Recent Comments

1. over 3 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Alas, if you’re a salt-water species, having the salinity of the ocean diluted by having more than 3 times as much fresh water dumped into it isn’t going to do you any good. Not to mention all the silt and debris that will be churned up, choking you.

   Oh, and the fact that dumping all that water onto the surface of the water that fast will actually cause it to boil due to the energy involved.

2. over 3 years ago on Tank McNamara

   What team doesn’t have pinstripes? Cox cable here in San Diego has “The Padres Channel” as part of basic service and way back when, they ran ads to get people to watch with a player answering questions from the fans.

   One was, “Why do so many team uniforms have pinstripes?”

   He turned to the camera and started to say, “I don’t think there are that many—-”

   And the screen suddenly turned into a quick-flash montage of all the pinstripe uniforms the various teams use.

   Back to the player, “OK…you might have a point.”

   And the BoSox did have pinstripes in the 90s.

3. over 3 years ago on For Better or For Worse

   “Dinner” used to be considered the main meal of the day and it used to be eaten around midday, what we now consider “lunch.” “Supper” was eaten in the evening and was a lighter meal.

   These days, the big meal is eaten in the evening and thus, “dinner” moved to when “supper” used to be and the words became synonymous for the evening meal with “lunch” taking the place of the midday meal.

4. over 4 years ago on Doonesbury

   You do realize that comic strips are written weeks before they are published, yes? It takes time to pencil, ink, and color, get it past editors, into distribution for newspapers (they do still exist), etc.

5. over 5 years ago on Tank McNamara

   Chuck Norris can perform oral gratification on my reproductive organs.

6. over 5 years ago on Bloom County 2019

   But thay hinges on the definition of “board.” They, like you, are ignoring the contract of carriage. The article talks about denying boarding, but what about after the passenger has boarded?

   The contract of carriage is clear: There is a difference between denial of boarding and refusal to transport. If you have already boarded, they can no longer deny you boarding because you have already boarded. They can only remove you if they are refusing to transport.

   And the contract of carriage specifies a list if justifications to refuse transport. Being a safety risk, for example, can get you kicked off the plane after you’ve boarded because that is one if the reasons listed for refusal to transport.

   We need the seat for an employee is not one of them. If they need the seat for an employee, they need to deny boarding. Once the passenger has boarded, it’s too late.

   So here’s the 64 million dollar question: What does it mean to have “boarded” the plane? If it requires the plane to be shut, pushed away from the gate, and on its way down the runway, then thay doesn’t really mean anything. If you have presented your ticket, had them scan it, and they allowed you to enter the plane, stow your luggage, and take your seat, then how is that not having “boarded” the plane? Yes, your seat is not guaranteed, but that doesn’t mean much when you’re already sitting in it having jumped through all the hoops required to take it.

   And note: The contract of carriage is different from airline to airline. American’s section regarding refusal to transport indicates that the list “is not limited” to just the items on the list.

   United’s contract doesn’t have that language. Rule 21 only states:

   “UA shall have the right to refuse transport on a permanent or temporary basis or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:”

   And again, needing the seat for an employee is not listed.

7. over 6 years ago on Doonesbury

   You seem to be confusing the Republican lies about the ACA with reality.

   Most insurance is through your job and those plans didn’t change. Thus, you kept your doctor. Indeed, there were some changes where policies that didn’t really cover anything were done away with in exchange for actual insurance. That may have required people to switch to a different company and thus, depending upon which insurance plans their doctors accepted, may have required them to change doctors, but that’s true whenever you change plans.

   Surely you aren’t saying that nobody has ever changed plans, have you? That your doctor has never changed which insurance plans they take?

   And as all of the financial analyses have shown, the cost of insurance is less under the ACA than it would have been had it not passed. You see, insurance costs have always gone up. To pretend that somehow the ACA is responsible for any increase in costs is just another Republican lie. Instead, under the ACA, that growth curve has lowered (and in some areas, gone down). You are paying less under the ACA than you would be if it hadn’t passed.

   Now, the Republicans have done a lot to sabotage the ACA. Marco Rubio’s gutting of payments to insurance companies to make up for the influx of new patients with pre-existing conditions (which they are not allowed to refuse) made it worse. The decision by the SCOTUS regarding Medicare expansion being optional has made it worse. Imagine how much better it would be if the Republicans would stop trying to end it but instead worked to make it better.

   Of course, we all know what better means: Single-payer, universal coverage. That’s how Medicaid works and it is extremely efficient. That’s how the VA system works (even more “socialist” since the doctors work for the VA and they have their own hospitals) and it routinely provides better care for less money than private insurance.

   So it would seem I was correct.

8. over 6 years ago on Doonesbury

   And amazingly, most people kept their doctor, they kept their plan, and they paid less than if the ACA hadn’t been enacted.

   It’s like you don’t know what you’re talking about….

9. about 7 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   If you don’t like being tagged as a bigot, stop acting like one.

   Don’t you find it interesting that Trump was adamant on multiple occasions that there were “good people on both sides” of a white supremacist rally while that doesn’t seem to be case regarding players in the NFL?

   It’s precious how you think “Socialism” (not the capital “S”) is a bad thing. (chuckle) As if you knew what “Socialism” was. Hint: What do you think the military you revere so highly is?

10. over 7 years ago on Tank McNamara

    Um, Serena has already said she wouldn’t be able to play against the top male players.

    The issue comes down to the meaning of “best.” If it means “able to take on all comers of any type,” that’s one thing. If it means, “most achievements for their sport,” that’s another. The top level of the women’s game is a real thing and it requires real skill and talent to be able to be at the top of it because all the top players are at that level. That the top men could clean their clocks doesn’t change that fact. There’s a reason that Serena has more Grand Slam singles titles under her belt than any male player. There’s a reason that Graf has more time at #1 than any male player. There’s a reason that Navratilova has more Grand Slam titles than any male player. There’s a reason that Chris Everett was the winningest player in all of tennis with more match titles than any other player, male or female.

    So the idea of “best” very much depends upon what you mean by that term. Even looking at just the women’s game, define what you mean by “best.” A case could easily be made for any of Serena, Graff, Navratilova, Everett, and Court. And all of their records surpass the comparable stats for the men. So in order to define “best” among all players female and male, you’re going to have to be more specific.

    If all you mean is, “most likely to win a single match against any given opponent,” then yeah, it’s going to be a man. Somehow, I think most of us would consider that a pretty poor concept of “best.”