The history of Soviet jokes:

Jokes were an essential part of the communist experience because the monopoly of state power meant that any act of non-conformity, down to a simple turn of phrase, could be construed as a form of dissent. By the same token, a joke about any facet of life became a joke about communism. There have been political and anti-authority jokes in every era, but nowhere else did political jokes cohere into an anonymous body of folk literature as they did under communism. With the creation of the Soviet bloc after the war, communism exposed itself to Czech and Jewish traditions of humour

The history of Soviet jokes:

Jokes were an essential part of the communist experience because the monopoly of state power meant that any act of non-conformity, down to a simple turn of phrase, could be construed as a form of dissent. By the same token, a joke about any facet of life became a joke about communism. There have been political and anti-authority jokes in every era, but nowhere else did political jokes cohere into an anonymous body of folk literature as they did under communism. With the creation of the Soviet bloc after the war, communism exposed itself to Czech and Jewish traditions of humour

The history of Soviet jokes:

Jokes were an essential part of the communist experience because the monopoly of state power meant that any act of non-conformity, down to a simple turn of phrase, could be construed as a form of dissent. By the same token, a joke about any facet of life became a joke about communism. There have been political and anti-authority jokes in every era, but nowhere else did political jokes cohere into an anonymous body of folk literature as they did under communism. With the creation of the Soviet bloc after the war, communism exposed itself to Czech and Jewish traditions of humour

The day the Fitzmas died.

Some commentator on Fox just noted that in Germany, and the UK, a higher percentage of people have a favorable opinion of China than of the US.

I suspect that this is primarily a result of ignorance, as promulgated by their media (about both us and China). The alternative, which is that they no longer share our western values, is even more frightening.

Our naive young blue-state blue blood Joel Stein makes an ass of himself in print again. Lileks comments (scroll down, if you want to get right to it).

I, too, look forward to the cross examination by Hugh Hewitt. But I suspect that even Joel isn’t that naive, after the last time.

Brit Hume and Drudge are both reporting that Bob Novak is going to reveal that his source for Valerie Plame’s identity was her husband. Doesn’t seem like that great a source to me, but I guess at the time it wasn’t apparent what a liar he was.

…are being cruelly mocked. By the cruelest mocker of all, Mark Steyn.

…other celebrities rushed to show their support for the anti-war movement: ”I’ll not have what she’s not having.” Winona Ryder is telling waiters, ”Hold the haunch of venison.” Keira Knightley is saying, ”Hey, I’ll just go with the short stack this morning. And the low-fat simulated-maple syrup substitute.” Ice T has given up iced tea. Disgusted by the callousness of the Bush war machine, William Powell and Myrna Loy have decided to go without the olive in their fourth martini. Willie Nelson is said to be gaunt and sounding croaky. Michael Moore, hovering dangerously at 300 pounds, has told friends, ”You can never be too rich but you can be too thin.”

[Update in the afternoon]

People magazine, of course, reports this as though it were a real hunger strike. Would it hurt them to point out that no one, in fact, is going to be truly hungry, at any point of this laugh fest?

Gays working at the Boston Globe must now get married, or lose their partner’s benefits.

It will be interesting to see what kind of logical pretzels they warp themselves into to explain why this is unfair, when unmarried heterosexual couples don’t get benefits. I also wonder what Andrew Sullivan thinks? Not enough to actually link to him, though.

The argument seems to go that the “religious right” is attempting to impose its morality on the rest of us. If that’s the case, you’d think that “conservatives” would support blue laws against alcohol sales on Sunday, right?

Go read this thread at Free Republic, in which the vast majority of the posts are opposed to them. And the overwhelming reason is that, even for the professed Christians, small government is more important to them than government attempting to enforce morality.