gehringer_2

What would you have given to have seen Larkin play with a Datsuk or Yzerman? He's not the most dominant player on his own but he's a guy to build a fabulous line with.

Larkin with another wizard play and Vrana with the finish. 4-2

Osterle being totally ineffective behind his own goal....gave the Flyers another grade A chance.

yeah - , Raymond and Seider ended up outnumbered in their own zone.

Manning is in unless he messes up.

and Hronek late getting back and 3-2

I hope I'm right that most of baseball is underestimating the Tiger pitching staff.

I think Clinton bought the globalist line on economics hook, line and sinker, and has turned out wrong like the rest, but I think you are being a little unfair on policy because at that point the failures of the Reagan program had not become clear and I would argue there was very little progressive/liberal political sympathy in the voting public to swing back leftward yet. Policy wise Clinton was a fair reflection of where the public was mostly. You can fairly blame him for not being a better leader pushing against prevailing opinions, but that's a high bar for any pol. But policy is still policy and it's always debatable. Trump was in a class by himself in his disregard for institutional integrity. I was going to say that I'll give you all the bad policy charges against Clinton you want, but he was never that kind of institutional danger to the republic except that as I have stated, I do believe that the fact that we let him get away with such bald faced lying in the WH was one of the big things helping US politics' decent into the mess it is. But in the end it wasn't his fault we enabled him the way we did.

This has been on the agenda at the Olympic committee for a few decades and I don't think they yet have an answer anyone likes. Chromosome analysis was tried and discarded, testosterone testing was tried and discarded and re instituted in conjunction with genetic testing, and back and forth in various courts....and the arguments continue. I doubt US school boards are going to be able to resolve it neatly either. Human like neat rules, nature tends to throw things at us in a spectrum before you even consider cases of medical intervention or re-assignment.

and the Women Won, so the guys better get on their game or they aren't going to hear the end of it! https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2022/03/michigan-surges-past-villanova-advances-to-womens-sweet-16.html

Supposedly Segal's martial arts prowess was bona fide at some point. But it really doesn't matter how good you were at something if you get old and fat and stop training. Now we know the 1st two apply to Segal, but I guess without 1st hand knowledge he would have to get some benefit of the doubt on the third, though even a number of years ago in some pieces of his later films I've seen they choreographed his 'fight' scenes around him being pretty much immobile. 🥷

From what I saw, the governor's statement explicitly noted he was not vetoing on the merits, but on the ground that the legislation was pre-mature in view of their not being any cases in his state.

I agree George's tracks were often more interesting, but he accounted for so little of the Beatles' total output. (though obviously the best bits on Abbey Road)

LOL - so the reason there is so supposedly so much bad blood the Yankees hold for the Astros is not because they Astros cheated, but because they they did a better job of it?

I felt about Clinton the way so many people feel about Trump: Why don't they see he is snake oil salesman? Now the huge difference is that Trump is a snake oil salesman who is also a terrible, malicious, bigoted, dangerous leader. Clinton was just a snake-oil salesman who was personally venal but otherwise not a horrible political leader. But the Dems still should not have allowed him to stay in office after lying to the GJ. And the tragedy was that as goofy as Al Gore was in public as a campaigner, he probably would have been a much more competent President than Shrub and likely would have been re-elected running as the incumbent. But the average Democrat will still never admit that the party was wrong. Granted Starr was wrong to have ever made it about sex, but as they say two wrongs don't make a right - though ironically in this case that is exactly what they did make - a GOP presidency.

The actions of the dishonest have always been what raises the bar on the burden of proof for the honest. C'est la vie. Speak softly, carry a big stick, video record everything........

So just as a matter life experience, I would say it is common, or at least not surprising, for men's ideologies to harden as they age - but I wonder if there is any social science data on whether that is more or less or not at all different for women.

OK, to be absolutely fair, I'm not sure a drunken frat night at 20 has to be exclusionary to ever serving on the SCOTUS as a premise, much like if you wanted to disqualify Thomas it should have been for being out in left field legally, not for telling blue jokes to Anita Hill, but then again I would absolutely have disqualified Kavanaugh for being a willing stooge of that idiot Starr - just as Bork was disqualified (really - not the cover) for not standing up for the DOJ against Nixon. The reality is that the Dems were going to get their pound of flesh (deservedly) for Garland, and Kavanaugh had the bad luck to be the mark. That said, nothing he did during the episode gave me a shred of belief he is likely to be a good justice.

No, the outrage is real. It violates the first rule of the white frat boy privilege social compact to actually be held to account for an evening when you intentionally got liquored up just so you you could act irresponsibly. Nothing more unfair than to pull the rug out from under that pillar of Ivy League institutionalism. Simply too cruel. (...oh, you mean the outrage on the *other* side?) Whether it was legally rape or not is probably lost in the fog of decades old drunkenness, but I'm not sure that was ever the real point.

We haven't had pitcher likely to make the team get shelled yet. It can't last but fun to think about so far.

2 left out of 8 still not so good though!

bingo. He's been an all upper body swinger. If I were his coach I'd make him play a couple of months with a 36 oz (or more if you could find one) bat so he'd have to learn to put his body into it.

13 pitch AB last night ended on a fly to right.

well, more up, like this...(which is actually more 60's than 50's) - and BTW, your 'model' there is Jane Wyman, Reagan's 1st wife. - I think I've got a young Joan Collins here)

I think this is correct. Also different skill sets. Paul and John were superb vocalists - the Beatles were a singing band. I had that really hit home one day when I heard a 'professional' tenor try to sing 'Imagine'. Listen closely and be impressed by all the vocal gymnastics John just sort of casually tosses off in that tune. Bonham, Jones and Page didn't even sing. Page operated much more like a classical composer - he would start with a theme on the guitar, a 'riff' as he would say, and turn that into some kind of composition. Plant would then come up with a vocal to counter point it. Not comparing him to a Beethoven by any means but the idea being that the mechanics of how Page and Zep did music was more in the style of classical music composition (theme and exposition) as compared to the Beatles, who worked more in the minstrel form of setting verse to music.