Not to mention green eggs and ham

"So we're going to embark on a constitutional amendment -- a monumental, divisive, enormously debilitating process -- to protect the "meaning" of something? In that case, the amendment had better apply to New York Times headline writers, who certainly distorted the meaning of marriage with this shocker in a recent Dining Out section: "Happy Marriage Between Eggs and Greens.""

U.S. Helicopter Crashes in Western Iraq; 2 Killed

but according to Ann Coulter's logic (that's stretching the point, isn't it?) these men aren't heros or worthy of our respect because a helicopter could have crashed in Crawford, TX or Montgomery, AL.

It's just not right...

... when you hear a report on the radio about the terrible conditions in which Cuban prisoners are subjected to and you don't know if the report is about Cuba's prisoners or America's.

Offsides is out of bounds

'A player is interfering with play if he is clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision. With the players at Leicester, if there was a direct shot on goal they were deemed as passive because they were not interfering.

So now instead of trying to look in 2 things at once - the ball being struck and the position of the attacking player in relation to the defensive line - referees will now have to be able to determine the goalkeepers line of sight? From the touchline? How is THAT supposed to work, Mike?

It is commonly accepted and reported, for instance, that Ronald Reagan was a spectacularly popular president who basked in the warm glow of Americans' affections for eight years. But when stacked up against other presidents, Reagan's popularity was decidedly mediocre. He averaged an approval rating of 52 percent over the course of his presidency -- better than Carter, Ford, Nixon and Truman but worse than Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Johnson, Kennedy and Eisenhower. Reagan's best approval of 68 percent was bested at some point by every president since polling began under Roosevelt, with the exception of Nixon. Nonetheless, the myth of Reagan's popularity persists to this day.

It's the CIA's Fault...

... isn't it? Really! It is, right? Has to be, doesn't it?

Okay... I'm starting to get it. The administration ignored the intelligence community because it was cherry-picking it's own evidence against Iraq. Evidence which was being provided by people with a direct and substantial financial interest in the matter. And now that the information has turned out to be completely false or wildly exaggerated, the CIA (via it's figurehead, George Tenet) gets blamed for letting the administration cherry-pick it's own evidence against Iraq. Who's in charge here?