Originally Posted by leagleaze (Post 401872)

Does Rachel play softball, do you think?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 401873)

Given that military strategy at the time involved forming up in night lines and taking gentlemanly shots at each other's ranks, the red probably was among the smaller follies.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 401874)

I love the "he's like Nate Silver" commentary. I <3 Nate.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401835)

How could you want to purchase anything from that sight after looking at this photo?:

http://www.sterlingwear.com/group2a.jpg

I'd go basic, erring toward longer.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...UL._SS500_.jpg

And get it in light grey. Blue pea coats have been played out since '06.

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 401874)

I <3 Nate.

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 401861)

When I was 16, I bought one at a thrift shop. Oh, you like me, you really like me white people!

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 401880)

Oh, please -- like you aren't some pasty-white middle-age golf-playing lawyer drone.

Originally Posted by leagleaze (Post 401845)

Somehow my infrequent visits seem to be somewhat timely. Or is it that on any given day you are discussing lesbians and fat?

As far as the stereotype. I can assure you that I have only once tried to play softball with a bunch of lesbians (or really anyone) and it was several years ago. I fell down in an effort to catch the ball and all the other lesbians came running over to make sure I hadn't broken anything, helped me to a seat and fussed over me considerably. Come to think of it, perhaps I should play softball more frequently.

Anyway, hello to everyone, especially the person who asked me to stop by and say hi. I hope everyone is well.

Originally Posted by a concerned poster (Post 401885)

Phew! Welcome back. I was concerned about you. Glad to see u r ok.

Keep in touch. Tweet me.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 401889)

Awwwww, Penske's back, too.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 401890)

Is it our 10th reunion already?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401752)

I don't agree with our taking out drug cells in foreign countries, either. Aside from my sensible and reasonable position that drug use is a personal decision for people to make on their own, and the proof that prohibition is a ludicrous policy, we've no business telling Colombia or Peruvian farmers what they can and can't grow or sell. It's their country. Our interdiction efforts should stop at our borders.

In this case, UBS should be required to cough up the identities of tax cheats who committed their crime in the US through the use of UBS's US operations. I'll concede that. However, US citizens who flew abroad and engaged in tax avoidance through a UBS entity with no ties to the US should enjoy the full protections of the law in the locale where they did their business.* Stated simply, the US has no right to go into another country and demand that a corporation doing business exclusively in that country turn over information regarding its American clients. In any circumstance.

The simplest analogy is working out a small debt with a lender. Say the borrower's in PA and the bank confesses judgment there. Lawyers for the lender immediately move the borrower's money to a DE bank with no branches outside DE, a state where bank accounts can't be garnished. If the lender wants to take action to unwind the transaction, he inevitably has to deal with the DE court system.**

I think you have to protect a person's right to avail himself of the laws of the place where he puts his money. Places like Switzerland make a lot of money by allowing people to avoid taxes. But they have a right to do that, just like DE has a right to grant its bank customers protections neighboring states don't. But the point you and Cletus made about UBS having no right to do business in the US while helping its residents avoid taxes is well taken. The Swiss bank protections should only be absolute for Americans who put their money into Swiss banks which do business exclusively in Switzerland.***

*You know there's a UBS private bank of some sort divorced from the parent specifically for the purposes of avoiding encroachments from foreign courts.

**He can get a PA court to order the borrower to transfer the money back, but if the borrower ignores the order, the PA Court's enforcement capabilities are exhausted.

***And the money has to have come from a locale outside the US. A tax avoider should not be able to take money from the US and merely transfer it to an exclusively Swiss bank. If it's here for any period of time, I think the US Courts then have jurisdiction over it.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 401787)

This isn't my field, but wouldn't the continued maintenance of the accounts, without disclosure, be a continuing violation? There wasn't really anyway for them to get out from under the prosecution w/o divulging the identity of the subject accounts, was there? Wonk?

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 401871)

Could there be a greater example of military hubris than dressing soldiers in red coats? Perhaps painting bull's-eyes on their backs too?

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 401861)

When I was 16, I bought one at a thrift shop. Oh, you like me, you really like me white people!

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 401714)

I'm having a problem figuring out how to deal with a friend of mine who is crying out for help, and has been for some time, with alcohol, depression and other mental health issues.

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred (Post 401918)

I agree that your friend has alcohol, depression and other mental health issues. When you write that she's crying out for help, I disagree. I don't think she's actually asking for help with her drinking or her depression. She's asking for validation, but that's different than help.


You're right. She's an alcoholic and the child of an alcoholic. Everything else flows from those two facts. Remember this passage:

When I read it, I immediately thought, "ncs's friend is not just an alcoholic, she's the child of an alcoholic." A couple pages later I read your subsequent post where you confirmed my suspicion.


If her therapist hasn't focused on her alcoholism and her relationship with her alcoholic mother, your friend needs a new, better therapist.


I'm not going to say you have a responsibility as a friend to help her. I'm not going to say you should cut your losses or distance yourself. I don't know you well enough to say which path you should take.

I do know that if you decide to get involved, you need to get involved knowing that your friend is an alcoholic and the child of an alcoholic. That means if you decide get involved with your friend, you're going to get involved in her alcoholism. So before I decided whether I was going to get involved or cut her loose, I would go to a beginner's meeting of Al-Anon. Al-Anon is a support group related to AA that focuses on the family, friends, and co-workers of alcoholics. Go to a beginner's meeting. Just listen. After hearing from those who are involved, you'll know whether this would be something you could do for your friend or whether you'd constantly feel as overwhelmed as you did at the end of that weekend.

A new therapist is necessary but not sufficient for your friend. She needs to stop drinking and come to terms with growing up the daughter of an alcoholic. Her life won't see sustained improvement until it does. The main problem I see is that I don't think she wants to stop drinking right now. If you wanted to be more involved with her, you'd need to be more involved for a while, possibly a long while.

Good luck to you and to your friend.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 401895)

That's certainly the position I would take. Of course, they could have simply closed the accounts and returned the balance to the account holders. But I think there are reporting obligations that would have compelled them to disclose transfers from outside the US in excess of a certain amount. So, either way....

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 401927)

Some time ago we had a fashion discussion about the ridiculousness of wearing boots with shorts or mini skirts. The boots in question then were cowboy boots, but the Uggs and Daisy Dukes combo, with a side of midriff-baring top is pretty ghastly.

And Britney needs to visit her colorist for a roots touchup.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/m...667550_pcn.jpg

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 401927)

Some time ago we had a fashion discussion about the ridiculousness of wearing boots with shorts or mini skirts. The boots in question then were cowboy boots, but the Uggs and Daisy Dukes combo, with a side of midriff-baring top is pretty ghastly.

And Britney needs to visit her colorist for a roots touchup.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/m...667550_pcn.jpg

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 401932)

Well, when the cowboy boots conversation happened, I did point out that women in LA wear many different types of boots* with shorts and short skirts. And that it is moronic. I saw a woman in Uggs and a floral mini last week when I was at lunch. It was 75 degrees out. Don't their feet sweat??

Anyway, if your first thought is that her roots are showing when you see that particular look Brit is sporting, I think you may be dwelling on unimportant details.

*if I may have a Forrest Gump moment, I'd say: cowboy boots and ugg boots and harley boots and ankle boots and stiletto boots and moc boots and ...

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 401932)

Well, when the cowboy boots conversation happened, I did point out that women in LA wear many different types of boots* with shorts and short skirts. And that it is moronic. I saw a woman in Uggs and a floral mini last week when I was at lunch. It was 75 degrees out. Don't their feet sweat??

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 401931)

Well, this won't make any French cultural types and US directors and actors look foolish....

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 401920)

I believe I am a Bad Person because I don't think I'd do this for my best friend, and I don't even have half the fantasy football responsibilities that ncs has.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 401939)

A very interesting article. It pretty much answers the question of what the plea agreement sentence was:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 401913)

Here's a fun headline I just ran across:

"Me-Wow!: Texas woman claims her cat is 30 years old."

Me-Wow indeed!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 401944)

Here's another fun one from ther same site (msn.com)!

"Lad's ahoy! Sexy pirate costumes."

Lad's ahoy!!! Ha ha.

Um, I don't get it. :confused:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 401943)

But the prosecutor's comments were right about his sentence probably being pretty normal for the time. The country was much less sensitive to rape at the time, there were no rape shield laws, and the girl was going to be dragged across the coals for being a drunken slut who asked for it by getting into the jacuzzi with Polanski. The sentence that Polanski got was probably pretty normal given the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 401943)

The article jogged my memory about the movie, although I honestly do not remember much about the Wells influencing the judge issue, and it does not really change my views on this. The bigger issue was the judge reneging on the deal because he was mad about the Oktoberfest picture and was getting a lot of pressure, not just from Wells. The thing was, I seem to recall that the Oktoberfest picture was a bit of a fluke. I think someone dragged Polanski into the tent and handed him a beer, the picture was taken, and suddenly there was this impression that he was partying around Europe, thumbing his nose at the judicial system. Of course, it was not like Polanski was holed up in somber meditation about the gravity of his crimes, since it's pretty clear he did not consider himself to have committed a crime. But the prosecutor's comments were right about his sentence probably being pretty normal for the time. The country was much less sensitive to rape at the time, there were no rape shield laws, and the girl was going to be dragged across the coals for being a drunken slut who asked for it by getting into the jacuzzi with Polanski. The sentence that Polanski got was probably pretty normal given the circumstances.

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 401947)

But isn't that the risk of running? Not only have you added another crime, if you are finally drug back into court you will face a different system.

It's a gamble. Maybe the system would have swung towards rape being completely acceptable under these circumstances {shudder} or maybe the system would make his actions a more serious crime than it was considered at the tim. But things rarely stay the same. It seems he lost this bet.

A friend on the run avoiding third-strike drug convictions for possession of marijuana talks about this all the time. Once pot is legal he expects to have an easier time returning to the states. I doubt it, but it is one of his considerations. Surely, Polanski saw the landscape changing over the years as well.

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 401949)

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 401950)

I was not commenting on the unfairness of Polanski being dragged back at a time when our society has changed attitudes and laws about rape. I was just noting that, as incrible and as it seems to us now, Wells' comments reminded me that the original sentence Polanski got was pretty normal at the time. I think the prosecutor on the case was actually concerned that Polanski would walk.

Originally Posted by evenodds (Post 401951)

Bathroom stall sex should be standing only.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 401927)

Some time ago we had a fashion discussion about the ridiculousness of wearing boots with shorts or mini skirts. The boots in question then were cowboy boots, but the Uggs and Daisy Dukes combo, with a side of midriff-baring top is pretty ghastly.

And Britney needs to visit her colorist for a roots touchup.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/m...667550_pcn.jpg

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 401953)

as to your theses here, I'm not sure society's reaction to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old has changed all that much since the 70s.