Lobowolf

Heart length and hand strength, allegedly.

<----- Former journalist

No wolf would even consider howling at a rock.

It really comes down to whether you trust the journalist. The question is whether the journalist knows his source, verifies (even if the other source(s) won't go on the record, either), and can exercise good judgment. Some are professionally trustworthy, and others will run with any ol' quote to make a story.

I just can't wait for the slippery slope. Now farm animals are supposed to start marrying toasters, or something.

2 Russian guys walk into a bar and get a bottle of vodka, which they proceed to share for the next hour without any conversation whatsoever. After the hour of silent drinking, one Russian guy says to the other, "Good vodka." The second Russian guy replies, "Did you come here to drink, or did you come here to bullshit?"

I expect we'll hear Obama speak in support of gay marriage at some point, but not until after he's permanently done being a candidate for public office.

The judge's rulling stated that Proposition 8 was "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses." Regardless, for better or worse many landmark civil rights changes here in America have required the judiciary or the executive cramming change down the throats of the populace... By and large I think that the courts and the executive have gotten things right Integrating the armed services was the right thing to do Integrating the schools was the right thing to do Allowing blacks and whites to marry was the right thing to do Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do And, fwiw, I think that legalizing abortion was the right thing to so In almost all of these cases, those "evil" activist judges / the big bad Feds were able to recognize a significant change in the national Zeitgeist. Their actions significantly accelerated an inevitable cultural change. Some might argue that it would be better to let things change in a slower, more organic fashion. They specifically argue that a more incremental approach would have helped diffuse the culture wars that have wracked the US as of late. Personally, I don't buy into this... I think that all the old coots, religious whack jobs, goldbugs, and the like would have been every bit as aggreived if their positions were overturned by popular elections as by "activist judges". The words would have been slightly different, but the song remains the same... Largely agree, but I would put "activist" in quotes rather than "evil." They weren't getting around the Constitution; they were finally applying its principles (in particular the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment) to largely unpopular specific situations where those principles hadn't been applied. Returning to Helene's post, then, I would say that we are talking about outright violations of the Constitution, in many cases (and in the case of gay marriage). When doing what's constitutional does not necessarily mean doing what's popular, it's good that the final arbiters of constitutionality, unlike their counterparts in the legislature, don't have to worry about getting elected.

I don't agree with this advice. If you ask, you either force her to give a misexplanation or force her to notice she didn't pay attention and passed a forcing bid. Given the facts as posted, I am 100% sure they don't play Precision. Whatever happens, Pass and take your lumps if there are even any coming. It is only one round and then you go back to normal bridge. What's the harm if you force her to notice that she passed a forcing bid?

I think almost all laws (particularly the ones people bother discussing or arguing about) are at least somewhat (and usually "largely") morality-based.

Round 1 victory for gay marriage proponents. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/

It's really worth pointing out that this law wouldn't "strike down" federal anti-drug laws. Whatever activities violate federal law still violate federal law (as in the medical marijuana situation in California). If the federal government's position is strongly opposed to recreation marijuana use, then they can send DEA agents out on marijuana cases. The LAPD doesn't have to do the feds' job. In fact, this would be consistent with the DOJ position in the Arizona immigration case - if it's a federal issue, then states shouldn't be passing their own criminalization laws in the first place. It's been a happy coincidence that both the state and federal government position has been strongly anti-drug, but what if down the road the federal government decided for political reasons to decriminalize marijuana, or not enforce the laws on the books? Then it would be entirely improper for states to have laws against marijuana, because they could enforce those laws vehemently and undermine the federal position on the issue. This is essentially part B of medical marijuana (where it's not illegal per state law). The feds can bust you for violation of federal law; the locals won't.

...and bridge! If you never go down in slam...

I think the question isn't whether 6♦ was a reasonable action, but a plausible one. Preemptively, I realize that this distinction may not change the answer.

Perhaps it's the Tenth Amendment that should be repealed...[/irony] "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Cutting expenditures gets a lot more attention when folks have to pay the bill right away than when they put it on a charge card. At least that's my observation. I'd be interested to learn about your experiences to the contrary. I didn't mean that this isn't correct, or even wise. I just meant that elected officials, whether at the federal, local, or state level, generally increase or maintain expenditures that have been allocated, or when specific items are cut, find other things that were previously "underfunded" to shift the money to. Or back to the personal level, I absolutely agree that cutting expenditures gets a lot more attention when folks have to pay the bill right away than when they put it on a charge card; when they don't have to pay the bill right away, though...

The password is: Abortion I don't think so. Abortion is a federal issue because the supreme court ruled on it. Hrothgar on the other hand is defending the power of congress. Liberals generally believes that legislation can improve people's lives, and a lot of such legislation is better done at a federal level. (One Federal ADA is easier for everyone to handle than 50 differents ADAs over the country. Also an ADA passed by Congress in Washington is probably better-thought-through legislation than an ADA passed a randomly picked state.) Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that I was commenting on Hrothgar's position, specifically. When the Supreme Court rules, it, too, often defends or denies the power of Congress. The Supreme Court can reverse, affirm, or even go further when it comes to revisiting its previous decisions. Decisions that give independent rights to states are perceived as undermining the current abortion framework, and decisions that deny states' rights are perceived as solidifying it. That's why the liberal justices in '05 (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer (and the often-swing-vote Kennedy)) all voted that marijuana that was never bought, sold, or crossed state lines somehow affected interstate commerce (and thus triggered the Commerce Clause, and thus provided a basis for federal jurisdiction to prohibit cultivation and use of medical marijuana consistent with state law), and it's why the conservative judges often similarly contort themselves to advance the cause of states' rights when federal jurisdiction appears appropriate. I grant you, I can't explain what Scalia was thinking in Gonzalez v. Raich (he sided with the majority), but it certainly makes it easier to understand why all 4 of the liberals fought against medical marijuana and 3 out of 4 of the conservatives supported it.

The password is: Abortion

See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

Of course. Once the spending is cut, the taxes can go down to match the cuts. This is in some theoretical world, I assume.

Chess is good, but bridge is better.

x+1

If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption? Well, when are you a putz and when are you corrupt and when are you cheating (after an opp flashes his cards?) On Pg 90 (Laws of Duplicate bridge) it does indeed say: ...(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*). (sorry I doubted you, I just HAD to see it) Seems then like I was a putz to go down intentionally in a contract I could have easily made. All agree? Good catch, however, that makes it authorized information ("information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized; or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in regulations..." (16 A 1 c) Which means that this still isn't an example of a non-cheating use of UI. If it's UI, the laws prohibit you from using it.

Someone just asked me how requesting an adjustment for an action "suggestive of UI" is not tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Well, maye an example: You are declaring 6S holding xxxx of trump versus AQJT in dummy, with plenty of safe entries to both hands. RHO has a coughing fit, and in their discomfort, pretty much exposes their entire hand just to you, and the K of spades flashes by before you can avert your eyes... You are playing with a client, and decide to (rightly or wrongly ethically) take advantage, and play low to the ace, landing your slam. An opp asks for an RofC adjustment (should rules policy allow that) for an action "suggestive of UI"; (perhaps you accidentally overhead a discussion and improperly didn't report it, or? ) You respond (to a director) that you couldn't help but note the exposed card and felt obliged by dedication to your client (and/or simple greed) to act on it. The TD rules there is no UI and no C&E (but perhaps a recorder form) and life goes on, (tarnished or not.) You're not blameless just because you received the UI accidentally; Using the UI is cheating. See 16(a), which starts by defining authorized information, and continues, "No player may base a play or call on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." Moreover, assuming only the person who saw the K knows that he saw the king, he is presumably the only one who can satisfy 16©(1) ("The Director should be notified forthwith."

I alerted, because I thought the operators and specs might want to know what the heck was going on, and it could be helpful in any post-mortem/thread discussion.