I seriously question how evil Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson are. There are two options:
1. This was a partisan hit on a candidate's family in an attempt to sideline him.
2. This was an expression of a corollary to the bioethics idea popularized by Peter Singer that newborn children aren't particularly human and may be killed after birth. In an ethical world view where it is reasonable to kill newborns, mourning the death of a 2 hour old baby and having a funeral for the child is something that must be delegitimized any way possible in order to make way for the brave new world of infanticide.

Both options are evil but it is option number two that makes me worry more because the actions are the opening shots in a wide assault on society. These two public figures, Colmes and Robinson, need to be asked whether they think that these medical guidelines should remain in force or should be changed and how.

After Fukushima, a Japanese developer did a real iphone geiger counter.

How do you promote something by making it more expensive?

This is just a viral ad campaign for National Treasure 4. And if it isn't, it should be.

This phenomenon is well known and encapsulated in two words in the free market advocates' lexicon, "moral hazard". Once the government lets people know that bailouts are possible, bailouts will be demanded until either the system tears itself apart or someone with the guts to say no to everyone's begging bowl appears.

With all these bailouts, the markets are full of moral hazard and it's a strong fellow who can avoid the temptation to "get his" in favor of the stability of the entire system. But this has always been well known and internalized into the Randian philosophy. For every Hank Reardon there are dozens if not hundreds of Wesley Mouches.

One of the effects of this rule is that "it bends the cost curve upward" and is thus contrary to the financial goals outlined by President Obama. If you're going to try to knife the rule, bring every possible legitimate argument to bear that might induce a change in behavior.

Next question, please define "infant".

Specifically, the lawsuits are based on something a bit different. The Blaine amendments were a series of state constitutional amendments founded on anti-catholic bigotry. They were specifically intended to maintain the dominance of protestant bible readings being force fed to catholic school kids whose parents could not afford to pay for school twice. This legacy of religious favoritism and anti-popery is what the anti-voucher people are using to support their cause.

It's shameful.

I don't think that anybody has ever criticized a CEO who took a personal pay cut. The fear is that CEOs will succumb to the temptation to use the shareholders' money to generate purposefully suboptimal returns for them in order that the CEOs social justice vision will be implemented and not the collective vision of the shareholders.

The problem is that the number of times that someone claims consumer exploitation very far exceeds the number of times that it actually happens.