Gov't can't take property without compensation. If shareholders get wiped out or banks are nationalized, they'll get the market value of their shares. The only way they get nothing is if their shares are worth nothing. Which, I hope you agree is fair. Certainly better than the "throw free money at them" approach, especially if the end result is still failure and more bailouts.

Human extinction is the only eco-friendly solution. Any method of extracting energy from the earth to support 7 billion-and-growing human consumers is eco-suicide.

In the meantime, these tortoises are going to have to take one for the team. It's not like every other form of power generation isn't 100x worse.

Coal, anyone?

Not only do insurance providers raise rates for these types of huge claims (and the premium and deductible is certainly paid by her clinic), but she will never be able to practice as a NP again if the plaintiff prevails. So she will suffer personally for loss of livelihood. Also if there are criminal charges--as there should be--she will be held personally responsible.

It is a good thing they do have insurance or it would be tough for some of these defendants to make the plaintiffs whole.

This is the most sickening example of intentional malpractice I've read about in a long time.

Obama also had Congress remove funding for family planning from the bill, at the behest of some shrill lying liars on the right who had no interest in supporting this bill in any form anyway.

I'll be happy to see this bill moved through, but did he really have to do that? We have Democrats owning the White House and dominating both houses of Congress, and we still can't fund basic contraceptive services?

If we can't even fund condoms and education for the poor what does that say about the Democrat's commitment to abortion access?

but that said, maybe I'm being a little ungrateful a few days after he ended the Mexico City Policy and urged renewed UNFPA funding.

The Republicans are certainly making themselves irrelevant over this, and I hope that the family planning provisions get stuck in another bill soon.

Um, probably because their Christian parents stuck them in the Lutheran school? How much say do kids usually get as to where they go to school?

He watered it down. He added ineffectual tax cuts. He got nary a single Republican vote.

Did it make the Republicans look more foolish to the twelve people who follow C-SPAN every day and actually understand what's going on?

Sure, maybe. But the real-world consequence is that millions for family planning were lost and ineffectual tax cuts add to the ballooning deficit. That's not good.

who say there's nothing "feel good" about the Duggar story. Maybe they're a bit better off financially than Suleman, but it's hard to see how they are less obsessed with children. Suleman would have to whelp a couple more litters to catch up with the Duggars jayby pack.

After reading this article I went and watched the Bud Light Lime commercial you cite. The "tank top and miniskirt" outfit you cite was summery, tasteful, and hardly any more revealing than anything that the dudes in the commercial were wearing. It's an upbeat, fun commercial that hardly singles women out, and using it as an example of "rape culture" does make you humorless and giving feminism a bad name while marginalizing your own point and putting you in the same Talibanesque culture warfare circle as the right wing fundies pushing "modest swimwear burqas."

The real crime in that ad is Bud Light Lime itself, disgusting swill that should be banned by the FDA, not the FCC.

And kudos again to PETA, for making more hay out of their best banned risque ad yet.

It is irresponsible to have more than two children (if that many), and it is even more irresponsible to insist that government keep its head in the sand about population. Population is the key driver of all major problems in the world today, all of which have policy concerns. You're batting for the Pro-Life Alliance here.

Hopefully these voices will finally be listened to by government. Pro-natalism is anti-humanism. There are far too many people in the world today, and contrary to what you write, it is Americans first and foremost, and other inhabitants of developed nations that leave the biggest ecological footprint, so it is most incumbent on them to combat population--theit relatively "low" birthrate on a global scale notwithstanding.

And the USA has not only the greatest per-capita ecological footprint, but the highest birthrate of any comparable industrial nation.

Murder in the first degree in NY is chargeable only with certain very specific aggravating factors--there are about 13 of them.

Most commonly, it's when the victim is a police officer or peace officer, but also for multiply/spree homicides, hit murder, judge/witness murder. There are also categories for some kinds of rape/burglary/robbery-murders, murders preceded by wanton torture, and murders furthering terrorism.

None of these apply here. It's been criticized, but that's how it's written.

That out of the way, I'm baffled by the point of this article. What exactly is Lynn defending, fundamentalist Islam or brutal wife-slaying? I don't buy that this killing had "nothing" to do with his religion or culture. The fact that she was "more religious" that him proves nothing, just because they were both Muslim, doesn't mean he wouldn't take it one way and she another.