Apparently my low carb diet is going to kill me. Oh well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz2uZAHUkXO

Everyone's Favorite RadFeminist Discovers a New Crime by Men: Husbands robbing their wives.

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/mens-theft-is-more-literal-than-we-think/

Better keep an eye on Greg. He might be purloining your credit cards, or taking new ones out in your name...

The Moment a Prof. Warned that America Is at a 'Constitutional Tipping Point'

From the video:

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

When even liberals think the president is doing it wrong is scary.

The 9th Circus rules that actors, even (especially?) extras and bit players in a film can assert copyright claims over the film. And note which film resulted in the case... Everyone get your popcorn and soft drinks. This one's going to be fun.

What do you know, not all interns are unpaid slaves. These interns earn a higher wage rate than many salaried Americans.

Of course, most of these internships are for tech companies in Silicon Valley.

And, I have a feeling some of the interns are in for a rude awakening when the internship ends and not all of them get a starting job as a VP at Money to Burn Tech, Inc. - "but, but, I made twice that as an intern at Twitter!"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-most-overpaid-interns-2014-02-28?mod=wsj_share_tweet&link=sfmw_fb

The 9th Circus rules that actors, even (especially?) extras and bit players in a film can assert copyright claims over the film. And note which film resulted in the case... Everyone get your popcorn and soft drinks. This one's going to be fun. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 28, 2014 10:23 AM

Does this mean that actors who star in hyper-violent films but claim to be anti-gun can no longer hide behind the director and producers of those hyper-violent films?

And if the actor, extra, or bit player sues to stop the final product from being distributed or aired, does he get to keep the paycheck from making the film?

Two teens arrested for animal cruelty, abusing a helpless pitbull puppy. Good.

It's an interesting video, Jim P., but I would caution you against taking one person's opinion and calling it representative.

Would it also be scary if I found one opinion piece from a conservative newspaper that considered George W. Bush's policies to be dangerous?

Those "interns" getting big $$$ are children of the politically well connected, is my guess. And in the film case, I can't help but think that work-for-hire applies and the 9th is going to get its ass handed to it by SCOTUS. Although it'll be fun watching Hollywood, which is usually all in favor of expansive copyrights, squirm on this.

Would it also be scary if I found one opinion piece from a conservative newspaper that considered George W. Bush's policies to be dangerous? -- Patrick at February 28, 2014 12:53 PM

Did you bother looking up his pedigree -- like being a constitutional law professor?

How about agreeing with the Obama's objectives and views?

And he is saying that both Bush and Obama are usurping too much power?

None of that scares you?

Can I ask what drugs you are taking? I want to try them.

But to answer your question directly -- please find me a video, text, or transcript that said Bush did the same thing.

And considering that we are now getting into Obama's sixth year in office, can you finally hold Obama responsible? I think Bush was taking all the blame about his second year in and no one was mentioning or blaming Clinton.

Wine is constant proof that God loves us and loves to see us happy. -- Benjamin Franklin

Actually, the Bush supporters were blaming Clinton for all eight years of the Bush presidency.

"Actually, the Bush supporters were blaming Clinton for all eight years of the Bush presidency."

And therefore, it's completely OK for the current President, Nobel prizewinner, etc., to do this too.

Because two wrongs DO make a right if it's YOUR guy doing it.

The President who gets us out of Afghanistan will be named Karzai, not Obama, for whom a promise is only what is on the TelePrompTer at the moment.

Actually, the Bush supporters were blaming Clinton for all eight years of the Bush presidency. -- Patrick at March 1, 2014 6:47 AM

Somehow you ignored the pertinent question or point and instead went for the side idea.

Bush went to congress for authorization to attack both Iraq and Afghanistan, before a round was fired. Somehow the missile attack on Libya was a complete surprise to congress. And the red line in the sand in Syria was drawn w/o congress.

And of course we all know how many times Obama has consulted with congress on the hard coded dates in the [un]ACA -- right? Let alone changing other mandates like Congress has to play by the [un]ACA rules.

How many other presidents have referred to his pen and his phone as a way of suggesting that he will use his power to issue executive orders?

I'd like to see any of this during Bush's presidency. Please find it if I am so wrong.

But of course when facts aren't available to support your side you respond with Bush people blamed Clinton.

And I admit I do lay some of the blame for 9/11 at Clinton's feet for his lack of reaction to the Cole bombing and other terrorist incidents. But it more a matter of it probably would have made a difference, not that it matters at this late date.

Actually, the Bush supporters were blaming Clinton for all eight years of the Bush presidency.

I did?

Full disclosure: I stopped supporting Bush when he signed campaign finance reform in 2003, so I guess I was supposedly blaming Clinton, according to Patrick, as a Bush supporter, for only 3 years.