Or sharing of government data with political campaigns. Because we can be certain that didn't happen right? It's not like any politician's campaign met with the head of the IRS at the White House or anything.

Just to add to the conspiracy pot here. The IRS was targeting groups filing for 501(c)(4) status asking for their donor lists. In California, court cases were being filed to find out who donated to Prop 8 campaigns. The government is tracking "metadata" from Verizon and possibly others.
Is it possible that the administration could share the Verizon data - you know accidentally leak it like the Romney donor list - to allied groups to perpetuate harassment of those who have conservative phone numbers?

Just sayin'.
I would never have thought this a possibility prior to the bullying tactics related to Prop 8 and the IRS deal.

When the LA Times is running stories that say

It's not a recovery. It's not even normal growth. It's bad,

then maybe it's pretty bad.

No one ever listens to Admiral Akhbar.

So...a politician is persuaded by his constituency and by the deliberative process that his initial proposal would not work...and this is somehow bad?

That's an insane criticism. It is entirely possible that Rubio wrote the bill thinking that x was true, but that as the bill was being deliberated he became convinced that people on the Left were being disingenuous and that those on the Right who were arguing for the need for security first were correct.

That is also a "competent" reading of what occurred.

He proposes a bill and you yell at him.

He says he will no longer support that bill unless it represents some of the things you criticized him for in the first place, and now he's a weak failure?

C'mon! That's ridiculous.

Isn't this a question that has been asked every year since the first year SNL was broadcast?

People were asking if SNL was still funny when Eddie Murphy was on the show. They were asking it when Dennis Miller was on the show...when Adam Sandler was on the show.

The list goes on. I haven't watched the show in about a decade, but I imagine it is about as funny as it ever was. Which is to say, not very funny in general but with moments of brilliance. The production schedule on each episode precludes uniform excellence.

Rooting a discussion in Bioethics is fine. Calling a discussion rooted in Bioethics a discussion rooted in Science is not. Bioethics is a discipline that regards "how" to practice biological science within an ethical framework. It is a discipline of philosophy and the argument of potential that the author takes issue with is one that comes from philosophy. His dismissal of the argument, pithy as it is, is primarily a demonstration that the author is incapable of practicing Teleological thought.

He is incapable of judging a moral act by the ends. Otherwise he would give the argument proper weight. That doesn't mean he would agree with it, as there are other places to begin a philosophic discussion. But one thing must be set out at first principles and that is that philosophy, even when it guides Science, isn't Science.

Philosophy is wonderful. It is a gift, but it isn't Science.

I'll be watching it. If it's funny, it's funny. If it isn't, it isn't.

Next you'll want me to toss out my DMG because of the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity. Not going to happen. This is high concept base humor.

Not everything is an agenda. The people at Queerty and those here who think it is are making the same mistake.

Being upset with people like Mike Murphy is one of the contributing factors to the lower turnout among Conservatives this last election. If Conservatives had turned out in higher numbers, we would not have Obama as President today. Period. It was depressed Conservative turnout that won the election for Obama and not an upswell of Liberal support.
The question is whether it is Murphy's fault for backing candidates and promoting positions that alienated the Conservative base -- entirely possible -- or whether the Conservative base was as overly precious as an indie music fan who hates it when their band "sells out."
The fact is that it is a delicate balance to maintain the Conservative base while appealing to Moderate voters. Murphy once had a track record that suggested he was able to maintain that balance. This seems to be no longer the case.
Does this make Mike Murphy a jerk? I don't think so. Nor does it make him mercenary or disingenuous.  It just makes him someone who should not be hired by Conservative candidates until he can find where that balance lies again.

And don't mistake Murphy's "advice" for his personal beliefs. They may be different.

C.U.,

It's true. Dice do hate you. A nice set of old worn down polyhedrons snuck into my house last night. They informed me that they had escaped your Crown Royal bag and were demanding asylum. I asked why and they told me a horror story of a die being frozen and then shattered with a hammer. It wasn't clear whether this had actually been done, or if you had been reading the excellent book BONES by GameWrightPress.

Regardless, I welcomed them to my home and informed them that if they didn't perform up to snuff they would be melted down and reforged as Pig Farmer minis. They have been behaving so far.

Let's see...I found my father's underground comic books by the time I was 5 (likely earlier but the fog of youth prevents an exact date) which prominently featured acts that are banned by CoC, by the time I was 10 I had found copies of my father's hard core independent pornographic magazines, by 13 I had read cover to cover Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask (I checked it out at the library). Oh, and my parents walked around the house naked and weren't particularly silent about their night time activities.

At 26 I married the love of my life and we have been married for 16 years. Not once has my heart or body wandered. I don't expect our relations to mirror those of the porn I saw as a child or watched in the fraternity.

I find that most fear of children encountering sexual activity to be overblown. What matters is how we talk with our children about sexual activity when they discover it.

It has been my experience that teachers in CA teach -- as much as they ever do anyway -- only up to the point when the students take their standardized tests.  The remaining 4 to 6 weeks of the school year are made up of having students watch LAW and ORDER to see how our criminal justice system works, watching GLADIATOR to learn about ancient Rome (wait that was in the fall and in an AP Humanities class), filling up the time with visitors from volunteer programs like JA, field trips, and complaining that they hadn't had enough time to teach all the Standards and Content before testing...not that they would use the remaining time to teach what they missed or coordinate with the next grade level to jump start the students.

"Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community."

"Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished."
-- Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question

He wants to "Go full BULLWORTH?"

Mr. Obama [has a] desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him?

Who is putting these limitations on him?  He's the President of the United States.  He has the Bully Pulpit for goodness sake!  If the President can't say "what he really believes," then why is he even President?

It is a disservice to the American people for the President to be disingenuous in anything he says.  He has a responsibility to go full BULLWORTH.  Not in the way that the character advanced "socialism," though that is largely what the character did, rather to say what he really thinks about the issues he faces and wants us to face.

I think it would have been better if Kevin had interjected himself into the conversation the woman was having.  He should have started giving his opinion regarding her statements and shared with the friend on the other side of the line his insights.

Uncle Buck -- When he slams his niece's "boyfriend" into the trunk of his car.