Great statement by someone who doesn't understand the majority of women. As with most things, women care a great deal about the social aspects of watching TV, discussing what is happening and what is going to happen and what just happened. If I pull out my iPad or laptop to watch something else (or as is common in my case, play video games), and I plug in earphones, she loses that aspect and it isn't as enjoyable for her.

In fact, I wonder if that is at least part of the cause of the lopsided ratings. Women might care less about the show and more about its capability to discuss it with others. Despite enjoying Sex in the City, she wasn't very enthused when I got her a copy of the show because I wasn't really interested in watching it with her. I tried watching the first episode with her, and found it rather hideously boring. The show is off the air, so none of the women she knows is going to be discussing it anymore. When it was originally on the air, lots of women (and I believe it was a hit among gay men as well - and before the outragists here start shouting, these are generalizations) were discussing it. It probably doesn't hold up as well now, and I be interested to see the plot of ratings over time.

Ultimately, it seems like this information is just a stereotypical conflation of correlation versus causation. There are gendered differences to the rating, so there is a leap to the unsubstantiated reason of "sabotage". The true results of this study should be, "Hey, I wonder why this is?"

This isn't the first time I've seen this nonsense "rebuttal" before, phrased almost the exact same way, by several other people. I would love to find out where this poor argument is coming from, so I can address it at the source.

Why are you referencing Hamilton? As I already pointed out, it was Madison that wrote the U. S. Constitution, not Hamilton. Madison didn't "think" one thing, he stated precisely, several times, exactly what it meant. So to pretend that Madison's multiple writings on what exactly the general welfare clause included should ever be equated to Hamilton's is, at best, displaying an extremely poor understanding of history; and at worst, intentional deception by those who are desperate to hide the truth.

History. It doesn't take much to research the history of the general welfare clause. A quick Wikipedia search reveals a lot of information. For instance, Madison, who actually wrote the U. S. Constitution, was pretty explicit in the Federalist papers that the document was to be interpreted narrowly, and even specifically points to the general welfare clause as an example. There was even a Supreme Court case that upheld the narrow interpretation. It wasn't until 1930s that a different Supreme Court basically decided they really wanted to uphold some law/ruling, and basically decided to ignore all the previous history to do so.

It also allows us to identify bigots who don't realize it when they talk negatively about "rednecks".

Well, if the terrorists are benefited by either option, then maybe we shouldn't care what the result is for terrorists, and maybe look at everyone else in the world? Everyone else benefits by not allowing censorship to happen, so that seems to be the better choice.

I can't say definitively, but at the time I worked around lasers (my boss jokingly offered to perform the LASIK at my place of work for free), and despite using it to melt away segments of other materials, I can say it didn't smell like that. I don't doubt that there may have been a smell of ozone (and other components) that we smelled during the process, but I definitely think it was more than that.

That's not entirely accurate, and to me is high on the scare-factor. As someone who has had LASIK, here is the full procudure:

They have you come in and lie down on a table. They then use a very small device, really nothing more than just a couple of wires, to prop your eyelid open. Next, they do use a very tiny bit of suction to pull on the eyeball (I couldn't really feel it, but your mileage may vary), to ensure you can't move it very much during the operation (the eye does still move slightly, but the laser can track the movement and compensates or cuts off - it does the same if you twitch your head). They then use a laser to cut a very tiny flap in the front part of the eye, and the device causes it to flip open. This is the moment you go "blind". The reason is because once that flap has been moved, the normal refraction of light onto your retina no longer occurs. They used to use a very small blade, but from my understanding the laser is cleaner, has basically zero risk for contamination/infection, and creates a more precise cut. At this point, they shoot the laser onto your eye. This is probably the most frightening moment, because while you don't see or feel anything (even with the eye not currently being operated on), you can smell what is happening. However, it really does not last very long, 60 seconds in my case, and the doctor counted down the time for me (your mileage may vary on this). Once he was done, he put the flap back, removed everything, put on a contact lens used as a "band-aid" on the eye and told me to go home and take a nap. I had a follow-up in the afternoon, and I had something like 20/40 or 20/50 vision. The contact lens came off, and I could do things that day. By the next morning, I was back to normal. I ended up with 20/30 vision at the end.

Personally, I never was given anything to help me relax. The closest thing was a small animal-shaped pillow to keep my hands busy and out of the doctor's way. If a person is really nervous, they may give them a Valium, but that is a case-by-case/doctor-by-doctor thing, not standard procedure. Frankly, it was one of the easiest doctor visits I have ever had. At most, it is about fifteen minutes of being slightly uncomfortable, pretty much all of it a mental thing, and then your done.

Yes, Huntsville, AL. Definitely scientifically illiterate. I mean, it's not like NASA would ever build its largest space center there or anything....

Clearly you don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. They do not "interpret" the Constitution, they judge new laws against the restrictions put in place by the Constitution (and that function is outlined in the Constitution). The Constitution can be changed, by the amendment process, not the Supreme Court.

Second, you clearly don't understand the definition of worship either. How is using clarifying statements from the author about a passage the author wrote worship? If you don't agree with the restrictions put in place 200 years ago, then modify them using the process put in place 200 years ago to specifically address that problem. Your issue is you can't get enough support for your position, and so you try to do an end-run around the Constitution, by attacking the basis for the entire country and those that wrote it.

Yes, I have read that before. The main problem with that is James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, explicitly spoke prior to that directly contradicting it. Alexander Hamilton was a noted strong government advocate, and this was part of his attempt to "reinterpret" what was already made clear, much like the Supreme Court, and Republicans, and Democrats, do today. We have very clear indications as to the use of this phrase. Until someone can explain why the author's own explanation is not good enough, I don't see why anyone should care about other people's opinions on the matter.

First, that isn't an "interpretation", that is exactly what is intended, with detail provided by the individual who wrote the document. Second, Madison knew there might be points where the document no longer applied to current society, so he provided a way to change it. It is called the amendment process. If you think the general welfare clause should be expanded, that is how you do it. Third, you need to educate yourself on what the Supreme Court's actual job is. That don't get to decide how to interpret the law - they judge new laws against the Constitution. "Legislating from the bench" is a violation of the separation of powers explicitly put into place by the Constitution.

Finally, let's quote the part of the Wikipedia article you left out:

To sum it up, for roughly 150 years the Supreme Court held that the general welfare clause was constrained by the rest of the document, until they decided it was just too inconvenient and reversed the decision. Since then, they have been on a continual power grab, just like the other branches of government. None of that changes the extremely clear intent of the phrase, and any justification under the claim of "general welfare" is pure bullshit. If you want the federal government to do that, then do it the right way, and pass an amendment. But as far as I am concerned, you are just another petty tyrannical individual propping up bigger tyrannical individuals who happen to agree with your kind of tyranny, because you know you can't get the required support to pass an amendment.

No, it does not. I'm sick and tired of seeing that lie perpetuated over and over by people looking to pass unconstitutional law. The general welfare clause is entirely dependent on the other enumerated powers in the Constitution, none of which gives Congress the power over health care. Madison himself wrote extensively on exactly how that phrase was suppose to be interpreted, and he should know best, given that he wrote the fucking Constitution of the United States. Please educate yourself on the issue.

I find it funny how you claim a government telling a woman to go home and die is a "somewhat" bad example. What would be a horrendous example of socialistic healthcare, shooting her when she walked in?

As far as "better" health care, using what measure? Do you have any actual objective statistics/sources to back up that claim?

The fact is, what you read is, quite simply, untrue. Any licensed physician in America is required to treat a person in an emergency (you can verify this on the American Medical Association's website). As far as the quality of our care, do you have any explanation why people from other countries so frequently travel to the US to get care? Yes, it costs more, but we get vastly better care than any of the socialistic countries. Our hospitals run 24/7, unlike, say, Japan that closes their hospitals at 5PM. The "America" you talk about does not exist, and I feel sorry for you if that is the propaganda you've been given about this country.

Actually, you are full of bullshit. I can name you a country right now. My girlfriend moved here from Russia. Her mother needed dialysis. She went to the public clinic, who told her they had no available machines to treat her, so she should go home. That's right, they sent her home to die, in front of her three children, only one of which would (barely) legally qualify as an adult at the time. That's what the Russian public health care system gives you. You want facts, there's a fact.

Gee, people who read a liberal new site hold conservatives responsible for the current situation? Shocking! You know what is equally shocking? Fox News shows the opposite! Equally shocking!

Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to sit over here and watch both of the three ring circuses point fingers for a while more...