Smart political move.

I can't believe I've been paying this site every month for the last three years...  Just kidding, it is worth every cup of Starbucks coffee. Congratulations!

Hit the nail on the head. But I would still like to believe that this study proves progressive politics is for weak, girlie men.

I was in a heated argument in law school regarding sports with my law professor. He made the assertion that segregating sports based on gender was akin to racial segregation in the United States. I went through the physiological differences between men and women (hormones, muscle mass, relative height and weight differences) and he responded that early-twentieth century racists had theories about the inherent differences between the races too.

My jaw dropped. I conceded that, yes, there were fallacious racial theories at one point but that does not undermine the scientific and, well, obvious physical differences between men and women. If you want to allow women to compete athletically, with a extremely narrow exception, most women will not be able to compete at a professional or high collegiate level with men at the same age. I had to literally explain that there was a difference between men and women to a liberal.

It finally took a former all-american basketball player and WNBA draftee to explain that she practices and competes with men who were varsity-level high school players to satisfy the professor.

This is a liberal administration and the AP is, well, the AP. They'll do what every large organization does when dealing with big government: make a loud enough squeal to garner cessations and crawl away happy with the narrow gifts bestowed upon them by Big Brother. I doubt we hear much more about this after a few days and a few - very quiet - apologies.

It's sad but it's our current reality. Same will be true about the targeting of conservative groups--the focus will be on those evil Republicans trying to "politicize" small "bureaucratic mismanagement."

No one ever accused Friedman of making coherent arguments.

This is academia in the twenty-first century. Unsubstantiated nonsense. I survived four years of undergraduate classes with the same bias. 

It does provide an opportunity to actually think for oneself (a rare feat on college campuses these days): if you are conservative on a college campus, you have to actually research and fine-tune your arguments against a constant stream of liberal groupthink. CR v. CD debates were always a breeze because College Democrats could go all year without having their assumptions challenged by more than the thinnest of straw man arguments.

I would be surprised if they found someone with heft from the left-wing of the spectrum. Crossfire was killed by Jon Stewart and his word still counts as currency for the Left. Frankly, I don't believe his critique was really intellectually motivated as much as the desire to be closed off from legitimate opposing arguments. Most of the conservative arguments taken on in left-wing opinion television are straw man arguments.

Further, I'm not optimistic that if a legitimate voice from the Left is chosen - a substantive voice from the Right will also be included. Especially given the current sprint to the left at CNN.

What happened to developing character through the virtues and tribulations of sport? The death of muscular christianity and the rise of feeble secularism...

Truly the Servant of Servants. I have deep affection for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but I am very excited for the upcoming years in the Catholic Church. The debate prior to the Conclave was whether the Cardinals would choose a man that will be charismatic or reform the Church from within.  Pope Francis is both.

If you wanted a pope with the connections and gravitas to clean up the curia, you have it in Pope Francis.  His humility is thoroughly charismatic and will hopefully shape a different view of the Church in the culture.

I am a tax attorney and the specialization increasingly calls for the expensive, post-JD LL.M. program.  Given the saying we threw around in law school [(1L) Scare you to death-(2L)work you to death-(3L)bore you to death], I think a split 2-year/1-year program would be ideal for attorneys.

Students could attend two years of law school (including a summer off for summer associateships and externships) and take the bar exam.  This would allow aspiring attorneys to take the foundational courses. Following a set period of years practicing law, the attorney returns to school for a one year program in his or her chosen legal specialization.

Most students have no idea what type of law they will eventually practice until they have their first job. Generally your practice is determined by the need of your employer or the practice group you interact best within.  Why waste $50,000 of education on a third year of law school before you know what classes are beneficial? 

Finally, a one-year hiatus for additional education  early in your career will alleviate burnout similar to the MBA period for investment bankers and other strenuous business careers.

Absolutely fantastic.

And so it goes when the central role of government is no longer the protection of life, liberty, and property, but the protection of the privileged status of bureaucratic elites and crony capitalists.

That would his explain his connection to the Labour Party.

I can't wait for gerrymandering in the US Senate! It works so well in the US House!

Also, it appears Gary is the area surrounding Chicago and Chicago has it's own state. I believe the area is locally called the Calumet Region which would be a more fitting (and less terrifying) state name.

I believe in a God of second-chances. I don't believe in a Republican Party of second-chances.