Lobowolf

I agree, strongly. However, whether or not you believe that "rights" derive from God, are a social construct, or are inherent in the fabric of the universe, there's still a fundamental question of political philosophy that has to be considered. At their most basic level, are"rights" (whatever they are) something that a citizenry gets from its government, or that a government gets from its citizenry? Whatever inconsitencies and moral flaws the founding fathers of the USA had, I think they got that question dead-on right.

Nor do a good percentage in this society.

And conversely, at least on a micro level, having smaller numbers of children increases the opportunities for affluence. Expensive little buggers.

I think that's part of it, as is the geography of the U.S. vis a vis borders and coastlines. It's easier to keep guns out of some countries than others.

I didn't hear any specifics about reducing in the future. "Focusing on developing an open and accountable process" is about as close to a pure generality as you can get. There's an inherent tension between getting spending bills passed expeditiously and the my-district-first mentality of individual congressmembers who are elected to represent the interests of their own electors. That's not Obama's fault; it's part of the system. But I see no indication that it will be any different in the future, other than some typically eloquent phrase-turns. "Open and accountable"? ok. I'm the Rep from the 179th district of West NewEastville - they elected me to boost the widget industry, I only answer to them, and unless we get money for the development of new widget technology, I'm voting no. What are you going to do about it? Ultimately, as president, it's delay the implementation or cave. "Stop or I'll say stop again" isn't going to change that. I'm not saying he's doing something wrong, or that he should or could do anything differently; I'm saying that it's a tremendous act of faith to think that things are going to be different next year. Or the following year. "Open and accountable process" fits on a bumper sticker, too. Just like "Hope and change."

Yup, people die because some people use guns irresponsibly and illegally. It's still overinclusive to me to criminalize the responsible gun owners. Tens of thousands of people will die this year in the USA in drunk driving accidents. A similar argument could be made that against such a backdrop, there's "no legitimate reason" anyone needs to drink alcohol, and legislate accordingly. It's not an argument I'd make, but in kind, I don't think it's a different argument. In fact, it's probably a BETTER argument, as defensive gun use has saved lives in specific instances -- certainly a better justification than can be made for protecting the right to buy beer. I didn't realize that good chunk of my previous post had been cut off (probably just as well). Just to bring a couple of other things into play, though -- The police may advise you to just hand over the good and not confront the bad guys, but at the end of the shift, they don't store their guns in the locker. They bring them home. And they don't leave them put away and call 911 if they hear someone breaking in. They know perfectly well that trained, responsible people are safer with guns than without them. Also, mention was made of the junkie, who maybe wants $50 to get his next fix and be on his way. I notice that among people who might break into the house, we forgot about the rapist -- one class of criminal who doesn't seem to mind harming his victim. Not all crimes are property acquisition crimes. Because I don't see possession laws deterring people who don't balk at breaking laws against armed robbery, rape, and burglary, I'm not sure that strong possession laws would make the lives of gas station attendants, liquor store owners, and bank tellers safer. I'm pretty sure they'd make the lives of burglars and armed robbers safer, though.

Just with respect to a couple of the arguments presented here. First, with the safety of the liquor store owner -- I find it hard to believe that someone who isn't deterred by armed robbery laws is going to be deterred by a "possession of handgun" law. I suspect it'd be more rare than a drive-by knifing. And if you'd intend to design one so strong that he WOULD be deterred by it, then why not simply apply whatever penalties you have in mind to the people who use the guns to commit crimes? With respect to criminal usage, there's no reason that any deterrent possession law could not limited to criminal usage. The criminals who care about whether or not their victims get hurt generally burglarize unoccupied residences. They don't risk the confrontation at the outset. It's not a coincidence that in England, where residents are unarmed, the percentage of "hot" burglaries (occupied dwelling) is significantly higher. If you lived in a border state of the U.S., and broke into houses for a living, would you work in State A, where residents frequently armed, or State B, with ultra-strict gun control laws and almost totally unarmed residents? My home has been burglarized when I was not in the house. If someone went so far as to break into while my girlfriend and I were home, I wouldn't consider waiting for a 911 unit "best of all." I'd be glad my girlfriend has a Beretta. I do believe that the arguments about heat of passion crimes, child suicides, etc. are more compelling. With respect to premeditated crime, the "criminalize possession" argument has a fatal weakness -- it conceives that the laws would deter people who aren't already deterred by the laws prohibiting murder, armed robbery, etc. Ultimately, the effect is to disarm the law-abiding citizen. If I were in the organized (or even disorganized) crime trade, I'd certainly make campaign contributions to pass that one.

I much prefer 1NT to double with this hand. Perfectly flat, no 4-card major, and you're only fudging by a point. One of those kings is probably worth an ace behind the opener.

At least bridge is getting some publicity out of this. :P Hmmmm...Summer...March... Well, all Winter crises were dealt with promptly, though. Fortunately for investors, there are only 3 NABC's a year.

Nothing like comparing yourself to a company that lost 98% of its value to make you look good for losing over 90%. Kudos. In other news, the 49ers are better than the Lions.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question. Perhaps a definition of "hoax" with which I'm not familiar was being used.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s I wonder what sentiment he actually meant to express. Maybe something about affordable healthcare.

I generally view this one the other way 'round. Do you know of anything by the Obama people that compares with the Valerie Plame exposure? By "other way 'round," I didn't mean anything with respect to other administrations. I meant sacrificing political capital in pursuit of national security interests (rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, efficiently or inefficiently). Edit: I think the same may be said about Obama, depending on how things progress in Afghanistan.

Yes, but there's a distinction between a theory and a quotation. Unless the contention is that the nutjob websites can't be trusted to provide an accurate quotation.

I generally view this one the other way 'round.

I'm sure it would be in Kantar's big red book.

Hardy is saying that while overcalling a 4-card suit isn't ideal, if you hold this hand and hear a 1♦ opener, there is no other non-pass except 1♥. With the sentence you're highlighting, he's not saying anything about actions over 1♣, 1♥, or 1♠.

Assuming it hasn't changed in the recent revisions, you should probably offer the player the option to change her call with the limitation that the best result she can get is A-. I don't have a book in front of me, so I don't know the rule number. It's under something like "Voluntary Change of Call." I definitely would not give her a free change of call. She intended to bid 2D; that's not inadvertent. Assuming she doesn't want to change her call with the understand that her best result will be an average minus, I think you handled it correctly; the call stands, and monitor for use of UI. I think the only remaining concern might be if you thought the overcaller with 6 solid would have done something more than bid 3♣ if he thought he was looking at a limit raise vs. a waiting response to 2♣.

That happens. I haven't read too many opinions by Roberts or Alito, but Thomas in general strikes me as more principled (in a value-neutral sense, i.e. more likely to address an issue based on his underlying beliefs about the process than the result in a particular case) than most of the other justices. He was also on the other side of Scalia in the medical marijuana case, which had big Commerce Clause/states' rights implications.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this characterization. Agreed, an inheritor of wealth has done nothing to earn it, and in that sense, his/her advantage over another is "unjust." OTOH, one of the inherent rights associated with money is the right to dispose of it as you see fit. Warren Buffet's favorite charities do better than mine, at least with respect to their knowing him and me; that's just a fact of life. So I do believe that it is "just" that someone be able to pass along the fruits of his labor (or, yes, even his good fortune), and I don't see why death should magically entitle someone else (or the government's choice of which someone elses) to that wealth. Many people deliberately sacrifice a great deal for the benefit of their children; I see more injustice when those plans are thwarted via government redistribution.

Works pretty well if you expect RHO to think from Kx, too.

"We need our rally caps now." "You guys need a new IMP scale." To the best of my recollection, the setup came from Fred Stewart. The punchline came from Mark Itabashi en route to a semifinal or final win in the 1998 GNT.

Although they aren't absolutes, in the USA anyway, you have a Constitutionally protected right to free speech and free exercise of religion. You don't have a right not to be offended. I hope it stays that way.

While this certainly solves the problem in terms of not having to think about it any more, it is not all that clear to me that it solves the problem of reaching the best contract... Don't you occasionally play 3nt with the suit opponents bid wide open, and lose the first five or six tricks? Or is that an acceptable outcome for the joy of being able to "rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand"? Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily. Anyway, on this hand the ♠Jxx seems good enough to me and I'll go with the crowd and bid notrump. Someone has to bid notrump first if partner has singleton king or Qx or something like that. But I expect a frequent bad result here if partner's spade holding is weak. If my spades were three small I think I'd try 2♣. I don't think 1NT is a be-all, end-all brilliant solution; I just think it's the best practical, least of evils bid...particularly as compared to making the first 2 bids in different suits (minors, no less) with a 4-3-3-3 hand. It's also mitigated (to the extent that it's problem) by: 1) The fact that you're only at the 1-level 2) The fact that if you're at a higher level (e.g. 3NT), it will be because partner has more points, and thus a better chance of spade stopper(s) 3) The possibility of later stopper-asks for those who chose to use them 4) The fact that NT scores better, if we're playing pairs (i.e. even when one of the minors is safer, it may not be better on those hands where, say 2NT makes). I'm not totally dogmatic about it, but I think that on balance (particularly as 1-level overcalls get lighter and lighter), letting the 1♠ bid push you away from a 1NT rebid on a balanced minimum causes more problems than it solves.