Don't know why the body of my post didn't show up, but the title is really the point. I've long wondered that and never heard a good explanation.

The proper course here (following polite requests) is to make a loud scene:  "Madam, put away your phone!  Are you not aware that there are others trying to enjoy the theater?"  etc. until she puts it away or the usher comes.  Then the usher walks her out, not Kevin.

I do agree, though, that sometimes societal norms may be enforced through what otherwise would be unacceptable physical contact.  For example, I wholly agree with Jonah Goldberg that those Westboro Baptist funeral protesters should get beaten up by a group of men from the funeral (and that the cops should look the other way).

But rudeness at the theater doesn't rise to that level.

PJAM here.  Looks like I pulled out a squeaker,* with three folks just one point behind.  Congrats to the other winners, and thanks to Ricochet for the prizes.  Though, if Obama were in charge, we'd all get t-shirts and mugs without any increase in the deficit.

*Add this to the list of expressions that sound dirty but really aren't.

Thanks.  It sure was close, with the next three (including you) tied just one point back.

I've never come close in one of these things before either.

Reminds me of the classic Penn & Teller effort to get liberals to sign a petition banning water.

As I read the "What Ifs," PJAM (which is me) will win if Louisville wins, INMATEPROF will win if Syracuse beats Louisville in the final, and ETHOMPSON will win if anything else happens.

Nate Silver thinks I have a 55% chance of winning.  So do we really even need to play the games?

Good luck to all!

I consider respect incidental.  If I'm doing it right (whatever "it" may be, job, caring for my family, etc.), I'll be respected, but that's not why I want to do it right.

I disagree with this entirely. While I don't like Obama's priorities, I see no difference between allocating resources to more serious breaches of a law and allocating resources between violations of more or less important laws. If I were president, I'd pull everyone working on violations of toilet flush and showerhead waterflow volume limits, or incandescent lightbulb wattage limits, off of those investigations and give them something useful to do. Or fire them and reduce the deficit. And I don't think I'd be violating my oath to faithfully execute the laws. I'd just be sensibly prioritizing the use of my limited resources. Another reason why elections matter.

Frank's red hot #6. I vote that #%*! on everything. 40

33, but a couple of lucky half-guesses.

I non-watched for the first time last night, and not watching was everything I thought it would be.

As usual, Office Space has the definitive answer to this:

PETER
Our high school guidance counselor used to ask us what you would do if
we had a million dollars and didn't have to work. And invariably,
whatever we would say, that was supposed to be our careers. If you
wanted to build cars, then you're supposed to be an auto mechanic.
SAMIR
So what did you say?
PETER
I never had an answer. I guess that's why I'm working at Initech.
MICHAEL
No, you're working at Initech because that question is bull**** to
begin with.  If that quiz worked, there would be no janitors, because no one would clean s*** up if they had a million dollars.

Agreed.  Also agree with stopping the whole thing and going back to a letter.  That's 90 minutes of our lives back every winter.

Short of that, how about a "no applause until the end" rule?

I think the John Derbyshire, "rubble doesn't make trouble" types are basically with you, Mollie.

Reminds me of this classic SNL skit.

I dislike "Native American" for a similar reason.  I am a native American (i.e., I was born here), but not a "Native American."  What's wrong with "American Indian" to distinguish Indians from Indians? 

And who cares that Columbus was wrong?  To me, it's just one of those great etymological stories that make learning about language so interesting.