Prime Suspect. Wallander. The Last Detective. ... But where's Garrow's Law? C'mon, streamer content provider guys!

That may be, but when these guys say something loopy inspired by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the mainstream Christian faithful can be counted on to decry their Old Testament silliness. See Rob Long's lament above.

"We need to rely on other Muslims to point out how insane and dangerous some Muslims are ... " Well, yes, but how's that working out for us so far? Zuhdi Jasser is just one man.

1 Corinthians 13:13

So long as Julian Fellowes remains the principle writer and source authority, I'm unconcerned about Downton slipping down the leftist slope. That's not his style. He was elevated to the peerage in 2011, and sits with the Conservaties.

(By the way, my avatar photo was taken outside the Gate Lodge at Adverikie Estate, home to "Monarch of the Glen" in Scotland, in which Fellowes had a small recurring role.) 

I am beyond astonished that each week Hugh Hewitt fails to include Ricochet among James Lileks' many credentials. Hugh seems to have a gift for making cash registers ring. Coach the man up!

Plainly, it's not difficult to draw the line at inter-species nuptials. Let's not be absurd and self-defeating here. But if the sole criteria is love and a willingness to commit between adult humans, which is the fundamental argument as I read it, then where is the logic that prohibits marriages between loving and committed siblings or cousins? Yeah, it's icky. So? Where, furthermore, is the logic that denies access for commitment and love as expressed by marriage among several? Once you've left the sensible, solid ground of one-man/one-woman marriage, you've plunged into a bottomless abyss where, rationally, anything goes.

Todd Akin's thumping dunderheadedness isn't about whether the life conceived in a sexual attack should be protected. Conservatives should be willing (as Paul Ryan has) to engage that argument. Is life in the womb human life? Is it innocent? Can we justify taking innocent life for the sake of someone else's mental health? (I concede being deeply conflicted.)
But the left is trying to change the subject (the better to ensnare Ryan) from the root of Akin's breathtaking stupidity -- the best argument for abandoning the race: his dubious faith in the bodies of rape victims shutting down the reproduction process.

Greetings, John! I write a column for the Tampa Tribune's Pasco County edition and readers. If your guest list begins to prickle with Ricochetians from my jurisdiction, give me a shout. I'll either advance your event, or cover it. Email tjackson@tampatrib.com. Thanks!

Isn't this the point one or another (or perhaps both) of the Pauls have made regarding the civil rights legislation of the 1960s? That it's all well and good to extend civil rights mandates throughout government, but that it should stop at the threshold of the private sector?
If we are to give line-drawing a pass to line-drawing Somali cab drivers in the interest of private property rights, should we not extend similar consideration to owners of diners or motels or apartment buildings who are willing to injure their bottom lines rather than compromise their fevered principles?
I wouldn't eat/stay/live at any of those exclusionary places, even if I was a favored client, and you can bet I'd seek the non-Somali cabbie, but, still, freedom is as freedom does.

My demented lefty (but I repeat ... ) pals are already posting on Facebook, as if it were gospel.
Wheeeeee!

Call me beyond optimistic, but in a Facebook group crawling with doom-forecasting, howling-at-the-moon Ron Paul supporters immediately north of the Tampa Bay area, I've wagered a moderately (check that: fairly) expensive lunch that Romney will win this thing going away. Adding intrigue, I've put the over at 54 percent of the popular vote and 315 electoral votes.

When they finally tap, confiscate or otherwise alter prudent worker-bee taxpayers' relationship with their private retirement accounts, the feds will famously quote Willie Sutton, the bank robber: "Because that's where the money is."

Ronald Reagan came along, as I recall, when there were serious and prolonged discussions about whether the presidency had grown too large for any one person, and oughtn't it be divvied up at least a couple of ways -- one domestic boss and one for foreign relations/defense. That talk evaporated straightaway after January 1981.
Now it's back, in a book scheduled to be published next year written by an Indiana U. law professor, David Orentlicher. Hmmm. What are the similarities between the late 1970s and today that would prompt anyone to think being the American president is a Job Too Big for a single human.
I know I'm stumped.

 The car buried in the snow looks remarkably like one Ted Kennedy (God rest his soul) wishes he'd been driving that fateful night in Chappaquiddick.