Perhaps the economy will prosper after the current downtown, except for the people who starve, die of exposure, or are murdered for camping out on pristine land that's owned by some wanna-be feudalist.

Perhaps it's actually a clever advertisement for the Wii.

Are they xenophobic? Do they want to encourage more tourism by maintaining a distinct cultural identity? Are they worried about food safety?

We may never know the answer, especially since each person who supported the bans may have his/her own reasons. However, unless the bans are restricted to specific historical sites, they're just plain authoritarian.

According to one study conducted by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a decline in the number of pirates corresponds to the recent rise in global temperatures.

In other words, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality.

He thinks banning saggy pants is more important than respecting the Constitution"? Is he a mayor or a dictator? Besides, while saggy pants might be unappealing to most people, this isn't an issue of morality. It's about aesthetics, which are in the eye of the beholder. "Decency laws" are just an excuse for wannabe dictators to impose aesthetic standards upon others. The ethical issue has nothing to do with particular styles of clothing (or lack thereof), but with people's attitudes. In other words, it's morally right for a person to wear saggy pants because they think it's beautiful, but it's morally wrong for a person to dress in a suit and tie if they're doing so out of disrespect.

Melissa and J are both right. It was wrong for the government to kidnap the kids, but it was also wrong for the kid to have that name forced upon him. The best solution is MORE freedom. The kids must be allowed to choose their own names. In fact, the kids should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to live with their parents. Of course, this is unlikely to happen under a government that, like almost all others in the world, oppresses kids in the name of their safety. Unfortunately, there's nobody to protect kids from the government.

Nic M:
It's important to remember that there's a difference between racism and the anger that an underprivileged minority feels. When a minority is angry about his/her bad social conditions that result from racism, then he/she isn't necessarily racist. However, when a minority feels hatred toward ALL white people for the harm that only some white people cause, then he/she is racist.

To quote Oliver: "So knock it off with all the race-related generalizations. Judge people as individuals based on their individual actions. Evolve."

If the government is going to require testing, then it should pay for it.

Some religious zealots, who can't use reason to convince other people to adopt their beliefs, resort to intimidation. Now, compare these zealots to people like Larfin Jackarse, and you'll see that the similarities are striking.

Unless this post is missing something important, this study hasn't provided any worthwhile evidence that the fun men have while playing violent video games is necessarily linked to any urge to conquer. Above all else, we must keep in mind that video games aren't real. Aside from the mentally ill, the activities people enjoy doing in video games usually don't reflect what they would enjoy doing in real life. Believe it or not, most people are compassionate, not greedy. Unfortunately, it's the greedy people who usually rule over society, whether from the tops of glass towers or from the stink of dark alleyways.

Perhaps the Italian taxpayer's money would be better spent helping the poor, instead of harassing caviar dealers.

Apparently, the justices in favor of this insane ruling want to punish anybody more compassionate than them. I wouldn't wish any harm on them, but I'd like to see how they'd respond if they were in an accident and they're lives depended on Good Samaritans.

"The main problem caused by the CSI effect: Juries now expect conclusive forensic evidence."

This is actually a GOOD thing, because convicting an innocent person is always worse than freeing a guilty person. Jurors have a legal and moral obligation to acquit any person who can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how overwhelming, doesn't constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Using a rational and selfish agent to explain tipping, one reaches the conclusion that the agent should never tip if he does not intend to visit the establishment again.”

Well, gosh! Perhaps these economists should wake up and realize that their "selfish agent" doesn't account for compassion, an important motivation for most normal human beings. When you add compassion to the mix, it makes perfect sense that most people want to help the overworked and underpaid waiters and waitresses, even when the service is less than adequate.

I don't condone drugs, but I also don't condone laws against drugs. People should be allowed to make voluntary choices, regardless of how stupid their choices might be. Of course, I also don't condone punishing people before they've been proven guilty, which is exactly what happened in this case. If he's found guilty, then the two years he spent in jail should count as time served. If his sentence is less than two years, or if he's acquitted, then he should be awarded large sums of money.