I do have a comment but I choose to withhold it as it might get me in trouble here.

An absurd attempt at a moral equivalence argument.  Except you expect some sort of  ... er ... "equivalence" behind such assertions.

"...exactly the same kind of profiling..." ???

Do tell.  How focussing security measures on identifiable religious groups that are statistically correlated with higher frequency of violent and seditious activity, and attacks on America, is somehow exactly the same as focussing the resources of several powerful organs of the federal government on ordinary citizens statistically identified by their political affiliation and civic philosophy, who are less correlated with violent and seditious activity than the general population,  and well known for their love of America.

This is the big lie: when you haven't a case, bluff your way with some proposition so outrageous the hearer is likely to think, "I know it sounds like a stretch but a well-known site like Slate wouldn't risk their reputation on analysis with no substance..."  They are bartering their own credibility for a long-shot  moral equivalence gambit.  The only appropriate response is ridicule.

Perhaps she wasn't my worst teacher, but Miss Virtue (her real name) was a pretty, shapely young woman who dressed immaculately, usually in a short, tight skirt and 5" heels, and would perch, cross-legged, on her desk most of the class to lecture, "chat" style, teaching Grade 8 French. All I recall was the endless practice of how to shape the mouth to properly pronounce vowels.  Most of the boys did poorly in her class, but we thoroughly enjoyed it, and clustered in the desks at center of the room; the girls drifted to the sides.  She was replaced near the end of the year -- it was our understanding that she was on leave due to a nervous breakdown.

I'm sure some of my own students could point to a few "worst prof" instances -- I've had a few epic lapses, such as missing my own lectures (twice) and my own final exam (once).  I also won a teaching award, so it's not all bad.  

I'd love to share some of my "worst student" stories, but the danger of letting slip identifying information weighs against it.

12 drafts.  That's what difference it made.  Plus conference calls and an apparently unrecorded face-to-face staff meeting, all to make sure the talking points were exactly right ... for ... whatever purposes. That kind of care and attention to messaging.  That's the definitive proof that Hillary believed that it made a huge difference.

Call it "hating Hating Breitbart"

Palin is the only large-scale proven crusader against corruption in American electoral politics today.  There's much to love about her message of returning to individual responsibility and grassroots Americanism.  But her genuine reforms to the previously corrupt Alaskan world of politics shines in my mind as her biggest achievement and ought to be spoken of more often.  This was all done while battling the establishment of her own party.  Today that battle continues, it's business as usual for Palin.  And I suspect the reason is largely the same:  that they know Palin's anti-corruption actions know no party allegiances.  She's a breath of fresh air.  I can think of few who have put their money where their mouth is as she has done, nor anyone in politics today who has been vetted more thoroughly and more hostilely, and yet comes out squeaky clean.  Her star hasn't fallen, though there seems to be a smugness about the Anti-Palin crowd that she's finally been "contained".  My message to such folks ... don't be too eager about that.

I read backwards and found your comments after making mine.  I want to clarify that I agree totally with your comment.  I want less tingle, flash and sparkle, and more "real" (or quasi-real) panorama.  That's what's missing.  Parts of Avatar almost captured this.  This was an opportunity lost for the Star Trek brand.

What bothered me was the part where it was closest to the original TV series (actually, all of the TV series and most of the movies thus far):  It had the look and feel of a bunch of studio set pieces -- augmented by over-the-top CGI.  And it's like The Federation has about a dozen key people, and a thousand drones.  No sense of a grand agency equipped to explore the universe and uphold the standard of law over unimaginable distances.  Obviously the story is "about" the folks on the Enterprise, but the context all looked cardboard to me.    There was nothing epic or panoramic about this saga, as one might expect for a story that is supposed to span wide swaths of the galaxy.  It was a bit like an oversexualized extended episode of Dr. Who.

The one thing I would hope from the Star Trek industry is that, as technology permits, a grander vision should arise, in which one gets a more sweeping vision of their fictional universe.  I want my imagination satisfied.  My kids get entertainment on this level watching amateur fan-films with CGI put together by pimply-faced teenagers after school.

On Khan, two words:

Alternate universe

Suspend disbelief.  Enjoy the show.

I notice of the three photos, the Marine stands the furthest from the president.  I get the impression that, if he had an extendable mechanical arm, he'd be even further away.  The Army and Air force folks in the two Bush photos look relatively comfy close in with the Prez.  Subliminal?

There's only one minor flaw in the seeds in your brackets, which is going to hurt the entire tournament:

They're all Bush's fault.

This was an overriding thought for me as well.  And I have to say that I'm certain there were a few situations in which I misread signals in the other direction and some young lady thankfully applied this criterion on my behalf.  Which makes me wonder what our society has wrought, in tearing down all social conventions concerning this primal urge, giving us nothing to replace it but fear, guesswork, identity politics and victimology.  It's a wonder that lonesome souls still navigate these dangerous straights and strike up lifetime romances.

A favourite of mine was writing himself into all (or at any rate, most) of the presidents' bios on the official WH website, so that the glories of all the past presidents could be seen in their proper context:  namely, how they relate or compare to the Obama presidency, the standard against which all others are measured ... and then, after attention is called to the edits, they are wiped.  Can you get that on one line?  The compact description of each title is the central genius of your piece.

I've been scanning this thread because Denise's post promised to be a bit of fun, but it's been shamefully short on double-entendre and sexual innuendo.  You guys ought to be ashamed of yourself.

But, ok, I'll play the serious game.  I guess rape and sexual assault aren't all that funny anyway.

Midge's story (#92) brings me to mind of a very similar thing that happened to me.  Yeah, I'm a guy.  And, ok, no Robert Redford.  Still, a slightly older co-ed invited me to her room, socially one evening.  I learned it was for (quite a) bit more than that, and skedaddled.  Fortunately, as a guy I suppose I'm a winner of the muscle mass lottery and she could not, at any rate, hold me down once I determined I was getting out.  Made for some awkward moments for the rest of the term in the cafeteria -- I just chose to avoid her.

I don't think I sent out signals and I couldn't be accused of dressing provocatively.  But social signals are enigmas for us guys, so perhaps I'd better profess naivete on that point.

That's it, everybody back to their own barracks.  From now on, boys will fight with boys, girls with girls.  Every unit will be single-gendered.  The women will fight the Taliban in the North, and the men in the South.  May the best men ... or women ... as the case may be ... experience success first.

Cool.  Libertarian as back-to-nature flowerchild naturism.  I can dig it.  With this metaphor, and the right approach, you might also win over half the environmental movement, Fred.