NBC proudly proclaims on their website that there are 5 top sports in the Olympics including Basketball, Beach Volleyball, Swimming, Gymnastics, and Track and Field. So guess what we're gonna be seeing a lot (more) of? Personally I think more breadth and less depth would be more interesting to watch. I've about had my fill of NBC's Big Five and will probably stop watching as soon as Phelps is done.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/sports/index.html

When we went into Iraq, we were abundantly ready to fight world war II. We'd have kicked ass from day one. If that had been WWII, we'd have had Hitler on his knees in months without having to do all the nasty things like firebomb Dresden, and without having to depend on Uncle Joe. Then we could have gone and kicked Stalin's ass. Oh, we were abundantly prepared to meet any 3 armies of the world at once on the open battlefield.

The bad news: too bad nobody fights wars that way anymore.

I think I hate it even more when people use bad arguments to support issues I agree with than when I fundamentally disagree with them.

We need to stop saying, "It wouldn't even have any effect on gas prices until 2030." It's a stupid argument. If it makes sense to drill and it's going to take 22 years to get it out, we'd damned well better get going. I can't see this argument possibly convincing anyone who thinks the potential increase in oil supply is worth the environmental risk of drilling to change their mind.

Other fallacies:

One of the commenters here has said that "drilling for US oil won't affect the price of oil here more than anywhere else" which is mostly true and totally misses the point. Price isn't the only control on oil. OPEC, for instance, can refuse to release oil to the market to drive up the price or to punish those they disagree with. We would (theoretically) be able to influence domestic suppliers production levels.

Another commenter said "Only real proof is what the oil companies experts say about whether there is oil or not." Does that intend to mean that there are no other scientists studying oil supplies? Or that non-oil company scientists aren't sufficiently motivated to find the truth? Neither of these seem justified by what I see in the papers, there seem to be thousands of people studying this diligently from all angles. What I find most horrific about that statement, though, is the implicit idea that we should just let the oil companies regulate themselves. They know best where the oil is, let 'em go get it. That is a sure road to ecological disaster.

It occurred to me that most of the haters on this thread are probably terrified of ending up in poverty themselves. They have their talismans collected around themselves of how they did it Right and will never be faced with the horrors of poverty that face people who don't take life seriously enough. It must be grimly satisfying to them to judge the lives of others who have failed by not being as shrewd and careful as they are.

People seem to want to audit the author's tax return and financial and personal history to see if she is truly needy enough and how bad or good her choices were to warrant any sympathy or financial support. Is she living in a neighborhood fancier than she can afford? Is she paying too much for childcare? Is she too dependent on the state? Should she have gotten an MBA? Does she deserve three children?

But you know what? We can only guess. The people who seem determined to make those guesses and use them to judge her situation seem to be missing the point of the article

The point of the article is, when your economic situation changes, sometimes you have to swallow your pride and do things you never thought you'd do. In a volatile economy, it can happen to lots of people who thought they were prepared. She tells that story eloquently and honestly.

This tendency to not only say things that are patently untrue but to insist on them boggles my mind. The first time you hear "Palin has foreign policy experience because Russia is close to Alaska" was kinda funny the first time I heard it when I figured it was just some idiot getting overexuberant. But they keep saying it! As if, if they repeat it often enough it becomes true. Or maybe it becomes true for enough people that it really doesn't matter.

I wonder if they're going to try to do the same with this one?

How many Vietnamese civilians did you kill on your 23 successful bombing runs before you were shot down?

You had quite a reputation as a partier in your early days in the navy. On your two training accidents when you lost millions of dollars worth of airplanes, had you been drinking the night before?

Ok, yeah, so I'm an old guy. I was in college when Reagan was elected, and he spoke at our college. They had a pop cover band playing before Reagan came out, all dressed up in red white and blue spangled outfits. The very last song they played before Reagan stepped up to the mic was "Act Naturally" by the Beatles. Yeah, that one, with the chorus

Well I hope you come and see me in the movies

Then I’ll know that you will plainly see

The biggest fool that ever hit the big time

And all I gotta do is act naturally

I'm LMAO, but nobody is paying any attention to the song - "Don't you get it? The band is getting in a little subversive dig!" but I couldn't get anyone to pay attention.

True story.

I find this statistic appalling. 42% of Americans think that 18 months of managing a small state qualifies you to be (potentially) president of the country? We deserve the government we get, I guess, huh?