"So we've posted this hilarious picture of her in her Hooters uniform to illustrate the ridiculousness of all of this."

Most adults who dress in a tux wear fake bow-ties, at least because nobody knows how to tie a bow-tie. (However, no doubt the Biebs should have someone who can tie a bow-tie for him.)

People like trivial things. Film at 11. I bet you like a few trivial things yourself. (And if you don't, I bet you're completely insufferable. Which you may be in any case, judging by this comment.)

Guys don't get ahead simply by being unlikeable and self-regarding. See, e.g., John Fitzgerald Page. [gawker.com]

Really appreciate the important reporting here.

So you summarize research thus: "Think you're fit and healthy? You're probably fat and unhealthy. Want to lose weight? Then your kid will be fat and unhealthy. Do nothing? You and your unborn children will be even less healthy." Just after complaining that "the way weight-loss research is publicized is so…

His oath is outweighed by his desire to limit his potential malpractice liability.

Very sad, as it indicates you lack an even passing familiarity with what your rights would be in China.

It states that they may be searched without violating the US Constitution. State constitutions, state laws, and local rules could still protect the dog-walker scofflaws among us.

Could well be motivated reasoning on my part.

You don't need actual violence for there to be a threat of violence (or stalking or whatever). I will repeat: "I don't see how identifying, over the phone, the addresses of protesters' kids' day care centers can be interpreted as anything but impliedly threatening. If there is another interpretation, I'd like to hear…

Like many things, it's a matter of degree. But I interpret the phone calls, by themselves, as primarily an object lesson for the protesters that it sucks to get called over and over, particularly to discuss differing viewpoints that are not going to change.

I agree that calling the protesters is fair game. That does not carry a threat. I don't see how identifying, over the phone, the addresses of protesters' kids' day care centers can be interpreted as anything but impliedly threatening. If there is another interpretation, I'd like to hear it.

Is that really the standard you're advocating? What happens after the first murder, then? Or even the first time someone gets a rock through a window?

Stave's campaign is generally great, but finding people's home addresses and the addresses of their children's day care centers is wildly inappropriate. Advertising Stave's home address is meant to intimidate him, including through an implied threat of violence — those protesters are not unaware of what happened to…

No straw in my response, thanks.

I agree that the statutory distinctions make no sense, but they're very clear that the argument you're proposing wouldn't work.

That's not quite right: he denied penetrating her in any way, so he was not convicted just for what he admitted to doing. See [www.nytimes.com]

First, this is not a new argument. Second, reasonable doubt is a difficult standard. Third, he wasn't acquitted of anything (so the prosecutors can seek retrial on the remaining charges). Fourth, he judge likely would have ordered the jury to continue deliberating if it hadn't already reached a verdict on 3…

I think if we've reached the point in our society that Pena's conviction, which carries a sentence of 10 years to life, is not statisfactory, there are even bigger problems than the one you've identified. What do you want, the death penalty?