We called it "kill the carrier," though it was less structured than Dave describes.  There was no "making it" anywhere.  You just tackled the guy with the ball, then he tossed it to someone, then you tackled that guy. 

That's only fair.  Biden wanted to spare bin Laden.

Of course, there's always the possibility that we (or the Japanese) shot it down, but it's in nobody's interest to acknowledge it publicly.

Agreed.  In addition to the elements you cite, Katniss complains in the first book that the districts were all disarmed by the Capitol, rendering them defenseless.  It struck me when I read it as a significant plug for the second amendment.

That "well-founded" should go in logic textbooks as an example of begging the question.  Priceless.

Easy:  They mean that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will prevent Mitt Romney from locking up 1,144 delegates prior to the convention, but that at the convention Romney will be nominated on the second ballot.

Any other questions?  I'm feeling oracular today.

Wait, I thought it was good for the planet for there to be fewer humans.  If we live shorter lives, won't that help?

I like the Dennis Leary line.  Alan King had a good one, too:  It doesn't make you live longer, it just feels longer.

I agree with James to this extent:  If we're going to prohibit abortion, we should prohibit abortion.  We should not micro-manage it to death.

Not over.  There's always the self-inflicted wound.  Romney's raising that to an art form.

Paul Ryan 2016!

Wasn't this Sarah Palin's point when she said people in SC should vote for Newt?  It looks to me like that's roughly what the Republican primary electorate is already doing. 

I thought he meant he felt he was scaring us, the innocent little lambs of the ricochet world.

I'm generally pro-legalization, but I can conceive of some substances (whether heroin, crack or meth are such substances, I don't know) that are so addictive as to rob at least some individuals of their mental capacity.  We don't allow people to sell themselves into slavery, and using a drug that is that addictive is in many ways the equivalent.  Now, I know the purest libertarians would allow a person to sell himself into slavery, but I would not.

James, are you that pure a libertarian?  Or do you not agree that a drug could be that addictive?  Or do you just believe that none of today's drugs are that addictive?

I hate to pick nits (okay, that's a lie), but this would not be Santorum's first strong showing. He won Iowa.

The Times's inverted notion of liberty is unsurprising.  The special irony here, though, is that the healthcare proposals of Romney and most other Republicans would solve the problem the Times is complaining about.  By promoting true liberty, i.e. removing the requirement that employees get insurance through their employers, they would ensure that no employees would find their coverage options restricted by their employers' religious views.

New Coke.

Politicians, though, are the only ones who enact their stubborn visions into laws that are difficult to undo.

I could be talked out of this position, but I think we should let the users from the "steroid era" in the Hall.  During that time usage was widespread and the lack of effort to police it amounted to tacit approval from MLB.  Combined with the impossibility of separating all the users from the non-users, I throw up my hands and say, let 'em all in.