....Bermuda, Barbados, Martinique, Hong Kong, Singapore, Puerto Rico....why bother. Carry on, please.

.

Just the thing to chip one's way out of a responsibility trap. :)

I couldn't get past anncoulter.com. That's an ideological porn site. I've got kids in the house.

Personal ambition mixed with confirmation bias can be a powerful sedative that puts reason into a deep sleep.

As a foot note, Ms. Coulter gives off the O'Reilly Effect very often (soon to be renamed the Beck Effect), in which a crazy hyper partisan money grabbing nut, says something slightly sane, but almost begs to taken solely as hyper partisan nutery.

Yeah, I definitely believe that our conservative brethren, who stand united in favor of systematically torturing random brown people, are deeply concerned about this miscarriage of justice. That's mighty white of y'all.

Missile defense being one example.

If they let Mac off the hook, there's no way they can get away with keeping Bonds (and Clemens, but that's just an incidental effect) out--being permanently picketed by Jesse and Al isn't a lifestyle choice that most anal-cranial conjoined sportswriters are willing to contemplate. They're willing to be called stupid, but not racist. Consequently, they'll need to set a clear precedent before Bonds comes up for a vote, and Mac is the obvious choice, since Palmiero was looking at a long wait before induction even before he flunked his drug test because of all of the idiots with BBWAA cards who think Don Sutton was at best a borderline candidate for induction.

Of course, Mac and Tony LaRussa can screw this all up nicely by letting Mac take a few swings in September this year, restarting his Cooperstown clock. It'd be fun to watch all of the little baseball writer heads explode when Mac comes up to the plate for the first time.

the same number of people died in both events.

who voted for Senator Hillary Clinton.

....carpet-bagger central. If there's anywhere in the country he could pull it off, that'd be it. I agree that it should be funny, though. I seem to recall some quote of his where he had to add something to the effect that he didn't shoot at children. Comedy Gold.

...I find these kinds of stories interesting.

A sampling of the city’s problems: densely packed, mixed-zoned neighborhoods; a lack of late-night transportation (the last metro leaves at 2 a.m. on the weekends, 1 a.m. during the week); and an unwieldy tangle of rules and regulations on bars and nightclubs, applied with uncommon zeal by a “repressive” police force.

Club owners say the central issue is the city’s accelerating gentrification. Real estate values have more than doubled here in the past 10 years, and residents increasingly demand peace and quiet, the club owners say.

*************

And as noted in the story, the indoor smoking ban has driven people out of doors...where they are noisy.

But seriously, for all of these unintended consequences, it is really "the dense mixed use" that I highlighted above that is the prime, or really only problem.

Paris is proud of its mixed use of business and residential...but there is a price.

People do have a right to sleep.

(I may also note that Paris, unlike Berlin or London, wasn't bombed to smithereens during WWII...thereby creating wide swaths of the city for single use and modern planning principles.)

Ahh, the Cruelties of history!

Traveller

the debate is excellent, reminiscent of "Inherit the Wind," and with a similar likely outcome -- that the justices will make up some reason to throw out the good arguments and say something that keeps them in line with popular opinion.

Given that the main claim-to-fame of the New York State Senate seems to be in boldly blazing new frontiers in legislative dysfunction, I'd guess it's at least an even-money bet that Hiram Monserrate will skate on these "recommendations" - or at most get a (functionally meaningless) censure. From your link:

Maybe they need Monserrate's vote on the ethics package....?

I don't think any 15 years are a "child"
Stupid writing of laws using the wrong definition.
In reality, he was charged with trying to have sex with a minor.

.

.

I have seen this argument played out before and just as Will has done those saying the mandate is unconstitutional ignore the welfare clause.

Also, the gov't isn't making you buy health insurance. You won't go to jail if you don't. You simply pay a tax. The Federal Gov't compels states to do things using the exact same tactic and SCOTUS said it was constitutional. LINK

This is an interesting topic, but if Americans are to going have this discussion we shouldn't ignore the strong points of the argument.

I do agree with you and will about "extreme judicial deference". It seems like SCOTUS thinks we don't have any rights unless the government grants them to us. The 9th amendment means nothing.

Perhaps it's that.

It really isn't kind to point out the disabilities of others.