Bush should have provided more proof that he didn't orchestrate 9/11 to "put to rest" the truthers. Because of course if he simply released a few documents and photographs, nobody could question it.

And while Obama is at it, he should trample a Qur'an to prove that he's not a crypto-Muslim. Just to "put it to rest." Because I never would have thought so, but the fact that there's still all these people saying he is and he hasn't denied it lately is starting to make me wonder why he won't just put it to rest.

It is not clear. The "Natural born citizen" language is from the constitution and not defined there. There is almost no case-law on the point, because courts avoid the question and almost nobody has standing the challenge the president on that basis. The question is mostly academic at this point, but you will find scholars on both sides.

In any event while it arguably might apply to McCain (but again, there were no serious challenges to him), there is no question with respect to Obama.

Almost but not quite, you are citing a statute whereas "natural born citizen" comes from the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. A statute can't change the meaning constitutional language.

But you're right that Obama does have a SECOND basis of citizenship even if he wasn't born in the United States (which, irrefutably, he WAS)--it's academically questionable whether that type of citizen is constitutionally "natural born" but NOT in Obama's case. Of course that won't stop birthers from using additional proof as a way to ignorantly confuse the nonissue.

In 2004 I hoped Specter would lose the primary to Toomey so that the very progressive Joe Hoeffel could squash him like a bug.

The prospect of him actually being elected to the Senate is frightening beyond belief. This guy makes Santorum (yeah that guy) look almost like a moderate. Yeah he can't do as much damage in the minority as he would have back in 2004 with a Republican Congress and the prospect of an embarrasing Santorum/Toomey Pennsylvania combo.

To paraphrase Bob Kerrey: "Toomey, that's Irish for asshole."

Now would be a good time to send some $ Sestak's way to get him a serious campaign.

But at the end of the day I expect the polls will swing around and the Pennsylvania establishment will keep Specter in place, on the D side this time.

If it's foam then I have no comment, but I would echo Joe and Ides and say stay away from "novelty" street weapons. Brass knuckles (and blackjacks, switchblades, gravity knives, etc.) are illegal in most of the country.

In NY you can get a year in jail just for possession on first offense, after that it's a felony. A lot of these types of weapons get disguised as "novelties" or screwed onto clothing or accessories to attempt to circumvent the law. Cops know this and they will nail you for it, no matter how cute it looks.

"Capacity for informed consent" is not the same thing as "capacity to safely care for a newborn." There's more than one kind of crazy.

until they CUFFED and BOOKED a man for shouting at them at their own provocation.

Let's assume that both responding officers were telling the complete truth (which is a stretch). The fact is, as part of their investigation as a result of the 911 call, they entered his home without permission, and ask Gates to step outside after he asks for the officer's identity. They already know that there was no crime and he is the occupant, but they then arrest him for doing nothing more than angrily shouting at the police and refusing to "calm down." They don't cite him, they don't give him an appearance ticket, they cuff him and take him downtown and book him.

Gates was not shouting at the cops for no reason. He was shouting at them because they entered his home and accused him of burglary, which is an intrusive and traumatizing experience even if it was a misunderstanding. At that point the cops should have just left. But they ordered him out of the house and arrested him, because they were too big to admit they screwed up or to ignore his Gates' indignation.

Do not defend the police here. Investigating was reasonable, arresting an innocent citizen is not, abusing technical dis/con chargs is not. And I this sheds light on the kinds of arrests that happen to innocent people every day, minorities disproportionately.

You let your 3-year-old bully you into buying $40 worth of overpriced shoes against your will, with your money?

Let us know how you're doing when s/he is a teenager.

I put it online here: http://www.jollylager.com/pub/cases/decarlo_complaint.pdf

Having now perused the complaint, and there being no answer or motions filed yet so I don't have the other side of the story, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I don't think that an employee should be entitled to deny services based on moral beliefs, period. It is their job, if they don't want to do it, they should quit.

On the other hand, at least according to the complaint, this nurse was asked and made clear that she would not participate in abortions during her job interview. According to the complaint, they were on notice and accommodated her many times. At that stage, I am sympathetic to the argument that it would not be fair for Mount Sinai to turn around and punish her for a moral limitation that they knew about and accepted, but then again, they really can't win because if they had refused to hire her at all they probably would have been sued for that. There has to be some kind of balance.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out, and I'm sure that Mount Sinai will dispute a number of her assertions.