy Roemer, a declared candidate, has 4,389. In other words, no one is close to being qualified, and the massive grass-roots support AE expected did not really pan out. The first "caucus" vote, scheduled for next week, has been canceled. The next vote, set for May 22, <a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/05/01/1923900/group-stirring-independent-wh.html">is reportedly "in jeopardy."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/americans_elect_canceling_caucuses_has_no_candidates/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/americans_elect_canceling_caucuses_has_no_candidates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Bloomberg plays the endorsement game again</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/michael_bloomberg_plays_the_endorsement_game_again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/michael_bloomberg_plays_the_endorsement_game_again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 16:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Bloomberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12913471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The billionaire mayor meets with Mitt Romney as both campaigns practically beg him for his support]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mitt Romney yesterday had <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/romney-and-bloomberg-meet-in-nyc-122151.html">a "private" (well-publicized) meeting</a> with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that was a pretty obvious attempt by Romney to win the for-some-reason "coveted" Bloomberg endorsement. Mayor Bloomberg is not actually the hugely popular and universally respected national figure that anti-partisanship zealot pundits think he is -- <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/11/americans-not-impressed-with-bloomberg.html">only around 20 percent of Americans viewed him favorably in 2010</a>, and a 2011 poll says he'd get <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/08/third-party-bids-would-help-obama.html">a mere 10 percent of the vote</a> in a three-way presidential race -- but those anti-partisanship zealots represent an important constituency of "rich people who run the media," so a Bloomberg endorsement would be a strong signal that Romney is moderate and wise and prudent and so on.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/michael_bloomberg_plays_the_endorsement_game_again/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/02/michael_bloomberg_plays_the_endorsement_game_again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Romney spokesman quits after right-wingers freak out about his being gay</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/romney_spokesman_quits_after_right_wingers_freak_out_about_his_being_gay/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/romney_spokesman_quits_after_right_wingers_freak_out_about_his_being_gay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 19:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12913121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anti-gay conservatives hound foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell into quitting the campaign]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You may know Richard Grenell as the Romney "foreign policy spokesman" who had a history of writing dickish things -- <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/20/468736/richard-grenell-twitter-women/">mainly sexist "jokes"</a> -- on Twitter. He has resigned, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-richard-grenell-hounded-from-romney-campaign-by-anti-gay-conservatives/2012/05/01/gIQAccGcuT_blog.html">Jennifer Rubin reports</a>, from the Romney campaign. Not because he didn't have the sense not to post his offensive jokes about Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow in a public venue to begin with, or because he then <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/richard-grenell-mitt-romney-online-attacks_n_1442726.html">stupidly attempted to scrub his Twitter history</a> after everyone had already seen the posts, but because he is gay, and that grossed out a bunch of creepy right-wingers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/romney_spokesman_quits_after_right_wingers_freak_out_about_his_being_gay/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/romney_spokesman_quits_after_right_wingers_freak_out_about_his_being_gay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

