Margaret and Helen tell it like it is:

But what really makes me mad is the hypocrisy. She claims to be a Washington outsider and yet is the worst kind of politician. She will say anything and avoid answering any question instead choosing to spout whatever line or soundbite some adviser put into her mouth a few hours earlier. And exactly when did sounding like a hick make someone “more like us”. Last time I checked we were a country striving to educate our children to be intelligent and honest. I think I would die if my daughter came home from school and said something like “I gotta tell ya. Change is a comin’.” At the very least I would remove the Beverly Hillbillies from her approved TV viewing list.

Excellent analysis and commentary. Awesome. Who needs the Economist anymore? The story continues here:

For crying out loud America. How bad does it have to get? Senator McCain is practically crumbling to dust before our very eyes while Governor Palin is out in the hinterland screeching about some 60’s hippie who bumped into Obama once or twice over the years. This from the woman who panders to secessionists in Alaska. Please, dear God, somebody throw a stone because that glass igloo needs to be shattered!

Agreed, and the Palin membership with separatists who hate America is current, not twenty years ago, not ten…it is today.

Spoiler alert: just read the original story if you want to be led through all the clues, one by one, as LiveScience tries to eliminate the supernatural. Otherwise, here’s their conclusion:

One obvious answer, prematurely dismissed by Peterson and others, is almost certainly the correct one: the ghost is a bug. A spider or insect wandered onto the camera; that’s why it was out of focus, why it seemed to glow, why it didn’t interact with anything in the room, and why it only appeared on one camera. It’s true that a moving light wouldn’t activate the camera, as they are sensitive to motion, not light. But it was the bug’s movement that triggered the sensor and started the recording.

This gives new meaning to a surveillance bug.

The Big Money makes an argument that Karl Marx had uncanny predictions of bank failure in his day, but also lessons for today:

When money is coming in, banks are blind to their problems. An inquiry into the 1857 crisis found that the Bank of England had extended far too much credit to too many speculators-sound familiar? Had the bank been more prudent in 1855 and 1856, it probably would not have had to resort to the desperate measures that accelerated the crisis. But trying to get banks to honestly analyze their situation before a crisis hits … well, that has not gotten much easier in the ensuing 150 years.

I like it when history comes into the news and tries to give lessons AFTER a crisis. The better part of the article is where Marx predicts the bank failure before it happened.