Films always have the ability to make the viewer justify actions that they would otherwise condemn by letting the viewer see through the eyes of the character. Having said that, throwing the necklace into the ocean always bothered me. I understand the symbolism but why not keep it as a memento.

She will give you advice on what clothes to buy, what food to eat, what to read, what movies to watch and who to vote for. People follow all this advice as though Oprah has all the answers.

Isn't RedState a blog and, if so, isn't Alex Koppelman nutpicking in the Rush Limbaugh=Jesus post right below yours? Come to think of it, you're both bloggers too so now I'm nutpicking.

Okay, he is in the news for his personal life and he rose to fame on a reality show but I wouldn't put him in the category of the others. He is famous because of his talent and the interest in his personal life is a side issue. He has been a working performer for years and has now simply broken through. It really isn't much different than when Brad Pitt became famous for 'Thelma and Louise' and teen magazines started reporting on whom he was dating.

The problem is with the word "better". People of different backgrounds bring different experiences to the bench and that is good. A panel may make a better, more complete decision when the judges on it have different life experiences that they can use to enlighten the others during deliberation. The problem here is that she said an individual latina will make a better decision than a white man. I think she phrased that poorly but don't think it negates the fact that we are better served by having judges from differing backgrounds.

These laws are a public good but why should the employer bear the burden of unproductive staff. Let the government pay not the employer. This just makes employers more reluctant to hire young women in the first place.

"Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

At least he didn't say "stewardess".

People who dislike Palin will give Obama a pass but wouldn't have if the joke was about Michelle Obama or her daughters. It is like the college republicans who cry about white males being discriminated against but don't care about real discrimination. We all tend to have blinders on and don't have the ability to be impartial. Jon Stewart has an ongoing gag where he will show Obama saying something and then show that Bush had previously said virtually the same thing. We'll agree with Obama and praise him for saying it but would criticize the same words by Bush, or vice versa. I think most people take a knee jerk position and then will try to justify it without really thinking it through. If you think Palin=bad, Obama=good, you'll minimize the joke but wouldn't if the shoe was on the other foot.

If Letterman thinks that joke is funny he has been snorting more coke than Ashley Biden.

A few years ago there was talk of a permanent conservative majority. The idea was that Republicans were having children and Democrats weren't. Now, the Democrats are on an upswing and it is tempting to see that it will continue indefinitely. In a two-party state, no one party will ever be a permanent majority. In politics, things can change drastically in a short time. If Obama is unsuccessful, the Republicans will see a resurgence. If he succeeds, the Republicans will eventually see the error of their ways. Also, never underestimate the Democrats ability to screw up a good thing.

The joke was out of line whether it was about the 14 year-old or the 18 year-old. His apology was classy and seemed sincere. I'm surprised at some of the commenters who think it's okay to ridicule someone for having a child out of wedlock while a teenager. I guess they feel that if she will sleep with someone she will sleep with anyone. Sometimes some of us on the left can become such moral prudes when they are judging someone who they don't like, or whose relatives they don't like.

He is fresh back into the dating pool and doesn't really know the rules. He finds himself attracted to two women and not wanting committment. Instead of choosing or lying he decides to be truthful in an awkward manner. The writer may find this weird and it is to most people but it seems like he is confused. The writer wants him to commit and he is saying that he is not willing to. It is up to the writer to decide if that is okay with her.

I wonder why he hasn't come out more forcefully for equality. Is he afraid of a backlash or is really just not that interested in same-sex rights? His moderate talk on social issues was tolerated in the campaign because we all knew that he was really with us and he was just placating the center. What if we were wrong? What if the Obama at Saddleback was the real Obama? What if we elected a social conservative/fiscal liberal?

He will already be judged to be on the wrong side of history by opposing same-sex marriage.

Sully is the most prominent Palin birther. He seems to dislike all female politicianns.

Every time a sex-scandal hits those wishing to play it up always insist it's not about the sex. "It's about the hypocrisy", "It's about the lying", "Its about the use of public funds". It really is about the sex.