March Madness Open Thread

It starts today. Investments:

Michigan -11 over South Dakota State (3 units), Syracuse -13 over Montana (3 units), Akron +7 over Va Commonwealth, Missouri -3 over Colorado State (3 units), New Mexico -11 over Harvard, Oregon +3 over Okla. St., Marquette -3 over Davidson (3 units), Gonzaga -21 over Southern, Pittsburgh -4 over Wichita State (3 units), Butler -3 over Bucknell, Michigan State -10 over Valparaiso (3 units.), Memphis -1 1/2 over St. Mary's (3 units), Belmont +5 over Arizona, Cal +3 over UNLV, Missouri - 2 1.2 over Colorado St, St. Louis -9 over NM State.

Open Thread.

< Bill Introduced to Provide Some Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Relief | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    51 years ago today (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    Bob Dylan released his first Album. Holy sheet, Batman, slow time down a little. Please. Sheesh.

    "...slow time down a little." (none / 0) (#64)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:20:31 PM EST
    I feel ya, dude.

    Boy, do I ever.

    It's bad enough that it's all downhill after a certain age, but does the slope have to be well-greased ice?


    This day in 1952.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    THE FIRST ROCK CONCERT!!!!   The Moondog Coronation Ball

    Deep Thinker. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:17:01 PM EST
    Senator Saxby Chamblis (R.GA) says he will not be following Senator Rob Portman's (R.OH) change of position in support of same sex marriage.   When asked about the matter by Politico, Saxby was quoted as saying "I'm not gay. So I'm not going to marry one."    Such deep thinking is apparently the leitmotiv of his senatorial decision making, such his opposition to raising the minimum wage since he is not poor, or being against unemployment compensation since he is employed.  

    However, Saxby's rationale is somewhat fresh, if not refreshing, in that it veers from the old reliable slippery slope argument befitting Santorum--the next thing is man wanting to marry a horse.  And, I suppose, there is a point to that:  The horse would demand hospital visiting rights, and just come galloping in and knock a lot of medical stuff over.  Slippery slop, indeed.  Oh, horsefeathers.

    And don't forget to mention (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    That he's against abortion because he'll never become pregnant with an unwanted, physically dangerous, or economically desperate pregnancy, or a pregnancy as a result of rape.

    Here's some good news! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    Remember the "Bell 6"?

    The City Council members of Bell, CA, who were charged in the misappropriation of public funds scandal?

    Well, as it turns out, I know one of the council members, a guy named Luis Artega, and he was the one acquitted on all charges!

    Sorry, Artiga. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    Ducks win. They beat Oklahoma 68-55. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    BTD made a little money on the Ducks today.

    Now, can the Ducks beat the Billikens on Saturday? I think the answer is "yes."

    GO, DUCKS!

    It was a good Duck effort today. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:16:08 PM EST
    St. Louis, however, is a much better team than Oklahoma. Did you see the hurt that they laid on New Mexico State earlier today?

    I think the Billikens are perhaps the most dangerous darkhorse in the NCAA tournament. The Atlantic 10 champions have been on a mission this season, playing inspired basketball in memory of their late coach, Rick Majerus, who died of heart failure last December.

    Sorry, but Oregon can win on Satuday only if they bring their A game, and then hope St. Louis forgets theirs in the hotel lobby while awaiting the team bus.

    And another thing -- what the hell is a Billiken?


    I am rooting for (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    But as for the Billiken?
    Here are a couple of links as to the origin:
    One.  Two.
    Go, Billikens!    ;-)

    Wow. Gotta love the team, but ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:45:08 PM EST
    ... with all due respect to St. Louis University, that is one creepy team mascot.

    Donald, just check out (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:04:56 PM EST
    the mascot of the Rhode Island School of Design.  
    I cannot provide the link, because my iPad is being difficult, but Google it.  And, I must warn, it is not safe for work.  It is by far the strangest mascot ever.  Weirder than Evergreen State's Speedy the Geoduck, and U.C. Santa Cruz's Sammy the Banana Slug.

    Gosh, Zorba, Ducks vs Billikens and (none / 0) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:40:16 PM EST
    Cubs vs Cards- sportswise, our friendship is on rocky ground.  :-)

    Go, Billikens! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    But never mind, Casey.  You and the pirate crew will still be welcome here, no matter what.       ;-)

    Good to know, Zorba, good to know. (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    So glad you won't hold a grudge when the Billikens go down and the Cards don't make the play-offs.  :-)

    LOL! (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    We'll see, Casey, we'll see.
    (Especially about the Cards!)

    Can you fix the typos in Jeralyn's two (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    posts, below?

    "Minimum" has an extra "i" and "Responsibility" has the "s" and "p" transposed.

    I mentioned it in the comments of both posts, but I guess Jeralyn's been busy.

    Thanks - for some reason, it drives me a little crazy...

    I know the feeling... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:29:21 AM EST
    your 'Spelling Alerts' drive me a little nuts old pal;)

    If ya caught the meaning, it was a successful written communique!


    Amen brother! (none / 0) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    Have you picked up Love for Levon yet?

    Not yet... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    but I was blessed to have seen the show live.

    PBS ran some highlights of the epic show as part of their pledge drive last week, they were selling the CD and the DVD.  So if anyone is looking to score a copy and can afford it, score it from PBS and help two worthy outfits with one purchase, PBS and Levon Helm Studios.


    Thanks for the knowledge. (none / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    I was a bit thrown by the Time Life reference.  I'll check it out on PBS...

    I guess I look at it from the point of (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    view of not wanting spelling errors to diminish the professional quality of the analysis Jeralyn provides.

    In my mind, typos and spelling/grammar errors are the virtual equivalent of spinach in one's teeth or one's fly being unzipped.


    which I'm sure you would regard as, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    1.  a little snack for later, and

    2.  a time-saver (to do what, I leave to you)


    All kinds, all kinds ;)... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    the professional quality is in the analysis...you can teach a monkey to spell, f8ck the spelling!

    But we all have our pet peeves...I hear ya.


    It's just a different world, kdog; I can (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    assure you that, in the eyes of clients, other lawyers, judges, etc., the professional analysis suffers when it's poorly packaged.  Granted, that's not necessarily who Jeralyn is writing for here, but she has a public face via this blog, and I expect she wants it to be professional-looking.  

    If it makes you - and your pal MileHi - feel better, I will e-mail the corrections from now on.  


    Don't be silly... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    I'm just busting your chops...pay me no mind.

    You do have a point (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    It's certainly better to inform someone of spinach in one's teeth, or one's fly being unzipped, quietly rather than publicly.

    Actually Anne... (none / 0) (#25)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn appreciates your corrections since she's got four laptops and a new iMac going at all times.  Please feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation too.  In fact many of my posts are rather dorky so please fix those as well.  Someone else was correcting for a while, can't remember who...maybe lentinel or oculus but I appreciated it.  You are always very kind in the way you correct mistakes.  Some folks take the scolds too seriously.

    No, that would be going too far... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    it's one thing to alert Jeralyn to a misspelled post title or typos in the body of a post, but I'm not going to worry myself about the commenting community's writing.

    When my kids were first going to school, the fad at the time was that spelling didn't matter - they wanted to encourage the children to express themselves unhindered by things like spelling and grammar.  It was like reading LOLcats, for crying out loud.  

    When they got to middle school, all of a sudden, spelling and grammar mattered; I think it had to do with standardized testing, somehow, but instead of learning this stuff when they were young, they had to start changing the habits of their first five years of school.

    I'm the first to acknowledge that I'm probably a dinosaur when it comes to this kind of thing, but there's a beauty in words and language that has largely been lost in this world where the acronym rules.


    If I did, please forgive me! (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    Think (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    this might be a disatraction for Syracuse going into the tournament?

    No idea when the letter came in, but now it's public and that's what's going to be the focus...

    Speaking of Madness... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    it;s a brave new employment world over at CVS...wtf are they doing?

    We gotta untie access to health care from employment and fast cuz sh*t like this is only gonna get worse.

    This isn't about health or "personal (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:30:42 AM EST
    responsibility," it's about money.  

    And I think it's a gross violation of privacy.  It's bad enough that there are cameras everywhere, that our purchases and page-views are being tracked, but employers getting this far into their employees' business?  Too much.  Way too much.

    And I don't believe the bit about employees' information not being accessible by employers, either.  


    Yep - it's all about the Benjamins (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    And, depsite what the lawyer quoted in the piece says, it seems like they are well within their rights to do so - at least the no-smoking part according the Affordable Care Act:

    A growing number of companies are moving to charge smokers up to 50% more than nonsmokers for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, even if the employers can't afford the trouble or expense of establishing a qualified "wellness program" as they must with regard to other health factors such as obesity.

    As for charging for other factors, such as obesity:

    Companies desiring to save money and discourage other unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity by charging higher health insurance rates can do so only if they are willing to expend the time and money needed to establish a bona fide "wellness program," and even then obesity surcharges are limited to only 30%.

    In sharp contrast, smokers can be charged up to 50% more for their health insurance, even if there is no wellness program in place.  This makes it especially easy for the great majority of companies which may be too small to establish and maintain qualifying wellness programs.

    What the hell... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    is a "wellness program" anyway?  Are we talking about places of business or f*ckin' re-education camps?

    I get that some animals put themselves at more risk to require medical care than others, but is far from an exact science or a guarantee they will use more actual health care dollars.  Some obese smokers stay healthy till they drop dead, some rice cake eating zumba addicts use alotta health care.  

    If they wanna charge smokers 50% more, fair enough...then smokers should be charged 50% less in SS taxes since they are far less likely to ever collect.  Sh*t why stop there...men should pay less SS tax than women, and black men less than white men based on life expectancy stats.

    Heavy drinkers should pay more for health insurance than non-drinkers, but non-drinkers should pay more than those who drink one glass of red wine a day since one glass a day is healthy...and on and on and on.


    I think (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    "Wellness Programs"  include things like paying for weight management plans (Weight Watchers), paying for gym memberships (and proving attendance), access to mental health professionals, etc.

    And, from the article (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    The difference in treatment between obesity (where workers can be charged only 30% more, and then only as part of a qualifying wellness program) and smoking (where surcharges of 50% can be imposed even if no wellness plan is in place) is simple, explains Banzhaf.  The federal government classifies obesity as a "health status" or as a "disease," whereas being a smoker is only a "behavior." Also, obese people may qualify for protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], whereas smokers do not.

    Furthermore, a worker can cease being a smoker almost immediately - e.g. to meet a deadline date to avoid paying more for insurance - and without any significant health risks, whereas it will ordinarily take obese people months if not years to cease being obese; a process which frequently cannot be rushed without causing significant health problems.

    So much for addiction... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    being a disease....or over-eating being a behavior.  I'm so confused!

    Kdog, what did you expect? (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    This is simply another, predictable step in America's Oligarch religion, "The Markets Know Best."

    The Corporatization of America, on the move.


    lol... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    The market does now best...the market says to buy your drugs online from Canada or India and to hell with CVS and their bullsh*t!  But of course, that is illegal;)

    I think the difference is (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    you CAN stop an addiction (whether by yourself or with help) and live a perfectly normal life, but you still have to eat no matter what!

    Same applies to some (most?) cases... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:11:15 PM EST
    of obesity...watch your diet and portions, a little excercise, and you're as good as new.

    For the record I don't think the obese or the smokers should be singled out to pay higher rates...we should lighten up and just count on these things all evening out in the end.  Like the analogy to SS I mentioned, us unhealthy dregs might be a drag on the healthcare system, but the wellness program graduates will be a drag on SS...it all evens out.


    Actually, that is not true (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    If it was just a matter of "watch your diet and portions, and get a little exercise" we wouldn't have nearly the epidemic we have now.  Those are all good things and would help, but those aren't the whole story.

    And obese and smokers cost companies (not to mention the healthcare system) more money - in health-related problems, absenteesim, and lower productivity (especially in the case of smokers on this one) -  that's the bottom line (pardon the pun).


    We would need a massive cleaning up (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    of our food system . . .  and we can't have that . . .

    That's why I said some maybe most cases... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    of obesity, not all.

    Nonsense on the productivity...smokers can do in 55 min. what takes non-smokers an hour.  Believe you me, I'm working circles around these non-smoking cube dwellers;)

    #1 cause of absenteeism at my outfit is having kids at home.  But I don't not wish to see my co-workers with children punished with a payroll deduction or something. There are way too many variables to too many individual cases for anybody to start singling out whole subsets of the population to pay a premium...it's a recipe for scapegoating.  


    Try to figure out my old man (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    Is raised in poverty during the Depression in the tenements on the lower East Side of Manhattan...and he's a pudgy kid (mostly, we can figure out today, because his diet consisted mostly of cheap starch, which the body stores as fat). Starts chain smoking at 9 years old, because his grandmother takes him to the roof of their building and gives him cigarettes to smoke in front of her, apparently getting a weird thrill watching the kid smoke. He has been a wretched nicotine addict ever since, pushing 80 YEARS now!  He is so miserable at 17 watching his parents fight all the time, that he gets his father to sign him into the Navy and WWII. "You'll amount to nothing!" his father yells at him as he leaves home for good. He gets skinny in the Navy, keeps smoking like a chimney, gets busted in the Navy for dating a black girl, gets sent to New Mexico as punishment to watch nuclear bombs explode, manages to father me when he assumed he'd be sterile from all that radiation, blah blah blah, is still kicking, even broke his knee a few years back, which for a guy around 80, which he was at the time, is usually a death sentence or at least a life in a wheelchair. Doc says, old man, you gotta go rest for a week until the swelling goes down, then they'll operate, let's put a cast on you. My dad say phuck the cast, gimme some crutches and I'm good. He leaves on crutches, comes back a week later, the shattered knee is healing itself, the doc is amazed, says they won't have to operate after all, and my dad says, "Great doc, great, but lemme ask you, can I smoke in your office?"

    Mind over body, my old man is the shining, tar-encrusted example.


    I think.. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    ... that I like your old man :)

    Thank goodness... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    your old man didn't work for modern day CVS all those years...he woulda got so screwed on health insurance;)

    Great stuff...my maniac pops quits 50 year pack a day habit cold turkey prior to his long, last drinking binge...figure that one out.  I think he did it just to prove he could do it.  Aside from 2 detox & rehab stints, never cost nobody a dime in health care...he'd be damned before he'd go to a doctor.  Miss that f*cker.

    So before we get crazy nickel and diming those on the wrong side of the income inequality graph...ahh it's too f*ckin' late, they're after the scraps.  Section 17 Paragraph 6 Subsection C clearly states...

    Anyone care to trade a Weight Watchers coupon for a nicotine patch?


    Although Steven Hawking... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    ...is THE example of examples probably.

    God love him, Dadler, but the problem is (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:32:36 PM EST
    that everyone who smokes or drinks or whatever always thinks they're going to be your dad - they'll be the one who is still alive and kicking, with a cigarette in one hand and a drink in the other, at 80.

    Me, I quit a 2-pack a day habit in 1979; I'd tried cutting down, but all that does is make you do nothing but think about when you can have the next cigarette.  Finally just quit - but carried an unopened pack in my purse for a year, just in case.  No regrets, but still dream about smoking once in a while.

    It was hard to quit in 1979 - back then, you could smoke everywhere - if I wanted to smoke at my desk, I did.  And I did, a lot.  Now, I think it might be easier, just because there's hardly anywhere one can smoke.

    I couldn't afford to smoke now - still can't get over how much people are willing to spend just to inhale smoke and smell like an ashtray.


    Imagine if they were illegal (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    What would the price be then?  Yikes.

    Hey, the most pointless thing is pops smokes these long lady cigarettes, 120s, with hardly any nicotine or tar in them. And he has for some time. They look ridiculous. The box is long enough to hold pencils in.


    Capris? (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    Your old man smokes Capris?  Say it ain't so!

    An old ladyfriends mom used to smoke those things...if I was forced to grub one I had to rip the filter off to get any kinda joy out of it, and even then just barely.


    Do they still make Virginia Slims? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    That's what came to mind when Dadler mentioned the long, skinny cigarettes; must be the same deal, as I remember thinking I might have to actually eat one to get anything out of it - it not only felt like I was holding a raw piece of spaghetti, but like I was smoking it, too.

    I think they still do... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    Capris are even skinnier than Virginia Slims...sucking so hard to get a good drag you practically pass out.

    Yes, he smokes the femme chopsticks (none / 0) (#99)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    It pains me so to admit it. The brand he smoked when I was a kid doesn't even exist anymore. I love getting old.

    You lost me here (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:02:40 PM EST
    Being overweight is ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY a function of one thing: more calories consumed than burned. Period. Exercise, while it is important for cardiac fitness and muscle tone, is NOT the route to actually dropping pounds...calorie restriction is.

    When it's cheaper to eat the dollar meals (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    from McD's than it is to eat fresh, low-calorie meals, and when you can't swing a dead cat in the city without hitting a fast food joint with those cheap meals, with nary a place to buy fresh produce and lean meats at affordable prices, what do you expect will happen to people?

    They'll get fat.


    That's true as far as it goes (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    Being overweight is ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY a function of one thing: more calories consumed than burned.
    But it doesn't go far enough.

    There are lots of factors involved in obesity.  


    And obesity (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    Is not something "cured" instantly - it can take a lifetime.

    Quitting smoking is an instant event.

    And I could show you hundreds of studies that prove how smokers hurt productivity and the bottom line of a company (starting with the number and length of smoke breaks they take on average vs. the number and length of breaks non-smokers take).  Of course, any one individual could "prove" those studies wrong, but overall, smokers are much more costly.

    Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work.

    Anway, it doesn't really matter as the ACA (or "Obamacare") says companies can charge more on the insurance premiums for people's behavior (such as smoking).


    You're being just as simplistic (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    as Dadler was:
    Quitting smoking is an instant event.
    That's like saying changing your diet is as easy as making your next meal be a healthy one.  Suddenly your body chemistry and lifestyle and budget will change and there will be rainbows and ponies.  And there will be no cravings for pizza and chocolate and greasy hamburgers and ice cream and nicotine.  Instead jogging is now your new favorite pastime.

    It doesn't work that way.


    Actrually, from what I've seen, (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    that is the only way it can work, for the vast majority of us.

    You have to change your eating habits - for the rest of your life - to change your weight.

    No, it's not easy. Yes, it is as simple as that.


    You missed the point (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    I'm saying that stopping anything -- whether it's smoking or overeating -- isn't an instant event.  It is an on-going process.  You are actually agreeing with me.

    Sure there may be a turning point.  Or, more likely, there are many turning points.  But just because you have one healthy meal it doesn't mean your eating habits have changed.  Notice the word in your own comment: habit.  Neither eliminating a habit nor creating a new one happens in an instant.  Heck, ending the nail-biting habit isn't even an instant event.  

    It may be simple, but it isn't instantaneous.


    Ok. For me, I changed my eating habits (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    in my early 20's, and it's going on 30 years now. So if that's what you mean by on-going process I completely agree.

    And did it (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM EST
    happen overnight?  Suddenly you never again craved a pizza, much less ate one?  Suddenly you never again had a beer or cocktail, or wanted one?  Suddenly you never drank another soda either regular or diet?  Suddenly you never again ate or wanted to eat a donut or any other dessert?

    Get the point.  I'm talking about categorizing changing a habit as an instant events.  The decision may be an instant event, the implementation is not.


    I'm really not sure why this distinction (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:54:03 PM EST
    is important to you but I truly am trying to understand.

    Eating/tobacco/etc. habits are what you do, not the thoughts that go through your head. No?

    Implementing a change in these habits can be done instantaneously, irrespective of how long afterward you continue to crave stuff. No?

    There are things I still crave (chewing tobacco, chiefly) and probably will for the rest of my life. I feel the urge every time I'm in a 7-11, which is almost every day (speaking of habits!).

    However, I implemented my decision to change that habit instantaneously. Dumped what remained in the bag out the window of my car and that was that.

    I'm sure I'm being bone-headed about this, but I really do want to understand...


    Oh for goodness sake (none / 0) (#85)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:00:51 AM EST
    Reread jb's comment.  She stated categorically that stopping smoking could be done in an instant.  If that were true there would be no smokers.  You took the conversation sideways using diametrically opposed concepts as if they were naturally harmonious.  Those two opposed concepts are "habit" and "instantaneous".

    But I'm not going to go down your road anymore.


    I think what jb's trying to say is that (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 06:33:14 AM EST
    when you stop smoking, you stop.  Period.  Cutting down isn't quitting.  Switching to a "light" version isn't quitting. Not smoking is quitting.

    Technically, I suppose you could say that every time someone puts out a cigarette, he or she is quitting - whether that holds depends on whether that person ever lights up and inhales the smoke from another one.  

    She's not saying that it's easy to quit, just that, in effect, every time one puts out a cigarette, it is potentially the last one a person will smoke.

    I've heard people say, "I quit smoking every night before I go to bed," meaning that it was their intention not to smoke when they woke up the next morning.  Heck, I did that more than a couple times before I was able to be successful.  I finally kind of psyched myself out by telling myself that when I woke up in the morning, I had already gone X number of hours without a cigarette - I'd slept through it - and all I had to do was keep that going.

    We've all heard people say that same thing about dieting, haven't we?  "Okay, my diet begins tomorrow."  Problem is that we can't wake up the next morning and just never eat again.  Well, we could, but the results would not be what we intended.

    People who quit smoking - just like people who quit drinking - have to choose to not smoke or not drink every day and sometimes many times in a day, and for some people, that process of choosing not to drink or smoke is one that never ends.

    We make choices about eating and exercise, too: the yogurt or the donut, the apple or the candy bar, the small portion or the large.  I hate exercise, and I've found the only way it works for me is that I have to do it every day - I have to choose to do it.  I have to tell myself that as much as I hate it, I will be glad that I did.  I know it's better for me, I know I have weight to lose, so those are choices I make every day.

    I quit smoking in 1979 - it wasn't a picnic to kick a 2-pack a day addiction, and even though it was hard, I quit the day I put that last cigarette out.  Boom.  Done.


    I know that's what she's saying (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:32:59 AM EST
    when you stop smoking, you stop.  Period.
    And I think it's completely wrong.  For all the reasons you're talking about.  And "Boom. Done." ignores the daily struggle to not reach for one ever again.  By that measure, everything happens in an instant: eating habits are changed, exercise is integrated, and my house is spotless overnight.

    Anyway, I'm done talking about it.


    "Boom. Done." does not ignore the (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    daily struggle - it acknowledges that the smoking part is over.

    By your reasoning, when does someone get to say he or she quit smoking?  The day they no longer feel like they want to?

    "So, yeah, I smoked for 10 years and now I don't smoke, but I haven't really quit because, golly, I still really want a cigarette sometimes."

    "No, I haven't quit smoking, I'm quitting."  "Oh, so you're still smoking?  Have you set a target date for when you'll stop?"  "Oh, I already stopped smoking."  "Wait, so, doesn't that mean you quit?"  "Well, I don't think I will have quit until I've stopped struggling with wanting to."

    Seems to me you could get into a conversation Abbott and Costello would be proud of.

    As for this:

    By that measure, everything happens in an instant: eating habits are changed, exercise is integrated, and my house is spotless overnight.

    you're comparing apples and oranges, or someone is.  Eating is not like smoking or drinking alcohol.  Exercise is something one doesn't have to do, either, but it's also something, that if one does, one doesn't have to do every day.  If I exercise today and skip tomorrow, I can still answer "yes" to the question, "do you exercise," can't I?  Or, by the logic you've brought to the table, can I only answer "yes" if I exercised that day?

    I don't understand why the conversation has gotten so mired down in this kind of minutiae - I guess because you don't agree with how others, myself included, define "quit."  

    And I really don't understand why you seem so angry about it.


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    I was angry about it.  As near as I can tell it was holdover anger from the nonsense being spouted in the "Iraq Anniversary Bombing" thread.  As I said there, it made me sick and angry.

    Then that anger was probably intensified by the really, really strong craving for a smoke.

    I'm better now.


    It's not just me saying (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:33:48 AM EST
    From my original link - it's also John F. Banzhaf III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D., Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School,FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,Fellow, World Technology Network,
    Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)saying it (my emphasis):

    Furthermore, a worker can cease being a smoker almost immediately - e.g. to meet a deadline date to avoid paying more for insurance - and without any significant health risks, whereas it will ordinarily take obese people months if not years to cease being obese; a process which frequently cannot be rushed without causing significant health problems.

    And I didn't say the urge would go away, but someone can stop smoking this instant and be done forever and never have to do it again.  An obese person, however, cannot stop eating altogether.  To compare obeisty with smoking as being the same is simply silly.


    wev (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    Correctamundo. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    But you don't have to eat ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    ... that Big Mac meal.

    And the way Pitt's playing right now against Wichita State (down 15), I think each Panther consumed a box of little chocolate doughnut bites by himself before hitting the court this afternoon.


    Quite frankly I can't stand CVS (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    and I've transferred everything to Walgreens.  I choose pharmacies by how bright the pharmacist is and I really think they know meds better than most doctors.

    My guy... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    is quite knowledgable, I think he got his degree at Hard Knocks School of Pharmacology;)

    Is that your purveyor of legal drugs? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    Yer punctuation us atrocious. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    No kidding (none / 0) (#15)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    Company officials said personal information is given to WebMD, and that CVS will not have access to employee's personal health information.
     Because if that were so, this would be a meaningless directive:
    Workers must also be tobacco free or enroll in an addiction program by next year.

    Well paid pharmacists would be one thing.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    but are they seriously making these demands of low paid cashiers and stockroom workers?  

    An extra 50 a month out a 10 bucks an hour paycheck...they're out their minds. I see bigtime staffing problems in their future, I don't care how sh*tty the job market is.  There is only so much indignity broked*cks can take.


    Goodbye, Ed Reed... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    whether it was this year or next year, the time was coming.  Ravens are looking to get younger, and while there may not be someone who can "be" Ed Reed right out of the gate, Ed Reed hasn't really been Ed Reed for a couple seasons, either.  That the Texans seem to have been the only team interested (what happened to Bill Belichick's love-to-have-him-in-a-Patriots-uniform from earlier in the post-season?) in having him.

    It will be strange to see #20 in a Texans uniform, but that's life in the NFL, I guess.

    I always try to remember (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:30:34 PM EST

     Johnny Unitas ended his career as a San Diego Charger

    Emmit Smith as an Arizona Cardinal (I don't count one day contracts)

    Joe Nammath as a Los Angeles Ram

    and Joe Montana as a Cheif.

    The NFL is not a place for the faint of heart.


    The Bears parted ways with Brian Urlacher. (none / 0) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    He has had a lot of injuries these last couple of seasons. Still, I'm sad to see him go. Not so sad that I think the Bears should spend a lot of money on him, though.

    No word yet on where Brian will go.


    Knicks fans (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    Seems like just yesterday the Knicks were on top of the standings looking down at the Heat.

    You talkin' to me? (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    My kingdom for healthy bigs!  

    Watch out for the juggernaut Denver Nuggets in the finals if no east team can pull the playoff upset, they've got a little win streak of their own.


    Just looking at the score (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    of last night's Heat game you'd say ho hum they nicked the Cavs. And I'm sure many turned it off midway through the 3rd.

    The Knicks are old and unhealthy. Makes it tough over an 82 game stretch.

    The toughest thing about Denver is playing in Denver (30-3). The Nuggets are 17-19 on the road.


    13 straight... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:40:49 AM EST
    six of those on the road.  The last two being back-to-backs in Chicago (2 OT) and OKC.  I won't take them for granted just because they're on the road.

    Thanks to ex-Gator... (none / 0) (#84)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:34:05 PM EST
    Corey Brewer, the Nuggets make it 14 in a row with an improbable one point win in the last seconds over the 76's at home.  

    Wow, what a finish.


    My UW baseball coach's ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    ... general rule of thumb over the course of a long 60-game season was that if we could successfully defend our house and then find a way to split the diference on the road, we would be a legitimate contender for a conference championship. So, according to the criteria of my former coach, the Denver Nuggets are for real.

    Amazon and the CIA ink deal (none / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    so that intelligence agencies can better store and share information about us on the cloud.

    Ah, the melding of corporate and government interests, as the smells of fascism continue to waft  between the peaks and canyons of our purple mountain majesties.

    RIP Alvin Lee (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    I'm not sure how I missed this.  Goodbye to one of the guitar greats.

    He said the folks backstage (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    at Woodstock sent him out into the crowd to find cigarettes, and he never found any but came back with twelve joints..

    He was best known for his blazing blues-'n-boogie rave-ups, but he could also, with equal facility, slide right into impressionistic Wes Montgomery land when he had the mind to..




    Ten Years After... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    did the best set at Woodstock, imo...raved-up and never came down.  Absolutely Blistering.

    I think you're going to be sweating ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    ... the Southern-Gonzaga game with that 21.5 point spread, BTD. The Jaguars are a well-coached, defensive-oriented team that will make the Bulldogs work for every point. Gonzaga will win, but it'll be closer than people are apparently thinking. Zags by 12.

    Aside from the NCAA's looming investigation of Syracuse basketball, I think that Montana might also have a surprise in store for Jim Boeheim and the Orange -- namely Will Cherry, a tough-playing senior guard who's been averaging 14 points a game for the 25-6 Grizzlies who can light opponents up from the perimeter. If he sites the rim in his crosshairs and is on fire, be on the lookout for one of those always-anticipated first round upsets of a namebrand program by a low seed -- especially if Coach Boeheim and the boys are caught looking past today's opponent to Cal or UNLV.

    2:20 2nd: Gonzaga 59, Southern 58. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    Can I call 'em, or what? I said this would be close, but honestly, I thought Gonzaga would have pulled away by now. Instead, the Southern Univ. Jaguars are proving to be a real nightmare for the Bulldogs.

    Could we finally see a No. 1 seed fall in the first round? This one is looking to go to go to the wire.


    FINAL: Gonzaga 64, Southern 58. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    Wow. What a game! The Zags played some clutch basketball down the stretch, and survived their very first tournament game with the bullseye on their backs.

    Personally, I think today's close shave was a case of a mostly unknown but nevertheless good Jaguar team elevating their game with some real heart and soul, while the Bulldogs had to play through some serious opening round jitters as the West Region's No. 1 seed. If not, then today's game stands as an ominous harbinger of things to come for the guys from Spokane.

    Regardless, Gonzaga will need to regroup quickly, because a very good Wichita State team -- fresh off an impressive 18-pt. thumping of Pittsburgh earlier today -- now awaits them on Saturday afternoon. And the Zags had better be prepared to bang heads and get physical with the muscular Shockers, or else an early 2nd round exit could also await them.


    No. 6-seed Memphis survives ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    ... a very spirited comeback by No. 11 St. Mary's, 54-52, as Michael Dellavedova misses a 3-pointer as time expires -- a great game between two really good teams.

    Meanwhile, No. 3 Marquette definitely has its hands full with Davidson, which is playing like anything but a 14-seed. It's all tied up, 38-38, with 10:44 to go in the game.

    Davidson chokes! Marquette survives! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:53:14 PM EST
    All you have to do on the inbounds play is wait to be fouled. But no, you throw the ball away -- and then you give up the layup for the game-winner? This one probably hurts, as well it should. Golden Eagles, 59-58.

    Hail to the victors, valiant! (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:45:19 PM EST
    Did I miss a good bet?