I had never thought of this before, but now it seems so blindingly pre-ordained ... if abortion becomes safe using mere over the counter pills, or even prescription pills (due to prurient interests, not because they are medically unsafe), would it even matter much in practical terms if Roe v Wade gets overturned or so severely restricted as to be overturned? I mean ... if a $5 or even $50 pill can do the job just as well as a doctor, and in your own home or an out of state friend's home, not only would it take Planned Parenthood centers out of the limelight, but it would take the wind out of the anti-abortion sails, wouldn't it? Pickets with signs for TV cameras would have no place to picket, especially if the pills used have other legitimate uses making them unbanable.

Suppose a combination of, say, aspirin and Dr. Pepper, were shown to cause abortion. Nothing could be done to stop that. Now I don't expect any ordinary combination will be found, but there will no doubt be some pills sometime soon which cause abortions, and that will make things mighty interesting.

Glad to see some informed speculation, err, non-speculation :-)

I read somene who claimed that the three most significant inventions of the 20th century were radio/TV (because they gave people a reason to stay inside), air conditioning (which made it possible to stay inside) and the garage remote control (which made it possible to go from a/c car to a/c house without ever stepping outside).

Thus people never sat on the porch and never saw their neighbors again. Thus was lost the art of conversation and learning how to get along. Instead you could stay inside and yell at the boob tube.

The military "lost" both wars because the politicians picked unwinnable wars. I include the top military brass in the political class responsible. If they advised it was unwinnable and that advice was rejected, they should have gone public and resigned. If they did not foresee the aftermath, they are incompetent.

The military was probably the best for its size, but only in fighting another conventional army. It was still a cold war army, and it was criminal for the politicians and brass to think it any good at fighting the same ragtag bunch who had defeated the Soviet Union's massive conventional army.

Yes, big bad Russia sees the world in old fashioned ways when it objects to Georgia waggling the NATO finger at it, but when the US is egging on that waggling, that's ok.

When Kosovo wants to break away from Serbia, or Chechnya or Georgia wants to break away from the USSR, that's ok, but when South Ossetia wants to break away from Georgia, that's bad.

Politicians stink. Biased "experts" are just as bad. Publishing such tripe as fair and balanced is second nature for Fox; what is it doing here?

Coaches say that about athletes. I bet professors say that about grad students. Bosses say that about employees.

There are always a small percentage in any category who stand out, and I bet even this guy is willing to pay them more than the average model, but if the top models want too much, he can always find someone else at very little difference in end result.

You really have a persecution complex if you think this is anti-women.

All those who joke about the second amendment need to cut to the chase. Its point was that government is not trustworthy, and definitely should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

The "arms" referred to are whatever the ordinary cop and soldier carry, for personal use. But merchants back then also had personal cannon on their ships; have you forgotten what the redcoats were after on their march to Lexington and COncord? Privately owned cannon.

For those who are aghast at the thought of people owning cannon in their backyrad, perhaps you ought to wonder why people today are less trustworthy than our ancestors. Stop and think about who would actually buy cannon if they could. The answer is hobbyists and rich people whose commercial ships and yachts sail in pirate infested waters.

If you gun haters don't like that, then change the constitution the way it has been changed a couple dozen times already, with an amendment. But when you try to change it thru nanny state fascist methods, with bizarre court rulings and weasel worded laws, what you are really destroying is the constitution itself, and you shouldn't be surprised when other power grabbers use the same tricks to change the amendments you hold so dear -- like the FISA bill, the PATRIOT act, Gitmo, transferring prisoners to foreign countries who can legally torture them, and any number of other blatantly unconstitutional activities.

Change it legally or shut up, otherwise you make it that much easier for your real enemies to change the parts you hold dear.

He has said he wants to limit rifles to bolt actions and make gun free zones for 5 miles around schools. Why does he think the second amendment is any less an inalienable right than the others? Does he want to evict freedom of speech from the web, which is far more modern than semi-auto rifles? Why not limit freedom of the press to hand powered flatbed printing presses which were available in 1789?

Support all ten or go away. I despise politicians.

That's what seasonal adjustments do. Everything has yearly cycles. If you don't compare year to year, the seasonal variations throw off the comparisons.

Criminy, folks, this is incredibly basic.

Bill would be part of the deal, explicitly or implicitly, and that is the last thing the campaign needs. He didn't do Hillary any good. What makes anyone think he would do Obama any better? The guy needs to stay retired.