My practice has always been in DC that I challenge tickets if there is any chance of success. Once, the ticket said I was parked somewhere at 1 pm, when I was there at 1 am. I filed a complaint, stating that I had indeed been parked there, but that the ticket was invalid on its face because it did not describe my actual offense. Appeal granted. Once I challenged a ticket for parking in a non-space in my Woodley Park neighborhood when they were milling the entirety of connecticut ave, so all of those spaces were gone. I said that I had driven all streets within a half block radius of my home, that there were no spaces, and that I had not received notice before moving my car that parking in my neighborhood would be severely compromised. appeal granted. I think that you have to be charged with actual offenses that are accurate and not stupid enforcements when there really is no choice in the offense. I happily pay parking tickets that are correct, but push back on the others.
Gee, you went to all the trouble of scouting for parking spots A WHOLE HALF BLOCK from your home? Exactly where in Woodley Park do you live that parking is ordinarily so plentiful? I sometimes have to park five blocks from my house. And the city has approved a big shopping/condo development just two blocks away that is probably going to make things a lot worse. The developers have grandly told us that their parking plan is to provide NO NEW PARKING so people will learn not to drive there but to take the Metro. Thanks, guys.
There will be torches and pitchforks.
As a Republican I really don't have a problem with Gene comparing us to dogs and perpetuating long-held and ill-conceived stereotypes...as long as it works both ways. Dogs are loyal, steadfast companions. Dogs are cool, contributing members of our society and happy to work and/or play hard all day long. Democrats are cats - well another name for cats - but you get my drift right?
I have a theory for why nice people like you become Republicans. It's actually the same as Steinbeck's theory for why socialism never took hold in America: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
I think one of the reasons why this word has lost it's power in the UK, is that women use the word. Here in North America, women are afraid to use it, but if we don't....it will continue to empower those who use it against us. Think of when bitch was a word that so greatly offended women. Through our use of the word...it has lost all of it's power (or most of it anyway). A few years ago, my mother said the C-word to me over on the phone with regard to a woman at her work. I remember castigating her for it and she replied "honey, sometimes that is the only word that fits". So all in all, I think we women need to start using the word so men realize it has no power and control over us. I find "ignoranus" to be a much more offensive word to be called...and recently was called that on Facebook by a friend for correcting her on a post she made regarding the 2011 Mensa Invitational, but was actually the Style Invitational from when that term was coined. Thanks for the chats!
Ignoranus. An excellent word.
Andyour argument for use of the c-word is precisely the point of the most controversial moment in "The Vagina Monologues."
You make an interesting observation that I'm not sure others have made: that so long as the c-word is allowed to be so offensive, women are allowing themselves to be enslaved by it.
Very nice. I wonder why it is in English? And why they did it in Paris?
It seems reporters have descended on Cartagena en masse, each one trying to get some sliver of a new angle on the story. No one has done the obvious, though, and actually hired an escort and reported on the experience. It's totally legal, what's stopping you guys? Show some dedication to delivering the truth! It would definitely make for a great article (and an even better expense report).
Twice in my life I have expensed a hooker, for stories 25 years apart. The first time was in NYC during the 1976 democratic convention. I was doing a piece in which I was posing as a rube delegate from Iowa, on the theory New York would take me to the cleaners. They didn't, which made for an excellent story. At one point I engaged the services of a hooker while leaving my bag "checked" with the folks downstairs. It contained $100. They didn't take it. The hooker was stunned that I just wanted to talk.
Gene, I'm baffled by your take on hockey. You must really think its either a funny comment or a valid point since you tweeted the same comment multiple times a couple weeks apart. Or were you just trying to bring down Capitals fans after a fun playoff run against Boston. If hockey goals are truly nothing but the byproduct of luck then everyone should have good stats. That simply isn't the case.
Well, wait a minute. I never said they were SIMPLY and ONLY the byproduct of luck, I said they were too often the byproduct of luck. When that is true, and if luck is generally evenly distributed, the otherwise better teams will win most often.
Hey, even lovers of the game concede there's too much luck in hockey. It's self-evident. You just have to go to a game and watch this stick-flailing scrums from which the puck shoots out and into the net under a goalie whose leg happens to be an inch off the ground at the moment.
Defenders of the game admit this -- they just say it's not that bad, and, in the long run, evens out. To me it just creates a sloppy, sloppy game.
I admit to prejudice, in sports. Basketball is probably the loveliest game, featuring the best athletes, but I just don't feel it. My biggest problems with basketball are 1) intentional fouls 2) the importance of free throws 3) the fact that the whole game so often seems to be played in the last two minutes.
I acknowledge that the previous is immature and probably wrong. But I'm not wrong about hockey.
Have you seen this? It suggests a new font style to denote sarcasm -- kind of a reverse italics.
Gene - medical question for you, and I'm not making this up. If I drink too much coffee, when I pee, I make two separate streams. The main stream generally hits the intended target dead center, but the subsidiary stream can go anywhere. It's usually straight down at the front rim of the toilet, but sometimes it hits the floor in front, and on a couple of occasions it's come back at my leg! After much manipulation, shall we say, it usually reforms in one straight stream. Have you ever heard of this? What's going on here?
Nice. I'm assuming you are male. And I'm also guessing that this is not related to coffee. You've got some change in your sphincter, and believe it or not, there are drugs for this. Something called proscar, I think. See a urologist.
Hi Gene. Who's your favorite Yankee? I inherited my Yankee fandom and have always been pretty casual about, but I am currently reading Jane Leavy's biography of Mickey Mantle, The Last Boy, and I'm finding the era fascinating.
For me, rooting is connected with ego: I tend to particularly follow the exploits of people whom I recognized as really good right from the get-go, even before the general public realized what was there. So, over the years: Maris, Guidry, Willie Randolph, Mattingly, Robinson Cano, David Robertson. The guy I am currently considering investing some fandom on is ... Eduardo Nunez. He learns to field, he may be a worthy successor to Jeter.
I'm a guy in my late twenties. For the past four years I've had a condition; I get a burning sensation when I urinate or ejaculate. From the very beginning and throughout the past four years I've been tested for a variety of STDs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, herpes), and the results have always come back negative. I've had numerous blood and urine tests, prostate exams and everything always seems normal. I've had a CT scan to check for cancer, an X-ray to check for kidney stones, nothing. I've had a procedure called Cystoscopy done three times (this involves inserting an instrument into my urethra so a doctor can look inside my bladder and urethra - yes, ouch!), and nothing looked out of the ordinary. I'e seen three urologists and I've been prescribed so many different kinds of medication that I've lost track of names and purpose. By this point I feel like giving up and just continuing on with life, condition and all, without pursing this any further. What say you?
I would just like to observe that the guy with the two pee streams should read this and consider himself lucky.
You know, there IS a point where doctors basically have to admit that you need to wait for some condition to either go away or get worse. Sounds like you are there.
Googling this is unhelpful, alas, because most of the common explanations have been ruled out, for you.
I was reading Barney & Clyde for 4/23 and 4/24. My family had toe names, which I've since found are widely spread although not particularly common: Starting with the littlest toe: Little Pea, Penny Lutie, Lucy Whissie, Mary Hossie, and Great Gobby-gobby. Variations often have the big toe as "Old Tom Bumbo" or something similar. Someone's doing some research on it here... Link
I was flipping through a catalog at my in-laws' and came across this: Bread in a Can. My immediate thought turned to the company's initials at the top of the can and the likely consistency of the product. My second thought was that you needed to be informed.
I had seen this commercial and called it out for being gross a long time before it was pointed out in this poll, so I felt obligated to vote for the most disgusting option. Upon reflection, I genuinely think the age of the girl (not the actress, but the age of the character she plays), which is not revealed explicitly, matters. If the mom had made some hint that the girl was in college, I would have been okay with it, but from context it sort of sounds like she's supposed to be in middle school, in which case ogling her full-frame butt in her bathing would not be OK in person, and thus shouldn't be forced upon me in this commercial.
You make an interesting point: The age of the girl is not given (and the actress looks to be a young-looking 17, maybe) but we are encouraged to consider her an adolescent. Why? Mostly because Mom appears to be 39 or 40, and because she is still taking care of the girl's health care. I just asked The Rib to look at this for the first time, and asked her to guess the age of mom and daughter. She said: 40 and 12. Then she asked why I was asking, and I said that I considered the lingering takeout on the girl's behind to be in bad taste. She hadn't NOTICED the girl's behind.
I'm telling you all, this is insidious.
In researching this, I came upon this long but vapid blog post taking exception to the ad for the most bizarre reason.
I suspect that my husband is cheating on me, but have no solid proof. My husband denies it vehemently. A therapist told me that if I have these suspicions, the marriage is essentially over since there is no trust and I should consider getting divorced. That seems rash to me though, imploding our kids' lives over suspicion. What do you think? FWIW, I'm not the jealous type. I'm more upset that he thinks he can get away with this and I'm too dumb to know what's going on. If he could just be honest with me, I could probably be ok with his affairs.
Well, clearly you have a big problem involving trust. But I always urge parents of young children: Do everything within reason to avoid divorce. It sounds to me as though you are nowhere near "everything within reason."
I don't know you, so I have no idea if you are the type of person to build suspicion out of nothing -- but I do understand your point about not-knowing being more pernicious than knowing. I wonder what would happen if you told your husband: "If you tell me, we can deal with it. I will not leave you." You know, if you did that, I think it would increase the chances of his telling the truth, whatever the truth is. I think if you told him that, in a way he believed, and he still denied it, there's a good chance he is telling the truth.
I'm not Hax. This might be bad advice.
My dog must be a Democrat. He wants to hump every female he sees and has no intention of sticking around for, much less supporting, any resulting little ones, and he expects someone else to provide all his food and medical care at no cost to Himself. But I love him anyway.
You think Democrats are hornier? More promiscuous? Given to abandoning children?
I'm not saying no. I wonder what the numbers show. Anyone know?
Had/Have you read Eli Sanders Pulitzer winning story. I read it last year when it came out and it really was one of the most moving pieces I have ever read. The subject matter is very emotional obviously, but his voice telling her story was really amazing. Just wondering about your thoughts.
I really liked the story. I think it was a worthy winner. Is sent him an email saying "Finally, the feature category got one right."
The story had one odd feature that you could call a weakness, or you could even call a strength: It was limited entirely to coverage of a trial. An unusual call in a Pulitzer category that tends to reward depth and breadth of reporting. The defendant didn't testify, for example, so we learned nothing about him.
So, a very narrow definition of "story." But within that stricture, he did beautifully. He wrote it with muscle.
So what is the significance of the famous republicans on the mug? I can't figure out the connection between them.
Mostly, they're all dillweeds, or worse. It's ironic.