Shouldn't it read "The singers' cup sizes"...or do they share one cup of similar size? I honestly don't know, and am sincerely more interested in the answer than whether or not they have large breasts. Even if they have the same cup size, shouldn't it still be plural? Or is size of garment a special case? I wish I could remember how to diagram...

When John McCain found out his star was fading, he decided to make the campaign about Sarah Palin instead. Why won't McCain put his message up for voters to see? because it's simply more of the same.

Wouldn't a better proposal be a grocery tax holiday? Instead of offering relief from something that we should be letting the market cut back on, we could offer relief in the form of something that people actually need, and also relief to those who are hardest hit instead of those who can afford the largest/most gas guzzling sports cars.

Just a thought.

I didn't realize that coaching soap operas were to be considered in BCS calculations. "Endured possible coaching change, +10 difficulty." Seriously, is that really part of how we determine who had a more difficult loss and thus who should play in the title game? "Oh man, the Undertaker just lost his mentor, and the commish of ProWrestling is out to get him, so his loss tonight proves nothing...he'll be back." You're not helping the "No wait, football isn't inane" case.

I'm as big an SEC booster as there is, and I totally agree that it's the most difficult/best conference in the nation, but a loss to an unranked team is still a loss to an unranked team. And guess what, Hawaii NEVER lost to an unranked team this season. Not once. And if Pitt can beat WVa and Pitt was not as good as Arkansas, doesn't that further support letting an undefeated team from a "lesser" conference play for the title game?

I can't wait for March.

...maybe it doesn't?

Just because people have adamant beliefs about something doesn't mean they're wrong. So according to Sunstein we all need to reconsider slavery, civil rights, hell, even the Constitution (there are definitely other ways to rule a nation than democracy as constructed by that document) in order to be "smart?" I agree there are many instances where there is only black and white to the issue, and that seeing things only in that way may be close minded, but, uhhh, like the other people here, I find it hard to say that the internet has made me dumber irt to politics.

As my subject line says, I can now read a lot more about the issues than I once could. I know even more of the atrocities the Bush has committed that never get reported in the news. I can read actual news instead of having to sit through a 3 minute CNNHN Primetime segment in which the "news" is dissecting what the church's role on divorce should be by having the "anchor" (Mike Galanos) read verses from the Bible to a priest (didn't they have this argument a couple hundred years ago, btw? I swear this segment was on yesterday) or having to listen to anchors point out that Rudy G. didn't know the exact survival rates from Prostate cancer in the US and the UK when they can't manage to fact check claims about death rates in Iraq or the presence of WMD. So why am I dumber for reading the internet? Because I could better news from teevee or newspapers that I read online anyway? Mindboggling....

I mean, I'm still all for wind power, and wave energy too. People are getting creative. I just really really get irked when people don't admit up front that, truth be told, we really shouldn't be consuming this much energy and that the ever increasing consumption is not sustainable no matter what we use to power it with.

"Humans currently consume energy at a rate of 13 terawatts (TW), and many experts predict that population growth and economic expansion will increase this figure to about 45 TW by 2050. Generating 20 TW of that energy with panels that are 10% efficient would, according to Crabtree and Lewis, mean installing such panels over 0.16% of the Earth's land surface."

THAT"S the problem. Forget for a second the question of "how do we supply this much energy" and instead ask "why in the hell are we consuming this much energy?" To keep our indoor environs at a constant temperature year around? To make sure we can pump out a new line of cars every year? How did people survive 100 years ago?!

And clearly we HAVE to compete with China, let's never question that concept. Want to know why the youth aren't protesting in the streets like someone said we should? Because no one thinks the questions I just posed are mature or smart or worth considering. Can we stop thinking only 50 years in the future, or even just 150 years into the future? What about 1000 years into the future. How many TeraWatts will we be consuming then?

So back to the point...if Nuclear energy is our best answer, we're asking the wrong questions. Although we should never ask anyone to sacrifice anything, just like the Republicans refuse to ask us to sacrifice to support the war, neither should we ask people to sacrifice to make a positive change to the only world we have to live on. All of you smug nuclear supporters with your feeling that clearly there is only one answer, and that yours is ever so nuanced and somehow MORE environmental just because otherwise we'll use coal, go blow it out your you know what. The real problem is that humans don't need to be consuming so much energy that we need nuclear energy or even this much coal energy. Just like we didn't need to burn off our entire and only supply of cheap and useful oil in giant freaking behemoth cars in the last century.