DISQUS

I can't imagine a significant fraction of girls age 9-13 being interested in parent-controlled media when they can get the same services through sites like Gaia Online, and not when they would have the opportunity to access those sites elsewhere. This website is very much marketed to the parents, which IMHO is a mistake. The parents are not the real deciders--they simply can't exercise that degree of control over their kids' Internet usage, however much they may wish to, because it's far too easy to access the Net these days. Parents, admit it--your children will visit just about any website they want to, and your job is not to stop them but to teach them to use the tubes responsibly.

You know what we call your defeatist attitude towards the '08 election? A self-fulfilling prophecy.

If there was a candidate at this point that would achieve those goals, we'd nominate him in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the candidates that (disputably) fit that mold were voted down. So we vote for the least of three evils.

Also, who says voting for a candidate who will nominate strict constructionist judges ISN'T supporting minimal government, states' rights, social security reform and the rest? Remember, one of the major bodies that limited FDR's New Deal in the '30s was the conservative Supreme Court (before he tried his court-packing stunt...and that cost him a lot of support, so even that wasn't good for him). Your feeble attempt at mockery is ridiculously flawed.

Oh, and it's D'oh!...if you're going to try to mock people, you might want to not screw up yourself.

"sharp and spirited Republican opposition" won't have an effect if the Dems get the majority again, especially if they end up with a supermajority. And again, though you state at the beginning that there are "obvious differences" between the three candidates, your commentary doesn't reflect it when you begin talking about what McCain could wreck. McCain's ACU rating in the last relevant year was 65. Not conservative, not liberal, somewhere near the middle. Hillary's record? 8. Obama's? 4. Are you seriously telling me that the damage those two would inflict would be less than the good that MIGHT be done in the Republican party in reaction to electing Hillary/Obama?

Ask the people who voted for McCain if the MSM picked him for them. Until then, you don't get to say that their support was somehow illegitemized because the media also supported him. It's not like the NY Times' endorsement was a GOOD thing, but that doesn't invalidate the votes that were cast for him.

If Roberts and Alito being nominated was "preventing conservative judges", then yes.

If a Dem is elected in 2008 and they don't win a supermajority, you're gonna be real glad that filibustering is still an option. With Roberts and Alito, I don't see how you can complain. My only complaint is that Republicans brought up the nuclear option at all, as now the Dems can use it if their nominee gets filibustered (and probably will). This is assuming that the nuclear option has never been mentioned before, which is probably not the case, but still.

So, we should've chosen someone who got LESS support in the primaries? Just because some of the conservative base is in fits about his betrayals on certain social and economic issues doesn't mean he was less deserving of the nomination. Were all the votes cast for him somehow fake?

Nominated for idiot post of the year. If you think the long-term advantage of *maybe* making the Republicans more conservative (and how likely is it that politicians will interpret a loss in November the same way WE will? A Dem win may indicate to the pols that a shift to the LEFT is required) is worth a couple of activist judges and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, go right ahead.

As a competitive high school golfer, I vociferously disagree with your slander of a sport (yes, SPORT) five times as old as more conventional sports like basketball or football (not soccer).

And you must admit, the analogy is apt.

The "blowjob impeachment" was about Clinton lying in court, not adultery (at least not directly).

If you're not a social conservative, good for you, neither am I. That's one reason I don't see Huckabee as a conservative - he only has his social conservatism to back up that claim, while his fiscal policy is decidedly liberal and his foreign policy is, um, well, something. McCain is at least a war hawk, but fiscally he is also questionable (not awful, but questionable).

Impolitic but correct.

Hate the game, not the player.

Well, bad speakers can make the Presidency. Bush was notorious for being inarticulate during both campaigns.

Good job noticing 1/10th of the comments in order to make a stupid point.

I'm glad the situation was resolved.

There's a difference between wearing an Edwards tee and working for an organization lobbying for Hillary (and more).

Do you have friends stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, or Bosnia? Nope, guess not.

Get a Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 with the five best games for it ever made, plus extra controllers. Cheaper and more fun.

Great, so in the state where he's not doing anything he's doing poorly. Surprise, surprise. And he's something like tied for first in polling in SC.

Actually, it means that if someone whips out a firearm at you, you can whip out your firearm and kill the SOB (or kneecap him, if you're good enough). Without the 2nd Amendment, guns would be outlawed and only outlaws would have guns, as the famous saying goes, so you'd be just as likely to get killed by a firearm. See? Freedom AND security...at least in this case. I won't deny that there's often a balancing act, but it certainly isn't so with the second amendment.

AAAUAAUAUAUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!
*reaction to getting Hairspray in eyes*

Seriously, whether or not the old version was good, the remake burned the eyes. I saw it at a drive-in over on the East Coast only because it was the first part of a two-part showing, the second part being Bourne Ultimatum.

a few points/questions:
1. Just to clear the air, cell phone companies aren't providing records for these cases w/o probable cause, so that much is secure. Also, the warrant is still a prerequisite for cell phone tracking - it's not on the level of warrantless wiretapping. However, the lack of a "probable cause" standard is a cause for concern.

2. The federal/state boundaries of these cases seem uncertain. If it's a federal crime (i.e. crosses state lines), then obviously it'd be a federal official requesting a warrant for tracking. If it's a local crime, is it possible for the state officials to request a warrant of this sort? Otherwise, it seems a little suspicious, as has been noted, that these cases are almost exclusively federal. Then again...in a local (thus small) area, would they really need such a tool?

3. If you're in a public place, doesn't the police officer have the right to follow you around without a warrant or anything? For example, isn't that what police do on the road? I understand that there's a bit of a difference between a highway cop wandering around the highway and cops on your tail whenever you're in a public place to make sure you aren't breaking the law, but where is this difference spelled out in the law itself?

4. It seems, therefore, that the main point of conflict would be police using this cell phone tracking for people in public areas. Would it then be reasonable to write that difference into law, such that police can track you while in a public place without probable cause but have to obtain a warrant with probable cause for private areas? One idea: restricting the warrant to a certain cell phone in a certain area (or perhaps just to a certain area), determining what standard of evidence applies to that area and requesting the warrant accordingly.

Nitpick...but some reporters have been locked up for refusing to disclose their sources, haven't they? How does that fit into the equation?

Ok, you tell me. How was Romney to know from this judge's past record that she was going to make this bad decision? How do you think he was personally involved in this bad decision? Is she secretly a puppet or something?

Check out The Corner's take on this issue, it's not as much of a crisis as Zakaria makes it out to be:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJiMj...