I think the difference between crimes such as tax evasion and crimes such as drug dealing is that when a tax evader is caught, that does not leave a vacuum in the tax evasion market that will be more or less immediately filled by various competing tax evasion rings. People love drugs. People love drugs in a way that they don't love tax evasion, losing their temper and hitting someone or setting fire to buildings to commit insurance fraud. For this reason, there will always be criminal businesses organized to produce, distribute and sell drugs (assuming government control/monitoring of drugs). That is not the same as saying "selling drugs is cool." It is something that you have to accept if you are going to push for tough drug laws and tough drug law enforcement.

"That left Clinton. Well, Clinton and Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson -- which is to say, Clinton."

Come on! If Salon won't pretend that Gravel, Kucinich and Richardson are viable candidates for nomination, who will?

$445,891 only seems expensive. If we tried to fill all those jobs currently performed by contracting agencies like Blackwater with US military personnel, we would have to institute the draft for lack of volunteers. If we did that, millions of Americans would protest in the streets. The aggregate cost of those protests -- lost production, police overtime, the diversion of the National Guards from Iraq to college campuses, etc. -- would likely make any supposed savings illusory. We would probably have to call off the war!

Most people here siding with the rescue groups keep talking about how Ellen DeGeneres broke her contract and so the rescue society was justified in grabbing the subject dog from the hairdresser's house. Just because you sign a contract does not mean that the contract is enforceable. If that was the case, breach of contract actions would be quite simple -- was there a signed contract? was there a breach? There are numerous defenses to a breach of contract claim that go beyond "i didn't sign it."

In fact, come to think of it, Mutts and Moms probably couldn't have sued the hairdresser for breach of contract because the was no contract between Mutts and Moms and the hairdresser. M&M would have to sue the hairdresser in a cause of action sounding in tort. Although they could sue Ellen for monetary damages, that would raise two problems: (1) how to prove they suffered monetary damages by the transfer and (2) if they tried to included the value of the dog as part of their damages, that would undermine the whole notion that the dog is unique (like a piece of land or an antique) which is the basis for requiring return of the dog in the first place.

Most likely, the reason that Mutts and Moms just grabbed the dog and ran, as well as the reason that the hairdresser has not filed suit, is that litigating an action for replevin of a dog is not worth the value of the dog. That is not the same, however, as saying that contract is "enforceable" and that the hairdresser has no reason to complain that Mutts and Moms apparently misrepresented their intentions in order to gain access into hairdresser's dwelling, snatched the dog and skedaddled.

If all I'd seen of the BSU-OU game was the final, crazy 25 or so plays, where Chris Peterson broke out every gadget play in the book, I'd say you were right: BSU couldn't beat OU again. Having seen the game in its entirety, however, I think its safe to say that OU's loss was not a fluke. Adrian Peterson broke 3-4 big runs, but was otherwise shutdown. OU's qb made a lot of great plays, but also tossed up bad passes. BSU also forced him to cough up the ball near OU's own goal line. Was it lucky? Yeah, but then most sacks and fumbles result to some degree in bad luck -- just like it was a combination of luck and skill when OU forced Ian Johnson to fumble the ball when BSU was driving in the 4th with the lead. Certainly it was just as much a fluke when an OU punt bounced forward, hitting a BSU special teams guy on his calf, thus allowing OU to get the ball back deep in Bronco territory. To me, it looked like two fairly evenly matched teams: whatever benefit OU had in size and speed was neutralized by BSU’s superior coaching (not just some gutsy play-calling, but also getting players prepped for a big game) and superior determination (I think “heart” and “desire” can sometimes make a difference in football).

That said, I don’t think BSU could have survived a 3 or 4 round tournament. BSU was the best school from a mid-major conference last year and sometimes the best mid-major can beat a strong major, if the match-ups are good. That’s good enough for me. As long as the Broncos win the WAC and win a bowl game, I’m content. In fact, I’m happier now than if BSU would have had to play again after beating OU. I’d rather end a once-in-a-blue-moon season by winning a big bowl game against a legendary football powerhouse than by losing to legendary football powerhouse a week after revealing some other powerhouse wasn’t so powerful as everybody thought.

BTW, right now, with the BSU defense awol two games in a row and Johnson out for the @ Fresno State game, I fear my feelings of contentment are not long for this world.

Go Broncos!

So far, nine responses, all negative, none addressing any of Gingrich's proposals. Maybe Cass Sunstein has a point about this echo chamber thing.

I guess it would be over the line for me to ask Hillary Clinton "How do we beat the c*cksucker?"

Excellent idea, but shouldn't we first burn all copies of the Constitution?