Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe also. Point is, being smaller is an advantage in competition, but as Dei said, there was concern raised about sending children to the olympics (and the accompanying pressure, stress, and whatnot that entails), so the rules said "no gymnasts under 16."
China was all "we know you can't fucking tell how old any of us are."
And we were all "dude, that child is 3 feet tall and has baby teeth."
And China was all "nuh uh, here's her birth certificate, see? She's 16."
And we were all "dude, the ink is still wet on that."
And the IOC was all "This is China's olympics, we don't see anything, move along."
Because China gets SO MAD when it isn't the best at everything forever.
Mostly it's because the younger you are, the greater the percentage of your skeleton which is still cartilaginous, which means you're still more bendy than someone older than you, which oh hey could be considered an unfair advantage.
--Patrick
Also in the case of female competitors, no boobs. Messes with how you're doing everything with two big floppy weights up top.
I'm pretty sure we're already talking about female competitors, because male gymnast criteria is vastly different than female. I can't think of any male gymnast age scandals. (Also because of the rigor of training, even the older gymnasts don't really have boobs)
Back when this originally happened, I remember reading an essay/post by a gymnast who was on the "Olympic Track" and then was just "out" as soon as she started developing. The cruel comments she reported from her former "friends" was particularly harsh. She was skinny in every other way, but her "natural development" wasn't dependent on that to any great degree. And her career was over. AA-cups only in competition, or close. It was a rather heartbreaking article, though at the same time, it did highlight why the age thing was such a "fuck you" to competitors who had gone through the "natural" sorting process and were 16+ and still had nothing up top. Many of these girls could have gone at 10 (or whatever) prior to development, but for all the other reasons here aren't eligible.
So this gets into other things about body type versus ability and such, but it's still "a thing" based on "optimal" body type for the activities done. At that level, the slightest "imperfection" matters.
I mean, my daughter does gymnastics, and you can see the huge difference body type makes even at young ages. My daughter is not a small lithe thing (not fat, just not rail thin), and she struggles to do tricks that a lot of the spidery girls do easily. That said, there are girls who buck the trend of willowiness, but they have to be phenomenal. Simone Biles comes to mind, she's short as fuck, but she got a LOT of flak for not being "graceful" just because she was more muscle and power body type than the traditional skinniness.
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/...x-bill-wipes-us-out-destroys-thousands-of?amp
Ha ha ha ha, holy shit. That greasy set of eyebrows Bob Murray says the Republican tax plan will destroy the coal industry.
Ha ha ha ha, holy shit. That greasy set of eyebrows Bob Murray says the Republican tax plan will destroy the coal industry.
The supreme court heard arguments Tuesday regarding a gay marriage/cake baker case:
Transcript:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
NYtimes article (summary of main points):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/...version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Mostly the same discussions we've heard and hashed over time and time again, but it does appear that two primary points of contention between the two sides will be key:
- whether baking a cake for a gay wedding is discriminating against the identity of the customers, or the event
- whether baking a cake is speech (ie, art), thus making anti-discrimination laws compelled speech
They also spent a lot of time asking what the differentiators are that would prevent a ruling for the baker from causing inequality in other businesses. Does this mean photographers hired for an event could refuse? What about architects if asked to design a wedding chapel? They did focus on just gay wedding events, though, so it's clear that if there's a ruling that it wouldn't enable hotels to refuse rooms to gay couples, but there remained an open question on what the difference is between a cake baker and a caterer, and whether one would be protected speech and the other wouldn't if the ruling favored the baker.
Note that they've refused similar cases before due primarily to the idea that all the court cases regarding biracial marriages apply the same way (and thus a baker cannot refuse their artistic services due to religious beliefs about racial marriage).
However, all the lower courts have ruled against the baker, and the supreme court, now changed set of justices, have accepted the case.
They could rule either way, at this point. Kennedy still appears to be the key swing justice, and the court is still fairly partisan. So a lot of the arguments appear to be geared towards convincing Kennedy, given his very strong support of both equality and free speech. It could be they accepted the case so they could overturn the lower court rulings, but it could also be they did so in order to set a precedent and stop all these other similar court cases now that gay marriage pretty firmly established as a constitutionally protected right.
Transcript:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
NYtimes article (summary of main points):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/...version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
Mostly the same discussions we've heard and hashed over time and time again, but it does appear that two primary points of contention between the two sides will be key:
- whether baking a cake for a gay wedding is discriminating against the identity of the customers, or the event
- whether baking a cake is speech (ie, art), thus making anti-discrimination laws compelled speech
They also spent a lot of time asking what the differentiators are that would prevent a ruling for the baker from causing inequality in other businesses. Does this mean photographers hired for an event could refuse? What about architects if asked to design a wedding chapel? They did focus on just gay wedding events, though, so it's clear that if there's a ruling that it wouldn't enable hotels to refuse rooms to gay couples, but there remained an open question on what the difference is between a cake baker and a caterer, and whether one would be protected speech and the other wouldn't if the ruling favored the baker.
Note that they've refused similar cases before due primarily to the idea that all the court cases regarding biracial marriages apply the same way (and thus a baker cannot refuse their artistic services due to religious beliefs about racial marriage).
However, all the lower courts have ruled against the baker, and the supreme court, now changed set of justices, have accepted the case.
They could rule either way, at this point. Kennedy still appears to be the key swing justice, and the court is still fairly partisan. So a lot of the arguments appear to be geared towards convincing Kennedy, given his very strong support of both equality and free speech. It could be they accepted the case so they could overturn the lower court rulings, but it could also be they did so in order to set a precedent and stop all these other similar court cases now that gay marriage pretty firmly established as a constitutionally protected right.
While i share the sentiment, let's not dismiss the idea that this asshole is just saying that because he wants to do another set of firings to increase his profit margins (automation says "hi"), but blame someone else for them... like he did with Obama back in the day.
Here's a CBC link on the story: Al Franken to resign from U.S. Senate amid new sexual misconduct allegations
I would ask one thing though: Is he going to run again, or is this "permanent" for him?
I ask because that trick was played out by a Canadian MP back in the 90s (Sheila Copps) where she said "If our government doesn't eliminate the GST, I'll resign." (For those americans, the GST is the Goods and Services Tax, a widely unpopular consumption tax put in by the government previous to her party winning) This was because it was a campaign promise of her party to eliminate said tax. Then they didn't eliminate it, and 3 years later she resigned... and then re-ran in the by-election for her riding (what you call districts), and won. So she "resigned" and then got her exact old job back right away.
So is this happening with Franken? Or is he just gone? From reports, it seems like he's gone, but just asking because such a thing can (obviously) happen.
Who can tell?
He's probably out of the running for anything political until the country has moved on from this current period of sexual assault reveals, but both sides of the aisle are already justifying their politicians remaining in positions even after allegations - Franken wouldn't have left if it weren't for new claims surfacing, and chances are good that if he didn't leave even more claims would pile up. Moore is in a similar position and if we don't get new claims my guess is by the time he's up for re-election it won't have as much an impact on the election as it probably should.
So in 2-5 years we'll have moved well past this enough (moved past --> comfortably numb) that he could conceivably run again, make his apologies, claim a fundamental change, and he would receive partisan support as long as there wasn't someone obviously better on the DNC side.
That said, he's 66 now. It's much harder to win elections in your late 60's and early 70's.
This is less than a month old, for instance:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-al-franken-to-resign/?utm_term=.d78cf166cc1e
And essentially echoes the same arguments feminists used to defend President Clinton when he faced impeachment: "He may be bad, but he's a necessary evil."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-al-franken-to-resign/?utm_term=.d78cf166cc1e
And essentially echoes the same arguments feminists used to defend President Clinton when he faced impeachment: "He may be bad, but he's a necessary evil."
GasBandit
Staff member
Quick everybody, taken out of context, would this be about:
- Al Franken
- Hillary Clinton
- Roy Moore
- Any one of countless other politicians who only have a chance because "the other guy is not an option"
Oh great, I read a little more about his speech. From one article:
It's a long game, but he's going to play it and maybe it'll pay off for him.[DOUBLEPOST=1512672577,1512672479][/DOUBLEPOST]The thing about Moore is that if he is re-elected, he will essentially have a mandate - his constituents actively want him despite the accusations.
What a mess.[DOUBLEPOST=1512673033][/DOUBLEPOST]Resignation playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry...ent.2Freversal.2C_and_motion_to_withdraw_plea
He has no intention or desire to resign. He's hoping that this will get his accusers off his back, he's planning on voting and continuing to participate meanwhile, and if Moore wins his election he's probably going to renounce his resignation using Moore as an excuse.
It's a long game, but he's going to play it and maybe it'll pay off for him.[DOUBLEPOST=1512672577,1512672479][/DOUBLEPOST]The thing about Moore is that if he is re-elected, he will essentially have a mandate - his constituents actively want him despite the accusations.
What a mess.[DOUBLEPOST=1512673033][/DOUBLEPOST]Resignation playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry...ent.2Freversal.2C_and_motion_to_withdraw_plea
Speaking of Roy Moore, he thinks that America was better during the heyday of slavery.
http://www.newsweek.com/roy-moore-last-time-america-great-during-slavery-741845
On Al Franken, as much as he seems to be a force for good in the senate, he should fuck off. One doesn't invalidate the other. As I said in the sexual misconduct thread, all your faves are scum.
http://www.newsweek.com/roy-moore-last-time-america-great-during-slavery-741845
On Al Franken, as much as he seems to be a force for good in the senate, he should fuck off. One doesn't invalidate the other. As I said in the sexual misconduct thread, all your faves are scum.
Why? Trump was elected after saying he can grab women by the genitals and he assaults women. Oh, right, Franken isn't a Republican, so it's not ok then that he played it for laughs.
As an aside, I'm ok with Franken stepping down. They were stupid actions and were apparently a pattern (though some of the allegations he's denied, some he's apologized for). I'm just sick of the double standard placed on these politicians.
This is unexpected, especially with the election soon: Roy Moore accuser admits altering yearbook entry
Fox: Roy Moore accuser admits she wrote part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama Senate candidate
She's claiming she only added the date and location, but that Moore signed it. But altering evidence at all is... well it makes the whole thing look sketchy, regardless of what actually happened.
Has there been any handwriting experts, or whatever on that document?
Fox: Roy Moore accuser admits she wrote part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama Senate candidate
She's claiming she only added the date and location, but that Moore signed it. But altering evidence at all is... well it makes the whole thing look sketchy, regardless of what actually happened.
Has there been any handwriting experts, or whatever on that document?
LOL, don't you know, unless he admits it, it won't be believed.
GasBandit
Staff member
Over 10 years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Let's check in and see how that worked out for them.
TLDR:
TLDR:
So it was a disaster then...
But where did they get their state employees then?
Yeah, no, because those are illegal in the civilized world.
C’mon, they’re on the Internet, you know there’s no guarantee they’re really black.
—Patrick