True. We should spend a lot more time really developing the farm team.

"Something about this situation doesn't feel right...Ah! My jacket sleeves are too short! If they notice I'm showing my cuffs they'll never take me seriously!"

Actually, I'm on my way this weekend to pick up a 12-gauge and maybe a nice Beretta 9.

As for collapse? Yeah, I'm beginning to think it's inevitable, or nearly so. My grandparents had a farm in Eastern CO, the small profits from which now go to my mother and her two siblings. Growing up I was told the farm was good to have in the family, regardless of present profits (or lack thereof), because if things hit the fan everyone could move to there and sit tight. Now, although I'm not making plans to pack up any time soon, the concept is slightly less abstract.

And since you asked, my parents also have some land up in the Colorado Rockies. If worst really came to worst, there's a log house, a well, no end to firewood, and tasty four-legged creatures aplenty. See y'all after Armageddon!

I'm with you, Emily: "Maybe I'm living in a different media world than all of the people in this film, but when I look at pop culture, I see a very different picture of women."

People love Modern Family in large part, I think, because it is a great representation of life today. A goofy but hard working and loving husband with an organized and hard working and loving wife. The same can be seen in the family dynamics throughout the show Parenthood.

I may be too young to have a good historical perspective, but it seems to me that, (popularity of Jersey Shore notwithstanding), the entertainment industry is moving away from the MTV model and towards a somewhat more balanced presentation of the sexes. I hope it's true and I hope it's because the market is demanding a reasonable perspective on the genders.

One place that I think swings too far in the other direction: Ask my wife how often I complain about the portrayals of men in commercials as incompetent dopes. (Answer, a lot). Even yogurt ads make us out to be clowns. Which is why I love the new Dr. Pepper 10 spots.

Great job, Dave, you have just demonstrated why Newt is not, in fact, the conservative he claims to be. No, he is not a conservative at all. As you will recall from the last two decades or more, the left has conclusively shown that 1) all conservatives are mean-spirited and 2) no conservatives are clever or funny. Bringing the syllogism home, then, we find that Newt is not a conservative.

I hereby extend my apologies to Ann Coulter.

I think the discussion started by Mollie captures the appeal of Newt quite well. As has been pointed out, the Tea Party doesn't really exist, which is the beauty of the whole thing. Unlike the Occupiers, Tea Party folks are individuals, capable of making their own decisions. The "Tea Party" generally wants less intrusive government, and the individuals that compose said group are weighing the four candidates on that and other points. Some have decided that the absolutism of Paul is what they are looking for. Others see Romney's centrism and calm and managerial skill and consider that worth the risk that he's a moderate. Santorum is getting his look, as well. Again, individual thought and freedom define the Tea Party, and that's what we're seeing here.

I don't see anyone under any illusions as to Newt's negatives, they (we) are pricing that in. I'm willing to risk bad Newt for the potentials of Good Newt.

And believing that we lose this thing anyway gives me a nice excuse for taking that approach.

This is exactly where I am, and have been for a while. I've assumed since last summer that Obama gets another second term, and that opinion has only been reinforced since November. I'm not happy with Newt on a number of fronts, I even spent two days last week trying to talk myself into bringing Mitt from second choice into first, but it didn't hold. Newt is a train wreck, I know he's the consumate DC insider, and on a personal level I like Mitt far more than Newt. But...it's the fireworks. Newt has the ability to start a national conversation about the unsustainable nature of our current course like no one else in the race. Will he back down when it comes time to go after Obama to his face? Maybe. But Mitt can't back down because he's never stepped up in the first place. I'll take Newt.

As a more anecdotal parallel to David Williamson's post, not only are we losing R&D but according to Inc. magazine there is also an increasing number of young entrepreneurs taking their American educations and idas off to South Korea.

Speaking of RetractionWatch, they have three items up right now about the Das case, including this one, titled "So how peripheral was Dipak Das' resveratrol work, really?" (the others are here and here). People in the field have indicated that this scandal doesn't do too much damage to the body of resveratrol research - see the discussion in this very good article referenced by RW - , but it's too early to tell and some of the defenders have financial interests in the case. Says RW:

Still, when researchers with vested interests — be they intellectual or financial — in a controversial and lucrative field characterize another scientist’s work that way, it’s worth fact-checking their claims. So we’ll be following the upcoming retractions closely to see what kind of impact the withdrawal of the original papers will have on the field. [Das] has, as we’ve noted, been cited frequently.

It will take a while to sort all of this out. I for one, will need a couple of drinks to make it through.

If you want to see some great (or depressing...) stuff on problems in scientific literature, check out RetractionWatch. They cover everything from the "oops, we used the wrong protein construct" to the really nasty stuff like intentional data manipulation. I have nightmares about the former - "geez, I hope I grabbed the right tube out of the freezer..."

Can I blame George Bush or Global Warming? Please?

Whoa! Quadruplicate post. Sorry friends, apparently my little piece of the interwebs just exploded.

triplicate post

Duplicate post

Agreed, Mollie, but let's not forget to spread the love around to our non-existent offensive line (14 plays for a loss! 14!), the receivers (especially DT) who dropped way too many passes (both good and bad from Tebow), and the coaches with their insanely timid play-calling. A friend watching the game tweeted what I think encapsulated the entire Bronco's night: "Did anybody on the Broncos team come to play tonight other than McGahee?"

Except for the childish fools who don't man up. For example, William Gay of the Steelers who handled his grief after blowing his coverage on the game winning Tebow to DT touchdown by vandalizing his (visitors) locker and refusing to talk to the press. I checked, and Araton was not offended by that situation. If he was, there was no column mocking Gay.

The correction at the bottom of the article makes it all the more Onion-ish:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 15, 2012

A previous version of this article misstated the name of Rob Gronkowski.