Bio not provided
Tiger sharks are highly nomadic so it is highly illogical to assert there is a "resident" population of Tiger sharks (e.g., as if "gauging" risk management) when, as here, the cues from the chumming could have just as easily attracted the interest of a "non-resident" Tiger shark returning from a trans-Atlantic migration, i.e., in dire metabolic need of sustenance.
Tiger sharks have been dubbed the "garbage can" of the sea but "hyena of the sea" is perhaps more accurate. They are voracious eaters and often consume the entire body, i.e., like a hyena that typically eats more of the prey than other, competing apex predators without such generalist feeder adaptations. And any reasonable construction of either's ecological niche tends to show hunting and scavenging are hardly mutually exclusive, but rather, exist in perfect symmetry.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victim's family.
5 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Shark-Diver-Goes-Missing-In-Bahamas.htmlundefined
Oh spare us the LIES and crocodile tears.
The EVIDENCE proves that since the ACA was enacted, Health Care costs have SLOWED to the most favorable levels in decades. My personal premium went down from $720 to $348 and I get ACTUAL COVERAGE.
So, what is the "point" of your FALSE and MISLEADING narrative if it isn't to "return to the status quo" which gives the Insurance Companies this unfettered right to deny coverage on a fabricated technicality? Oh, I forgot.
You are just another "paid for" voice that is as phony as the "Tea Party" itself. What a JOKE that you try to "impute" propaganda to the Obama Administration from PROVIDING a net SAVINGS of TRILLIONS to the Treasury over the next 100 years (that is, on account of the ACA and assuming the People are poisoned to death by Benzene and Methane via GOP "fracking") but lo and behold, fail to juxtapose that against the GOP predecessor or its proffered heir.
Taken to its illogical conclusion, Jeb
Bush’s rhetoric fails to account for the $4 TRILLION+ that the
“unilateralism”/Bush Doctrine proximately resulted in “costs to the US
Taxpayers” in Iraq. Now, of course, the Foreign Puppeteer funding the “Tea
Party” wants to “divide post-WWII Western Civilization” by hypocritically
denouncing “Russian aggression” when, as here, there is NO MENTION whatsoever
of the “cause and effect” of Putin “not establishing order via Military force
in Ukraine.” What, is the Bush Administration/Tea Party’s decision “not to
declare martial law” after invading Iraq not as much of a proximate cause for
the “chaos” that ensued?
Tell me, what "good" for the
People are these PHONY "distinctions" between one alleged
"wing" of the GOP when THEY ALL VOTE THE SAME WAY? For all the
shopworn BS about how "ideology" drives the decisions, it is just
allegiance to the SAME lobbyist regime that RULES the GOP and, as such,
operates to SUBVERT the People's best interests. So, feel free to
"regurgitate" this LOBBYIST-driven narrative that whether or not GOP
incumbents like Sen. Cornyn are "primaried" for "not being
conservative enough" makes one iota of difference to the voters. It
doesn't. The “new” Tea Party GOP is modeled after “the Reagan figurehead
leader” model than W personified.
Above all, if the last Bush
Administration inherited the STRONGEST US Economy in History- with a record
surplus, no less- why would any rational, educated voter believe for one second
that the RESULTS that followed- the Bush Administration left office with RECORD
DEFICITS that were only exacerbated when its DEREGULATON of Wall St. REQUIRED
the very “government bailouts” it futilely attempts to “pin” on President
Obama. Gee, not unlike how Tea Party puppet Rand Paul is trying to “pin” the
UNLAWFUL NSA program on President Obama DESPITE the EVIDENCE that the program
was PUT IN PLACE by the Bush Administration. How is this UNDISPUTED FACT not
even challenged in the (once mighty) Media?
Equally inapt is the “paid for” poll
data that (ahem) the democrats will not pick up substantial seats in the House
in 2014 by simply running on passing much more comprehensive Budgetary measures
(e.g., closing Corporate tax loopholes) to "bolster" this underlying
STRENGTHENING of the State by working on behalf of the People again (see,
“Inequality for All” documentary on Netflix Instant). What, after the Tea
Party-led GOP has made repeated ADMISSIONS about its intent to “kill Social
Security/Medicaid/Medicare”…voters aren’t going to “vote the lesser of two
evils into power” and, in doing so, (what else) simply avert the "suicidal"
Tea Party politics? Sure, right.
Here, the FOREIGN FUNDED GOP is going to
"bet" its fortunes on the Tea Party candidates that effectuated the
injurious "shut down" and overt threats to "end all
entitlements"…despite the “political suicide” that entails. As such,
voters are just going to vote them out.
Between (1) "a democratic majority
that ends corporate giveaways" and (2) "a Tea Party-led anarchy that
wants to nail the coffin shut on the middle class by refusing to even fund the
State, Education, Health Care, General Welfare and Common Defense"? For
what the democrats may lack in terms of controlling the Media message, they
make up for in pragmatic appeal and clearly provide the best path back to what
America was under Clinton Administration.
All Jeb Bush wants to do is “finish the
plan” to reform the Federal government into a shell of what Federalism REQUIRES
such that a few “tax free” states (TX, WY and FL) can further “erode”
Federalism and run roughshod over the Dormant Commerce Clause with such
unlawful piracy of the Several States’ established businesses. None of this is
“good” for America and, when asked if it is even lawful, the GOP “leaders” like
Jeb Bush REFUSE TO ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
Is that what the voters want? The
“Decider” to “wage war on entitlements at home” and “create conflicts” abroad
that purportedly “justify” the UNLAWFUL DIVERSION of US TAXPAYER REVENUE to,
gee, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc.
Conspicuously, despite their repeated
lip service to the Constitution, NOT ONE GOP ‘LEADER’ can reconcile the
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT that their “pledge” to a LOBBYIST has on performing their
FUNCTION as an elected official in Congress, i.e., the PLENARY POWER to RAISE
Sorry, there is NOTHING in Article I,
Section 8- much less the 14th Amendment- that “sanctions” the
disparate treatment of CORPORATIONS under Federal Income tax laws. Period.
The IRS must “claw back” ALL FEDERAL
INCOME TAX OWED SINCE 2000 as a matter of “strict construction” of the
"After the event, even the fool is
wise." - Viscount Symonds
8 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117227/fox-news-graphic-obamacare-updated-7-million-enrollment
Taken to its illogical conclusion, the SAME GOP declarants prating on and on about their "plan to repeal and replace" the ACA (or "Obamacare") oppose raising taxes to PAY for the GOP's "Obamacare reform," correct?
Tell me, why is it that the (once mighty) media has yet to even force a GOP member of Congress to DIRECTLY ADDRESS the fiscal cost of “repealing and replacing"Obamacare- that is, approximate the ACTUAL, out-of-pocket cost including, butnot limited to (1) the rising, unsustainable costs of Health Care under theprior format to be reinstated [i.e., with ZERO guarantees whatsoever they won’tbe HIGHER]; (2) the direct and indirect costs to date of passing Obamacare andimplementation [i.e., what, do you think the People don’t absorb the ACTUALcosts to date if the GOP gets to “repeal” or “undo” Obamacare?] and (3) thenadd, of course, the direct and indirect costs of "changing back to the oldlaws."
Equally inapt is the notion
that the (once mighty) media has no will or ability to even question the
legality of the GOP’s proposed State Action on a wide array of political issues
that touch and concern Fundamental Rights of the People.
What, the CITIZENS of the Several
States don’t have Due Process rights
selectively incorporated via the 14th
Amendment if the “paid for” Tea Party FALSE and MISLEADING super-PAC bribes
What, the case law OUTLAWING
Gerrymandering based on race “is no
longer the law” if the “paid for” Tea
Party FALSE and MISLEADING super-PAC bribes say so? [see, Shaw v. Hunt
517 U.S. 899]
What, the case law OUTLAWING
Gerrymandering based on
politics “is no longer the law”
if the “paid for” Tea
Party FALSE and MISLEADING super-PAC bribes say so? [see,
Davis v. Bandemer
That too, is a subversive
as bereft of legal authority as the shopworn notion that "the Citizens United decision" somehow "protects" UNPROTECTED SPEECH, e.g., blatantly FALSE and MISLEADING "statistics" about the ACA. It is time for the People to DEMAND that the Executive branch actually wield the Separation of Powers in order to ensure the People get the benefit of the Social Contract our Founding Fathers entered into. By way of example, there is EXPRESS LANGUAGE in the Constitution that touch and concerns (1) the Appointment Power and (2) the legal duty [read: PLENARY POWER] of Congress to RAISE REVENUE to provide for the General Welfare and Common Defense. There is nothing "discretionary" about these FUNCTIONS of our government and it is time for the Executive branch to coerce COMPLIANCE with the CONSTITUTION the GOP members of Congress have made official admissions regarding a "strict construction."
The doctrine of
judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of
inconsistent positions as applied to any official proceedings [Jackson v.
County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181]; in order to
maintain the integrity of the government, judicial estoppel precludes a party
from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second
advantage by taking an incompatible position in disputes involving the same set
of operative facts. Id.; Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court (2003) 108
Cal.App.4th 917, 943. Here, the Speaker (and GOP Congress) expressly asserts
that Article I, Section 8's express language mandating Congress raise revenue
for the People's "general WELFARE" is somehow
"discretionary", despite the fact that the evidentiary record proves the
same Speaker, Senate and Congress (or collectively: “Speaker”) have all
repeatedly admitted, acknowledged and, indeed, required that the Congress pause
and take formal notice of the absolute importance of a “strict construction” of
the Social Contract in dispassionately discharging a wide range of government
duties under the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, e.g., Judicial Confirmation hearings,
Notably, because not a
SINGLE member of the (once mighty) media has even asked GOP declarants to
cite a single
mandatory authority for, say, "abolishing the IRS,"
and Sen. Cruz clearly cannot
cite to SPECIFIC provisions within the
CONSTITUTION itself to even lend support
to your collective
construction of our laws and Social
Contract (i.e., the
Doctrine of Enumerated Powers works and is), the Tea Party’s entire "dog
and pony show" is outside the ambit of lawful
Enough of this purported "duty" of OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES to "raise revenue" to "improve the general welfare of the Ukrainian or Iraqi or Afghani citizens."
Our Congress is NOT above the law.
"Thy love afar is spite at home." - Emerson
Away with this unfounded notion that UN Sanctioned Iran is some "threat" to Western Civilization. They have ZERO military capability to present the People of the United States with any imminent threat. As for protecting our Israeli allies, it would seem ceasing and desisting from trying to futilely enforce a Police Power over Arab sovereigns such as Iraq- much less warlord-ruled Afghanistan- would be a more prudent Diplomatic approach, coupled with a Trade Agreement or Executive Agreement that creates the necessary currency to help create an independent Palestinian state (read: for job creation and infrastructure projects) and ensure that Israel keeps ALL of its land holdings. If the consideration to the Palestinian people is there, what reason to keep fighting?
1 year, 1 month ago on Access denied | The Cable
@johnmkelly1 @drudown @Laurel Kaskurs DeFalco
What possible relevance are your alleged credentials to the Speaker's scienter in a pre-meditated "shut down" that injured the credit of the United States, the People and all Treasury holders? Zip.
I find it absolutely amazing that a purported member of the bar has the audacity to assert that "the Constitution doesn't mean what it says". Maybe you should look up "judicial estoppel" and apply it to "strict construction".
I "made up" the term Legislative Veto? You are not a practicing lawyer.
1 year, 2 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115134/gop-death-watch-final-days-republican-party
@johnmkelly1 @mwbright @first last @Laurel Kaskurs DeFalco
Why should the GOP Speaker not be removed at office for demanding "concessions" via an Unconstitutional Legislative Veto?
You just want to make everything personal. Answer the question or your failure to do so is an admission of veracity.
Perhaps you could care to explain how the Congress doesn't have a LEGAL duty to RAISE revenue under Article I, Section 8 under any reasonable, much less "strict" construction?
I am an officer of the Court.
Are you going to tell me that the Speaker isn't breaking the law by such Anticipatory Repudiation of the United States' ability to meet its obligations? Under what possible legal theory are you going to "trump" the express language of Article I, Section 8? It is the Supreme Law of the Land.
As for the ACA, it passed through three separate branches of government. Once any legislation goes to the President to sign into law...the Congress has NO ROLE TO PLAY after the fact. The Speaker's attempt to "coerce" or "extort" changes to such duly enacted federal law (ACA) via a patently unlawful Legislative Veto is a High Crime.
If you aren't a member of the bar, you shouldn't opine on such matters.
@Laurel Kaskurs DeFalco
In other news, the GOP tries to deflect attention from trying to coerce Unconstitutional concessions via the Speaker's (1) Anticipatory Repudiation of Congress' PLENARY duty to RAISE REVENUE under Article I, Section 8 culminating in a premeditated "default" and (2) proposing same be effectuated via an Unconstitutional Legislative Veto before the DOJ issues subpoena duces tecum to ascertain Grover Norquist's complicity and which Foreign Funds subsidized ongoing effort to "drown the government in the bathtub."
As for the GOP being "separate" from the Tea Party? They ALL voted for the "shut down". What part of that do people not understand? The GOP is advocating we WEAKEN our own government and way of life. For what? Because the elected officials get bribes from FOREIGN nations?
There's a word for that. It's called Treason.
The Scienter and affirmative acts are already in the record. The Tea Party is the alter ego of the Evil Saudi Empire.
Taken to its illogical conclusion, if Perry "congratulates" the reporter when he loses his job, it is the same thing? Thought so.
1 year, 7 months ago on LA Kings reporter congratulates Matthew Perry on his show getting canceled | May | 2013
Give me a break. He "congratulated" him on his show being cancelled. Try to be serious.
I predict that the Bengals regret passing over Lacy as much as the Broncos will regret passing over Lattimore.
You'd think with McGahee would serve as exhibit A [ACL injury is surmountable] and (ahem) Ron Dayne exhibit B [Big 10 running backs not named Eddie George do not do well in the NFL]
"what about Ki Jana's asthma?" - Spaulding
1 year, 7 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Eddie-Lacy-says-he-will-be-ready-to-roll-from-Day-1.html
I think this is yet another solid move by SF front office.
Man, it hurts to be Bolt fan and watch other teams place capital.
1 year, 8 months ago on McCoy takes high road in discussing Browns | National Football Post
What does that mean? His point is invalid or that anybody that calls out BS is an "internet tough guy"? Curious.
1 year, 8 months ago on Report: Harbaugh didn't want Reed back in Baltimore | National Football Post
Based on what I've seen, the Ravens are a snarky and petty lot of players. Pollard, despite being a Titan, falls into said category.
Just be men. Play the game you get millions to play and show other men some respect.
You are one the few pro-owner posters like myself.
I'm sick of these spoiled prima donnas and their sock puppet posters telling me what contracts should mean in their imaginary world.
1 year, 9 months ago on The 25 million dollar quarterback | National Football Post
I was talking to seenable
The notion that EMPLOYEE players' compensation should be inversely proportional or somehow measured against owner earnings is asinine.
What's your point? That NFL players are to be deemed "joint venturers" or "partners" instead of employees?
The data unequivocally proves that the vast, vast majority of the "mega-deals" in baseball have NEVER worked out. Pujos' is going to cost the Angels dearly. As for the NBA, Oden's deal is a cautionary tale. Pay huge money to some fool that can't even play? How is the cost of said fiscal waste not passed back on to NBA consumers? Of course it is. As I'm sure you'd agree, nobody wants to see someone get hurt, but (pun intended) that's the breaks. To effin' bad, you don't DESERVE $50mm if you confer ZERO benefit to a franchise.
Equally inapt is the notion that players "outperform their contracts". Uh, excuse me? Contracts distribute risk WHEN executed. Taken to its illogical conclusion, a homeowner that sold his house for, say, $1mm could knock on the door of the new owner and say "gee, the home I sold you is worth $2.5mm only two years later...it outperformed our contract." That is how unfounded that common, proffered misconception is. Now, can a team try to "lock up" a player to a long term deal mid-stream? Sure. But "holding out" for more $ because the parties misperceived the risks or value is misplaced.
I would hasten to add that the most disconcerting development (i.e., pushing pro sports towards systemic dysfunction) is the guaranteed contract model for Superstar athletes. Tell me, can anyone point to a single overwhelming success story? Chris Johnson? No. Ryan Howard? No. Sam Bradford? No. Greg Oden? No.
The fiscal waste that these guaranteed contracts bestow to teams is ultimately "passed onto the consumer" and this is what is killing the NBA. I mean, at least the NFL teams can "cut their losses" (outside of the aforementioned guaranteed contracts) and it not only creates a better product (i.e., via increased exertion and will to achieve vs. lazy NBA "they can't really fire me" players), but teams aren't saddled with long term contracts (see, Greg Oden or Grant Hill) where the player doesn't even play.
The NBA is a joke. Funnier stil, perhaps, is reading the typical ESPN message boards where sock puppet posters from PR firms, sports agents, players or hanger ons that try to condition the public that "it isn't about the money".
Look at Kobe Bryant's usurious salary. Look at Drew Brees' salary. How can anyone credibly contend that it doesn't materially hinder ANY team's ability to field the best team?
He should be a backup in Seattle.
Also, Pete, you should sign Stephen Jackson for a nice one-two punch with the Beast.
1 year, 9 months ago on VY to work out at Texas pro day | National Football Post
The NBA is arguably the least compelling professional sport. While I feel there is some credence to the "look at me" athlete syndrome that is perhaps most pronounced in the NBA, it is my sense that the guaranteed contract structure is the real culprit. In short, these players hardly try anymore. And what motivation do they have? They get paid either way. Look at Rose from the Bulls. Not only does his ridiculous contract underscore how imprudent the guaranteed contract structure is (i.e., he is hurt and a team could decide to "cut bait" in the NFL), he has zero reason to return...ever.
1 year, 9 months ago on Stephen Curry scores 54 points, leaves Draymond Green hanging
An appreciable amount of the sideline reporters and sportscasters (e.g., Cindy Brunson) have no business in the filed of sports but couldn't get a regular gig. At least Rachel Nichols seems like she is actually passionate.
1 year, 11 months ago on Heather Cox does not appreciate her Rose Bowl interview being cut short
Reasonable minds can disagree. I did not think her "are you kidding me" was refreshing in any sense. As intimated elsewhere herein, tell me, when has any post-game (worse still, going into halftime) interview ever been particularly illuminating? I think that is what made Cox' patent disgust so appalling, i.e., it is not like we all missed the game winning touchdown. Get real. Her questions were as generic and contrived as her self-importance was unfounded.
Oh please. You imply that the head coach of the winning team's superseding thought should be to answer to some sideline reporter? Get real. Based on what? He isn't under contract with ESPN.
First of all, it is going to take a mountain of $ to get Gruden to leave ESPN. The chances of the Davis (much less the Spanos) family offering him that are, shall we say, slim to none. Closer to nil. And why, pray tell, would anyone leave the MNF booth to coach an undisciplined team like Raiders or Chargers?
2 years ago on New crazy Jon Gruden rumor has him returning to coach... the Oakland Raiders?
@CUbsfan Sorry, Brian Kelly is more attractive than Chip Kelly. The former has done more with what he has. As you know, the NFL draft is a lot different than recruiting superior athletes a la Oregon. I like Chip Kelly, but if you are Chip, why leave Oregon?
2 years ago on Straight Outta Stockton Week 13 - The Jon Gruden RGIII Edition
Look, at the end of the day, it is not going to be a very compelling game between FSU and NIU. Period. They lost to my father's lowly Hawkeyes. Come on, man.
So, I realize people are naturally jealous of Herbie (i.e., he arguably has one of the BEST jobs in the entire world), but let's be candid. The BCS system is flawed and corrupt. Nobody presently making millions via the BCS really wants to change it any more than K street wants clean elections.
"Everyone acts according to self-interest." - Gracian
2 years ago on Kirk Herbstreit's baseless BCS bashing of Northern Illinois is the "absolute joke"
It is increasingly idiotic for sports writers to throw Gruden's name into the ring whenever a coaching vacancy materializes or seems likely on the horizon. Gruden is making as much as any man needs an analyst on ESPN and seems to be well liked by all. Tell me, why would he realistically want to leave that gig for coaching an aging Eagles team with a ruthless fan base?
2 years, 1 month ago on NFP Friday Buzz | National Football Post