home

Wednesday Open Thread

I'll be working all day (and probably tomorrow as well.) Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: TL was down from about 10 pm last night until 5 am this morning (MT). All should be fine now.

< Mexico : U.S. Can Have El Chapo in About 300 Years | Deadline Passes Again, No Prisoner Swap >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    From our "Patriot Games" file: (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:24:51 AM EST
    Let the flamethrowing commence again. Analyst Warren Sharp continues to press his increasingly compelling case that the deflated football controversy currently enveloping the New England Patriots on the eve of their appearance in Super Bowl XLIX was likely not just a one-time occurrence in last week's AFC championship game, but rather has been an ongoing issue with the team since 2007.

    Specifically, he further examines in detail the precipitous and suspicious decline in the overall number of fumbles committed per season by the Patriots versus the rest of the league's teams, after Tom Brady and Peyton Manning successfully lobbied the NFL in 2006 to allow teams to supply their own footballs both at home and on the road:

    "Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you'd expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5842 instances.

    "Which in layman's terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it's very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game."

    If all this is indeed true -- and the statistics provided by Sharp strongly suggest that his findings are not merely a matter of coincidence -- then the Patriots are clearly undermining the integrity of the NFL's product with their chicanery, and league officials need to act.

    Aloha.

    And what I found interesting is that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    when he looked beyond just the Patriots' performance, and included the other teams in the league, the anomaly didn't go away.

    Watched Inside the NFL last night, and they showed how little time it takes to take a football from 12.5 psi to 10.5 psi - and that the difference can be felt.

    Wonder if there's any pre-game/equipment guy videotape from the other Patriots' games...???

    Parent

    Trial by Bombast & Innuendo (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    When Errorbars Hit Mainstream News

    The NFL recently hired physicists at Columbia to help make the case for science with the football fiasco, but I think that's unnecessary: a few good experiments with temperature and friction and lots of measurements by lots of different pressure gauges will empirically demonstrate how much of a range we might expect from such things. In other words, understanding errorbars.

    In fact, I heard quite a few people call in to ESPN radio over the past week trying to explain to the sports radio hosts what might be going on scientifically, only to be hung up on. The truth is, it's not as interesting a story to think about it just happening outside our control. It messes with our sense of omnipotence and control.

    This is bad news for society, as more and more things become "datafied" and as we assume that will translate into perfect information.

    I've been reading MathBabe's blog for a number of years and, as an old engineer, recommend her writing, especially re statistics.

    Parent

    Maybe I'm always thinking too much like a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    and not like a scientist, but isn't the issue here whether the footballs were deflated in violation of the rules (i.e., whether one team was cheating) and not whether deflating the footballs would give one team an actual advantage over the other? I mean, the latter question is interesting, but it should be of no moment in an investigation of whether a team is due to be sanctioned for cheating.  (It's not like there's a plagiarism defense that goes, "Sure I copied from that other kid's paper, but her paper turned out not to be as good as I thought it would be.")

    Parent
    It's very strange, Peter, watching (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    people rush to judgement, especially here, where we are constantly reminded by Jeralyn to wait for the evidence, and even more important, since this is a blog and we are unlikely to ever see, hear, smell, or touch the evidence, to refrain from judging, period.

    Anybody who wants to prove the Patriots cheated is free to build a case.  So far, we've had plenty of hypotheses but none proven.  Even the few facts we're given are fuzzy.  First reports were that 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under at halftime.  Then we're told that only one ball was maybe 2 psi under and the other ten, only 1 psi under.  And for comparison?  Nothing.  According to the Google cached copy of the previous story, no measurement of the Colt's balls was taken synchronously with the halftime measurements of the Patriot footballs.

    Although the case is about air, it cannot be proven with hot air.

    Parent

    You are Misrepresenting People... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    ...and policy.  It is not 'rush to judgement policy' it's an 'innocent until proven guilty' policy.  For anything non-defendant related, that policy does not apply.

    For a game you dislike, don't seem to know much about, you sure have an opinion about it how infractions should be processed by fans.  It's the NFL, there will be no court date, no proof is needed to pass judgement or punishment and most importantly, no one will be imprisoned.

    Which is precisely why anyone can make any judgement here about the NFL.  I would also add that the proof that has been represented may not meet the burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but it does meet the NFL's burden of proof, which is 'no proof needed', so please stop implying that they are one in the same.

    If you are going to keep insisting on no 'rush to judgement' then at least have the decency to abide by your own ridiculous notions and stop rushing to judgement of others and the game you dislike.

    Parent

    I hope you are not accusing me (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    of "rushing to judgment," Mr. N. I suggested that the issue at hand was really "whether" there was cheating under the governing rule book, as opposed to "whether" underinflation of the footballs would (as a matter of fact) give an unfair advantage to one team over the other. I don't really know anything about pro football, don't watch it, don't enjoy it, and don't even know its rules that well. I am only interested in the social phenomenon that a team that is seriously suspected and accused of cheating in the semi-finals will apparently without question be permitted to take that victory and play in the very-big-deal national finals in their sport.

    Parent
    I'd never accuse you of that or anything, Peter (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    It's the social phenomenon that interests me as well.  Unfortunately the  phenomenon I'm now interested in is right here, playing out in a group of otherwise thoughtful people.

    Earlier this week, Quarterback Brady's preference for less inflated footballs was alluded to as indicative of his guilt.  I found the source of that statement in Brady's offhand comment about the habit, of one of Brady's teammates, of spiking the football following a touchdown.  According to Brady, spiking the football, i.e., throwing it directly at the ground, results in enough deflation to both perceive and exploit. If the valve is so leaky that simply throwing the ball at the ground causes deflation, why wouldn't being repeatedly jumped on by large angry men result in a similar deflation?

    There are too many unaccounted for variables for us to feel comfortable handing the Patriots to a lynch mob.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    :: shakes head ::

    Parent
    You're correct. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    Yes, purposely deflating a football below regulation pressure is against the rules. And that's what is at issue here, not any supposed advantaged derived by the Patriots when playing with them.

    That said, Warren Sharp is seeking an explanation as to why the Patriots -- and only the Patriots -- have been consistently fumbling well below the league's average since 2007, when teams were first allowed to bring and play with their own footballs while on offense during game time.

    Regarding your other point, it's been further noted that New England only scored 17 points on offense during the first half when the balls were underinflated, but then rang up 28 points in the second half once the officials had re-inflated them to regulation pressure.

    Therefore, one could also argue -- and it has been argued -- that for the AFC championship game at least, whatever "advantage" an underinflated football might have offered the Patriots that day was due more to that team's own psychological perceptions, than any actual reality.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sharp also cautioned us about (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    small data sets.

    He considers a single season to be too small, I wonder what he would say about 1/2 of one game.

    Parent

    You might want to read his (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    posts here, and here, which address sample size, among other things.

    I found this pretty interesting:

     1.  Patriots players fumbled SIGNIFICANTLY more often when playing on other NFL teams than when playing for the Patriots:

            Individual players who played on New England during the 2007-14 span and on other teams fumbled 46% less often ON the Patriots as compared to on their other teams (98 touches/fumble on NE, 67 on other teams).

      2.  The most utilized of the Patriots players fumbled even more frequently when paying for other NFL teams:

            The players who played the MOST often for the Patriots during this span fumbled the ball TWICE as frequently on other teams as they did on the Patriots (107 touches/fumble on NE, 53 on other teams).

      3.  Learning ball possession skills in New England did NOT transfer to other NFL teams after players left:

            Individual players who played on the Patriots fumbled 88% more often after LEAVING the Patriots as they did when playing on the Patriots (105 touches/fumble on NE, 56 after NE on other teams).

      4.  In fact, the opposite was true - players were MORE secure carrying the football before even playing for the Patriots than they were after leaving the Patriots:

            Individual players who played on the Patriots fumbled 25% less frequently before joining New England as they did after playing for New England and then leaving (70 touches/fumble before NE, 56 after NE).



    Parent
    Thanks, cool links, lots of info there. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:57:16 PM EST
    Was there something specific I should notice w/regard to my comment about whether 1/2 of one game is a suitable sample size?

    Parent
    No, not really. Your mention of it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    reminded me that Sharp had addressed this in a couple of his posts on the subject, and I wanted to be sure you saw that.


    Parent
    Thanks, they were very interesting. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 06:04:42 PM EST
    The Argument... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    ...originally made was yes there were low pressure balls, but the atmosphere was responsible, not a human being.  Like car tires, the argument was it was scientifically possible for a football to lose 2lbs of air at the temperatures they played, or so many Boston fans claimed.

    It lasted a day, maybe, because they tested both teams balls, only one's pressure decreased for 11 of 12 balls.  But seems like they are still pushing it, which to me is what the NFL wants, an excuse to take the investigation beyond Sunday.

    At this point, as you mentioned, they have determined rules were broken, that link was more in tune with the information available 9 days ago.  Now they have guy on video taking the balls into the equipment room for 90 seconds.

    Plus of course, it's the NFL, not court, they don't have to actually prove anything to discipline.

    If the argument was advantage, surely the score proved the Pats scored more points with properly inflated balls, well over double.  The under-inflated balls were removed at halftime, Pats had 17, at game end they had 45.

    Parent

    All true (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    But an argument can be made that a team who is down 17-7 at halftime, as the Colts were, could have also lost momentum (and conversely, the Patriots gained extra momentum) to help them come back and score 28 more.  

    No, the final outcome probably wouldn't be different, but there are rules for a reason.  I don't like Seattle, but I hate cheaters more.  Go Seahawks!

    Parent

    I Agree, and More Importantly... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    ...with other games coming into question, did the Pats even belong in the game.  Probably, but with cheating and the butterfly effect, we will never know and that sucks.  One more loss and maybe no home-field, two and maybe no bye week.

    I am in the same boat as you, don't like cheaters, and the Hawks are just getting annoying.  I will be cheering for great plays, which hopefully will allow me to celebrate twice as much.

    Parent

    You have misrepresented the facts (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    "only one's pressure decreased for 11 of 12 balls."

    You have no evidence, period, that this assertion is true.

    One team's set was judged within the limits, but of that set, you have no knowledge, none, of where those pressures were relative to the starting pressure, which, fwiw, you don't know either.  So, you don't know the final pressures; you don't know the starting pressures.  You don't know when those pressures were measured.  You don't know the ambient air temperature at any point of this progression.  You don't know the temperature of the air inside the ball or the condition of the balls themselves.  

    You're not just cherry picking evidence.  You're cherry picking words to reassemble into sentences to support your prejudices.

    Gotta feel for defense attorneys who have to face this day in and day out.


    Parent

    But do you know how many angels can (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    dance on the head of a pin?

    We know that each team gets to use its own footballs, the referee checks the pressure in all of them prior to the game, and marks each ball as it is approved for play.

    So, at the point at which all the balls were approved, they were handed over to each team's respective designated equipment/ball manager.  We know that the person responsible for the Patriots' footballs made a 90-second stop in a bathroom; we do not know - because there are no cameras there - what transpired therein.

    At halftime, the pressure in all the footballs was measured.  I think it is reasonable to infer that, absent any finding to the contrary, the pressure of the Colts' footballs was within the mandated 12.5 - 13.5 psi range.  We also know that 11 of the Patriots' 12 footballs were not, and all 11 were below the low end of that range, some by as much as 2 lbs.

    We know, because Brady told us so, that once he gets his footballs to the point where he likes them for play, he doesn't want anyone touching or messing with them.  Anyone who thinks there's someone on the team who would mess with them without Brady's knowledge is - you should pardon the expression - nuts.  After years and years of handling footballs, I think it's safe to assume that Brady can put his hands on a ball and instantly know whether it's "right" or not.  Anyone who thinks Brady wouldn't have screamed to the heavens had any of those balls not been up to his specifications is also nuts.

    Please check out the Patriots' fumbling stats, which underwent remarkable - actually, unbelievable - improvement from 2007 to 2014, far surpassing any other team in the league over that same period.  Those stats also tell us that players who were remarkably fumble-free while playing for the Patriots suddenly developed fumble-itis after going to other teams.

    Something stinks, I think the league knows something stinks, and is once again going to come under fire.

    Parent

    Anne. please (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    Stop with the logic and facts.  It makes my head hurt.

    Parent
    Oh, for crying out loud! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    As I told you earlier, the officials tested each football's pressure before the game. That's the NFL's standard operating procedure, and that's your starting point!

    Further, we're talking about sporting events, which require quick judgments on the part of players, coaches and referees, and prompt and timely resolution of disputes and controversies on the part of league officials. It doesn't require a court of inquiry.

    Only if the NFL itself or one of its members were to file suit in civil court to legally vacate New England's playoff victories and seek return of the team's share of earnings derived from its forthcoming Super Bowl appearance, would your points be valid and come into play.

    But we're not talking about any of that. (At least, not yet and hopefully, never.) New England's all set to play Seattle in the Super Bowl, and that won't change.

    But the NFL reserves every right per its own bylaws and its collective bargaining agreement / contract with the NFL players' union to levy fines and suspensions unilaterally against those individuals and teams which the league itself determines are in violation of its stated policies, guidelines and rules.

    While Coach Bill Belichick and QB Tom Brady will obviously be on the sidelines this Sunday, they could still face serious sanctions and even expulsion if league officials subsequently find that either individual was being untruthful, evasive or misleading during the league's investigation of this matter.

    Further, the Patriots as a team could face penalties as well, such as the loss of one or more or even all of its upcoming draft picks, or possibly the loss of home field advantage in future postseason appearances, regardless of how well it finishes in the league's final standings.

    All this is purely speculative, given where we are right now in the ongoing investigation. But it's also entirely within the NFL's purview and dominion per pro sports' general exemptions from compliance with U.S. antitrust laws, and its findings, determinations and rulings are subject only to the bylaws and collective bargaining agreement.

    Therefore, as far as the NFL has thus far determined, the footballs used by the Patriots during the first half of the AFC championship game were significantly deflated below official regulations, and there's a very good chance that it may be human-related rather than caused by natural phenomena. That's a finding not necessarily subject to further debate, save at the sole pleasure of league officials themselves.

    With their finding of probable cause for further investigation, what NFL officials are ostensibly doing now is attempting to determine how exactly this occurred, and if it's human-caused (as it presently appears to be) who's responsible and / culpable for it.

    That's why they've hired an outside counsel to conduct its investigation -- and are further doing so, I might add, over the strenuous objections of the Patriots organization. That should tell you something right there.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    But MathBabe's post says nothing about ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    ... the controversy, and is mostly a lament about how nobody is paying attention to science anymore. While I'd agree with her about that, her reference to the NFL is merely tangential.

    Perhaps all these people who are pointing so frantically to the science of air pressure and temperature in their quest to exonerate the Patriots, might want to also explain how the cold weather only managed to affect the footballs on the Patriots' sideline in Foxboro, while simultaneously leaving unaffected the Colts' footballs on the other side of the field.

    Or maybe we're to then assume that some sort of mysterious and divine provenance was somehow at work against Bill Belichick and Tom Brady on that day, not unlike how the Angel of Death passed over the houses of the Israelites in the Book of Exodus while on its way to kill the firstborn sons of their Egyptian captors.

    Sorry, but given their past behavior, New England does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You haven't proven any of that, Donald. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    So far you haven't provided anything but bombast and innuendo to make your case, enhancing it by smearing the motives of anybody, like me, who dares question your great outgassing of hot air by asking for the methods and empirical data supporting your suppositions.

    I've forwarded a couple of pieces of explanation.  In response, you've offered little but rote appeals to authority, the classic logical fallacy.

    I don't have any skin in this game.  I don't give a damn about either team.  American style football is a stupid brutal sport.

    Parent

    If you "have no skin in the game" ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    ... and you don't care about football, then why comment about it?

    All I've done is link to some statistical information from Sharp that I found compelling. People can read it and decide for themselves regarding its veracity.

    I'm not an engineer like you, but I'm also not stupid, either. I was a biology dual major (with history) as an undergraduate, and I think I know enough about science to realize when someone's not making a convincing case. The basic facts of the case are roughly as follows:

    • Because both the Patriots and the Colts were playing outside at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA that day, both teams and their respective equipment were simultaneously exposed to the same temperatures and weather elements.

    • Per league rules, NFL officials first examined all 24 footballs from both teams prior to kickoff, and then did so again at halftime, after suspicions about ball deflation had been conveyed to them during the first half of play.

    • Upon that second examination, those officials determined that 11 of the Patriots' 12 footballs were significantly underinflated by as much as 15% below regulation, while every single one of the Colts' dozen footballs had remained at the required regulation pressure.

    Therefore, those persons who are seeking to offer a scientific rationale for what happened to the Patriots' footballs that day need to also explain how only the footballs on the Patriots' side of the field were affected thusly by the outside air temperature, while the Colts' footballs were not.

    I happen to think that's a very fair question to ask of those who are insisting that there's a valid and logical scientific explanation here. And if neither you nor any other person can answer it to my satisfaction, then all of your huffing and puffing and threatening to blow my house down is hardly going to convince me otherwise.

    I'm not the only one here or elsewhere who thinks that somebody tampered with those footballs. The evidence that we've seen thus far strongly suggests that it was human intervention, rather than atmospheric phenomena, which caused the Patriots' footballs to become significantly underinflated after their first examination by officials prior to kickoff.

    But as of this moment, we just don't yet know who did it, because nobody is thus far willing to step forward and take responsibility for the deed.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Post hoc statistical fantasies, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    conflation of causation and correlation, begging the question, and the usual ad hominem, which is beneath you, although you have in this debate embraced it with uncharacteristic zeal.  There are more flaws in your argument but who cares.  Everybody knows (I hope you don't mind if I borrow your favorite fallacy) that appeals to emotion trump appeals to reason.

    Here's the latest from one of the biggest blatherers in this case, Peter King.

    King waits until the last few paragraphs to admit that he may have been completely full of beans.  At that point, where the difference between legal and not is only 0.2psi, error bars become relevant, the importance of which you laughed off.

    Parent

    If you tell me that any of the footballs (none / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    used by the Colts that day were registering lower than the mandated 12.5 psi, I'm happy to put this all off on air temps and contraction/expansion, etc.  Or if you can tell me that the Colts kept their footballs next to the heater on the sidelines, and the Patriots didn't, then there may be a case for why the pressure in one team's footballs differed significantly from the other team's.

    Since these are explanations that are eminently obvious even to the non-scientists who still remember from their elementary school science - or Seinfeld - that heat expands things and cold contracts them, I have to believe these were the first possibilities considered as an explanation.  In other words, if you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse.  I think they looked for the horse, and failing to identify it as the source of the hoofbeats, are now considering it could be a zebra - and not the kind wearing a referee uniform.

    Is there an explanation for the Pats' startlingly good - low - stats on fumbling as a percentage of plays?  Is it possible that, in the years since teams were allowed to provide their own balls, that there's an explanation that doesn't involve playing with a tampered ball?  Is there an explanation for these numbers to be so consistently low regardless of when and where and under what conditions the games were being played - indoors, outside, cold, heat, rain?

    I don't know that anyone has any answers, other than those who may have been involved, if this was a case of equipment tampering.  But what we do know doesn't lend itself to accepting the Pats' denials as the last word.

    Parent

    I'm not a scientist (none / 0) (#46)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:35:54 PM EST
     and don't have the data necessary to analyze if I was.

      One thing that would be interesting to test is how long it would take footballs that had stored in a relatively hot environment, prior to the inspection, to cool internally sufficiently to have the pressure drop below the acceptable minimum limit.

      For example, I inflate a football so it is below  the acceptable limit at "room temperature." I then put the balls in a very hot environment long enough that the internal temperature of the football increases enough that the pressure is within the acceptable limits.

      If I then removed the balls from the hot environment shortly prior to the inspection, could I "fool them?" You could do the math to an extent based on gas laws but without knowing the insulating properties of a football and the times involved  you don't have enough information for a complete answer. I also have no idea whether a quick cold rub of the balls would make the outer surface not feel suspiciously warm without reducing the inner temperature, etc.

       In short, is it possible the Pats could be both telling the truth (we didn't tamper with balls after they were inspected) and within the letter, if not spirit, of the rules (if there is no rule regulating the manner in which balls are to be stored prior to inspection?

       

    Parent

    I've noticed that air pumps get pretty hot (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    when used, which I would assume heats up the air that they are pumping.

    I would guess a "newly" pumped up ball would be filled with hot air, and that after a certain amount of time that air would cool and thus lower the pressure.

    I suppose you could also figure out other ways to get hot air in a ball if you really wanted to.

    Heck, I bet you could use a microwave, now that I'm thinking about it...

    Parent

    It Gets Hot... (none / 0) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    ...because you are compressing the air, in the ball the air would be cooler as it expands.  It how AC and a fridge work.  Half the system gets warmer, high pressure, the other half, low pressure, gets cooler.

    The ball would eventually get warm as the air is compressed, but relative to the pump, the air will always be cooler, because the pressure in the pump has to be greater.

    The temp difference is negligible because the pressure difference between the pump and ball are negligible.

    It's also how the solar system works, gravity compresses gas(hydrogen), which super heats to the point of ignition(fusion) and you have a sun/star.

    Parent

    Just to be ultra-nitpicky... (none / 0) (#54)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    ...if a football has been sitting next to a heater, the material of which it is made is likely going to be softer and more flexible compared to one just sitting there in the cold, even if both started out with the same amount of inflation.

    Parent
    Yeah, maybe (none / 0) (#59)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:25:29 PM EST
     that and other possible issues were kind of glossed over with the "etc."

    Parent
    In the Peter King half-apology I linked to (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    he admits that wet leather skins, stretching because they're under pressure, thus increasing the volume of the container constraining a fixed amount of air, could add contribute another 0.7 psi of pressure drop.

    There are a huge number of holes in this case.

    Insulting each other for mooting one view or another is the last thing we should do.

    Parent

    The biggest hole might be (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    the one you seem to be standing in...the one that seems to be rendering you incapable of seeing that the weather conditions were the same for both teams.

    What I don't think we know is where the Colts' balls were measuring at the time they were presented for approval, and where the Patriots' balls were measuring at the same time.  I don't think I've heard anyone suggest the possibility that the Colts' footballs were measuring at the top end of the range, and the Patriots' footballs were measuring at the bottom end, which would open the door to the Colts' balls still being within the mandated range at halftime after losing pressure due to atmospheric conditions, and the Patriots' footballs falling out of range for the same reason.

    It's possible.  That I haven't heard anyone talk about this possibility could mean nothing, or it could mean something.  It could mean there was no record of what the starting pressures were.  It could mean that was looked at early, and found not to be a factor.

    What I can't ignore is that, as the links I provided in this thread show, from the time the league - courtesy of lobbying for a change by Brady and Peyton Manning - allowed each team to use its own footballs, in 2007, through the 2014 season, the Patriots had an astonishingly low rate of fumbles, markedly down from 2006 and before.  What's more, players with very low fumble rates while playing for NE were not able to maintain those rates when they moved on to play for other teams.  And not just one player or two, but across the board.

    What could account for this, if not playing with footballs that were deflated enough to make them easier to catch and hold onto?

    No, I think - and I'm still allowed to do that, and have an opinion - this is a case of the Patriots finally getting caught doing something they've been doing for years.  

    And I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other areas where they've taken or are taking advantage by bending or breaking other rules they think no one will catch them doing.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    is an internal bladder that keeps the air pressure.It might even contract a bit in temp drops who knows The external condition has nothing to do with it.
    There should no holes in the science by now. The physics is basically HS level, it could be empirically determined by a sixth grader. My back of the envelope calculation using the ideal gas law indicates a possible loss of 0.6 pounds, If I had a ball, pressure valve and thermometer I could prove it to myself in a couple of hours. Repeat it a few times wet, dry, whatever.. soon you could have a good idea if this was possibly weather related or not.


    Parent
    Unfortunately the empirical science (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    for a real-life football is not anywhere close to what a sixth grader nor high schooler might study in school.

    Among other things, footballs stretch to some extent under these pressures. Therefore a football's volume varies somewhat in response to these varying internal pressures.

    However, any "back of the envelope calculation" based on sixth grade or HS physics must assume constant volume, and therefor are not accurate in this case of a football's varying volume.

    I suppose if you had some way to accurately define the "stretchiness" of a football, you could do a fairly reasonable empirical calculation.

    Seems like it would be easier to merely pump up some balls and measure any changes.

    Parent

    But we're not talking about one football. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:30:52 PM EST
    Rather, we're talking about eleven of them, all of which were coincidentally located on the Patriots' sideline under their exclusive control and, if we are to believe the Patriots thmselves, simply deflated both unilaterally and simultaneously during the first half of the AFC championship game, likely due to the weather conditions.

    I'm sorry, but that explanation just defies common sense and doesn't fly at all, particularly since the Colts' footballs were subjected to the exact same temperatures and conditions, yet remained fully inflated.

    I'm perfectly willing to listen to any rational, science-based explanation as to what happened to those eleven footballs in Foxboro.

    What I do know about science is that its theories and hypotheses generally don't work in random and helter-skelter fashion, to the point where all other things being in equilibrium, its physical effects are applicable to one side of the football field only.

    So, if someone really wants to tackle the science behind that particular phenomenon and explain it to me, trust me, I'm all ears. Should be fascinating stuff, I'm sure.

    But what I'm really unwilling to endure is having my intelligence insulted by Belichick and Brady and other key members of the team's staff, of whom logic would indicate at least one likely knows a whole lot more about this matter than he or she is presently willing to admit publicly.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe you meant this response for someone else?

    Parent
    Hook's Law. (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Hooke? (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    Or are you referring to Captain Hook's "don't feed the crocodile"

    Parent
    Robert. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    You've been Hooked (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    You are involved in the air in balls debate now :)

    Parent
    Tutoree's first (assigned topic) (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    Science Fair project was to demo Hooke's Law.

    Parent
    Did you sign this petition? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    Mr Natural (none / 0) (#84)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    You're up --

    Instead of blabbering on about this why don't you go to your local sports shop.

    Pick out a football, a pump and a gauge.

    Fill the ball up to 12.5lbs at room temperature.

    Put it in a refrigerator [they're usually about 40 degrees] for 15 minutes.

    Take the air pressure of the ball at 40 degrees.

    Then let the ball sit out back at room temperature for 15 minutes for another 15 minutes to warm back up to room temperature and take it's air pressure again.

    1] What was the air pressure at 40 degrees???

    2] What was the air pressure after the ball had warmed up to room temperature again???

    Then report back to us your findings.

    This is not rocket science.

    Parent

    Yesterday, Gregory Matthews and Michael Lopez of Deadspin.com posted their lengthy detailed rebuttal to warren Sharp's analysis about Patriot fumbles or alleged lack thereof.

    And so in the interest of fairness, here's the link to that rebuttal, "Why Those Statistics About The Patriots' Fumbles Are Mostly Junk," posted with the caveat that I've not read their analysis yet and probably won't get to it until later tonight.

    But if anyone else wants to have a crack at it and interpret their findings for me and the rest of my fellow the unwashed masses, please do so. I have my own biases, obviously, but since I started this particular debate, it's only right that I should hear out those who've taken the time to put together a thoughtful, detailed but quite contrary opinion.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    NASA - Day of Remembrance is Today (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    NASA will pay will tribute to the crews of Apollo 1 and space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, as well as other NASA colleagues, during the agency's annual Day of Remembrance Wednesday, Jan. 28.

    NASA's Day of Remembrance honors members of the NASA family who lost their lives while furthering the cause of exploration and discovery. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and other agency senior officials will hold an observance and wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.

     LINK

    I had no idea they did this every year, but very grateful there are people willing to risk their lives to better humanity.

    Parachute failure 1967
    - Vladimir Komarov

    Decompression 1971

    • Georgi Dobrovolski
    • Viktor Patsayev
    • Vladislav Volkov

    Vehicle disintegration during launch 1986
    • Greg Jarvis
    • Christa McAuliffe
    • Ronald McNair
    • Ellison Onizuka
    • Judith Resnik
    • Michael J. Smith

    Vehicle disintegration on re-entry 2003
    • Rick D. Husband
    • William McCool
    • Michael P. Anderson
    • David M. Brown
    • Kalpana Chawla
    • Laurel B. Clark
    • Ilan Ramon
    • Dick Scobee

    Training/Test Related can be found HERE.


    In 1986 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    I was in my senior year of high school, sitting in Mrs. Sogge's 5th hour speech class when the principal came over the PA and made an announcement about the Challenger.

    Wow - can't believe it's been so long.

    And how old that makes me!

    Parent

    You feel old? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    You're not old, I'm old.
    I was a Girl Scout leader back then.  We had a meeting that day, and naturally enough, the girls knew about the disaster and wanted to talk about it, so we did.
    Then I had them stand in a circle as we sang "Taps" ("Day is Done, Gone the Sun").


    Parent
    I was playing cards (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    with some friends when another friend dropped by and casually said that the Challenger had exploded. I was engrossed in the game and it took me a second before I thought, "wait, what?"

    I'm no fan of Reagan and never have been, but I thought his speech that day was fine, moving and honorable.

    Wait.. there are words to Taps?

    Parent

    I had a 2 1/2 yr old on my hip and was (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    about to find out I was pregnant with our second child - who turned 28 in October.

    Where does the time go?

    Parent

    Yes, there are (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    Although the lyrics were created later.  

    Day is done, gone the sun
    From the lakes, from the hills, from the sky
    All is well, safely rest
    God is nigh.

    Fading light dims the sight
    And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright
    From afar, drawing near
    Falls the night.

    Thanks and praise for our days
    Neath the sun, neath the stars, neath the sky
    As we go, this we know
    God is nigh.

    Lyrics written by Horace Lorenzo Trim

    It was often sung at Girl Scout (and Boy Scout, too, I think) meetings and encampments.
    I don't know if the Girl Scouts still sing this, but they did 30 years ago.

    Parent

    I can confirm the BS still sing it today. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    We held our meetings (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    in the local elementary school.  
    That day, as the girls were singing "Taps," some of the teachers going by in the hallway stopped to listen to us, and those who knew the words sang along.
    By the time we were done, everyone was crying.

    Parent
    Thought you were a decade younger than me (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    But I was only a sophomore in college in 1986. You learn something new every day.

    Parent
    Just turned 46 (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    Almost 3 weeks ago.

    Parent
    I'm old enough (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    to be your mother.
    Told you that you weren't old.  I'm the old one.   ;-)

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    An older sister, maybe.  :)

    Parent
    Thanks, but I am (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    as many years older than you as my mother was to me.   ;-)

    Parent
    I Was in 10th Grade... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    ...and my locker mate told me between classes.  I don't remember an announcement or anything at school.

    I could point to that spot, almost 30 years later, to where I was standing when he told me.  Which is odd considering I don't remember thinking it was a huge deal until I got home and saw my parents, they were never home when I got home.

    Parent

    I was in third grade playing foursquare (none / 0) (#198)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    I grew up in Daytona Beach and when the launches first started we always gathered outside and literally watched the launches from the front of the school because you could see on a clear day the jet stream.

    Unfortunately after a while the newness of it all started to wear off and on that day we didn't even stop school to watch we just went outside for recess.

    A teacher alerted us that the launch us was starting so a few of us stopped a foursquare game and watched and of course saw the explosion. We instantly knew something was wrong and didn't know what to do.   We we knew what was supposed to happen and instantly knew that something bad had happened.   Eventually the teachers took us inside but it was too awkward to then all of a sudden assemble the school to watch the coverage so school went on as usual.   I remember almost running home from school to ask my mom what had happened and cried when she told me that they had all been lost.

    Parent

    Saw it from (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    my front yard. It was too cold to work that day, ironically we were sent home because the o-rings in the nail guns refused to work. I was shocked when they went ahead with the mission, they never launched anything when it was that cold. Definitely etched into my memory.

    Parent
    Also, we should remember ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    ... astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chafee of NASA's never-completed Apollo 1 mission,, who were killed in January 1967 when their command module caught fire and burned during a routine launch pad exercise, only 25 days before they were to actually launch into orbit.

    Parent
    Maybe NASA... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    ...should just take Januaries and Februaries off every year.

    Parent
    Thank you for posting this, Scott. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:17:43 AM EST
    Just one minor correction. Dick Scobee was not a crewmember on Columbia in 2003. Rather, he served as commander of the Challenger in January 1986.

    Parent
    Dang... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    ...sorry about that.

    Parent
    When Challenger happened (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    i had been working for almost a year on a Challenger based ad campaign.  It was scrapped.   Oh well, the checks cleared.

    Parent
    Hey, long time, no "see." (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    Hope all is well and the reason we haven't seen you isn't because you've had the flu or something not fun going on.

    Parent
    Oh hi (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    no.  Big big deal.  I just fade in and out.  Nice to see you too.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    no big deal.. ... ...

    Parent
    No opinion on thos (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    allegedly deflated footballs?

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    Just saw the season (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    premier of The Americans.  Very good.

    Parent
    Sons of Liberty, (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    a three-part series on the History Channel was very good.  If you have not seen it, give it a try.  

    Parent
    PreviouslyTV (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    Imagine how it felt... (none / 0) (#202)
    by unitron on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    ...to be Billy Joe Royal and the other people with a vested interest in the success of his then recently released and doing quite well single "Burned Like A Rocket".  First hit in several years, and then suddenly it was like being Vaughn Meader, Thanksgiving of '63.

    Parent
    Mike Pence, Republican (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    governor of Indiana announced that his state will now expand Medicaid under the ACA as of Feb 1.   However, the expansion will include some bending, if not breaking, of the federal rules.  Medicaid will be expanded to an additional 350,000 Indiana residents with incomes of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level--about $16,000 for singles, $27,000 for a family of three.

     Pence, a possible presidential candidate and Koch Brothers darling (a non-coincidental interrelationship), will accept the federal money (100 percent this year and at least 90 percent in future years) only with his own conservative twist that insists that "when people take greater ownership of their health care, they make better choices."

    Until now, unless disabled or pregnant, Indiana  adults qualified for Medicaid only if they had young children and earned less than 25 percent of the poverty level, or about $4,500 a year for a family of three.  

    Now, under Pence's plan, most will have to pay monthly premiums equaling 2 percent of the household income, between $3 and $25 per month for a single childless adult (coverage includes vision and dental).  Those below the poverty level do not pay premiums, but they are then excluded from vision and dental.  And, there are co-payments including $4 for a doctor visit and $75 for a hospitalization.

    If premiums are skipped, Indiana will lock people out of coverage for six months--an exception does exist for the "medically frail."      This complicated expansion should surely make the working poor make better choices.  

    Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    When will the GOP realize that people don't choose to be sick?

    Parent
    they jsut want them to choose not to get well (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    Like (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    Alan Grayson said the GOP plan is for you to die quick.

    Parent
    He is my personal House rep for a reason! (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    Good Greif (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    When will Dems be happy that a republican Govenor actually compromised.  

    The right in my state is screaming bloody murder.


    Parent

    I am not (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:36:50 PM EST
    surprised to hear that at all. It's the reason Deal is letting hospitals go out of business here in Ga--he's too afraid of the right.

    Parent
    Well, on the bright sides: (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    (l) Pence has moved at bit on the ACA.  After the US Supreme Court (June 28, 2012) decision on ACA, Pence likened the ruling upholding the law to the September 11 terrorist attacks. And, (2) Indiana is finally extending coverage in an apparent fit of compassion, albeit the structure of the coverage means that many poor adults will not be able to access all the services needed.  

    Parent
    Well, if it (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    is like Ohio unfortunately it's not a whole lot better than not having insurance. The irony is that the way this is set up it actually encourages hospital admissions and people showing up when they are deathly ill only. The GOP never remembers my grandmother's saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    Parent
    Your grandmother may have been wrong (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:17:05 AM EST
    Reuters says preventive medicine may not reduce costs.

    As usual the devil is always in the details. The article explains that while obvious things csn prevent higher costs in the long run, like actually going to the doctor every once in a while, overdoing it actually can raise cost because we're doing too much medicine on the front end.

    So I guess grandma was probably right because she wasn't talking about preventative cancer screenings but instead not smoking a cigarette.

    Parent

    That article (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:36:40 AM EST
    is confusing prevention with health management costs. Yes, diabetes 2 is largely preventable and Michelle Obama is trying to get people to eat right but all we hear on the right is the howling about "she's going to make us eat stuff we don't wanna eat" and the knee jerk embracing of poor food choices. And I'm not sure heart disease is preventable. It seems to be genetic.

    Parent
    The issue is confusing and not so simple (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    Obviously living a healthy lifestyle and good genes are the best way to prevent you from getting sick.

    After that it gets more complicated. We could test for everything and prevent a lot of diseases from killing people but the testing often expensive so where do you spend the money? How do we choose what procedures are cost-effective versus others?

    Also statistics tell us when you are more likely to develop a disease than not. We do and we shouldn't use this process to to help determine the types of preventive procedures we use.

    I say that even though this appropriate hoice is the reason why people like me get terrible diseases at advanced stages at 23 that are out of control when finally found because my odds of getting it in the first place were minuscule.  If I had had a simple chest x-ray at the age of 22 my entire journey with cancer could have been avoided. But we don't go around giving every 22-year-old person a chest x-ray because it would be too expensive.

    So like I said the devil is always in the details and when you look at it on the macrolevel just saying preventive medicine saves money is not completely accurate depending on how it's done.

    Parent

    We "should" use this process (none / 0) (#130)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:22:16 AM EST
    Damn text to type again

    Parent
    I would think (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    that you could do some sort of family history to decide if a test was necessary or not. You know, the largest expense in Medicare is end of life issues like treatment for incurable cancer. And you have a lot of people like this conservative friend of mine who thinks it's okay for them to get medicine and treatment even though they smoked their entire life and then talk about how "those people" shouldn't get any help because they "didn't live right". So until we can get past that "us vs. them" mentality I'm not sure how we can reasonably solve any problems. And then there's the people who think Americans should never have to do without the latest and greatest medical procedure even though the chance of success is almost zero. Too many people in this country think they're going to the one in a million that can smoke their entire life and not get COPD or lung cancer.

    I have dealt with this on a personal level. My dad died of cancer and the oncologist didn't give him treatment and we did not fight her on it. It's not like some of the treatments don't affect your quality of life. A lot of the times you're just trading dollars for days.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    Interestingly enough I was just with one of my nurses and she was telling me that her stepfather is about to have bypass surgery meanwhile he is suffering from stage four lung cancer.  He is also still smoking.

    This just seems insane to me.  His family wants him to stay around because he's the patriarch of the family and also the money lender. He is not with it totally so the family is making these decisions for him. How many of these cases are going on and driving up the expense of healthcare?

    Iagain as a Catholic I want say we should keep life going as long as possible.

    But in my view the technology we've invented has surpassed the moral ethics me to stab list for medical care and we need to reestablish realistic expectations of how long life should last and in what circumstances.

    But as you say this is such a touchy and serious debate that expecting it to be solved by our government is expecting a lot.

    Parent

    I am not (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    Roman Catholic (sort of close, though, since I'm Greek Orthodox), but I think that the Church makes a distinction between doing something active to end life, like assisted suicide, and choosing not to start a procedure that has little, if any, chance of succeeding and will only cause more pain and suffering.
    At least, that's what the Orthodox believe.
    In fact, our priest was with us as my father was very close to dying.  It was clear he was dying, and at that point, I persuaded Mom to sign a DNR, which she had been reluctant to do earlier.  The priest backed me up on this, and my father died very shortly afterwards, surrounded by his wife, kids, and his priest.
    Could they have tried to resuscitate him and kept him alive for awhile on machines?  Probably.  But would that have been the moral, ethical, and humane thing to do?  No.

    Parent
    You of course are correct (none / 0) (#196)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    The Catholic Church does not have a cape throwing everything out a problem just to save the sanctity of human life.

    I only brought it up because my faith can sometimes lead you to think that you should do that even though that's not the real message.

    Parent

    My mother has a friend who is almost 90, (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    and she's having a hip replacement next month.  Why would a 90-yr old woman want or need a hip replacement?  Because she's otherwise healthy, and the bone-on-bone pain has made it impossible for her to be as active as she would like to be.  So what if she only lives another couple of years - does she have to suffer to save the system some money?

    Listen, I think the most responsible thing we can do is make our wishes known early and often, to have an advance directive that can help family members come to terms with our wishes, and update it as circumstances and beliefs evolve.  I realize that a lot of people don't have these conversations - who wants to talk about death?  But we know how important they are because how many times have we all heard people say, "if only she had told me what she wanted, or had a directive that spelled out what she wanted done?"

    Slado, I think you're closer to the whole topic of quality of life than most of us are at the moment, so I understand and appreciate your sensitivity to these things.  

    None of us is going to live forever - most of us wouldn't want to, I don't think - but I think we can probably agree that we'd like to do it with as much quality - and dignity - as possible.  How is that best accomplished?  You try to make healthy choices, try to stay on top on things, get screened for things that seem to run in our families, get regular care from someone with whom we can establish some kind of ongoing relationship - not always easy in today's world.

    Hope things are going okay for you - I think about you often.

    Parent

    There is a difference, however, (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    between coronary bypass surgery on someone suffering from Stage IV lung cancer, and joint replacements for otherwise active seniors.
    I have a good friend who is 88, and in the past five years, she has had two knee replacements and a hip replacement.  She is still going strong, lives by herself, drives, teaches Yoga, goes to the Y to swim and participate in water exercise classes, is active in her church, does a lot of volunteer work, etc.
    The knee and hip replacements have allowed her to maintain her active lifestyle.  
    I just wish I had half the energy that she does!   ;-)
    I think that every case needs to be looked at individually.  We cannot make blanket statements or requirements without looking at the whole person.
    And I absolutely agree about everyone having advance directives in place, and letting family members know our wishes, as well as updating those as needed.

    Parent
    As stated by others Anne (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:14:31 PM EST
    Each case should be an individual one and in the case of your friend I have no problem with her improving her quality of life.  

    Of the eight operations I've had on this disease none of them would have been questionable except for the first one when I was 23 years old.   I was turned down by two University medical centers for surgery because of the risk and how sick I was.  Then I found a doctorate are you and obviously it worked and it enabled me to have not only a high quality of life but to have a family.

    My father the surgeon has always stressed the motto that comes from the very basics of medical ethics "first do no harm."

    I hesitate to use the example I gave earlier because it was gossip but I do think it is indicative of what happens often today.  Because some of our hospitals have become so specialized there is no single Dr. responsible for the overall care of this patient. That falls to either the patient or the family.  Each specialist says well I don't have a problem with it as far as what I'm doing is concerned. The cardiothoracic surgeon is confident he can deliver the results.   The oncologist says well the surgery won't interfere with his current treatment so I can't object.  So on it goes.  I can't tell you how many times I've asked a doctor about a procedure that is in within his specialty and they literally will not give you an opinion. All you say is well you think this is a good idea? Try getting that out of the doctor.

    As for me Anne I'm doing great.  The good doctors at IU got me comfortable.   The home care agency I'm using is wonderful and I'm getting along great with the people that take care of me.  Of course I always do because as an experience patient happy nurses are almost always wonderful nurses. Nothing makes them want to do more for you than for you to complement them thank them and just treat them as it like a friend. Believe it or not they don't get that very often.  Right now I am totally stable and actually working on my mobility to get out of bed and do even more if possible.

    If I can remain stable I can do this for quite a while. 18 years of fighting this hasn't gotten to me yet.  So that's the plan.  I'm spending some real quality time with my family and friends and doing way too much blogging... :).


    Parent

    In that (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    particular case I have to wonder about a surgeon who would actually do surgery on a Stage V lung cancer patient even if the family wanted it done. I would have to wonder if someone in that poor of heath could even survive that kind of surgery. That almost sounds like the greed of the medical community as much as the greed of the family problem. And if anyone suggested that maybe he shouldn't get treatment it would be the squeal of "death panels" all over again.

    Our medical system in our country is just a mess. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians and a whole host of other problems.

    Parent

    College tuition and debt (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    In another thread the other day someone asked why college costs so much theses days.

    Here is an interesting article on the subject

    Like with the housing bubble the easy access to money for the debt taker is allowing the for profit and even state universities to raise their tuitions and still get the enrollees that they need because of increased demand.   All this extra money is poorer back into lavish buildngsand expanding of campuses in a type of arms race for the best and brightest.

    Has anyone else had the same experience I had recently? Went back for my 15th college graduation reunion a couple years ago and didn't even recognize parts of the campus.    Typically when I go back for sporting events I just hit a few of the spots and the change isn't as dramatic.  Spending a couple hours going through some of the new dormitories and student facilities I was simply amazed at how much has been poured into facilities.   What I found interesting was it was a pretty nice place when I was there.  While it must be nice to be a freshman and have a smoothie machine around every corner I'm not sure it's worth the $62K/year it coststo go to my university now.

    That number is more than double my freshman tuition in 1992.

    Something is out of whack.

    I was at the tail end of cheap public uni times (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    In 1984, it literally cost, in tuition, less than $2000 a year to be a full time student at the University of California, San Diego.

    Two grand a year. Rent and food were waaaaayyyy more of the budget. Now, I guess, you just live in your car and eat post-dated Top Ramen dry, and drink free hose water wherever you can suck it.

    Suck it being the operative word for students today. For most of average America really. Suck it or die. And/or/until. It's all the poor folks going into debt at all those bullsh*t online "colleges" and "universities," including tons of vets spending their GIB bennies for degrees that are largely worthless in the real job market, just ask any HR person. And where that amount of money is there to be pilfered, you can bet there are hedge funds and billionaire investors raking their take from all of it. Ugh.

    And yeah, for me, it's been three decades since I was a freshman, so the campus has changed radically. One of my jobs that first year was telemarketing to alumni and parents to raise money for the sweet new Student Center they finally built, of course, a few years after I graduated.  Raised over ten grand for that placed, I want my honorary brick! Those bastards.

    Parent

    In the Late 90's... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    ...is was roughly $100/credit for Wisconsin State schools.

    That's $2400 a year, plus books.  Not cheap, but doable.  The last time I saw the costs, I about hit the floor, I want to say $300/cr like 4 years ago.

    It is insane.

    Slado, at least in Wisconsin, one of the main reason for the increase was Tommy Thompson, the balance budget governor who cut funding to schools dramatically.  He came in the year after I graduated and my friends still in school were sticker shocked.

    This non-sense about smoothy machines and salaries, is just plain silly.  The main reason state school tuition are skyrocketing is republican dislike of anything related to education.  

    I know you love to blame teachers and the those pesky ungrateful kids that want everything.  But smoothie machines and whatever other ridiculous and infidelity small budget item that rub you the wrong way is not tripling tuition costs, neither are salaries, which I suspect after inflation are decreasing.  

    It's just too damn bad they don't have unions to blame or whatever else the people who slash funding for education can lay their no tax increases and cut everything that we don't like mindsets, on.

    Smoothie machines ?^%&^!, you should get a refund on your tuition, seriously.  Then you can go to a school with wood buildings, abacuses, and professors that work for half price with 1000 people to a class so your delicate sensibilities about new buildings isn't so easily offended.  For the rest of the brain functioning world who wants the best students, they will continue to try and make their campuses competitive so they a better class of students, which hopefully will turn into a better and more financially improved group of alumni that will use their financial success to improve the school.  They might even go crazy and offer items like smoothies because they are healthier than traditional college cafeteria food... they might even charge them money for the smoothies to cover the cost of the machines...

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#200)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:43:14 PM EST
    Three paragraphs on smoothie machines?

    Don't believe me take it up with the New York Times.

    They seem to have a problem with wine bars.

    This article makes my argument even stronger because not only are they wasting the extra money they're even borrowing more money and going into debt.

    You are correct that reductions in state budgets have hurt students as well but no state is going to pay $27,000 for every student attend a State University.   Why is the University charging that much in the first place?

    How this got started is not a partisan issue. You can't screw something up this bad without everybody pitching in and doing their part.

    Parent

    What makes me so upset about this (none / 0) (#122)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    Is that it truly was a group effort to create this mess and it was happening in plain sight of the people who could've done something about it.

    First you started with the good intentions of government because they are correct that access to college should be easier. However instead of building more public universities or improving the education system before college they took the easy way out by making money plentiful and easy to get.  Then you have the private banking companies getting in on the action and like I said it's the housing bubble all over. with a naïve and gullible clients who've been commenced college is the only way to get ahead, no matter what form.

    And what do to the colleges do with all this new found money? Do they use it to provide more scholarships for the less fortunate?

    No, they use it to raise their salaries, build beautiful campus buildings and to start an arms race that drives up the cost of college even more.

    Throw in that state budgets in all states have been cut which results in state universities costing more all the while as equally involved in the campus arms race driving up there based tuition two levels that are ridiculous.

    This is a powerful political message that I think Republicans should jump on.   Democrats have offered nothing in the way of an actual solution other than to bail out the massive debt that's been created. Really don't think that's going to fly with the American public after the housing crisis. Also college campuses are seen as the creation of Republican and conservative principles. It won't be very hard to convince people at these places have acted inappropriately and need to be reigned in.

    Congress should hold legitimate hearings about this issue and how we got here and then Republicans should come up with real solutions other than more of the same which is what Democrats are proposing.  

    Not very hopeful that they will realize this and take advantage of it but more importantly it be nice if they did something and actually improved the situation.

    That is what they are there for isn't it?


    Parent

    If Republicans want to jump on that, ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    Slado: "This is a powerful political message that I think Republicans should jump on. Democrats have offered nothing in the way of an actual solution other than to bail out the massive debt that's been created. Really don't think that's going to fly with the American public after the housing crisis."

    ... then please, they should be my guest, not that I can stop them anyway. You're not even bothering to acknowledge the GOP's own substantive role in the creation of that housing crisis. And in that regard, at least you're entirely consistent with your political brethren.

    Besides, that's all Republicans ever really do any more, jump on their own bandwagons. It's the ultimate chutzpah in cynical politics, attempting to capitalize upon public anger at various problems and crises -- problems and crises which Republicans themselves had a tremendous hand in fomenting in the first place!

    That's because for Republicans, theirs is a government by gimmick, posture and sound bite. They endeavor to rule, and then disdain to actually govern once they gain control.

    Instead, by repeatedly appealing to the lowest common denominator in voters, and by enacting taxpayer-funded giveaways to their political backers, the only thing Republicans have accomplished over and again of late is to create fiscal time bombs for their successors. Consider what happened in California, as an example.

    In June 1978, California Republicans led by two ideologically-driven libertarians, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann (both allies of then-former Gov. Ronald Reagan), shepherded the public passage of Proposition 13, which froze property tax rates at their then-present level for current homeowners. (Which was to the ultimate detriment of future homeowners in the state, but that's another discussion for another time.)

    But, with its future implications almost wholly unrealized by many state voters at the time of Prop. 13's passage, Jarvis and Gann had also included a rider to that voter initiative which required:

    • A two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers of the California legislature to pass a state budget or approve any state tax increase;
    • A two-thirds majority among state voters to approve any tax increases or bond issues not proposed by the legislature; and
    • A two-thirds majority vote by municipal boards, city councils and the general public to approve increases in local taxes.
    Meanwhile, a reduction in taxes continued to only require a simple majority vote. And as expected, all this was red meat to the volatile Republican voters across the state in 1978, and the GOP won that election going away.

    But what Jarvis and Gann actually succeeded in doing back in 1978 was engineer California's eventual fiscal train wreck a quarter century later, and conveniently, neither of them lived to see the inevitable result of their handiwork. Because as history has shown us repeatedly, it's extraordinarily difficult politically -- if not often impossible -- to garner two-thirds popular support for anything.

    By convincing California's 1978 electorate to impose draconian limits upon the authorization of state spending and the raising of state and local revenues, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann had in fact realized their ultimate goal. And that goal was to hamstring the future ability of state and local government to adequately fund those services upon which state residents not only depended, but further expected would continue to be provided at the same level and rate! Through that, they hoped that government would eventually be compelled to first default on its obligations, and then wither on the vine.

    Fast forward to 2009-10, when the State of California was running upwards of $26 billion annual deficits in its operating budget, thanks to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's feckless posturing and a minority of 14 ornery Republicans in a 40-member State Senate, who had been repeatedly blocking passage of any state budget simply because they could. State government under Schwarzenegger was funded instead by continuing resolutions and by repeated bond issues from the legislature, a potent brew which served to nearly double the state's long-term debt in only six years. Meanwhile, local governments across the entire state were actively considering the possibility of bankruptcy and closing up shop.

    That's why California voters, exhausted and exasperated by what was happening in their midst, turned once again to the venerable Jerry Brown. Since his return to the governor's office, Brown has worked mightily to straighten out the state's across-the-board fiscal mess with some serious cost-cutting and tough love policies, and by convincing the electorate to both reinstate simple majority rule for passage of state budgets in the legislature, and further approve a long-overdue tax increase on the state's wealthier residents.

    Thanks in large part to Gov. Brown's experienced stewardship, the State of California is now back in the black, and he was easily re-elected to his record fourth term last November by a wide margin, without ever really having to campaign for the job.

    Meanwhile, state Republicans have been so thoroughly discredited and marginalized that less than one in five California voters are now registered as Republican. Only 20 years ago, that number was 41%, and Republicans were riding high on the hog. How did the bottom drop out from beneath their feet so quickly, historically speaking?

    Well, I'd offer that over the last three decades, Republicans have become so singularly intent and adept at seizing any immediate short-term political advantage by almost any means necessary, that for the most part they've collectively lost both the ability and perspective that's needed to anticipate the actual long-term impacts and potential consequences of those short-term policies for which they've repeatedly advocated.

    Thus, what worked for the California GOP in 1994, when an otherwise unpopular Gov. Pete Wilson and state Republicans rode a short-term and self-manufactured wave of anti-immigrant hysteria (Proposition 187) to once again gin up the angry white vote that swept them back into power, also served to eventually undermine their own long-term political viability with almost everyone else.

    In that election, state Republicans had so very much alarmed California's rapidly growing Hispanic population with their naked appeals to white bigotry, that the latter actively began to organize politically against them. They eventually increased their own share of the state electorate from 4% in 1994 to 21% in 2014, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where an overwhelming majority of those votes went.

    And when one considers what Republican policies such as Prop. 13 eventually wrought for California economically, it's not at all very surprising that when state voters really and truly became fed up with what had come to pass, they'd decide to shove the GOP aside.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:39:08 PM EST
    the news is full of Walker in WI cutting 300 billion from education so people are going to have to be laid off. But somehow there's 220 million for a new Bucks stadium.

    From the obit of Collen McCulloch, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    wrote the novel "The Thorn Birds":

    Over the years, Ms. McCullough was often asked what she thought of the "Thorn Birds" mini-series, watched by more than 100 million people.
    Her response packed her usual pith and punch.
    "I hated it," she told People magazine in 2000. "It was instant vomit."

    Yeah, the TV version was really bad (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    I love her ancient Rome series of books. So well researched and entertaining at the same time.

    RIP Colleen, and thank you for many hours of enjoyment.

    Parent

    Well, I thought "The Thorn Birds" ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    ... was a lot of fun to watch, if only to see Richard Chamberlain squirm uncomfortably in the face of Barbara Stanwyck's fierce and lusty performance as the matriarch Mary Carson, which proved a fitting and penultimate cap to that great actress's celebrated career. It was rather a shame that her character died in the first episode.

    But all that aside, I must agree with you that what the miniseries was to great drama, Velveeta is to real cheese. Then again, a fair number of people said the exact same thing about Ms. McCullough's melodramatic novel, and yet we all read it anyway.

    (When I was finished with it, I passed it on to my older sister, who then proceeded to voraciously consume the entire book in less than 48 hours.)

    Colleen McCullough was a gifted storyteller who entertained us in grand fashion, and I think that's what truly matters here.

    She'll be missed.

    Parent

    "Get out of here, you low-life scum." (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    John McCain, to members of Code Pink, calling for the arrest of Henry Kissinger for war crimes.

    Sen. John McCain earned some applause inside a Senate Armed Services hearing this morning after he erupted at protesters of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, calling them "low-life scum."

    "I've been a member of this committee for many years, and I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place," said McCain, R-AZ.

    Really, John?  

    I guess there's no question now that we are officially a country that venerates war criminals...

    Maybe he's drunk. (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place.

    You want disgraceful, John?  Take a gander at the photos from Abou Ghraib sometime.

    You want despicable, John? Take a look at Gitmo.

    And from good old St. Henry Kissinger's horrific time of power and influence, take a look at the people being burned alive by Nixon's napalm.

    And he's offended by a protest against a truly creepy relic of one of our darkest hours...

    Speaking of venerated war criminals -  there's Bush and Cheney - painting and spewing when they should be breaking rocks in a quarry somewhere in a remote outpost infested with locusts and other plagues.

    Parent

    Matt Taibbi reviews American Sniper, (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    and it might be an understatement to say that he didn't like it.

    No one expected 20 minutes of backstory about the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib, or the myriad other American atrocities and quick-trigger bombings that helped fuel the rise of ISIL and other groups.

    But to turn the Iraq war into a saccharine, almost PG-rated two-hour cinematic diversion about a killing machine with a heart of gold (is there any film theme more perfectly 2015-America than that?) who slowly, very slowly, starts to feel bad after shooting enough women and children - Gump notwithstanding, that was a hard one to see coming.

    Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question.

    [...]

    The really dangerous part of this film is that it turns into a referendum on the character of a single soldier. It's an unwinnable argument in either direction. We end up talking about Chris Kyle and his dilemmas, and not about the Rumsfelds and Cheneys and other officials up the chain who put Kyle and his high-powered rifle on rooftops in Iraq and asked him to shoot women and children.

    They're the real villains in this movie, but the controversy has mostly been over just how much of a "hero" Chris Kyle really was.

    I think there's some real food for thought in this review.


    Sounds like he wanted an anti war movie (none / 0) (#203)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    Or a Bush administration hating documentary. American Sniper wasn't really about politics.  It was about Chris Kyle. Some people can't handle that. He should just watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again.

    Parent
    Only if your favorite food is Fritos. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:03:33 PM EST
    Matt Taibbi should stick to investigative journalism, which is his true forte. As a film reviewer, he lost me with his description of the film as "almost PG," which makes me wonder if he didn't wander into the wrong theatre at the octoplex.

    Suffice to say that he projects his politics onto "Sniper," and predictably finds it wanting because it isn't an open indictment of the Bush administration.

    Given that sort of logic, perhaps we similarly reconsider Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" as well, because it dared to show Japanese soldiers in a sympathetic light and failed to make any mention of that country's many war crimes.

    Parent

    Hillary's Weight/Shape (1.25 / 4) (#101)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    We're supposed to vote for presidents based on issues the like the economy and foreign policy but I wonder if people will hold Hillary's physical appearance against her? I haven't heard many people talk about that yet. I've heard questions about her age and health but not her shape.

    When was the last time we elected a significantly overweight president?


    She sure (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    doesn't look overweight to me.

    And talking about that kind of thing by the GOP is going to run a lot of people off. It sounds like they once again are stuck in 1950. Plenty of women in this country, in fact the majority, that don't have rail thin bodies. Hillary can smack them down saying we have enough young girls in this country with anorexia and other disorders due to this kind of thinking. So Go ahead GOP and start shooting yourself in the foot once again.

    It's like you mention the name Hillary and the GOP goes completely brain dead. It's a sight to see.

    Parent

    "significantly overweight?" (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:42:45 PM EST
    Been watching Fox News again, haven't you, McBain?

    The latest attack on Clinton's appearance came from Ed Klein, an author who has penned a number of controversial and criticized books, including "The Truth About Hillary", which delves into Clinton's private life.

    "At this very moment that we're speaking right now, Brian, [the Clintons] are already thinking seriously about running in 2016," author Ed Klein told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade. "She'll be 69 years old. And as you know -- and I don't want to sound anti-feminist here -- but she's not looking good these days. She's looking overweight, and she's looking very tired."

    Or is it Breitbart?  To whom I will not link, but I'm sure you're familiar with John Nolte's remarks.

    And so it begins.  Again.

    Thank you so much for your, er, concern.  Tell me, do you bat your eyes when you ask these disingenuous questions?  

    Parent

    In that case (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:56:27 PM EST
    Chris Christie is even more unqualified to be President, based on his highly visible morbid obesity.

    Parent
    I don't think he has a chance (none / 0) (#106)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:09:01 PM EST
    I don't think most Americans want their leader to look like that.  It's not fair but his size would probably turn a lot of voters off.  Keep in mind, in some of those debates, he can't hide behind a podium.

    Parent
    His attitude, as displayed on (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    various occasions and caught on video is that of a bully.  I very much doubt that Americans want a buly in the White House.

    Parent
    I take it you don't think it will be an issue? (none / 0) (#105)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:04:30 PM EST
    I don't know who John Nolte is.  I agree, somewhat, with your Ed Klein quote.

    I think physical appearance is a legitimate issue for Hillary.  Looks do matter for some people.  She has a lot going for  her but if she doesn't slim down it might cost her some votes.  

    Parent

    Brains matter for a lot of people, too. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:26:32 PM EST
    Why do you care what Hillary looks like, anyway - you wouldn't vote for her if she looked like Kate Upton, so why bring it up?

    I mean, have you looked at the GOP field?  I don't see any beauties there.

    I hate to tell you, but Jeb's fat.  Huckabee's pudgy - he has jowls, for heaven's sake.  Scott Walker's got something weird going on with his eyes. Christie?  Still fat, still a bully.  Rand Paul?  Can't talk for more than 5 minutes before he takes a detour to Crazy Town.  Ben Carson?  On the same train with Rand Paul.  Ted Cruz?  Looks like Mr. Haney from Green Acres; sounds a little like him, too.  Mitt?  Think he paints in the gray on top of the hair dye for just the right touch of wise?

    Seriously, this is the kind of stuff that matters to you?  

    ::rolling eyes::


    Parent

    You can pretend the average American voter (none / 0) (#108)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:47:39 PM EST
    only cares about issues like jobs and foreign policy if you want.

    I'm not a Hillary fan but I'm not fond of the GOP crop either with the possible exception of Mitt Romney.  That's right, Mitt Romney. I don't think he would win but I think he might make a decent president.

    If Hillary looked like Kate Upton people would call her a bimbo. No one would take her seriously.

    I think most people consider Hillary to be smart and tough. When she sticks to issues, she does well. When she pretends to be one of us she fails miserably.

     

    Parent

    No Presidential candidate can pretend (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:20:27 PM EST
    to be "one of us."  The question is whether the positions that a candidate takes, the votes they've cast allow said candidate to claim a policy alignment with the middle class (or "one of us.")  

    Of all potential candidates, we surely know that the biggest pretense about understanding the poor and less well-to-do has somehow come from the mouth of Mr. 47%er, Mitt Romney.  If populism, in some form, is going to be an entry ticket to the 2016 Presidential election, I suspect the first one shown the door is adopt-a-new-persona Mitt.

    Parent

    You didn't mean to make such a (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:14:06 PM EST
    backward statement, did you McBain? Scrape yourself together and come up with something other than an adolescent comment.  (Well, since you are so weight conscious, the actual obesity of a C. Christie or M. Huckabee should really trouble you.  Jeb Bush has been packing on the pudge too.  The old mud-slinging--huh--we could all do it.)

    Parent
    Scrape your own self (none / 0) (#113)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:13:37 PM EST
    Not everything is an attack on your political party.  You don't have to be defensive.

    I think all of the people you mentioned have body shape problems.  It may not be fair, but men's clothing makes it easier to hide a less than ripped physique more so than women's. Which is why Hillary might have a problem.  In the case of Christie, nothing can hide his shape.

    Parent

    Without being on offense or defense, (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    I would say that the genuine, warm, & mature woman visage is exactly what is now and will continue to re-enforce Hillary Clinton's readiness/preparation/experience for the job.  

    Think about it.  What helps so many candidates is the reality of the "humanizing" effect.  'Don't want to disillusion you, McBain, but most people want to see some evidence of having lived.  The anorexic look and, even, the 30ish glamour look is out in the world of diplomacy, statesmanship, leadership ... and, it has been for a long time.  If one wants to look at the model with perfect skin (and no wrinkles), buy a fashion magazine or a gossip sheet about who is dating whom.  Or find a ditzy, ill-prepared Palin II (or--on the male side--seek the progeny of Dan Quayle in some potatoe field.)

    Parent

    I thought that (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    the Republicans have already found their Palin II.  
    Her name is Joni Ernst.    ;-)

    Parent
    Absolutely! Because no one ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    ... will better resonate with the increasingly crackpotted GOP base that Ms. Agenda 21, who's suggested that the United Nations wants to revoke American property rights, and has further intimated that the Apollo 11 moon landing was fraudulent and actually took place on a Hollywood sound stage.

    Joni Ernst has obviously been inhaling too much of her own hairspray. And boo hiss to Iowa voters for electing this unbridled nutball to the U.S. Senate, when she shouldn't even be allowed to serve on a local water commission. Because when politicians repeatedly go cuckoo for cocoa puffs like she does on regular occasions, it really ought to matter.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Is this question for real? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:09:58 AM EST
    First of all I don't think Hillary is overweight?  No more than the average woman her age who wears pants suits.  Second of all even if she were it shouldn't be an issue.  Both because it's horribly sexist to focus on the woman's wait when so many men politicians are big fat slobs and secondly it just seems unseemly.  

    Also, most of our society is overweight and The only people who would use this as a factor against a candidate are already not voting for that person anyway.

    There are three personal issues that will however affect her candidacy.

    The first is her age.

    Will she be able to broadcast herself as a person with fresh and new ideas even though she is approaching the age of 70.    How will she hold up during this now almost endless campaign in the lead up to 2016?  I think Democrats are fooling themselves that this will not be an issue in the general election but I also think Republicans make too much of it. Nobody really knows but being closer to 70 is not as good as being closer to 50.

    Number two is Bill Clinton

    This is both a big positive and possibly a negative. There is a certain amount of people in this country that would never want Bill Clinton to step foot in the White House again. But again those people aren't going to vote for Hillary anyway. What will come out about what he's been doing the past decade and how they've been using their foundation?Will the press report on this? We shall see. In addition to those factors by being the wife of a former president she brings in the issue of legacy and more of the same. She'll have to figure out a way to overcome that. On the positive she can play off the experience of being the first lady for eight years and the invaluable lessons she's learned from being part of what many consider a successful presidency.  It's up to her to make one of those the driving thing that voters think of.

    Number three is she's a woman

    It will be a powerful thing for the American voter to think that they might be part of history.  There really is no negative for this fact so it gives her a leg up on the generic white guy that is  most likely going to come out of the Republican nomination process.   If I'm truthful with myself this is going to be a big uphill climb for Republicans to overcome because she is a woman and she's qualified.  Even though her sex should not be a factor in this case it is in only a positive way.   She might lose a few dependable Democratic voters because of this but she's going to gain more independence and even Republican women to counter that.

    Parent

    Yes, her shape is a real question (1.00 / 2) (#192)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    When was the last time we elected a fat president?
    Bill wasn't lean but he didn't look as chubby as Hillary.
    Obama is skinny fat but looks good in a suit.
    W was in excellent shape.

    Everyone likes to pretend they base their vote on important issues but I think the average american cares what their president looks like.

    Parent

    Obama is skinny fat? (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    WTF?!

    I won't even touch your disgusting comments about HRC. . . .

    Parent

    3 subjects. (none / 0) (#119)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    1. Overweight? Are you kidding? Who cares? She certainly is no bigger than Bill when he was in his cheeseburger faze. In any case, even someone with the proportions of a Sydney Greenstreet would be fine with me if they had a heart and a brain and cared about improving the lot of the American people.

    2. Bill Clinton: The positive. The economy was better.
    The negatives: The trade agreements that have impoverished those already impoverished. The bombing of the "chemical weapons factory" that turned out to be a pharmaceutical company. "Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off."
    Little things like that.

    And then there is the specter of Ms. Lewinsky. I really have no interest in Billy's philandering. That was a given, it seems to me.
    But the fact that he did it in a manner that insured that he would be discovered suggests a mental disorder of significant proportions.

    3. She's a woman. This could be significant, imo, if it were to signal that she might express a point of view that takes in something other than that which has been entrenched for so many eons by the male establishment.
    Feeling that one is "part of history" by voting for her is, imo, no reason at all to vote for her - if she is going to be yet another representative of the elite, corporatist and militaristic ethic that has prevailed lo these many years. I am not at all persuaded that she would not be yet another link in that sorry chain.

    Parent

    Her (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    age is not going to be an issue because 2/3 of the people that vote Republican are over the age of 65. Is the GOP going to put down their own voters by talking age? Maybe they're stupider than I think if they go that route.

    Parent
    It's not like the GOP field is (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:59:13 AM EST
    nothing but spring chickens, lol.

    Jeb will be 64 in 2017 and Romney will be 70.  Carson will be 66, Rick Perry will be 67 and Donald Trump will be 71.  And age notwithstanding, I don't regard any of these men as being the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    And it's not like this is a field stocked with paragons of male beauty, either.

    No, I see all this talk about Clinton's age and weight as just more of the sexism that apparently still runs rampant through the GOP; sure as I'm sitting here, I know that if Clinton loses weight and starts to look "better," she will be the object of speculation about plastic surgery, Botox and fillers, the knock on her will be that her vanity is only exceeded by her ego, and it will be attributed in part to her desperate efforts to keep Bill from cheating.

    Just wait - it's coming.  

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    It was Democrats and MSNBC that commented on her laugh, her "cankles", etc. in 2008.

    Parent
    Some reflections from (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    2008

    Notice how the women describe her.

    Parent

    I Don't Remember the Chauvinism (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    ...being one sided, at all.  The dems were a little more... subtle, well except for Tweety who was topping the charts for a spell.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    the GOP was the one that started the cankles stuff and MSNBC was repeating GOP talking points. The cankles things goes back to the conservatives in the 1990's. All they did was use the same ugly stuff that was said by the GOP and regurgitate it.

    Parent
    David Shuster (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    Tim Russert, NPR, Randi Rhodes on Air America, etc.

    Not GOP talking points being repeated.

    Parent

    Can we just agree that it was a (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:17:52 AM EST
    Clinton pile-on by both sides?  Because it was.  The GOP attacked this way because they hate the Clintons, among other things, and the Dems did it because, well, Hope and Change!

    My response to McBain was in connection with what has been appearing on right-wing media just in the last day or so; just google "hillary fat" and see what comes up.  I didn't see any references or citations to this latest meme being pushed by Democrats or the so-called liberal media.  It's being responded to by "the left," but it's not coming from them.

    Do I think the Dems/MSNBC-types have turned over a new leaf in the area of sexism?  No, I don't.  At the moment, Hillary is The One, so she's getting an exemption, but trust me when I tell you it will rear its ugly head when Republican women enter the fray.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    We've already seen that.  Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she is Exhibit 1 for how badly lefty media treats women they don't agree with.  You know - people who think they are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else.

    Parent
    Palin is, in my opinion, the perfect (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    example of what happens when the media focuses on someone's appearance and fails to question his or her intelligence, positions, vision and record. All that time ooh-ing and aah-ing over the peep-toe pumps and obsessing over the grizzly bear mama would have been better spent on issues of substance.  Yes, that was sexist, and it detracted from those real issues as much as concentrating on the size and shape of Clinton's ankles distracts from them.

    It wasn't a matter of not agreeing with her, it was a matter of her ideas being half-baked and her thinking that she could use her looks to her advantage.

    And now that people have had the unfortunate experience of seeing and hearing more from her, she's been exposed for the lightweight grifter she is.

    Did Couric sandbag her in the infamous "what magazines do you read?" interview?  Depends on whether you think it's fair or unfair to want to know if the person running for VP has any idea what's going on in the world.  And just so you know, if I was Couric and I had to interview the male equivalent of Palin, I'd be asking him the same questions.  "What are you reading, what are you watching, what's your go-to for news and information?"

    It just isn't sexist to want to know if someone's smart enough for the job.

    Parent

    I forget who (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    asked W. who was his favorite philosopher.
    Obviously, the intent was similar to and perhaps the template for Couric's question to Palin about magazines.

    Bush's answer, to the consternation of apparently nobody, was that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ.

    Nobody... nobody... asked him wtf he was talking about.

    What aspects of Jesus's philosophies did Bush the Idiot find appealing? Certainly not that dreadful commie stuff about turning the other cheek or loving your enemies. WTF?

    Or that equally commie stuff about "go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Uh. No thanks.

    So he got away with it.

    Just another pretty face - and a beer.


    Parent

    Sarah (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    Palin is not worth defending. You know, when the press asked Hillary about her, she declined to make an ugly comment but Palin is just as bad as the rest of the GOP. She encourages their sexism and allows it.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:20:48 PM EST
    link is about vaccinations. I guess you don't remember the things the GOP said back in the 90's about Hillary because they were the same thing repeated verbatum by the Obama people in '08.

    Parent
    Oops, sorry (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    Here's theLink

    And obviously the media should focus more on substance rather than looks.  I was thinking more of how Palin was mocked for needing expensive clothes for the convention (funny, no one talked about Obama's expensive suits).  We also talked about how her child with Down's Syndrome was really her teenage daughter's child, her hair, her makeup, the fact that she posed for a running magazine in shorts (but not criticism when Obama let the press take pictures of him playing basketball - to show his youthful vigor and "coolness", of course - or him in bathing suit in Hawaii).

    That's kind of the point.  She took too much criticism and commentary about things a make candidate never would, and the liberal pundits and "thinkers" led the charge.

    Parent

    That's why my guy is Scott Walker (none / 0) (#132)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:27:06 AM EST
    Young and accomplished for his age (47).

    He has an actual message whether you like it or not that breaks from the same old same old.

    Also Ron Paul fits the mall but I don't think he has a chance.

    And you are correct unfortunately that Hillary because she's a woman will be forced to answer questions that are completely unfair.

    However I really think because she's an accomplished woman (drives me nuts just saying that) she will have an advantage over anyone the republicans put forth on this issue as a whole.

    Parent

    Yeah, sure, Slado. (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 05:43:10 PM EST
    I really like how Scott Walker recently intimated in a speech to the crowd at Iowa Congressman Steve King's recent GOP event that he had cleaned up Milwaukee County's "culture of corruption" while serving as its elected chief executive.

    Since you're such a big fan of the Wisconsin governor, you might be interested in knowing that coincidentally, Walker delivered that particular speech on the very same day that Tim Russell, Walker's chief of staff in Milwaukee County, was released from prison, having been previously convicted of -- cue drum roll -- political corruption.

    Walker is a political fraud.

    Parent

    Specifically (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    what parts of Walker's message break with the same old same old?

    Parent
    He has found new and refreshing ways to (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 02:47:15 PM EST
    bilk the public, I guess:

    Gov. Scott Walker plans to cut the University of Wisconsin System by $300 million over two years - a nearly 13% reduction - and grant the Board of Regents more power to run its campuses without oversight from the state. For the next two years, the schools would continue to operate under a tuition freeze that has been in place since 2013. That means they would have to cut their programs to account for the reduction in state aid. The flexibility the Republican governor is proposing - long sought by the system - would allow UW to contract for services and construct buildings without following state rules and processes that other state agencies must..

    Charlie Pierce:

    I don't expect miracles but, if the elite political press is really going to pump Scott Walker for president of the United States, they should at least mention from time to time that he never has held a political office that was not infested with cheap cronyism, criminal and otherwise, and that he never has run a campaign that was not shot through with cheap corruption, criminal and otherwise. The cronies are expected to take the fall when, as it inevitably does, the law comes calling. This should be something of a drawback for him as a candidate. It likely will not be.

    Does that seem new and young and refreshing to you, or does it just really seem like SSDD?

    Parent

    Should Be Scott Walker-Koch (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    Koch Bros financed the debacle in Wisconsin.

    Slado, your man is taking away from the educational system, not smoothie machines, not new buildings, the republican sitting in the governor's seat in Wisconsin.

    Parent

    It's not about the GOP (none / 0) (#123)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    It's about energizing young people, Independence, and voters who stayed home when Pres. Obama was not on the ballot.

    Into thousand and eight Pres. Obama was a freaking rockstar. He was young, different, spoke eloquently, he was the total package.

    Hey woman pushing 70 is not that. If you want to pretend it's not going to be a factor by all means do so but it simply is.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    What you're not understanding about all this is that Hillary is not going to try to be a rock star. She did quite well with young people back in 2008. She however has wider and broader appeal than Obama ever did. Obama never built a voting coalition around issues. He built a coalition around himself therefore nobody would show up when he was on the ticket. When you build a coalition around issues the results are different.

    Parent
    That should be (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    "not on the ticket" not "on the ticket"

    Parent
    I agree with most of that post, but (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:52:44 AM EST
      I also think it is wrong to suggest that appearance (including weight) does not influence perceptions and sometimes behavior when people judge others. I think McBain is making an observation not advocating for superficiality.

      There are studies which have examined how appearance influences perception. It's important to acknowledge that this  influence can be subconscious. This means that you can't state with confidence that "only _ people would judge based on appearance." People might say (and believe) they are not affected by such superficial considerations but there is evidence that many people are whether they realize it or not.

      Attractive people are at an advantage over unattractive people even when  physical appearance is not "relevant" to the purpose for which people are being judged. Attractive people (and even taller people) will, at a statistically significant rate, be assigned more favorable ratings, for traits that have nothing to do with appearance.

      I'm not sure if there are studies on he "double standard" but I'd venture to say it  exists and matters. Not only do I think women are more likely to be judged on appearance than are men but the manner in which the sexes are judged likely differs.

    I'd assert that when men are judged the differential is likely greater between "average" and "ugly"  than between "average" and "good looking." In other words, it's an advantage for men to be good looking but not near  to the same degree to which it is a disadvantage to be ugly. With women, I think the differential is quite  significant between "good looking" and "average."

       Just look around at any visual  media. You see waaaaay more average looking men than you do average looking women. Not just in entertainment (where one can't help but also notice extremely attractive women are very often portrayed as desiring very average looking men but attractive men are very rarely portayed as desiring average looking women). You alos see the same thing in the  "news and information" sector. You don't see that many hideous men but you also don't see many "average" looking women.

    Parent

    Looks probably helped JFK beat Nixon (none / 0) (#193)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    I agree that women are judged more on looks.... facial features, figure... but men are often judged on height and stature

    Parent
    Good analysis, slado (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    My quick rejoinder on "age":  Clearly, Repubs will attempt to make age an issue ... but, if we often hear the term "two edge sword," that tactic will present the user with many more edges and spirals that could be initially imagined.  To begin with, it must be extremely subtle as a tactic or risk offending the large cohort of Baby Boomers and older individuals who can be expected to take offense. Next, the Repub leadership bunch is neither young in body or--as often argued--ideas; and, that party is saddled with their would-be secular saint, Ronald Reagan (70 at the time of his first election to the office.)

    "Age" may even be more of a boomerang issue than gender politics could turn out to be.  Rather, the roll-out of the campaign will define the odds of that happening ... one way or another.  If the theme is direct, clear and delivered with energy and sparkle, it is going to be a Sisyphean task for her opposition to make the ageism thing stick.  The experience, etc., is there; the sparkle must come in the message and its delivery.

    As for McBain: Thanks for your comment about sexism aspects.  Personally, I suspect it is political feinting & gamesmanship on his part.

    Parent

    From our "Only in L.A." file: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:33:47 AM EST
    So, where was Batman when she needed him? Likely, he was drinking a pitcher of margaritas with Robin at The Abbey in West Hollywood:

    Los Angeles Times | January 28, 2015
    Mr. Incredible convicted in Hollywood Boulevard brawl with Batgirl - "A man who wears a Mr. Incredible costume to entertain tourists on Hollywood Boulevard was convicted Tuesday of punching and body-slamming a Batgirl during a fight last year. Muhammet Bilik, 35, was convicted of battery and sentenced to a day in jail, three years probation, 20 days of Caltrans work and 36 anger-management classes in connection with the Oct. 22 attack in front of TCL Chinese Theatre that was caught on camera and uploaded to YouTube."

    And sadly, this isn't the first instance of superheroes and lovable children's cartoon characters going astray in the City of the Angels.

    Please join us next time on "Sesame Street After Hours," boys and girls, as Bert and Ernie take us to visit Miss Helena Hanbasquette on the set of her latest video shoot at the Manhole Productions Studios in Reseda, while Kermit and Miss Piggy teach us the importance of knowing how to hold our liquor, as they roll drunks on Santa Monica Blvd.

    ;-D

    I Went to Find the Video... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:16:03 AM EST
    ...for laughs.  Not really funny when you realize a guy assaulted a woman, so I am not posting.  It's hard to tell if the guy is really big, or if it's the costume muscles, but seeing a big dude go after a woman is bothersome.

    Parent
    Yes, it is disturbing. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:39:27 AM EST
    And to get serious about it for the moment, I think that L.A. city officials have been painfully slow to recognize that the sidewalk solicitations of tourists in Hollywood by individuals seeking to capitalize on the popularity of these characters have become evermore competitive and aggressive. Further, it's been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. They really need to draft and promulgate rules  to regulate this sort of activity, and enforce applicable ordinances to curb disreputable and potentially dangerous behavior.

    Parent
    How Do You Regulate... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    ...the activity of superheros, the keep trying in Xmen with little luck.

    Parent
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 09:42:48 AM EST
    I've lost track over the years as to the overall number of superheroes there actually are in this country.

    Congress and state legislatures need to address the compelling issue of superhero standards because honestly, we can't have just anybody don a cape, mask and set of tights on a whim, and then claim that he or she is a crimefighter worthy of superhero status.

    Otherwise, what happens when someone who's truly in distress puts out an urgent call for a superhero's assistance, only to have this schmuck show up?

    There really oughta be a law, I tell ya.

    Parent

    "the overall number of superheroes" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    is ZERO.

    Parent
    Jeez, dude. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    Did the dog eat your sense of humor this morning, along with your homework? You need to go back to bed, and then try getting up on the right side.

    Parent
    Plus Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    ...there is no way he could know that, ditto for aliens, zombies, and gods...

    Parent
    I believe the expression is (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    "Did someone <substitute rude word for urinate> in your Cheerios?  ;-)

    Parent
    Never mind the city... (none / 0) (#48)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    ...why hasn't the MPAA jumped all over these people because of copyright infringement?

    They certainly aren't shy about doing so in other arenas.

    Parent

    There's a decent documentary about (none / 0) (#63)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    people who dress as superheros on Hollywood Boulevard.
    http://tinyurl.com/ny9qfsw

    I met the woman who dressed as Wonder Woman in that film.  She wasn't crazy or violent but I can't say that about all of them.  

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    I'll watch it tonight.

    I think the problem here is not that the people doing this are necessarily crazy. Rather, the market for superheroes and lovable cartoon characters on Hollywood Blvd has gotten crowded and competitive.

    And with everyone jockeying for the best and most potentially lucrative locations on that stretch, tempers are understandably going to get frazzled and tested, which sometimes leads to bullying and violence.

    That's why everyone should just mellow out, and listen to The Kinks' "Celluloid Heroes." Because Ray Davies still said it best: "Those who are successful, be always on your guard; success walks hand in hand with failure down the Hollywood Boulevard."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Willie McCool... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    ...is still the best astronaut name ever. RIP to him, and to all those adventurous souls. (Way more adventurous to me, I might add. I'm like Christoper Walker, who, when asked by Jay Mohr what he would rather have, the gift of flight or the tail of a dog, Chris replied without hesistation, "A tail, it's no contest! Come on, you can always get in a plane and fly. But a tail. People could know, without saying a word to you, how to deal with you that day.  

    "Production Asst: 'Uh oh, look out, Chris is in a bad mood today, stay away from him if you can.'

    "Production Asst 2: 'How do you know?"

    "Production Asst: 'Just look at his tail.'"

    No space travel for me!

    Christopher WALKEN (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    Jaysus!

    Parent
    I Was Looking at My Dog... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    ...this weekend thinking the same thing, how different humanity would be if we couldn't hide our emotions.

    I was watching TV, and my dog was on her bed facing the opposite direction.  She was not happy with me, so I did what I always do, gave her some turkey jerky, rubber her belly, and told her what a good dog she is, problem solved, she was facing me and tail was a wagging.  She was happy.

    I looked at the GF and thought, there has got to be an easier way.  And then it hit me, tails would allow us a little insight into what others are thinking.  Not entirely, but just enough to solve so many problems and miscommunications.

    Parent

    Just for you (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    Did you try rubbing the GF's belly? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    Sorry - it's just that that part of your comment cracked me up.

    Think about this for a minute: what if you couldn't speak, or read or write?  What if the only communication tools at your disposal were your facial expressions and your physicality?  And what if the people around you were in the same boat?  If you wanted to communicate, you wouldn't be able to hide your feelings - because they - and the ability to hug someone, or push them out of the way, or turn your back on them would be about all you'd have to get your meaning across.  

    Would there be less misunderstanding?  I don't know - but it might not be as easy and simple as we'd like it to be, and it might not be all better with a special treat and a belly rub.  

    It puts me in mind of babies.  They can't tell you the why of anything - crying could mean anything from "I'm hungry" to "I'm so tired crying is the only way I know how to bleed off enough energy so I can sleep" to "I don't want you to put me down - I like it here in your arms."

    Trial and error - there would be a lot of that.  We'd become mimes, I guess; not a great selling point.  And I don't know that we'd be any better at figuring each other out, but we'd get good at being glad someone got it close enough!

    Parent

    No, Just a Tail... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    ...tails don't lie.  I don't want to communicate without words, just a gauge to let me know the general mood of people, including myself.  I would have a sign, "When the tail is down, Don't come around."

    I did give another GF some dog treats long ago and told her to hold them, little did I know she though it was a snack.  By the time I got my dog's collar a leash on, the treats were gone.

    I thought it was hilarious, but I did not need a tail to know she was not happy.

    Parent

    Now, if someone was just scanning (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    Anne's subject line and your subject line without reading the comments themselves, the whole thing could be seriously misconstrued.  To wit:
    "Did you try rubbing the GF's belly?"
    "No, Just a Tail...."
    I mean, ahem.

    Parent
    Has anything been changed for the SB (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    re: each team controlling their own balls or checking pressure or anything?

    Seems to me that, even if it's just for appearances, the balls should be above suspicion for the big game.

    I'm more interested in this Seahawk god thing (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:45:21 PM EST
    Is there a betting line on how many interceptions god will make Russell Wilson throw to keep the game interesting? And will the betting line only count god induced interceptions as opposed to those that Wilson is responsible for?

    Also, when asked what he's going to do if he wins the Super Bowl, will Marshawn Lynch say he's going to Disney World or will he say "I'm only here so I won't get fined".

    I pulled for the Seahawks last year but these two could be a little too far out there for me this time around.

    Parent

    Guess I missed the whole God thing, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    which doesn't hurt my feelings.

    Maybe Disney will have to have the Disney-bound player say, "I'm going to Disney World - right after I get vaccinated for the measles!"

    Parent

    You Missed Wilson Crying... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    ...right after the game.

    My take, the god reference didn't bother me in that he thanked god for giving him the skills to win, not for winning.  Not much of a differentiation, but it was there.

    I despise the looking at the heavens, pointing the #1 finger, and saying whatever it is they are saying to apparently, god.  That implies that god cares about that person more than others, which rubs me the wrong way, big time.

    Parent

    Does it really bother you? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    Wilson is obviously a religious person. He believes like most of us who are religious that God is a constant force of love.

    The majority of us are also conscious of the fact that he could give a flip about who wins football games and even more importantly if you personally threw two touchdowns or four interceptions.

    What he does care about if he exists is that you use your talents to the fullest and that if you need his support in the way of inspiration it is always there for you.

    Most of the celebrations I see in regards to thanking God after a play or sporting events are a simple acknowledgment that his love helped you or gave you possibly the extra strength you needed to accomplish something.  Or more importantly if that person I hadn't found a relationship with God they might be a complete mess.

    I myself think a relationship with a higher power should be more personal but that's just me.  

    Like you when I guy gets on camera and rambles for 20 or 30 seconds about how God made this all happen I cringe a bit. Because I don't think he did.

    Parent

    Did I Not Say... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    My take, the god reference didn't bother me...

    You don't notice the god non-sense because you are a believer.  I don't really care other than the ridiculousness of anyone thinking god cares about football.

    Any bets on god reference for the SB, I say in the 8 hours of coverage, we get 50 god references, and 30 symbolic tributes.

    And FYI, there are far more 'complete messes' that believe in god than not.  Prisons are packed with them.

    Since you brought it up, how unfortunate for the rest of us that god deemed Wilson worthy of a glorious talent that earns him adoration of millions, a free college education, and pocket a full of money... Too bad the rest of us are only deemed worthy of mediocre talents that ensure many to live paycheck to paycheck working for a dbags, while even going so far as to make sure a few don't have the mental capacities to use the bathroom.  

    If only the glorious god was just...

    Parent

    You guys are getting too carried away (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    I was only interested in his reference to god making him throw 4 interceptions to set up a dramatic finish.

    Parent
    I thought unregulated Free Markets (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    were the constant force of love..

    Parent
    I thought... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    unregulated free love was a constant market?

    All The Dude ever wanted was his rug back.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#201)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:48:49 PM EST
    Unlike God markets need regulations.

    Parent
    I'm not rooting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    For either team.  
    But we'll watch it, anyway, and I'll make my usual, once a year batch of Buffalo wings and St. Louis toasted ravioli.

    Parent
    As a Giants fan I root against the Pats as a rule. As an LA resident I root against Pete Carroll as a rule.

    Decisions, decisions.

    Pretty easy choice really, decision made, I'm rooting for the Seahawks.

    Parent

    I believe the NFL has said that ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    ... the officiating crew assigned to the Super Bowl would keep all the footballs in their possession throughout the entire game.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    "Like many aspects of our policies and procedures, there are modifications for the Super Bowl," league spokesman Michael Signora said. "At the Super Bowl, the equipment manager of another team [Bears, Tony Medlin] is in charge of the game balls and arranging for the ball attendant crews, which are hired before the Super Bowl teams are determined. The officials will maintain strict control of the game balls for the Super Bowl.


    Parent
    Do you have a prediction as to (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    when this happening will no longer dominate the public discourse?

    Parent
    Feb 2. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    Sorry for the lengthy response.

    Parent
    That could be dependent on (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 28, 2015 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    the pressure in Punxsutawney Phil's bladder.

    Parent
    And he didn't even say thank you (none / 0) (#118)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    Turns out Obama should have thanked Republicans for their iactiins that led our increased job growth in 2024.  If we had stuck with his plans we wouldn't of gotten it.

    Wall Street Journal

    If you get stuck by a pay wall just let me know when you can come over to my house and read it.

    The article states clearly and to me convincingly that because they couldn't negotiate other budget deals by electing to let the continued extension of jobless benefits expire people were forced to go back into the workforce and find work and we saw an uptick in job growth rather than a downtick that was predicted by the Democrats who wanted to keep extending jobless benefits forever.

    Sometimes gridlock works out.

    2014 (none / 0) (#124)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    I need to apologize for my recent proclivity to have grammar errors in my posts.

    I've fallen in love with my talk to text mode on my iPhone 6 plus and it is obviously not working smoothly.

    Need to start going back and editing better.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    but it beats the heck out of trying to type on that tiny keyboard. As bad as the word to text can be it can still be a lot better than trying to type it out.

    Parent
    I would really like to know (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    who amongst us dictates comments. This might explain why some comments are so cryptic and some so prolix.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Another fine case (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    Warm up the veto pen! (none / 0) (#184)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    Senate passed Keystone XL bill.