whaletail

I'll read the article when I have a minute. But whether he was warned about a coming ice age in high school (is he serious?), or not, the science surrounding climate change is consistent. Antarctic ice melt and ice core sample data (not to mention 100+ years of temperature records) illustrate our climate has been warming since the mid 17th century. So far at least, the author agrees. Although correlation doesn't indicate causation, it's certainly interesting that the warming timeline begins with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lockstep with our fossil fuel consumption. Science has also consistently demonstrated the mechanism by which fossil fuel burning might heat up a planet with our atmosphere (through the depletion of atmospheric ozone, increased carbon dioxide production, and subsequent greenhouse effect). A mechanism that matches our own atmospheric observations. But frankly, who cares whether we're wholly responsible, merely a contributor, or somehow, completely innocent? Certainly not the consequences, which we're only just beginning to experience (e.g. wildfires and hurricanes are suddenly becoming much more common, and much more destructive). And the author's 'gotcha' comments about incorrect predictions? Early predictions about Antarctic ice melt and ozone depletion were wrong. What he neglects to mention? That the predictions were actually way too optimistic.

World Athletics (T&F governing body) does allow DSD women this opportunity. Semenya argues that HRT has too many side effects (psychological and physical), hasn't been proven safe for DSD women, and finally, that she should be able to compete as she was born. Although I still support the WA policy (at least tentatively), it's worth noting that DSD women have female genitalia, are raised as female, and unless they happen to show world class running ability, may never even know they're biologically different. They can't have children, and might learn about their condition as a result, but I suspect very few East African villagers seek western medical treatment because they can't conceive (I'm pretty sure DSD has never been documented outside of Kenya, Namibia and Botswana). So the idea that DSD athletes are either pretending to be women, or cheating in some fashion is absurd.

My ambivalence regarding whether DSD athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports reflects my own ignorance as well. Although I constantly read that they are 'biologically male', I've not seen that phrase defined with precision, let alone the assertion substantiated. Nor have I seen any research documenting their testosterone levels, and how they compare vs. elite female athletes. The intersection of biology and our cultural perspectives regarding "level playing fields" and allowable advantages etc. is also relevant to the DSD athlete debate. Finally, as an odd aside, these debates always leave me thinking about Spencer Lee vs. Anthony Robles, and the nature of disability/advantage. Specifically, why it seems taboo to even consider Robles' potential advantage(s) (and to a much lesser extent, Spencer's) and what that says about our obsession with level playing fields.

Never heard of Richard Posner? Chicago's law school and econ department aren't left leaning at all.

Rebut my argument

Just because he hasn't managed to criminalize dissent yet, doesn't mean we needn't worry. Honestly, if I hadn't been born here, I wouldn't even feel comfortable commenting as I have. If I were a legal immigrant, with a green card or a visa, I would be trying my absolute best to remain as under the radar as possible. I'd be terrified of being reported to ICE etc. as a malcontent. And that is already so far beyond acceptable that I'm gobsmacked every time someone minimizes/dismisses the idea that America's sliding into fascism. Our government is already kidnapping legal immigrants off the street - in terrifying fashion, and often enough, illegally deporting them, sometimes to godda^n prison. That they'll also knowingly, shamelessly, and repeatedly lie about these kidnappings is pretty scary as well. Moreover, given the administration's willingness to ignore the judiciary when displeased with rulings, and the fact that every one of them is an unqualified sycophantic lapdog, we have no idea what insane executive order the next 30 days will bring, and any confidence that we're safe from persecution is honestly poor judgment. And we haven't even begun to discuss how modern surveillance tech like Palantir and Clearview etc. immeasurably assist in monitoring populations, searching for dissent, finding anyone they'd like, and incredibly quickly. Finally, I doubt I'm the only one who already censors themselves on here. I very much hope I have nothing to worry about, but I'd be stupid to believe so.

Unfortunately, it seems Biden's utterly abysmal judgment, may well provide significant cover for Trump's obvious cognitive issues (which themselves pale in comparison to so many of his other issues). Although Biden was a milk toast centrist most of his career, and occasionally pretty scummy (see his treatment of Anita Hill during Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas' confirmation hearings), he appears to have been an excellent president. But to insist on running for re-election when he knew he was fading fast borders on the unforgivable. Whether it was delusion, conceit or simply bad judgment borne from incompetence, the decision to run was bad enough. But to actively hide your infirmity, and ask your closest supporters to assist in the cover-up - when the country you claim to "love" is facing an existential crisis - is absolutely mindblowing (and embarrassing). And for so many high-ranking dems to willingly assist in such a charade - whether out of loyalty, sense of obligation, or whatever, is even crazier.

That you're probably right is one of the fundamental reasons he - and his administration - are unfit for office.

Although I'm not an expert, I'd certainly imagine that our social welfare programs have added plenty of fraud. I suspect a lot less than many conservatives believe, but still a substantial amount. To me, however, the existence of fraud doesn't diminish the needs of the powerless and those suffering, or the value associated with programs that combat such suffering. In my opinion, it's a cost of doing business, much like a certain percentage of gross retail revenue is consistently offset by shoplifting. Retailers hire security etc. to minimize shoplifting losses, and raise prices to compensate for the unpreventable losses. Completely eliminating shoplifting, much like govt fraud, is either impossible or so expensive it might as well be.

I'm neither fiscally, nor socially conservative because: 1. I think the world is fundamentally unfair, and some groups obviously suffer disproportionally, and in myriad ways, as a result. Although I have enough trouble worrying about myself and those I love, government can certainly alleviate at least some of that suffering. Therefore, I think government should function to improve the lives of its entire citizenry, but especially those with the greatest need. 2. Therefore I think governments, especially those of the wealthiest nations, should spend money toward that end, providing services like universal health care (both mental and physical), universal access to shelter, clean water, food and other utilities, and try to alleviate as much poverty as possible. I also think it should patronize the arts and science as it did prior to Trump. As this is off the top of my head, I suspect I'm missing a number of other important areas where I think government spending is appropriate. 3. Although I'm not against government spending at all, I think it needs to recoup what it spends (and not pass debt down to later generations). Thankfully, we can easily pay for such services through increased taxes on large corporations and our wealthiest citizens. They've benefited tremendously from this country, both tangibly and intangibly, and can absorb such taxes without the suffering. 4. I also believe in an immutable separation of church and state, as well as a fundamental right to privacy and free thought. Although I view our Constitution as an incredible innovation, it must be a "living, evolving document". Our founding fathers were as human as anyone else, and the notion that 250 year old mandates must be followed as if sacrosanct is utterly absurd. Thus, I don't think government should legislate morality, save where safety and/or security are necessarily implicated. So, abortion would be universally legal prior to the approximate time when a fetus can survive outside the womb (~23 weeks IIRC), while assault and murder, etc. would remain illegal. That's my general ideology, its justification, and practical application via government.

Why? And what role do you think government should serve in society? Finally, as such a fiscal conservative, how can you possibly stand Trump? Not only will his Big Beautiful Bill balloon the national debt, it'll likely include more pork barrel spending than any previous bill in history. Moreover, he's probably been associated with as much fraud as any other elected official in modern history. From his real estate days, to his association with Trump University, and on to his various, current pay-for-access schemes, Trump's not just an ethics dumpster fire, he's a monumentally expensive dumpster fire. If you want the receipts with respect to the above allegations, and much, much more, read Lucky Loser. The authors spent two years forensically analyzing Trump's tax returns for the NYT (IIRC, obtained from Mary Trump, who received them as part of the discovery phase in Trump's lawsuit against her), and despite suing anyone and everyone for defamation, he won't sue these authors.

? BTW, I apologize for claiming your pork/fraud conflation is either dumb or disingenuous. It may be one of those two, but since some extreme examples of pork spending surely are basic fraud, the distinction can sometimes may seem semantic. But pork spending is a direct consequence of our quid pro quo legislative process, and only the most austere of fiscal conservatives would consider such spending to be universally wasteful (let alone fraud). We'd probably all agree that "hiding" so much spending in otherwise unrelated legislation is unfortunate (and probably inefficient as well), but until our legislative process is fundamentally revised, very few bills will get through the House and Senate without the inclusion of pork incentives.

Since it sounds like you were at least familiar with her prior to the documentary release, do you know anything about it's backstory? Notably, how it was financed, and how did such a complete nobody - whose story isn't even interesting*, come to the attention of such a seemingly 'high end' film crew? * beyond true crime fans' potential interest in her mother's murder, and how long Eve was subsequently alone with her body.

If Evans' allegations are correct, the NGO is almost certainly committing fraud. The initial contract may have been pork, but that's an entirely separate discussion. More broadly, whether Scouts Honor is being disingenuously obtuse, or just isn't too bright, I don't know, but jesus christ are these threads revealing. Whether its Vak Attack, Uncle Bernard or Scourge pulling the trigger, every one is as one-sided as shooting fish in a barrel. And if Socra-tease or Billy Hoyle ever enter the fray, wow, this place'll be an abattoir.

I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of a non-wrestler (or someone completely unfamiliar with the sport). Would they recognize the absurdity of her goal/journey etc., or view her as a legitimate participant (an underdog, but someone who's at least prepared enough to win a few matches)? Would they realize her story wasn't really worth telling (at least not her wrestling story)? That she hadn't earned the opportunity to scrap with a wrestler like Mallory Velte, and even further, that her "holding her own" would actually have devalued the sport itself. I'm also curious how this came about. Did she finance it, and hire a film crew etc., or did someone actually meet her and decide her story was worth telling? Because as uninteresting as her wrestling "journey" really is, the film crew is clearly very competent. At a glance, this was as well made a documentary as any I've seen. In fact, the early U.S. Open wrestling sequences were incredible. From the camera angles to the sound mix, I'm not sure I've ever seen wrestling appear so viscerally violent. Finally, Eve herself is much less delusional than I expected. She doesn't pretend to be better than she is (at least not in the 15 minutes I've seen), nor does she seem to think she's better than she is. She seems to know she's going to get steamrolled at the Open, and even mentions she's only going because she couldn't find an online fight or submission grappling opponent that weekend.

Considering Fox News has become America's mainstream media, I agree. Well, I'm not sure their anchors outright lie, but their opinion hosts (Hannity et al.) absolutely do (see Dominion v. Fox News for details). And both their news anchors and op ed hosts aggressively promote right wing talking points, without any real attempt to be "fair and balanced". MSNBC seems pretty left wing, but IMO they're nowhere near as partisan as Fox News. If you can point me to research etc. that suggests otherwise, I'll certainly read it. I'm sure most reporters probably do lean left, but also bend over backwards to appear unbiased. Which is how we end up with the NYT mentioning Biden's age in a negative context much more often than Trump's age, propensity to babble, and even his constant dishonesty. But if you don't realize that Fox News has become America's mainstream media, just look at their market share. Edit: BTW, who has lied on this airplane issue, and how? And are you seriously claiming to suddenly believe an administration that has told two or three different stories about this plane since the story broke? When Pam Biondi claims Abrego Gracia is an MS-13 gang member, without any evidence at all, do you believe her? Do you believe her claims that the 2020 election was stolen, despite all 64 court cases being thrown out? Trump's been gloating about owning this airplane from the beginning, and the admin has been trying to craft a narrative that somehow reconciles his claims with American law.

As thoughtful as you are regarding wrestling news, how can you possibly follow this story and conclude its fake news? From a broader perspective, how can you possibly view Trump - and the entirety of the GOP - as anything but an incompetent, corrupt, and yes - fascist dumpster fire? Admittedly, the Dems haven't done much to help themselves, and the unfolding story about Biden's decision to run for re-election while his mind was precipitously declining is devastating. That Democratic insiders actively tried to cover it up makes it even worse. Their ethics, and competence leaves much to be desired, and Biden - who actually appears to have been an excellent President, will die with his legacy in tatters. And yeah, wokeism can sometimes get annoying. When the Dems want to show solidarity with displaced Indians by holding pow-wows in the Capitol building to lament the theft of Indian lands, with zero interest in giving back said land, all you can do is roll your eyes. But at its core, beyond all the theatrics, woke only means one thing. A recognition that the world is unfair (and I guess the belief that government should function to improve the lives of the governed). But to view Trump - and the current GOP - in anything remotely resembling a favorable light, you have to somehow explain away the following (just off the top of my head): - The Trump University con that emphatically exposed his corruption back in 2015-16. TU was found civilly liable for, I think fraud and misrepresentation, etc., and while Trump was not running the place, I'm pretty sure he was shown to have been well aware of their business practices, and directly profited from them. - His repeated business failures; from impulsively, repeatedly overspending on real estate (after the NYT obtained his tax returns from Mary Trump, they eventually published a 2018 article detailing his father's repeated bailouts, his own tax shenanigans, his business failings etc. The article authors eventually published the book Lucky Loser last year, and unsurprisingly, Trump has yet to file a defamation suit) - statements from dozens of top officials from his first administration, detailing everything from his inability to read briefings longer than a paragraph, waking up at noon to watch Fox News all day, frequent tantrums when under any duress at all, complete unfamiliarity with how government functions, inability to keep from sharing sensitive, often classified info with others w/o security clearance, to how easily influenced he was by whatever that last person to speak with him said (the prime example being his first term China tariffs, and how they arose). - his unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election, which were thrown out by 64 separate courts (the majority of which were right wing, many with Trump appointees). Not a single court validated any of his claims. - the revelation that SCOTUS justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito had each accepted millions of dollars worth of gifts and luxury vacations from right wing business owners, many of whom had claims before the court, and all of whom had significant interest in maintaining influence with the court. Alito even had the gall to try and head off the news by writing a Washington Post editorial in which he argued that he didn't realize he needed to disclose such gifts, while also excoriating the public for attacking his integrity and not giving him the benefit of the doubt. - Meanwhile, an upside American flag - which represents the claim that the 2020 election was stolen - flew at Alito's home for months. He claims it was his wife's doing, and that he didn't know about it. Multiple witnesses - including his own friends and neighbors - dispute this. - Despite a Congressional subpoena, both justices refused to testify before lawmakers, and Chief Justice John Roberts refused to amend any of the court's related ethics rules. - Trump's refusal to debate on 60 Minutes with fact checkers present, after every major news organization (including Fox News I think) noted his complete dishonesty during the first debate. - While I'll admit most journalists are probably left leaning, they bend over backwards to appear unbiased. So much so that, for example, the NYT mentioned Biden's age and cognitive issues nearly twice as often as Trump's age, dishonesty, and propensity to aimlessly babble when answering questions. Meanwhile, Fox News, which has become the mainstream media, and is anything but unbiased. Documents revealed during the Dimension defamation suit showed network hosts - both editorial and news anchors - constantly agitating on-air about the election being stolen, while interoffice emails revealed they knew very well the election hadn't been stolen at all. - The entire January 6th debacle, which sure appeared to be an attempted violent insurrection to me (and everybody else trapped in the building at the time, GOP members of Congress included), and the subsequent pardoning of every single individual involved. I'm now worn out, but if needs must, I'll continue adding to the list tomorrow. Mind, I haven't even gotten past the 2020 election, and the above is just off the top of my head. I'm genuinely curious how anyone can even begin to dismiss any single one the above issues, let alone all of them, as fake news.

Biden didn't put anybody on any terror watch lists. That said, if the dept. of Homeland Security did put anyone on such a list SOLELY for nonviolent, anti-COVID mandate advocacy during the Biden administration, then yes, that's absolutely alarming, and fascist. Given Fox News' credibility, however, I suspect those supposedly added to watch lists for their beliefs alone, were actually added for other, specific links to domestic terrorism. Not that past Democratic administrations have been always bastions of anti-fascism, of course, but the current administration's open embrace of fascism is existentially terrifying.

Whoosh! (and your complete lack of respect for capital letters isn't just shameful, but super shameful)

If nothing else, I thought academics would be an issue at UNC. I'm not sure where any NIL money would come from either. No fan support that I've ever noticed, and no prior NIL acquisitions to speak of. Makes me even less confident in the numbers being thrown around elsewhere, as it's hard to imagine AJ turning down that kind of money to attend UNC.

Mike Faust, the Gilman heavyweight (later went to Penn)? If so, I was a few years ahead of him at Gilman, same class as Rock (Gerard Harrison). Rock and I were pretty even until high school, when I got bigger and he got better. By the time we were seniors, I couldn't even take him down in practice anymore. But the best guy I ever wrestled is easy; Sheldon Thomas (1x NCAA champ at Clarion, 2x 3rd I think). We wrestled at least 5x, from 7th grade (when I was a second year Junior League wrestler) through high school, and he beat the brakes off me every time. I did he take him down, though, the last time we wrestled. I got in deeper on a duck under than I ever should have, and he was so out of position, he pretty much gave up the two just to get back on his offense quicker. And he did just that, eventually pinning me. I wasn't anything special, but that was the only time I was pinned in high school, and maybe the only back points I gave up that year. As an aside, me and a buddy attended the '97 NCAAs at Northern Iowa, and rented a room from a local family. Sheldon's family just happened to be staying in the same house, and I still remember how sad they were that Friday night after he lost. The defending champ and undefeated #1 seed, I'm pretty sure he lost to Iowa's #8 seed Jesse Whitmer in the quarterfinals, but came back to win four straight on the back side and finish third. Whitmer went on to beat Lindsay Durlacher in the finals, and Iowa set the NCAA scoring record (since beaten by PSU).

Fair point, and I don't think refs can even begin to parse organic exchanges from the contrived. Although I suspect Petersen got screwed by the rule, not every problem has a solution, and this one's at least a rarity.

When a wrestler requires injury time after an exchange that ends in a potentially dangerous call, should his opponent still get choice for the restart? This heavily impacted the Dean Petersen/Caleb Smith 125lb Big10 semifinal, as Smith was able to choose bottom during SV. During the prior exchange, both wrestlers' knees were loaded against the joint during a neutral scramble. When the ref eventually called PD, Petersen immediately grabbed his knee, and appeared to be screaming in pain. I think it's at least worth the rules committee's time to review the issue.

Rock and I were high school teammates and oddly enough, I remember him being a bit of an introvert. Not my favorite commentator, and his excitement can sometimes feel manufactured, but he does know what he's watching.

Beatrice Chebet looking like the next distance star. Americans stayed with the lead pack until the final lap, and the Italian who nearly medaled in the 5K damn near outkicked Chebet. And Sifan medals again, with a marathon left for the trifecta! Tsegay out of the medals again, but still with a shot in the 1500. Still not as exciting as the men's 10K or 1500 (best race I've ever seen); mostly a coronation for Chebet. Overall, Team USA's track performance has been what I hoped wrestling would be. Won't happen this year, but remember, the men had no track golds in Tokyo and look at their performance this year (5 golds off the top of my head, plus completely unexpected bronze medals from Nuguse and Grant Fisher, and a silver from Rooks in the steeple). A similar rebound in MFS would be ~3-4 golds and a medal at 65kg (I view Fisher's 10k bronze as akin to medaling at 65kg)