Wait, so not only does Rumsfeld claim that casualty numbers are misleading because they include accidental deaths, but also the casualty reports don't include a lot of accidental deaths? Too rich.

Does anyone here seriously think that the authors beleive that women are either wives or whores? That was one of the many assumptions needed to simplify the math behind their analysis - it's a whole lot easier to model behavior when there are two choices to decide between rather than, say, thousands. Give the economists a break. They aren't the ones poorly reflected upon when you can't distinguish between their assumptions for their analysis and their personal beliefs.

I'd better put on a helmet, lest I be pummeled by all the jerking knees around here. I can't find a problem with the means or the ends here.

Funding for research into brain function is good - a previous poster has already pointed out that DARPA research is frequently aimed at nonmilitary uses, and would never happen without the government funding. Also, several posters seem to think that the goal is to train these sharks like the navy has trained seals. It's not; the goal is to turn sharks into remotely controlled devices.

And what, may I ask, would be so bad about accomplishing this task? Do you object to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles? What about research into tiny, insect-like robotic flies that could be used for surveillance? What's so different about these sharks (except from an animal-rights perspective, which doesn't seem to be the criticism thus far)?

other states are on the way to similar laws; if you ignore South Dakota, will you ignore all the others? I appreciate the tactic, but it wrongly assumes that ignoring south dakota dodges the issue. Ignoring South Dakota just ignores South Dakota.

I'm not comfortable with arguing against bigamy/polygamy/etc on the grounds that women in such relationships tend to be coerced or abused. There are already legal recourses available to right such wrongs that don't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

If I were to want to enter into some kind of group arrangement, I don't see why a pair of people (same sex or otherwise) deserve special legal recognition over me.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing for the legalization of everybody's messy relationships. If anything, I'm coun1ting this as another notch on the "save your religious marriage by ending legal marriage" stick.

It was a sublimely awkward moment, Jim's confession, but I was incredibly glad that the show wasn't going to hang on to the same relationship dynamic for an undending length. Hand it to the show's writers (Carrell for this episode, apparently) for taking a risk, too: they've taken the defining relationship of the show, and put it in a situation that will certainly change it.

the older woman seducing the young poolboy/landscaper/etc? I suppose this isn't far off from the contractor scenario, in that it generally involves a kept housewife, but the sexual power is held by the woman in this classic plot device.

You can't read MacKinnon and Dworkin's attack on pornography "In Harm's Way," follow it up with Nadine Strossen's rebuttal "Defending Pornography," and come to any conclusion except that MacKinnon and Dworkin view the world through colored lenses that they try very hard to fit onto every situation. I'm certainly not saying neither one has every raised an important issue or made a valid point. I'm just saying that picking them out from the hyperbole makes the messenger weaken the message.

Leaving aside whether or not that claim is actually true, it reminds me of the old joke about 40% of sick days being claimed on either Monday or Friday... Perhaps the lines are long after a holiday weekend because all the people that were going to come in on Monday now have to fight for spots with all the normal Tuesday people.

The most disturbing part of the story came at the very end:

"I don't know if this story is truer than Darwin's theory, but I do know it's better."

which reminded me of this article:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html

The pervasive tendency of people to believe what they want to be true, rather than what evidence implies, has repercussions beyond their own ignorance.

See: Iraq, current US involvement in.