I've watched a fair amount of discussion of this over the last few months, and what is scary is that it is spreading from just the tinfoil hat crowd where it started. From what I can see, you have 2-3 congress members a year say things like "I'd consider hearings on the matter" and the right just blows a gasket.

Even more troubling is that none of them know WTF they are even railing against (although, to be fair, since it is a fiction, they can project whatever they want onto it). Look at the old version. Only applies on broadcast media. Would not cover cable, would not cover the internet, etc.

I for one don't think it is worth bringing back in any form (there really is no longer a scarcity of outlets for ideas) but given that nobody is bringing it back, it is a total non-issue

If they didn't lobby against EVERY limitation on guns. If they cared so much about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they wouldn't oppose background checks.

On the other hand, the assault weapons ban is more symbolic than useful. I'm indifferent if it comes back or not, largely for practical purposes (it doesn't ban all kinds of weapons with equal capabilities).

Michelle Bachmann has always struck me as being mentally ill. People can disagree, there are some bright conservatives out there even if I don't agree with them, but the combination of her delusions and behavior at various times indicates that MB has some sort of condition.

That resides in a uterus. After that, not so much

Apparently, he has never read the comment section on any left leaning page.

Essentially, it has outlived it's usefulness and now is just a counting method that compounds errors. That said, I have some doubts that this proposal would pass constitutional muster (and there would be lawsuits). Further, I'm not sure that there are really the kinds of checks in place to keep everyone cooperating. This really needs to be an amendment, but that won't pass either.

Newsweek would have a story on it as the new trend about 2 years after it peaked.

I read these words and got hopeful. They can keep her.

I took several trips abroad during the Bush administration (between 2001 and 2007). By about 2004 it felt like we had American pesos.

Bachmann bounces back and forth between simply being dumb as a sack of hammers (which I think is what is going on here) to actually being honest to God certifiable.

I think Bachmann only introduced 2 bills in 2 years, one of which was recognition of the Minnesota sesquicentennial. At least she is keeping busy this term

Forget about where Obama was born. The simple fact that his father was a foreigner means that he is NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible to be President.

No it doesn't. Citizenship only takes one parent.

I would contend further, that you could argue (though it would be controversial) that even if he were born on Mars, so long as his mom was American, that would be adequate. But yes, you are correct, on American soil, birth parent nationality is irrelevant, and ChillyDogg is a simply wrong.

Is important, but remember, we Naturalize people when they become citizens. A natural born citizen is simply a citizen from birth, none of this other nonsense that is found NOWHERE in US law.

Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.

Michelle Bachmann now has competition for the dumbest thing I have read all week.

I used to go to a local when I lived in MPLS (Nicollet Village Video) what had a better selection and equal or better prices. The last time I was in a Blockbuster they literally had 50 copies of "Ghost Rider" but nothing I actually wanted to see. Now I just netflix. Better selection, better prices. Good riddance to Blockbuster.

And I don't think any of the critique of Paglia is just reflexive defensiveness as all the drudge refugees here would have use believe.

It is that Paglia is hands down the shallowest person claiming to be an intellectual. I have never seen her focus on anything other than surface.

Or lack self awareness. All of their critiques of the liberal ad hominem attacks include at least one of their own on liberals. I wishe we had the facepalm smiley here...

Lohan has been a disaster for years, regardless of her sexuality. This really says more about the behavior of people with serious substance problems than anything else.

At the end of the day, Churchill needs to go. Academia is great. You can explore intellectually as you see fit. There are very few rules. Of those, however, fabrication and plagiarism are pretty much capital offenses and deserve punishment (probably termination). I am concerned, however, that Churchill only received scrutiny after being inflammatory. The whole episode smacks of retribution. Ultimately, nobody is right when everybody is wrong. Churchill should have been sacked years ago, but I don't really think his academic dishonesty is what is driving this.

An observation about some of the comments here... Some of the posters here really seem to have a distorted sense of advocacy on college campuses (and frankly, it is not something I'm really a fan of). I've attended 2 universities, taught at 3, and encountered very little that resembled Churchill. Granted, I didn't take much in ethnic studies or women's studies, but I am a social scientist, where this sort of thing is supposed to be endemic. I can think of one sociology instructor who really seemed to be advocating anything, and frankly, she was pretty upfront about it.