The Big Mac isn't the only thing on the menu. The basic hamburger (one of the cheapest items on the menu, BTW) has only 250 calories, of which 32% are from fat. The grilled chicken sandwhich is even better--21% of calories from fat. And that's completely ignoring the salads and wraps.

Hopefully watching the Olympics might inspire people to try some of these things instead of the Big Mac. If a person is too weak-willed to resist the siren-song of the supersize fries, they've got a discipline problem that no amount of Olympic inspiration is going to cure. Besides the transcendent physical greatness, the Olympics--and sports in general--should be about mastery of the self.

In a very real way, our athletes are fueled by "McBurgers and Bud." That corporate money allows us to field so many competitors in so many sports that would never be possible otherwise.

First Sey ripped the advertisers, now she's dissing the fans. Definitely got the hand that feeds you dialed in.

Since we unathletic masses, and the businesses that we patronize for our humble burgers and beer, aren't worthy of the Olympics, maybe we should just stop televizing them at all...

We've just seen the arrival of a new force in American politics. Palin puts the final nail in Hillary Clinton's political coffin--here is a woman whose interests drew her to politics as an adult, rather than scheming for the White House since toddlerhood. Here is a woman with a real family, rather than a marriage of political convenience. And here's a woman who did it on her own, rather than ride the coattails of her husband (all the while claiming feminist cred).

Sorry Dems--I thought you had it in the bag until tonight's speech, but this was a game-changer.

I've yet to see the Broadsheeters complain about Hillary (spell-check me here) topping "Best Dressed" Lists, or the constant deification of Jackie O. If Sarah Palin triggers the return of Birkenstocks and unshaved legs, then I'm all for it.

Writing an article purporting to be about 'choice' and pre-natal care that is in reality a thinly-veiled excuse to repeat outrageous slander is a pretty good example.

Will we see a photo-shopped Obama in an oversized, feather-sporting fedora and holding a diamond-tipped swaggerstick as tries to "Pimp Out" America?

Oh, wait--Obama's a Democrat, so that would be racist.

I remember when this "two-for-one" kind of deal was a good thing during the Clinton years.

Interestingly, the artice only obliquely refers to one of the major drivers of teen boy behavior: the quest to attract teen girls. The author claims that teen boys hear an anti-gay slur every seven minutes--I would like to see stats on how often teen girls hear/say "he's too nice" when sizing up romantic possibilities (or, as the article notes in passing, assuming 'gayness').

It may be a chicken&egg problem, but one reason the guys behave this way is that this persona appears to be the one young girls are drawn to (they then 'discover' nice guys in their thirties, usually after an abusive marriage and a couple of kids). Change this, and you'll change the trend.

Looked at the actual law. Here's a link: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451479

Here's one provision not mentioned:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

Also, even a quick read-through shows that the provisions relating to failure to provide information about birth defects, etc., is to forestall wrongful birth actions, which are abhorrent in and of themselves.

For those (obviously few) who can summon up human feelings for Palin, don't feel bad--this appearance was the beginning of a salvage job for her career past November.

For the rest, it's called being a good sport--but given the fevered rhetoric, it's understandable that you'd have a hard time recognizing it.

Otherwise known as the Dixie Chicks Defense. Criticize me?! How could you--I have 1st Amendment rights!!

Just like he is "our" officer who receives ambassadors and public ministers, takes care that the laws be faithfully executed, etc. The rather obvious assertion that a civilian doesn't have an obligation to obey a direct order of the President the way that military personnel do doesn't change that fact.

In the same vein, given how the size of the armed services has actually declined over time (especially since the 80s), and how few people ever perform military duty, charges of the wholesale militarization of society are pretty alarmist. Hell, the Army can barely find enough teenagers who can pass the physical in a world where 'adult-onset' diabetes strikes people as young as 13.

Haven't we heard those words before about a story targeting people so gauche as to be conservatives that rested on somewhat shaky journalistic standards?

But, as the other posts show, bad journalism is always OK as long as someone you don't like is on the business end of it.

...by using openly racist language. Can we finally get some legit outrage and willingness to take the fight to them out of you guys? Or do you still think they're just misunderstood?? I'm looking at you, Juan Cole...

But that articles like this one give them so many fora and keep the issue on endless re-hash. I love how these folks who steadfastly maintain that they 'support the troops' don't mind using their dead bodies to count coup on their real target--the military in general.

I guess any hope for critical analysis out of Salon for the next four years just went out the window. When Republicans wrote this kind of stuff about their anointed, folks like Lamott had an apt word for them--hacks!!