Ron Paul's getting a surprising amount of support here in San Diego. I'm seeing homemade-looking signs sprouting all over the place.

Anyway, I've become very fussy about putting anti-regulation folks in charge of regulation. I mean, we can argue about exactly how much regulation we want, add some or remove some, vote for or against it, and I'd be perfectly happy with some anti-regulation small government folks in congress (most of the Republicans having abandoned that stance the moment they got into power). But the people actually running the regulation headed up by someone against that regulation? That's a recipe for disaster (as Bush has demonstrated).

Copying and distributing someone else's work without permission or compensation? Go ahead, throw the book at 'em. Just because it's IP doesn't mean stealing it isn't thievery.

It's not like Microsoft to spin off a winner. (Heck, it's not like Microsoft to spin off a loser.) I can only imagine that Bungie was facing an internal revolt that threatened to drain significant talent.

And either make everyone pay for it or just outlaw cigarettes already. Sin taxes are inefficient, mean, unfair and immoral.

To hell with that. If we outlaw it, people will still do it (and in similar numbers), so they'll still be a burden on the health care system - plus a burden on law enforcement, and no public profit at all. Sin taxes may be "inefficient", but the "war on drugs" isn't exactly a shining beacon of success. I say let the addicts pay the consequences of their actions. I don't see why I should have to.

My impression is that the left has an almost total lock on political humor. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? A lot of hate, not so much actual humor. Now, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, there's some funny stuff.

Social engineering belongs to you liberals. Sorry 'bout that. You wanted it and you got it. A conservative's idea of school discipline is a whack on the ass; a liberal's is a criminal record.

That's just funny. Religion in general and Christianity in particular consists almost entirely of social engineering. The most you could say is that a liberal may have invented the term and described its meaning.

Personally, I think someone saying things like "The sky is blue, in other words, blue is the color of the sky" - and saying it really slowly, too - is far more insulting to people's intelligence than supposedly "hoity-toity" discourse.

But then, I'm not like most people. And it's become quite apparent to me that people's perception of people looking down on them has absolutely no basis in people actually looking down on them. I think it works like this: when you say something someone doesn't understand, they know that they don't understand it, and become afraid that you know it, too (even though you would've clarified if you'd thought that!). That fear turns into anger - since you've said something they don't understand, you MUST be taunting them, because to believe otherwise would be to accept that they themselves don't actually get it.

So, most of the time, talking in a manner that intelligent people would consider patronizing (i.e. 4th grade level Bush-speak) actually makes truly dumb people feel more respected rather than less (which is, of course, precisely the case - talking down really is a gesture of contempt).

That's at least twice this administration has been caught doing that, and I can't help thinking there was a third, but I don't remember for sure. Twice can be dismissed as a coincidence, but three times is a deliberate policy, right? When officially asked they officially deny that it's policy - so far.

How long until they re-define it a la torture? "Oh, we don't do fake press conferences, but that wasn't, according to our lawyers, a fake press conference."

Turning the other cheek and being a soldure do not mix.

True. A Christian soldier is largely an oxymoron, a fact which is transparently obvious to any outside researcher of Christianity and apparently frequently opaque to people who actually call themselves Christians. You pretty much have to throw out the entire fundamentals of the teachings of Christ himself. There's a good reason why Republicans quote disproportionately from the Old Testament. Jewish soldiers largely don't have such issues.

Craigslist - that the forum for anonymous gay sex isn't it?

You're thinking of Larry Craig's List, which is something entirely different. ;)

Plan B and normal birth control pills prevent ovulation. They do not prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo. Ironically, "Natural Family Planning" (the updated rhythm method) is now connected with preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting.

These religious folks are just full of nonsense on all counts. They care little or nothing for accuracy or even the fulfillment of their own supposed principles.

What on earth are you talking about, Pyrian?

There's only a relatively brief window of time after ovulation during which the uterine wall will accept implantation of the embryo. The embryo can still fertilize after that window, but you can't get pregnant. NFP as now practiced is likely to routinely result in embryo death due to failure to implant.

A better treatment than I could give:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355

Would Glenn Sacks and/or his PR person please stop spamming the comments with unrelated plugs?