mspart

Maybe at some point with cloning, we might be able to see these. mspart

But who has a better chance at International Glory at the Senior level? Lee or DeSanto? mspart

I don't consider it a win when you start with the name calling. I consider it a forfeit on your part. Your coach would be yelling at you and tomorrow's practice would be full of pushups and stairs. mspart

Where is DeSanto on the UWW rankings now? mspart

Same could be said for the boys. They learn how to control guys in folk style. I remember seeing Cael wrestling Sajidov in 2003 and Sajidov was on bottom and tried to get away and Cael just reeled him back in. I'm not sure classically trained FS wrestlers would have faired so well. Granted, there is not much need for this skill in freestyle but I believe that folkstyle is a better style for learning control. I could be wrong, and this is an ages long argument. But there's my $0.02. mspart

This is very sad. We just got a new worker here from Turkey. She moved here when she was young, speaks perfect English, but came to us by way of a winery job she had south of Istanbul. She has lived in the Seattle area half her life so she is pretty established here. mspart

What? mspart

Needed to get Tom Cruise out there and hop on the balloon and bring it down. He could jump out of an F22 with his extreme good aim. It took an F22 to bring it down? Seems like a lesser fighter could have handled it. I read an article that the F22 shot a heat seaking missile. What the heck was generating heat? I thought it was helium, not hot air. Oh well, it is down and now the frog men have to locate and bring it up. Any guesses? I'm guessing it is just as the Chinese said, it was a weather balloon with 3 semi trucks worth of equipment. mspart

Wow, now that's really good luck. mspart

You quoted me and then stated your opinion. I agree with you in regards to children. But the far left is not in agreement with you and opposes you with vitriol. The "don't say gay" bill in FL is the classic example. The left misnamed the bill on purpose. The bill was about not teaching sexual anything to K-3 elementary students. Why was this felt necessary in FL. Because that is the direction of school districts across the nation. It is not something that we can all support. There are many that support and want surgical and chemical "gender affirming care" to minors. That is just sick, yet, anytime you oppose this, they will pile on. So I do not agree that "we" can all understand and deplore this. I'm glad you and I agree on this however. mspart

And now with the ad-hominem attack! So predictable. Did I say anything like that? No. You lose the argument because you have nothing of value to argue with. Ad-hominem attacks are the last line of defense of a losing argument. Just can't think of anything else to say so personally attack your opponent seems like a thing to do. Again, as I said, case closed. mspart

Case closed. mspart

Unless you are a marxist. That is capitalism and must be avoided by all means. I agree with most of what you said, except. "Marxist, fascist, socialist, etc. are all labels being thrown around to get people angry and distract them from the things that are simple, obvious, and we can all support." It should seem obvious, but we have children being indoctrinated into transgenderism and enforced by chemical and physical means including surgery. And you better not say anything or your kid will be taken away by the state. This is patently wrong, but there is one side that just doesn't see it that way. Or they pretend not to see it that way. There are many other topics that are similar. That's why I agree with that statement but it cannot happen as we all are now. No one can agree on what is simple, obvious and something we can all support as of now. I suspect we might all agree we need to react with haste and harshness if hostile forces try to do something to us. But I'm not so sure about that. mspart

The chinese forced aircraft of ours in their airspace to land and be held hostage. This is a fact and they know it. Bringing down their balloon should not rile them at all. They should expect it. Perhaps they are trying to get a feel for what they can and cannot get away with. By not bringing it down immediately in whatever manner is best, we are signalling that we will tolerate chinese incursions of our airspace. Which might invite more such episodes. Why would we not bring it down, either by shooting it down or by some other means? This is basic national defense. They think they have jammed any signals that it might transmit and that is enough? If that is the case, then this is a spy machine and an overt act. I don't see why we condone such a thing. Bring it down. mspart

NYC got tough on crime under Giuliani. Crime went down. WA state had 3 strikes your out and prosecuted crime hard from 90s on. Crime rate when down. All of that is not happening anymore and we wonder why crime rate is going up. There is such a thing as cause and effect. We have seen it in live action both ways. Are we now too sophisticated to get tough on crime? We have better ways to deal with crime? The answer is demonstrably NO. Nice try with the baseball funny, but glibness doesn't really address the issue here. I have added to the conversation, explained my position, but you have not. You think saying strike 3 is clever and will end the conversation. What ends it is your refusal to offer anything of substance to substantiate your opinion. My opinion is double down on prosecuting gun crimes and give enhanced sentencing for the use of guns during a crime. At the very least, this will get those guys off the streets which will lower gun violence by that much. It might perhaps lower gun violence or the use of guns in crimes due to the enhanced penalties. Is this not even worth considering? Apparently not for you. There are strict gun control measures in Mexico, tough to get, but not banned. Yep, that stopped all those cartels. We have a difference of opinion here. Let's leave it at that. mspart

Any of you heard of this? https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/03/china-spy-balloon-us-airspace-00081073 Should it be brought down now? Or should it not? My input is to bring it down now and quit waiting. mspart

Well, when they put him away, that is deterrent for him. That is effective, or didn't you think of that? The problem is they do not prosecute gun crimes anymore. So in fact, there is no incentive to not use guns. If you are a murderer, you probably don't care I would agree. Not too many of those around. If you are a robber, you probably don't care. But when you take the murderers and the robbers off the street, you have reduced gun violence. And other lower level criminals will not want to go that direction. Your solution is to ban all guns I assume. Better get an amendment to the Constitution going then. Because there is no other way to do it. mspart

Bernie is not the guy. He is not a leader. He is loud and that's about it. He may be a true believer but I'm not sure that is the case. He's making money off of books and events. That's what a capitalist does, not a marxist. But I guess a marxist has to get money to further the goal somehow right? I agree that we need a leader who is about leading. That is very true. mspart

Ah but you are not using your logic well Sen Dole, and I'm really sorry to see that. If we ban all guns, bad guys will still have them. So no matter what we do about the availability of guns, bad guys will have them. So it is not illogical to say, Hmm, if we make the penalty for using a gun in a crime stiff enough, some people will refrain from using them during crimes. Also not illogical to say, if we have enhanced sentencing for using a gun during a crime, locking them up will effectively reduce gun crime. What is illogical to say is, Hitting people with extra sentences is unjustly proportioned on a minority or two so we just won't. Also illogical to have laws preventing gun use during a crime and then not prosecuting when that is the case. And this happens all the time here in WA. In fact, the Ds in the WA legislature have a bill that will reduce sentences. Yep that is illogical. Silly Ds. Equally illogical is to say Gun violence is too high. So we must make laws to outlaw guns so those that exercise their 2nd Amendment right responsibly are the ones that will suffer. But we will not prosecute those that actually commit gun violence or use guns in the committing of crime. You may choose which logic or illogic you ascribe to Bob. Sounds like if it were up to you, I'd have to defend myself from an armed intruder with a sword or a blow dart. Now that is liberal logic, which is illogical. mspart

Hi Nail, What are you ideas? mspart

NOT!! mspart

Me too. I've been there a handful of times. mspart

I like the description "freak of nature" to describe these guys. What distinguishes between freaks of nature is how hard they work at perfecting their craft. And how long they continue working at it. Freak of nature might get you to college but there are a lot of freaks of nature in college, most of them probably. It is those that work the hardest or are the freakiest of the freaks that make it beyond. mspart

A bit pessimistic but I see what you are saying. mspart

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/opinion/newsom-desantis-culture-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/opinion/newsom-desantis-culture-war.html By Ross Douthat Opinion Columnist Since the leak of the Dobbs decision in May, the conservative organization CatholicVote has counted 75 attacks on pro-life organizations around the country — vandalism, arson, graffiti, a firebombing. A group calling itself Jane’s Revenge has taken responsibility for some of the attacks, though it’s not clear whether this is a real pro-choice terrorist organization or just a conveniently unifying slogan. But then very little about these incidents is clear, because while officially the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating, so far it has not publicized any arrests. Perhaps a hardworking agent is about to break one of these cases. For abortion opponents, though, it’s been hard not to notice the contrast between the slow-seeming federal response to the wave of violence and the vigor with which the government has been pursuing anti-abortion protesters lately. For instance, the F.B.I. recently sent more than a dozen agents to make a 7 a.m. arrest of Mark Houck, a Pennsylvania father of seven who allegedly shoved an abortion clinic volunteer more than a year ago, an altercation that led to no local charges. (Houck said he was defending his 12-year-old son from verbal abuse.) Around the same time, the Department of Justice charged 11 pro-life protesters with federal crimes allegedly committed while blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic in Tennessee; one defendant is an 87-year-old woman. We’ll see what happens in court; it’s certainly plausible that some of these protesters were in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. It also seems plausible, though, that under the ideological pressures of the moment, the Biden Justice Department is “fishing,” as Timothy Carney of The Washington Examiner puts it, for pro-life activists to arrest and charge, while pro-choice arsonists are just a lower priority. Social conservatives who nurture this suspicion do so in the shadow of their Covid-era experience, when there was a wide gap between the urgency with which progressive authorities went after lockdown violations that were coded as conservative and religious — Christian congregations, Jewish funerals — and the tolerance or even celebration that greeted violators protesting for causes that the authorities considered suitably progressive and obviously just. ‌There is a well-traveled online quotation that encapsulates the suspicions involved here, formulated by a composer named Frank Wilhoit commenting on a political-science blog in 2018. To quote Wilhoit, what social conservatives fear is that progressivism in power “consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” In other words, under progressive rule, abortion clinics get the law’s protection while racial-justice protesters aren’t bound by its requirements; meanwhile religious conservatives get to fear F.B.I. agents on their doorsteps while crimes against their own institutions go conspicuously unsolved. Actually, I’m not playing fair with the quotation. Wilhoit’s formulation was written to describe conservatism’s defense of in-groups and contempt for out-groups, conservatism’s inability to guarantee equal protection under the law. But it’s powerful precisely because it generalizes. What the formulation really captures is not the essence of conservatism but the tendency of any ideology in power to find excuses — often excellent-seeming ones! — to reward its friends and punish its opponents, to apply the rules of the game unequally, to limit principles like free speech, religious liberty and freedom of association whenever they seem to offer too much leeway to a hated enemy. I bring this up because much of contemporary liberalism, staring down the prospect of another electoral defeat, has convinced itself that this pattern exists only on the other side of the aisle, that only conservatives are plotting “endless political warfare” without any concern that it “might violate anybody’s rights,” as Jonathan Chait of New York magazine put it in a recent portrait of the national conservatism gathering in Florida. And indeed, much of Trump-era conservatism is convinced that worrying too much about classical-liberal niceties is a sucker’s game. But anyone who imagines that Trumpism took shape in isolation needs to understand how this “don’t be a sucker” attitude has been reaffirmed and strengthened by progressive governance that seems equally unconcerned about neutrality or fairness. Consider one of the sharpest contrasts in our national life right now, the difference between Gov. Ron DeSantis and Gov. Gavin Newsom, Florida and California. In liberal polemic, DeSantis is the frightening embodiment of illiberalism after Trump, a punitive practitioner of governmental overreach — using the powers of his office to go after corporations that speak out on liberal causes, undermining free speech in Florida universities, threatening unjust restrictions on medical care for gender-dysphoric kids. If you are a Florida progressive frightened by DeSantis’s political warfare, though, consider the position of a social or religious conservative in California in recent years. A recent summary from David French, himself no partisan of the populist right, is a good place to start: He writes that “over the last decade, California Democrats have launched their own frontal attack on the First Amendment, one that matches or exceeds Gov. DeSantis’s in both intensity and scale.” French’s examples include attempts to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortions, Covid-era restrictions on religious free exercise that the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down, requirements that churches provide abortion coverage in their health plans and prohibitions on state-sponsored travel to other states deemed too hostile to gay rights (currently 23 are on the list). To this list one might add the Diversity-Equity-Inclusion loyalty oaths expected of many academic job-seekers in California’s public universities. Or the state’s prosecution of David Daleiden, the pro-life muckraker who released videos showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing fetal dismemberment. Or the new Californian measure, signed by Newsom last month, threatening doctors with disciplinary action if they offer what the state considers Covid “misinformation” to their patients. If you read this list and think, “These sound like excellent, uncontroversial ideas,” congratulations, you’ve just made the conservative case for voting for DeSantis, if not for Trumpism redux. Because all of these policies ensure that under Californian conditions, dissenters from liberal orthodoxy experience the same “bound, but unprotected” relationship to the state and its policies that Florida progressives feel themselves experiencing with DeSantis. And to give up the weapons of state power that your opponents are using so freely feels, inevitably, like unilateral disarmament. But even if you can imagine your way into the other faction’s perspective, there’s still the question of how this cycle of polarization can be broken. French, a passionate classical liberal, tends to argue that what the nation needs is a recommitment to the ideals of fairness and neutrality; what he fears (and portrays in his book, “Divided We Fall”) is an escalatory cycle that pulls big liberal or conservative states into irresolvable conflict with a conservative or liberal-leaning federal government, and from there a slide toward national collapse. A stronger commitment to simple procedural fairness, an awareness of Wilhoit’s Law and the temptation it describes, would definitely help avert this slide. But it’s not simply a failure to commit to liberal ideals that creates the current escalatory dynamic. It’s the fact that liberalism as a system historically relies for peace, common ground and understanding on certain forms of moral consensus, even religious consensus, that its thinned-out proceduralism struggles to generate by itself. As I argued in my inaugural newsletter last week, in general you need liberalism plus some overarching vision to sustain solidarity, energy and hope. And you definitely need the “plus” to fully resolve questions like, “Is abortion a form of murder or a fundamental right?” or “Is it child abuse to give teenagers puberty blockers or child abuse to refuse them?” So what preserves a liberal order when there’s no such common vision, just the crumbled remains of one, with increasingly incommensurate visions of the good and true competing in the rubble? One answer might be conflict itself. In this theory the fight will eventually generate the truce: The reality that a sprawling empire of 300 million cannot be governed the way one would a deep-blue or red state will become more apparent the more intensely America’s different factions fight, until the current peak of culture war yields to a somewhat exhausted peace — with federalist solutions, acceptance of pluralism and difference, a recognition that we can remain one country with, say, varying abortion laws. Alternatively the working-out of conflict could yield an unexpected synthesis, perhaps via a partisan leader who can pivot to statesmanship when the opportunity arises. Or else the struggle could eventually vindicate one overarching vision and restore consensus through one side’s simple victory — a victory of the sort that progressivism supposed itself to have won already, in the Obama years, before the arc of history bent another way. But what’s very hard to see is how the struggle can be simply averted through a retreat to classical liberal principle, because there isn’t quite enough there there to found a lasting settlement. For better or worse, the future peace depends on the outcome of the present conflicts, and Newsom contra DeSantis shows the path ahead. I found this interesting reading. Hoping some of you on the board do too. mspart