Thank you for the warning, Stephanie!!! I adopted some sort of Northern breed dog from the shelter a few years ago. I was interested in seeing this movie, but I will now wait for DVD.

Look, I know the dogs aren't really dying, but there's no way I could sit through a sad-doggy movie in a theater. Much better to be home where I can pull a blanket over my eyes and leave the room if I need to. Of course, I'll have to send Simone to the other room when the bad parts come on. I can't even leave Animal Planet on for her during the day because she gets upset when she watches Emergency Vets!

Did the LW who referred to this review as a hateful screed even bother to read it? I thought Stephanie's descriptions of the dog actors were lovely.

I agree that NBC's repeated references to Shani Davis as the first African American gold medalist are weird.

But, I think their overall coverage of Shani Davis has been appalling. Like most Americans, I don't follow the world of speed skating except for once every four years, thus I rely upon the network to tell me who to watch and who has a chance of medalling.

From the beginning of the Olympics, the big story in speed skating has been Chad Hedrick's quest for five gold medals. Davis's decision to not skate in the team pursuit was presented as the only obstacle standing in Hedrick's path.

Then, while watching the 1500, I learn that Shani Davis holds the world record in that event and that Chad Hedrick has never competed internationally in that event before. What!?!?

I think Hedrick ended up finishing 6th, very respectable for his first international race, I guess. But, why was the focus on him winning 5 gold medals when, realistically, his chance of winning gold in the 1500m was a long shot at best?

King spoke last week about NBC's storylines for the Winter Olympics. Why did NBC think that focusing on Hedrick's long-shot chance of getting 5 gold medals made for better TV than Davis's good chance of taking the gold in the 1500m?

I disagree with the statement that Larry Summers's stepping down will only affect "the white and the rich." Harvard's massive ($19 billion!!!) allows Harvard to accept students from all economic backgrounds and of all colors. Generous scholarships and financial aid allow the best and the brightest from all over the chance to have a superior education without incurring massive loan debt.

Whether the Supreme Court would allow a federal law outlawing abortion to stand is a very interesting question.

The federal government is a government with enumerated and limited powers. Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. Traditionally, states have exclusive control over regulating health, safety, education, and other "local" issues. Beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court expanded the federal government's ability to pass federal laws dealing with what were once traditionally local issues through an expansive reading of the commerce clause. The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the several states. The expansive reading of the commerce clause paved the way for legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. When a Georgia motel owner protested the application of the Civil Rights Act to his business, the Supreme Court responded that discrimination had significant impact on interstate commerce and was therefore appropriately regulated under the commerce clause.

This expansive definition of the commerce clause has been in peril since 1995 when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Lopes and held that the Federal Gun Free Schools Act was unconstitutional because it was in excess of the federal government's commerce clause power. The Court used the same reasoning to strike down the Violence Against Women Act five years later.

The commerce clause is the basis for most federal environmental regulation. The narrow reading of the commerce clause is a boon to those who would see major environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and ESA, abrogated. In 2001, the Supreme Court refused to apply protections under the Clean Water Act to an isolated body of water due to a lack of a connection to interstate commerce. The Court recently heard arguments on a similar issue regarding what are waters of the United States for the purposes of the Clean Water Act and a decision is pending.

Refusing to apply the commerce clause expansively is seen as a defining trait of a so-called "conservative judge." Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all voted to limit the commerce clause in the above-referenced cases. Based upon their reading of the commerce clause, it would follow that a federal abortion ban would be in excess of Congress' commerce clause powers. However, such a ruling would obviously conflict with any personal beliefs of newest justice. So, leaving aside the terrifying possibility that this case might actually appear before the Supreme Court somday, it would be very interesting test to see what an "activist" judge really is.

<<Revisiting bracket selections

You see, the reason there should be more major conference teams than small and mid-major seeds getting into the tournament is that teams like Winthrop, Pacific, Xavier and San Diego State can't keep games competitive the say way major conference teams like Seton Hall can.>>

Hey, you forgot Montana!!!

"Up with Montana, boys, down with the foe.

Good old Grizzly'll triumph today;

and the squeal of the pig will float on the air;

from the tummy of the Grizzly bear."

Sorry, but its been been a long time (1975) since the Griz had a win in the tournament (and 11 years for anyone from the Big Sky conference) and we're pretty excited out here in Big Sky Country. I wish Pacific had held out to beat BC, but who knows? Maybe Montana can pull another one out.