So here's the $64,000 question - why does being a lawyer disqualify me from being a "worker." Presumably, my family is also disqualified from being considered one of the oh so important "working families." Please explain.

I have a question. Many in the OWS movement (and more so among liberals at large) like to refer to the "workers." I'm trying to find out whether or not I qualify as a "worker." Here goes. I work between 10-12 hours most weeekdays and frequently for several hours on weekends. To reach my job, I normall commute 2.5 to 3 hours on weekdays (less time on weekends). When I'm not at my job, I spend approximately 10 hours per week coaching a high school girls lacrosse team (for free). Is this enough to qualify as a "worker"? Almost forgot, I'm also a lawyer.

Maybe it works the other way around -- i.e., wars cause El Nino.

I'm not convinced that man does any more damage to the atmosphere than your average volcanic eruption.

By banning ALL religious observances, Bloomberg effectively dodges any requests for Muslim participation - an issue I'm sure he'd rather not address. He epitomizes all of the brainpower and statesmanship needed to enforce your typical elementary school zero tolerance policy.

How do you like the "new tone" in Washington?

Perhaps if the public schools in Texas were not overrun with illegal immigrants who typically don't make it past the 9th grade (a cultural thing), the ranking would be higher . . . ya think?

While this situation cries out for attention, we musn't loose sight of the larger question of why is the U.S. Department of Education coercing college campuses into implementing criminal justice procedures to be administered by amateurs? Is there no end to federal social engineering?

I am so freakin' tired of hearing about "sharing the pain" and paying "my fair share." So long as I'm paying tens of thousands of dollars in federal income taxes every year and 40%+ of my fellow citizens are paying none - I've shared enough! Period! Until the recipents of my largess get some of their own skin into the game, I have no interest in enabling their collective sloth further.

I see this as a three level analysis. Level One. Is climate change occurring? Yes, climate change probably is occurring. We have hard scientific evidence of many instances of climatic changes over the millenea, some significant, others not so much. Level Two. Is climate change man-made to any meaningful degree? On this, the science is not settled. Just because Al Gore says it's settled doesn't make it so. Additionally, all of the scientif credentials are not on Al Gore's side of the argument. Level Three. Should we enact climate change legislation? Unless we are confident that it will have a meaningful impact on the problem (assuming there is one), no we should not. In particular, we should not act unilaterally if China,...