Every once in awhile we get a story of triumph over tragedy and survival against all odds that warms the heart and touches the soul. This isn't one of those stories. It's half of one of those stories. It seems a North Carolina girl was able to survive two nights trapped in the wreckage of a Government Motors Monte Carlo by eating Pop Tarts.

At this point, I would like to declare that the verdict is in on Joe Paterno. Well, not so much on Joe. But it is on saying anything good about him. Score another point for the huddled masses yearning to be ignorant. Yes, I know that is a bit harsh, but even when the defense attorney for Sandusky allegedly produces the boy from the shower scene who is telling the same story that everybody except McQueary is telling, they are not deterred. It's either a hoax from the lawyer, the boy is lying, or Sandusky brainwashed him and he is covering for him. Isn't it even slightly possible that everyone but McQueary is telling the truth? "Of course not", they scoff.

Billionaire Warren Buffett recently wrote an op ed for the New York Times in which he complained that he just wasn't being taxed enough. He griped that he and his "mega-rich" friends had been "coddled long enough" and it was time for our Government to get serious about "shared sacrifice". President Obama seized on this opportunity to propose the "Buffett Rule", which would ensure that millionaires are taxed at a higher rate than their non millionaire counterparts. We are supposed to pay no attention to the fact that the average American pays 16% of their income in federal taxes, while the average millionaire pays 20%, which means that this is already happening without the Buffett rule. I suppose that we are also supposed to pay no attention to the fact that Warren Buffett not only has the opportunity to pay more taxes than he already is, but he also has a damn good reason to.

Recently, Paul Krugman was on CNN describing how an alien attack would help our economic recovery. If you have not already seen it, no, this is not a joke. He said it and repeated it, so it was not a slip up either. In the video below, I have a little fun at his expense pointing out how silly of a notion it is, and discussing what it means for the Obama economic efforts if some far out scenario is needed to make his plans work. What I did not address in the video is the intellectual dishonesty contained in Paul Krugman's statement. In 2003, Paul was speaking at Berkley when he said the following. (below video)

It's amazing how much can change in 3 years. In 2008, it was a Senator who told us that it was the policies of a President that were responsible for the shape of the economy. Now that Senator is President, and he is telling us that it is the failure of the Senate to work with him that is shaping our economy. 3 years ago, 7.2% unemployment was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Today, 9% unemployment is a recovery. $8 trillion in debt was unsustainable then. $12 trillion isn't enough now. It has been only 3 short years since the man who is complaining about Congress not working with him told us we should not vote for the other guy because he voted with the President 80% of the time. Yes, a lot has changed in the last 3 years. But do you remember then Senator Obama's reaction to Phil Graham's take on the economy?