If you're busily constructing a narrative of change , you probably want to avoid stories in the Telegraph like this one: The selection of Mr Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama's commitment to the special relationship with Britain. American commentators denounced the selection of a rich friend to the plumb post, regarded as one of the most prestigious in the president's gift, as worthy of a "banana republic". They said it was proof that Mr Obama has turned his back on his campaign pledge to end politics as usual. A source with knowledge of the negotiations told The Washington Post that the appointment is "likely to happen" but is "not final".... And they [critics] pointed out that there is little difference between handing a major diplomatic post to a fundraiser and the "pay to play" scandal in which disgraced former Illinoi...

(with apologies to Waldo , as usual, whenever I steal the gag) It strikes me as entertaining when one political party, ideology, or apologist attempts to stake out the high ground on a scientific or intellectual issue... Like this : The GOP is the same party that wants Creationism taught in schools… Good point, potentially, except that--according to the Pew study done in honor of Charles Darwin's birthday--a lot of people who believe in Creationism (and even want it taught in the schools either in place of, or alongside, evolution)--must have voted Democratic in the past presidential election: Opinion polls over the past two decades have found the American public deeply divided in its beliefs about the origins and development of life on earth. Surveys are fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life , while comparable or slightly larg...