Lobowolf

I don't think it says much, if anything, about what the government has been doing. The question was never whether there was "enough evidence to hold them"; it was whether they were constitutionally entitled to raise the issue. Once Scotus determined (5-4 last year) they're entitled to habeas challenges, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that many if not most of those challenges would succeed.

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme). From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered. Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US. You think he'd have gotten one in time under a government program? The main effect on rationing will be who gets to decide. The government's not going to be passing out free hearts to everyone who needs them.

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

Similarly, "pro-choice" plays better in the media than "pro-being-able-to-kill-fetuses-without-legal-repercussions." Are they different from the Christian groups who opposed slavery in the 19th Century? Again, in principle, the logical extension of this line of thinking to slavery would make for an extremely unpalatable argument: "Well, if you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves. But why the pathological need to impose your moral beliefs on me? I'll just continue to own my slaves, and we can agree to disagree." The fundamental question isn't one of who wants to control other people more. Lots of non-Christians and pro-choicers want to exerts all sorts of control over others with respect to different issues. And, again, the slavery context (hopefully) makes pretty clear that there are issues over which the vast majority of us would certainly impose our moral beliefs on others. The fundamental question is simply (??) whether or not unborn fetuses are entitled to the same level of legal protection as the rest of us.

Is this really your general position? A belief that others may disagree with should not be the basis of a law?

Your "simpler and less controversial example" is a poor analog, as premarital sex doesn't directly harm any third parties. They are, of course, saying what you say they're saying. A closer analogy to the pro-lifers' beliefs on the matter would be, say, killing 5 year-old children. Most people who are opposed to killing 5 year-old children don't just mean that they personally wouldn't kill any 5 year-old children; they mean that "YOU also cannot kill 5 year-old children." A less silly example would be something like slavery. The abolitionists didn't "agree to disagree" about slavery, because they believed that there were vulnerable third parties who needed to be spoken up for. That doesn't mean they're necessarily RIGHT, but if you're pro-choice (as I am), and you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to acknowledge that the pro-life stance is principled and goes beyond the typical moral issues involving government interference, such a censorship, recreational drug use, etc.

"Semi-Forcing" has a specific meaning*. It applies to a passed-hand responder, and means that (generally 3rd seat) opener can pass with a balanced SUB-minimum. With a full opening bid, even a minimum opening bid, opener treats 1NT as forcing, and makes his normal 1NTF response. Some people mistakenly believe that 1NT "semi-forcing" means that opener can bid again if he wants to, but is permitted to pass 1NT. That agreement already has a name -- 1 NT non-forcing. *Hardy yellow book.

I know, what's with these youngsters today reversing on only 15 points!?

i doubt it he has nothing left to say. Now, how many of us has that ever stopped?

Dude, it's ABC News. Respectully, they probably didn't screw up or get paid off to misrepresent the results. I'm actually at work now, so I can't spend too much time searching for confirmation from BBC or NPR, but I do remember hearing this on KFI radio at the time, if that helps. I don't think they do Gorilla Whisperer stories.

Don't overthink it. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3372578&page=1

Great obv. shift hand, and with my o.s. partner, I would play the jack to eliminate any potential club disaster by playing it from my side (after partner switchces to the non-obvious diamond).

Coke Zero

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit. Oh, the irony.

Agree with this. Playing with the GIBs has re-introduced me to the joys of SJS. I get to follow-up with 3 or 4♣ to show spades, heart support and club shortness and I like this approach. Why would any of these auctions 1♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ or 1♥ 2♠ 3any 4♣ show shortage? Playing Soloway jump-shifts (reasonably common in N.A. among pairs that plays strong jump-shifts), the jump-shift shows one of three hands: A balanced monster, a one-suiter, and a two-suiter than includes support for partner. Most glaringly missing - no independent two-suiters. Since responder can't have a two-suiter comprised of spades & clubs, the rebid, by agreement, instead shows shortness (and by implication shows the two-suiter than includes support).

Not sure whether or not it is best but the normal standard is definitely RONF R aise O nly N on- F orce Which means that 2Maj (PASS) 3Maj is not forcing and anything else below game is forcing. Just to clarify (in case it's not clear from the word 'raise'), it's only 3 of the same major that's non-forcing, e.g. 2♠ - 3♠ or 2♥ - 3♥.

No Global Warming votes at all?!

Deleting or cracking down on sarcasm: 9 Ignoring sarcasm: 9 (matter of style/taste/the desired atmosphere on a wide continuum) Deleting or cracking down on complaints about sarcasm while ignoring the sarcasm: -4 (would be -6, but it does have some inherent humor value)

A Los Angeles bridge staple for a long, long time. Multiple National titles, bazillions of regional wins, and a BBO regular.

I'd make the cooperative double. A little bit surprised to find myself in the minority here.

? "Do Something Intelligent, Partner"

Nothing -- they were far too busy dreaming of electronic sheep :P... Great book, and the only one I know of that uses the word "lovelily" (in a lovely manner) or "friendlily" (in a friendly manner). On page 1, no less.

Informed the director.

Cotto is coming down 2 pounds, to 145, for what it's worth. Yes, Hatton is unlucky that the two best pound-for-pound fighters of the last several years happened to be around his weight. But he's even more unlucky that the style clash worked strongly against him, also. A parallel might be Joe Frazier, who was probably the third-best heavyweight between, say, Sonny Liston and Larry Holmes (a decent time span). Frazier's results against the two guys better than he was (Ali and Foreman) couldn't have been more different. He gave Ali three great fights (ok, 2 great ones and a good one), winning one of them, and being very competitive in the other two. Foreman, on the other hand, just destroyed him, twice. He was dropped 6 times in a round and a half in the first fight. Pacuiao and Mayweather were both Foremans to Hatton's Frazier. Hatton could have looked a lot better against a fighter as good as those 2, but with different strengths and weaknesses. That is to say, he could have looked like Frazier against Ali, but instead, he looked like Frazier against Foreman. The early odds in Paciquao-Cotto suggest strongly to me that people are looking at Pacquiao-Hatton and extrapolating too much about Pacquiao. Similarly, after dismantling a made-to-order-for-him Frazier, George Foreman was installed as a 3-1 favorite over Ali. I'm actually making the critique Josh made of my analysis - concluding too much from a small sample. I'm just applying it to bettors who (I believe) are concluding too much from Pacquiao-Hatton. The skill difference between Foreman and Frazier wasn't that tremendous; it was just that when they were matched head-to-head, Frazier's weaknesses and Foreman's strengths were magnified. Head to head results do say a lot about ability, but they say a lot about style, too. Cotto is a very different fighter than Hatton, apart from skill level, and that difference will make him a tougher opponent for Pacquiao than Hatton was.

By definition, anyone who thinks "life master" = "a true expert" is not a true expert.