K-9

Great insight. And I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. I'm just not as confident that in the event I am disenfranchised and I can't prove discrimination as defined in the Amendments cited previously, my ability to vote won't be compromised.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees. I was shocked to find out that the amendments you cite did not in fact define voting as an expressed Constitutional right. There is only one way to ensure that and that's by officially amending the Constitution. Here's a little something I found recently. There was a TON of stuff after the 2000 election which is when I first started looking at it more closely. I always just took it for granted. http://reclaimdemocr.../right_to_vote/ Another good summary of the issue. http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendment#.UJVQbWeltxA I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to the unprecedented cooperation of Congress in helping him.

Why on earth is Staten Island not a part of New Jersey? As often as I've been in that neck of the woods, I never once considered that. But looking at the map so many times over the last few days it really struck me. Was it the Dutch? Some early spat between the colonies? I gotta check this out.

Special interests were hard at work right from the beginning.

I think you raise a fair point. Technically and legally Scott's decision is not doing anything wrong. But you don't have to be a cynic to know that he's been trying to do as much as he can to mitigate the same kind of impact that early voting had on the 2008 race. And while he's not doing anything technically "wrong", if those were long lines of Republican voters waiting 4 hours to vote and he decided to extend the voting hours to accommodate the throngs, would he be doing something "right?" Of course he would be. Because it's the right thing to do. And there is nothing stopping him from ordering additional voting machines to these areas to expedite the process. You would think a governor would want as many of the governed involved in the process as possible. On a final note, voting is not a right expressly defined anywhere in the Constitution. It's a privilege and the Founders debated vigorously whether or not to define voting as a right or not.

This is the most telling endorsement if you ask me. The Salt Lake Tribune, regardless of Romney's great success in rescuing the Olympics and his status as Utah's "favorite adopted son" chooses not to give him the nod. Like his former constituents in Massachusetts, those who would seem to know him best don't prefer him as the next president. Why is that? http://www.sltrib.co...sident.html.csp I've been following this as well. Not only is it not a surprise, it was predictable the moment Scott wouldn't do the same as former Republican Governor Crist did in 2008. Unlike Scott, Crist was a man of principal who sincerely believed in enabling as much of the electorate as possible. He had no problem extending early voting in 2008 but he cut his own neck in doing so. He was disowned by the party. Scott is just another in a long line of cowards who are afraid of the people exercising their voting privilege.

A little more information on the comparative track records of economic stewardship under the two parties over the years. For all their talk about how they are so much better with the economy, the Republican track record over the years just doesn't seem to bear that out. And as "friendly" as Romney says he is to business, I honestly don't recall any fortune 500 companies publicly rebuking a political ad like Chrysler and GM did this week in response to Romney's spurious ad in Ohio. Not only are the ads lacking in truth but they are potentially harmful to the companies themselves. http://bostonglobe.com/business/2012/11/01/stocks-story/imJJjC7EHDJwQJCtTB2b4O/story.html

'The Economist' once again endorses Obama. First Bloomberg and now 'The Economist.' Not exactly enemies of big business. I'll enjoy reading why this endorsement is up there with Colin Powell's. http://www.forbes.co...-for-president/

Whatever you say, chief.

That's a lot of billable hours to forego. I can see doing pro bono work on behalf of clients without means or in the hopes of being on the winning side of an issue that makes your name in your particular area of specialization but the players can certainly afford it and Fehr certainly doesn't need the name recognition. But if he's cool with it, so am I.

Good question. CNN is just indicating 'cancelled' but I gotta believe it'll be postponed.

Bloomberg came to his senses and canceled the marathon.

Not taking a paycheck at all or just not taking one until there's a settlement?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest Fehr isn't doing this on a pro bono basis. Or on a Sonny Bono basis for that matter.

Or what about supplying arms to Osama bin Laden to oust the Soviets? Or what about supplying arms to Saddam Hussein to fight the Iranians? It's not always easy to predict which friends today will be your enemies of tomorrow. Especially in that part of the world.

An attention starved middle aged man in a state of arrested adolescent development perhaps? GO BILLS!!!

If only we could impeach, have a hearing, and vote to remove Obama from office by Tuesday. Damn!

Thus once again proving there is no difference between a nutjob Muslim cleric and a nutjob Christian cleric.

As a parent of a 11 and 7 year olds, this story hits particularly hard. In their report on this story, CNN showed the place where her SUV stalled, the sinkhole she ended up in, and the toppled tree she clung to with her two children. Within 50 feet of that tree is the house she told people she knocked on the door of only to be rebuffed by the owner. 50 feet between clinging to a tree and two little ones in 90 mph winds and the shelter of a home. CNN also interviewed the man who allegedly denied her refuge. His version is that he never saw any woman with children but that a man had thrown a concrete brick through is back door when the homeowner refused to go outside and assist the man. Perhaps, in the terror of that storm the man was confused and scared, and with good reason. Only he and the woman know the truth. But when I see the proximity of that tree and his house, it's hard to believe she didn't knock on his door. That man is going to be vilified for the rest of his life. This storm claimed victims in many ways to be sure.

This is true. Unfortunately, storm warnings often sound like crying wolf to many people. You have NOTHING to lose by heeding them but risk losing EVERYTHING when you don't. Just read a NY Times story about some of the victims they've recovered. Heart wrenching stuff.

My question to my fellow Sabres fan in Atlanta was a serious one. The idea of having to pass some sort of civil test has been proposed for a couple hundred years at one time or another. Sorry to disappoint your presumption that I was giving anyone a pass. That video is a lesson in something far more important than the ignorance of college kids. I'll let you figure out what that is for yourself. Just so long as your vote "stands the test of fire."

I think Bloomberg is trying to have his "9/11" moment like Rudy G did and show the rest of the world that New Yorkers are tough and resilient and can rise above the adversity. But it was nearly two months between the events for Rudy while they are still finding bodies in the post Sandy recovery effort today. This is a stupid move by Bloomberg and it wouldn't surprise me if he changed his mind.

Great read. Thanks for posting. I commend those NOPD officers who never lost sight of their humanity during that time. But that city never had a chance given the ineptitude of its local leadership.

I didn't do jack. Kudos to the men and women who willingly put themselves in harm's way in service to others. Noble people, all of them.

Even me? Nice. Keep up with your assumptions. And blame the 'main stream media' bogeyman all you like. A president simply can't say "heckuva job, Brownie" against the backdrop of the images we saw coming out of NO in Katrina's aftermath. But I blame Bush's advisers for that historic gaffe more than Bush himself. Brownie sure made a nice scapegoat though, didn't he? Turn about is fair play? During a national disaster? Are you hoping we'll see images of corpses left on the street, hungry people crammed into unfit shelters, people stranded for days, bodies carried from homes, anarchy on the streets? I don't know how to respond to that level of maturity about the issue.