OK, here comes my $.02  I haven't read through all the other 800+(!) comments, so please excuse me if I duplicate anyone else.
I'm not sure you have a viable business model.   I am a member (obviously) but I think you need to figure-out how to offer something more for your annual membership.  Essentially all you really are getting is the ability to interact with the rest of the Ricochet community, and I'm not sure that's compelling enough when you consider that the vast and overwhelming majority of visitors to any opinion and commentary site are passive readers who never want to comment.  You need to offer something else to entice them, or else consider altering your model.  I agree that you need to have a viable business entity to make this work, but the fact that your struggling either means your product is not attractive enough, or your business model needs overhauling.

You are reading my mind, TeamAmerica.

I'm not buying this new explanation for two reasons:

1.  Merely acknowledging the attack on Benghazi was done by terrorists, which is the first assumption 99% of the entire world would make anyway, does not give away any sources or methods

2. As the terrorists themselves we tweeting about the attack as it happened, and claiming credit for it, no special sources or methods were even necessary to determine who the culprit was!

What we really need to do is determine who exactly edited Petraeus' memo.  There must be a paper-trail on this.

"Do facts even matter any more? Why wait for information when we can rush to judge the cause and meaning of a woman's death for our own political gains?"

Indeed, why even bother waiting for actual events to occur, why not just make-up stories that suit your political narrative, and publish them as news.  How would that be any different?

I think you underestimate Mr. Sullivan.  I personally think he is quite capable of being both utterly delusional AND rampantly dishonest at the same time, and often in the same sentence.

Your advice is quite sound, Doc.  In fact writing this was part of the process of "moving-on" for me.  It's more difficult for my daughter, because the false story is still being pushed at school by Sylvie, who is apparently making it her mission to tell all the other kids Amber and Gina "bullied" her.  Amber's mother has contacted Sylvie's mother and warned her to tell Sylvie to stop, or she will report Sylvie to the school for bullying, which I think is an appropriate, if ironic solution.

You are exactly right, Lucy.  Amen!

I hear you Katie.  I recieved my share of bullying as a kid, so my daughter's experience resonates with me.  One thing I never recieved though was support and consoling from my own parents, a distinction I am trying to remedy with my daughter.  While I strongly encourage her to work things out on her own, I make sure she knows I will protect her when she really needs it.

Skipsul, just to be clear, the school DID dismiss the complaint.  Thankfully, they never took it seriously.  The school was the one entity really being responsible and adult in their reaction.

GC

I bet Biden I could do a goofier face than anything he did during his debate!  How's this one?

First, I have to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination, one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism in American history.  That said, I believe it's opposite, a federal ban on abortion would be every bit as much an abomination.  The question of abortion, from a legal perspective, places the rights and interests of two individuals against each other, those of the mother vs. those of the unborn child.  A principle duty of the federal government is to protect the natural rights of people, and in the case of abortion, it is unable protect the rights of one without trampling those of the other.  Therefore in my view, it is a subject where the Feds have no business treading.  Abortion is a question which can only be decided by civil and cultural means, not judicially.  It requires taking of a life, an act which is not without legal precedent, but one that should not be taken at all lightly.  While I oppose any federal legislation on the subject, I think it entirely appropriate for state and local legislation to address it.  This is where the battle will be won.

Actually what I find remarkable about this post is the borderline-idolotry of Jobs.  His untimely death has made a martyr of his career.
I have been involved in the IT field since the mid-1980s, certainly not as any sort of mover or shaker, just a young, hourly grunt, but like everyone in the odd (at the time..) field of IT, I was connected into what was going-on, and what everyone was working on.  The list of Job's predictions is not all that remarkable, it's essentially a laundry-list of what people in the industry were all discussing at the time.  Jobs was no more insughtful than a few dozen other industry leaders in those days, who were all speculating about the same things for the future.  To someone not involved in a career in IT in the '80s, it may seem precient.  To those of us who were, none of it is remarkable.

You are not alone, Paul.  I think your assessment is on the money.  I have also been saying that the election will not be close.  I don't necessarily think it will be a landslide, but I have been predicting for months that Obama and the Dems will take a thumping.
The only thing that surprised me last night was how well Romney did.  I actually expected Obama to perform about the way he did, although his lethargy was curious.  He could not have done any better though, because he's stuck trying to play a crappy hand.  He's got nothing, and now everyone else at the table knows it.

I think once this percolates a bit, we need an official poll featuring the top four or five choices.  OPnce the winner is selected, that should become the official default term refering to this part of the media here on Ricochet.
my contribution:
I like "Unconstrained Media, in deference to Thomas Sowell, but it's a bit esoteric.  I think staying simple, and calling them Leftist Media is accurate and appropriate.

As to picking a dog up from the shelter, while it's a noble idea, and works well for some people, you never know what you're going to get.  Size, behavior, health, temperment, all are a crap-shoot.  If you have a specific idea of what sort of dog will work best in your circumstances, it's best to go with a particular breed with known qualities, and from a reputable breeder.
As to how so many dogs wind-up in shelters in the first place, when I lived in Illinois, there was a state law forbidding the sale of dogs or cats in the retail pet trade.  If you wanted one, your choices were a breeder, or the pound.  Much as I am cautious about regulation of commercial enterprise, I think this is a very good idea, as it seriously reduces impulse purchases of dogs and cats, which is a great contributing factor leading to abandonment.  I'd love to see this law replicated in other states.

When I was growing-up, we raised Weimaraners, which are great dogs, but extremely high-energy, and very intelligent, which isn't necessarily a plus, when they are interested in doing things you don't really want them doing!  Also, they were bred to hunt elk, and the neighborhood sheep may not be safe, depending on the temperment and training of your dog.
As an adult, I have raised Whippets for years, and I consider them the perfect family dog.  They have short hair, and don't shed, they don't do much barking.  Although they are absolute death on small animals due to their incredible speed & athleticism, larger animals like sheep will not be considered "prey" and will be ignored, apart from mild curiosity.  While they love going out on walks and playing, they also love staying inside & napping.  "35-MPH couch-potatoes."  They are great with kids, generally don't have any health issues, and commonly live past 15 years.  The only particular downside is they suffer particularly accute separation anxiety, so if there is nobody in the home for long stretches of time, you really need to have two, so they keep each other company.