Christine O’Donnell, who is backed by the Tea Party Express, is running in this week’s Delaware Senate primary against Rep. Mike Castle. Castle, a former governor, has been winning elections in Delaware by large margins since 1966, and in any normal year his victory would be assured. But this year, nothing can be taken for granted.

O’Donnell’s views appear to be particularly extreme, even by Tea Party standards. In 1998, she told an MTV interviewer that masturbation is the same as adultery because “the Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust.”

In an article written about the same time, the fiercely Catholic O’Donnell declared, “When a married person uses pornography, or is unfaithful, it compromises not just his (or her) purity, but also compromises the spouse’s purity. As a church, we need to teach a higher standard than abstinence.”

via » Tea Party backed candidate/dingbat says, “Masturbation is the same as adultery!” Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log..

What if you masturbate with your spouse?

Don Dwyer Jr; you’re a fucking douche.

Md. impeachment effort rejected – baltimoresun.com:
GOP lawmaker sought to oust state attorney general over opinion on gay marriage
By Julie Bykowicz

April 1, 2010

A House of Delegates committee rejected Wednesday a Republican lawmaker’s attempt to impeach Maryland’s attorney general over an opinion he issued recently on same-sex marriage.

Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr. of Anne Arundel County had asked fellow delegates to initiate the impeachment process for Douglas F. Gansler, a Democrat, who said Maryland should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Dwyer says Gansler’s opinion wrongly overturned state policy on such unions.

via Wall Street Journal to Charge $17.99 a Month for iPad Subscriptions.

Just when you thought the iPad might be able to breathe some life back into the failing print industry, the industry itself seems dead set on making sure that doesn’t happen.

Well said.  There’s no WAY that I would pay that much for their content.

Let’s pretend for a minute that this wasn’t WSJ and was instead some great video game or Mac site, making this argument meaningful to me (no offense, WSJ).  For a site to ask me to pay for their so-called premium content (that IS their argument here, isn’t it?), I’d have to consider their exclusive content so much better than what’s already freely available on the internet, that I’d be willing to pay for it.

Is that even possible?  In today’s information age, can I fathom wanting to pay for text?  I  already pay for media (music and video games), but I consume so much free, readily-available text in the form of interesting web articles (<3 Instapaper) that I already can’t keep up with everything that I find interesting.

Let me restate that another way:

There’s more quality free content available to me than I have time to consume.

Without even considering the cost of said premium content, I’ve already got to commit myself to prioritizing it above the free content since I don’t want to waste my money. Regardless of just how good this premium content may be, the internet also provides a wealth of great reading. The TRUE draw of a premium subscription is the promise of no longer needing to sift through hundreds of RSS feeds to filter out the delicious bits of reading, but the drawback of a premium subscription is it’s homogeneous nature. The very benefit they offer is their weakness:

Filtered, editorialized access to the same information that’s already available to me on the internet.

Think about that for a minute.

Are you willing to pay $215.88 every year for that privilege? Do you trust WSJ’s editorial process enough to not filter out dissenting views?

o_O?