In this Thanksgiving weekend, we acknowledge much for which we are thankful, including this great country.  I would add my wonderful family, including my very liberal sisters.  And a great number of other things . . .

Today, I feel like I should add Charles Krauthammer to the list of things for which I am most thankful.  I had sketched an idea related to the left’s latest, to borrow the expression of a GayPatriot reader, Emmanuel Goldstein, Grover Norquist, a man Democrats are now blaming for the alleged Republican obstructionism in debt reduction negotiations.

You see, Grover has succeeded in securing the signatures of a substantial number of Republicans on a pledge not to raise taxes.  And because, Democrats claim, Republicans won’t raise taxes, they can’t make a deal to cut the deficits.

The man to whom I am most grateful today (for making my task much easier) does a wonderful job of deconstructing (to borrow a term near and dear to the hearts of many academic leftists) the latest left-wing talking point:

So why does the myth of the Norquist-controlled anti-tax monolith persist? You might suggest cynicism and perversity. Let me offer a more benign explanation: thickheadedness — the inability to tell the difference between tax revenue and tax rates.

In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.

The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. For example, the Toomey plan eliminates deductions by $300 billion more than the reduction in tax rates “cost.” Result: $300 billion in new revenue. (more…)

Do wonder how much effort our friends at the New York Times have put into investigating the various scandals swirling about the Obama administration, you know, like politicized hiring at the Justice Department, steering subsidies and loan guarantees to “green” companies with Democratic connections, selling guns to Mexican drug lords . . . .

Maybe their reporters are just too busy covering other issues, like, you know, important things, like, well . . .

. . .  Mitt Romney’s hair.

By far his most distinctive physical feature, Mr. Romney’s head of impeccably coiffed black hair has become something of a cosmetological Rorschach test on the campaign trail, with many seeing in his thick locks everything they love and loathe about the Republican candidate for the White House. (Commanding, reassuring, presidential, crow fans; too stiff, too slick, too perfect, complain critics.)

Thanks to my oldest nephew for the tip.  Guess this is just more newsworthy than the various Obama scandals.