jonottawa

I don't usually follow pop culture too closely (I'm proud to say I've never watched any of the Kardashian shows,) but this line cracked me up: Heidi, I would have preferred you not "fornicate with the help" linky

Me probably uses I too much too. If that's your reason for not voting for Willard, you're not trying hard enough.

No. If ♥ were trump, yes.

I started to post about this column, but I wasn't sure where to put it or whether it deserved a thread of its own. (Is the Rick Perry thread going to remain the 'campaign 2012' thread?) Sally Kohn is an unabashed liberal (as opposed to say Colmes or Beckel or Williams) so I'm not so much surprised that she wrote this column as I am surprised that Fox made her a 'FoxNews contributor' and let her publish it. I hope this signals the rebirth of responsible, truth-focused, issues-focused, journalism. Not just at FoxNews (though they're the worst offenders) but at all the networks. But I think this was a one-off and the only place (on television) to get informed will remain PBS (and maybe the Daily Show/Colbert.) I will admit that after watching much of the Republican convention that I am now 100% behind Romney for president ... George Romney, that is. Here's Colbert's take on Ryan's speech and a fantastic interview with the guy the Repugs should have nominated. Here's an article which asserts that Ryan has admitted to lying about his best marathon time, FWIW. That might be trivial to some, but imo it speaks volumes about the guy.

If I was playing with a weak partner I might (ok, would) bid only 2♥. I think it would be too insulting to a strong partner to do such a thing, given the vulnerability and form of scoring. Aside from my concern about the 4-3-3-3 shape and less-than-stellar spots (I have great trump spots but what weight do they pull? I'm not cross-ruffing the hand.) I'm worried that thin games are going to require 2-2 trump breaks anyway so if pard has axxxx my ♥Q is useless.

Option 6 is playable, but adds significant complexity (opener can no longer jump to 4♥ with a good hand and 4 ♥.) (I think some of the people who voted for option 1 were really voting for option 6, but it might have not been added to the poll yet and I'll let them speak for themselves.) Option 2 (& 1, as opposed to 6) is unplayable (no offense, awm.) Option 3 is how I prefer to play (the initial double promises ♥) and I consider it standard. Edited to account for the addition of option 6 (and my failure to take the wording of option 1 literally enough.)

Awesome was the kid at my high school who had polio as a young kid and hobbled around on his crutches, up and down stairs, whatever. He was not what you'd call handsome and had a big hairy mole on his face. He always seemed to have a positive attitude (I didn't know him well, but always greeted him with RAAAAAVI-OLI.) I just googled him Real Hero But to each his own.

This write-up seems fairly decent: Huffington Post An excerpt: "The reduced viscosity of the blade relative to muscle, as well as its lightness, explains why Pistorius demonstrates faster leg swings than his able-bodied peers. In fact, in a competing report to the JAP study (conduct by physiologist Peter Weyland of Southern Methodist University and biomechanist Matthew Bundle of the University of Wyoming), it was found that the carbon-fiber blades allow Pistorius to reposition his limbs 15.7-percent faster than the most recent world record holders in the 100-meter dash. This enables for a 15- to 30-percent increase in sprint speed. To make matters even more partisan, the structure of the blade appears to have a longer functional lever arm than that of the human foot (i.e., the point of contact is further away from the axes of rotation -- lower extremity joints -- than the typical contact point of the foot). This allows for a larger generation of torque when an identical magnitude of force is applied (torque = force x lever arm). The catch-22, however, is that Pistorius does not exert as much force during push-off from the ground as an able-bodied runner. While this would appear to negate any advantage that he may possess, attributed to the springy, elastic-like structure of the blades, Pistorius requires less than half of the muscle force and 20-percent less ground forces to attain the same running speeds as able-bodied runners. Conclusion So, when you add it up, you get a runner who has light-weight, spring-like legs that allow for more efficient movement, and a reduced requirement of force production. The question is therefore not whether he possesses an advantage but how much of an advantage is unfair."

I'm not in England, but I wouldn't expect a club director to adjudicate this issue (other than to tell the accuser in no uncertain terms that making such an accusation publicly is not acceptable.) Over here we have Unit recorders/disciplinary chairmen and District recorders/disciplinary chairmen. I'd direct the accused cheaters to them if they want to escalate the issue.

FWIU his prosthetics are also significantly lighter than the corresponding biological parts. I don't see him as a hero. I don't see him as 'disabled.' He's a guy who's never known legs below the knee who wasn't raised to see himself as "less-than" or disadvantaged. If you've never known it, you don't really miss it. I'm sure the prosthetics chafe and I'm sure he was teased somewhat as a boy, and that's a bummer. Now he buys white tigers and dates russian supermodels. Yay? (I could be wrong. Maybe he really does train twice as hard as everyone else. Maybe his dietary regimen would make a billy goat puke. Maybe the suffering and sacrifice he has undergone dwarfs anything previously encountered in human history. But I doubt it.)

Couple of things I don't like about that deal: His prosthetics don't require blood to function (leaving more oxygen for the rest of his body) and if they break they are instantly replaceable. Those 2 factors alone are a big advantage. FWIU he competed in the paralympics as well. That rubs me the wrong way. Don't be like Cartman, bro.

What kinda drug would qualify? Would crystal meth improve one's game (at least in the short run)? Next day edit: Presumably the same as for taking the SAT?

I'm gonna pass on continuing this, thx Luke, enjoyed. I really like Adam's last post and I don't think I'm going to top that.

Great story. As I read it, I felt there was no way it was completely true, and sure enough ... but 'Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.'

I think it has 2 very negative consequences. First, it serves as justification for the unjustifiable. We can torture people because we are exceptional. We can launch wars of aggression because we are exceptional. We can rack up trillions in debt because we are exceptional. ... etc. Second, it makes it almost impossible to fix problems or to acknowledge past mistakes. Acknowledging problems is seen as unpatriotic, acknowledging past mistakes is the most unforgivable sin of all: 'apologizing for America'. Only when problems become so massive that they are unavoidable can they be addressed, and by then the fix is far more painful than it would have been if it were addressed earlier. Anyway, not everybody agrees with my definition of American Exceptionalism (that proponents see America as a special snowflake, facts be damned.) I gotta admit, this guy (below) makes a pretty good argument for it, even though he seems to be mostly arguing that the 20th century was the American Century, which most people would tend to agree with I think. http://youtu.be/nuv0K8H8ILM This article by Bill Maher kinda reminds me of this discussion. A brief excerpt: "The grown-up answer is: identify problems scientifically, prioritize and solve. The Republican answer is: there isn't a problem. And anyone who tells you different is a liar who hates America. We don't have to make hard choices. We just have to ignore the science and the math -- that's why God gave us values."

I think you misunderstand 'American Exceptionalism' a bit. American Exceptionalism is the absolute belief that America is the greatest country in the history of the world in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. It's not so much a myth as a religion. You say we have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world (I don't think 'developed' is a necessary modifier) and an American Exceptionalist hears 'USA is #1!'

Mike: Does Clinton deserve as much credit for getting it right as Bush does for getting it wrong? No. You're right, the prosperity of the 90's isn't ALL due to 1 president or his administration. But America's decline, moral bankruptcy, and massive debt is Bush's legacy. He thought stealing elections was ok. He thought ignoring Al Qaeda and focusing on 'missile shields' was a brilliant strategy. He thought massive tax cuts for his rich buddies was a great idea. He thought launching 2 wars and introducing a huge new entitlement program (prescription drug benefit) without raising taxes was just peachy, even though he knew that Baby Boomers were about to start hitting their senior years. He thought America should torture people. He thought secret prisons were neato. He thought that spying on Americans and creating a huge new security bureaucracy was what the founders would have wanted. His supreme court justices think that there is a constitutional right to buy public office. If anyone ever tells you 'this is the most important election of your lifetime' be sure to tell them 'no, that happened in 2000.' It's too late for a do-over. As for taxes, no, higher taxes on the rich alone are not sufficient to fix the problems we face. But they're a good start. If Republicans didn't demagogue almost every issue, we could get lots of great things done and many of the problems we face would have been solved long ago. But Republicans can't accept the simple math that the wars they started combined with the aging US population inevitably accumulate huge bills that must be paid, even with significant entitlement reform.

I can't say for sure he doped, but it seems very likely. Is it his performance alone that makes it a 'sure thing' for you, or is it some claim/evidence you've seen or the combination of the two? Do folks think Usain Bolt is cheating? Or Michael Phelps?

Perhaps I can simplify things for you, Luke. Clinton was the greatest president ever because he balanced the budget, raised the standard of living for all, and brought us prosperity. He was probably the highest IQ president we've ever had. He was an alpha male who liked sex with lots of women (as many presidents before him) and the Repugs decided to destabilize the US economy and impeach him for it. Bush was the worst president ever because he was an alcoholic, unintelligent, war criminal who bankrupted us morally and economically and in 8 short years brought us from 'sole superpower' to 'permanent decline.' Obama is a mediocre president whose biggest mistake was pretending that compromise with Republicans was possible and worth seeking. He is the competent, articulate version of Bush. I hope Romney wins this election, because when this country goes the way of the Dodo bird, it's only fair that it's under a Republican. .... Now as to the tax rate issue. Republicans always like to draw historical analogies about 'tax cuts' without ever mentioning what the prevailing tax rate was at the time. Doing so is completely dishonest and anyone who does so should be disregarded. It seems to me that a relatively high marginal tax rate of 60% on income above $500,000/yr is warranted until such time as the budget is back in balance. It's only fair that the people who voted for the guy who bankrupted the country should chip in to un-bankrupt the country. Repugs will mewl about punishing 'job creators' and 'small businesses' but we know that's a lie. They mewled similarly when Bush I raised taxes and when Clinton's first budget passed by a single vote. That Koolaid is getting pretty hard to swallow.

I think 3H is normal and 4H is 'out there'. (I see no reason to stretch when my side suit is S.) Must I give back my 'normal aggressive' membership card?

You are all terrible people and should feel awful about playing this game instead of EVE. EVE is by far the best MMO ever made. CCP is a rudderless development company that kinda wants to do the right thing if it doesn't require too much work. Unfortunately, given the overall mediocrity of the existing playerbase, figuring out what the right thing is is too much work. You could fix that!

The matching singleton rule never fails. Finesse!

I absolutely loved spectator sports when I was a kid (Montreal Canadiens especially) but now I find it very hard to care about any of it and I'm puzzled that others manage to remain die-hard fans their whole lives. As for Lance, I always assumed he dabbled in verboten blood doping of one kind or another at least at some point in his career, but I felt that that was probably true of 90%+ of the top riders and how was one to find the one totally honest guy in that mess? I mean if people are doing this, people are going to cheat at any competitive endeavor. We're just a bunch of hairless chimpanzees after all.

Just wondering. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/usada-strip-lance-armstrong-7-tour-titles-031949504--spt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/sports/othersports/13vecsey.html

Incidentally, if you live near Fort Bragg, the event is open to the public. I had this brief email exchange with the event organizer, Sergeant Justin Griffith: Me: You, Sergeant, are an American hero. Good luck with your event. Him: Thanks for the support! Please come out to Fort Bragg on Saturday! Or spam our information everywhere, whatever you can do… or else you hate the troops. (: