Agreed.  And there is no objection to naming teams after really awful white guys like Vikings and Pirates.

A very, very interesting point, King Prawn, and not often dicussed.  I agree with you.

The biggest mistake advocates of SSM make is to look for acceptance (respect, tolerance, etc.), because to ask for those things is to ask others to disagree with their own religion.

The better tactic for SSM advocates is to ask to be left alone without acceptance or respect or toleration.

Father Jenkins is the kid who killed his parents and is now looking for sympathy because he is an orphan.

I have no sympathy for Notre Dame.

Cory...needs...money.

He can get some from private equity, and he can get some through the Dem machine.

He's dancing in the middle.

I was at a barbeque this weekend with the parents of the one of the boys (now a man obviously) of another player from that Toms River Championship team.

When Frazier was staning next to Jeter, their son was staning next to Paul O'Niell.  At the end of the ceremony he whipped two baseballs for autographs, one for him and one for his brother.

I really like that he thought of his brother.

Very funny!

You have me at an unfair disadvantage -  you're smarter than me.

I concede (and wish you were around for me to have cheated off of in high school).

Oh - well let's not jack this thread by going into that - but I reviewed the released evidence and am becoming even more convinced that Zimmerman was the aggressor (ask all your friends from that thread who want me Rico-banned to explain to me what Zimmerman was doing on that walkway between the condos if not persuing Martin.  Martin was taking advantage of the stand your ground law).

What bet?

This thread should be hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch.

...weird, wild stuff.

It used to carry what in New Jersey was a criminal classification.  6 months in jail and a $1,000.00 fine.

They are reducing it to a non-criminal offense akin to getting a ticket for your radio being too loud - $150.00 fine.

I'm a lifelong insomniac, and I can recall as a young boy sneaking to the TV after the family was asleep to watch Carson.

I've seen Leno about a half dozen times.

I always compare Carson favorably to other comedians because he could do political humor without seeming like he was taking sides or being mean.

I don't think anyone out there today can do that.

@Mollie:  I've thought of the circle and square argument myself and it can be compelling.

Some though might have a different view of it based upon what defining characteristic a circle has.

For instance, I'm sure the folks who thought marriage was only intra-racial saw that part of it as indispensable to the circle remaining a circle.

You see the gender part as indispensable.

Is it "alteration" of the definition of marriage that bothers some folks, or just "this particular alteration?"

I ask because as you know the definition of marriage has been altered repeatedly.  Were all the alterations objectionable?

The controversy stems from a case decided by the Supreme Court in the late 1800's called Minor v Happersett.  

It touched on the issue of the definition of natural born citizen.  The Court noted that they could find several definitions of natural born citizen and when reciting them, one of them contained the requirement that both parents be American born.  If I recall correctly, the Court mentioned that the framers probably knew or understood that definition.

But here is the important part - the Court explicitly didn't answer the question of which definition was the correct one.  They kicked the can down the road, as they often do, to be decided another day (apparently they could decide the Minor case on other issues without having to answer the question).

So the issue remains open. At some point, some Supreme Court has to answer the question.

You would think, with the current President running for another election, that now would be the time.