Controlled Chaos

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 18, 2010 -> 11:15 AM) It wasn't a hit to the head, and it was a correct no-call. Wiz thought it was worse than it actually was and took a run. Yeah the only people calling that a hit to the head are the asshole announcers that thought Seabs was acting.

(not my words author at end.) My Healthcare Plan Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan! It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market." Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan. In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete. The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today. That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week. President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer. Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited OB/GYN visits, among other things. It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer. The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice. Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.) Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market. Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.) This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance! My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired. For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions." Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse NEW customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire. That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity." What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year. Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long. If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?") The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now. Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers. In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan. Feel free to steal it, Republicans! Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 06:09 PM) I wonder if any company still pays you for unused vacation and/or sick days. It's been a couple decades since I can remember a company doing that. My company would buy out up to 2 weeks. Last year changes went into effect. They allowed you to sell your vacation days back at only 50%. This year and for the future it's 0. I was sure to use all my vacation last year, before that I always sold back 2 weeks.

Not one dime? Posted By Dr. Mark Neerhof On Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 @ 12:00 AM In Opinion, Opinion:Lower Section | No Comments When President Obama addressed Congress in September on health care, he assured them and the American people that he would not sign a plan that adds one dime to the deficit, neither now nor in the future. This focus on cost is appropriate in the context of a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion and a national debt in excess of $12 trillion. Now, seven months later, the House is considering the Senate bill that proposes spending roughly $1 trillion over the next 10 years in order to save money. In order to get the Congressional Budget Office estimates in a favorable light, numerous budget gimmicks were employed. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) estimates that when you strip out these budget gimmicks, the bill would add $460 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years, and in the second 10 years, that deficit would increase by $1.4 trillion. That’s a bit more than a dime. There are also hidden costs not accounted for in these figures. These figures assume that physician’s payments under Medicare are going to be severely reduced. Many physicians are already dropping Medicare because of low reimbursements (i.e. Mayo Clinic in Arizona), and this is only going to worsen with further cuts. That means that if physician reimbursements were maintained, the costs (deficit) would further increase. Medicare, a program that currently has $38 trillion in unfunded obligations, is also being slashed by $464 billion. Medicaid, currently with $17 trillion in unfunded obligations, will be dramatically expanded. Medicaid reimbursements for physicians and hospitals currently are even lower that Medicare. Medicaid is also the leading budget item on many state budgets, including my home state of Illinois that has a budget deficit this year of in excess of $4 billion. Those deficits will necessarily increase when the Medicaid roles expand. As a consequence, state taxes will dramatically increase. And what about those with private insurance? In Massachusetts, where a plan similar to ObamaCare was instituted in 2006, health insurance premiums are the highest in the country, and state insurance regulators this last week approved premium increases of up to 32 percent. The Senate bill also includes nearly $500 billion in new taxes. This level of taxation will undoubtedly cause many Americans to lose their jobs. And what would be the cost of the Senate bill with respect to the quality of health care? As a result of the Medicare cuts in this bill, the chief Medicare actuary estimates that 20 percent of Medicare providers will either go out of business or stop seeing Medicare patients, leaving an increasing number of Medicare recipients with fewer physicians to care for them. Given decreasing reimbursements, the length and cost of training, and malpractice costs, what will be the incentive for the brightest and the best to go into medicine? The quality of medical school applicants will decrease. Taxes on new medical devices are a disincentive for research and development of new medical innovations. All of these will have a negative long-term impact on the quality of care in the United States. As a nation, we are at a proverbial crossroads. The road to the left takes us to a government takeover of health care, with the addition of the largest entitlement of all, at a time when we are unable to pay for the entitlements we already have. This expansion of entitlements will bankrupt the country, will be detrimental to the quality and availability of health care, and will centralize control of our health care system in Washington bureaucracies. The road to the right takes us back to square one with health care reform, allowing a bipartisan, targeted approach to the problems we all recognize. This approach would be more consumer-driven, effectively making health care more like the rest of the economy. This would include making individuals owners of their health insurance by giving the same tax incentives to individuals as employers, encouraging health savings accounts, eliminating restrictions on interstate sales of health insurance, establishing state-wide high-risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions, and tort reform. These reforms would make patients better consumers, make health insurance affordable to many more people, and eliminate obvious sources of waste, such as frivolous lawsuits. No matter how many times it is said, it is hard to take someone seriously when he states that the proposed health care reform will not increase the deficit. The American people aren’t buying it either, as evidenced by a recent Rasmussen poll which found that 81 percent of voters believe that health care reform will increase the deficit. Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) protocol-breaking outburst during Obama’s address to Congress last year was correct. Dr. Neerhof, an associate professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, is an Executive Board member of Docs for Patient Care, the nation’s largest group of physicians dedicated to maintaining the doctor-patient relationship.

I personally think it's a tribute and get goose bumps everytime I'm there. General Norman Schwarzkopf showed tapes of the Stadium at anthem time to his troops in the Persian Gulf. That's enough approval for me. This was a hot topic on the radio earlier this week. With a few people, taking the 'direspect' side of things. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The majority of callers, many from military backgrounds, love it. There was a caller I heard, sounded like an older man, who found it disrespectful and said it brought him to tears. He was taught, as a marine, to not make a peep during the anthem.

QUOTE (beckham15 @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 07:25 PM) The only jersey i've been burned on is a Nick Swisher jersey.... I don't think will happen with my beckham one though. Same here. First time I bought an authentic jersey in my entire life. I never wanted to spend that much and get burned. I bought Swish cause I thought he was my kind of hard nosed player and was signed for a while. I thought he'd be safe. Next thing ya know I'm shellin out another 75 or whatever bucks to change the name to Quentin and the 3 to a 2.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 10, 2010 -> 06:07 PM) I'm not trying to segue this into an NFL discussion, but, did you know that he's never lead the NFL in tackles and has only been in the top 10 three times? 2009 Injured 2008 49th with 15 MLB's with more tackles. 2007 10th with 5 MLB's with more tackles. 2006 6th with 3 MLB's with more tackles. 2005 13th with 7 MLB's with more tackles. 2004 Injured 2003 22nd with 6 MLB's with more tackles. 2002 2nd with 1 MLB with more tackles. 2001 11th with 8 MLB's with more tackles. He's a very good LB but is getting "white guy" fan attention. How has Briggs done in comparison? Tackles Urlacher 2009 3 2008 79 2007 92 2006 92 2005 97 2004 52 2003 87 2002 115 2001 89 Briggs 2009 93 2008 90 2007 83 2006 109 2005 83 2004 102 2003 65 Looks to me to be pretty even. Why are there no "Briggs to the Hall" articles? Without looking it up, who was the Mike in Tampa during their years as a top Defense??? I don't know off the top of my head....I know Derrick Brooks. He was the WLB. That's Briggs position. Briggs SHOULD lead this defense in tackles every year. It isn't geared for the Mike to make the tackles. The fact that Url led the team in tackles any year in this cover 2 is remarkable. He's that good. If you watch how much ground he covers on a given play it's ridiculous. This scheme is the worst thing that could have happened to Urlacher as far as his "numbers".

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Mar 8, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) Any recommendations for a pullup bar for this? I'm looking to set up in my unfinished basement and can easily put something on the I-beams, but don't have a door frame to hang anything on. Do you have engineered floor joists or solid 2X8, 2x10, etc... ? If solid you can easily make a nice pull up bar for cheap by going to Home Depot Get some 3/4 or 1" galv steel pipe(whatever is comfortable for you) You'll want to span the joists so you're head is in betwen two joists when doing your pullup. I'm sure there's a ton of info online. My dad had a setup like this years ago. Good luck.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 09:35 PM) Oh yeah... MEN SHOULD NEVER WEAR SKINNY JEANS Proof | | | V

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) I didn't intend to sound critical of anyone else's tastes, I was just stating my own. If something makes you look good and (maybe more importantly) feel good, then that's no concern of mine. Suits, however, I can understand a little better (although the prices you quote for suits and jeans are both out of my league). At upwards of $500, they are usually custom altered and made of finer materials with higher thread counts, etc. I am not that familiar with higher end jeans, but I thought all denim was pretty much made from the same cotton. Besides, I can usually tell a "cheap suit" from the frontal view, without having to check out somebody's ass. I didn't think you were being critical at all. And haha sorry, I really dont even know suit prices...I just guessed....shows ya the last time I bought one. I just had this weird logic in my own head like...ok say a suit is 250 or 300(not sure what they cost)...and you wear it maybe 2 times a year. Now say your jeans cost $100 bucks, but you wear em like 30+ times a year. It is worth it to get that nice pair that fits well, will hold up and you look good in.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) There should be a law against the sale of jeans in excess of $35/pair, which is what I pay for Levi's on sale. I like nice clothes and the occasional nice label (and I'm really not as cheap as I probably sound), but I just can't rationalize paying more than that for different stitching on the back pockets. Personally, I've never been able to discern any other difference in the more expensive pairs. Of course, I am old and fairly crotchety. I don't really pay that much for jeans...Usually 50 or less. I like Tommy H, Lucky, DKNY, and a few others. I'll splurge on a nice pair if I can get em on sale....there is a difference in fit and feel. It's all personal taste. Some people won't blink at spending $500-1000 on a suit, that they will wear maybe once a year to a wedding or a funeral, so why wouldnt they spend 100 bucks on a good pair of jeans that they will actually use. I'm not saying these are the jeans you wear daily and work in, but if you go out every so often...you will get your moneys worth on the jeans, way more than you will the suit you bought. (excluding business people that wear suits)

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=62911&st=0

Hope this helps you guys. http://home.ptd.net/~bobf/research.htm

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 10:27 AM) This whole health care summit is garbage. They are sitting in front of the cameras to try to get their talking points out and to get their gotcha moments for their partisans to spout off about. This is a complete waste of time and money. chicagotribune.com Obama to deliver health care The Chicago Way John Kass February 25, 2010 President Barack Obama will star in his very own televised entertainment spectacular on Thursday — let's call it Federal Health Care Kabuki Theater. The Republicans wanted to dance. Now they'll have to step lightly. They were foolish to get trapped in his so-called summit on national health care. Or did they actually think they could outperform the skinny fellow from Chicago? The president is taking this one last chance to push his health care agenda, which by his own estimate will cost about $1 trillion over 10 years. That's money America doesn't have, but he could probably just print some more. Obama will be in his element, talking and lecturing, the law professor framing the debate. He'll spend hours being seen as reasonable. The Republicans will balk and the president will shrug. He'll sigh and say he tried to reason with them but they refused. Then once the cameras are turned off, he'll take out the baseball bat and explain how things get done The Chicago Way. It's all about muscle. As an acolyte of the Chicago Democratic machine, he's seen muscle at work in Daleyland. Now he's in the White House, and he's going to use muscle too. Thursday's entertainment spectacular should be great TV for political junkies, a little singing, a little dancing and panels of media experts. They'll chatter on in their little boxes on the TV screens, each trying to be more clever than the other guy. Someone will probably repeat that ridiculous Washington storyline about Obama, courtesy of the legions of Hopium smokers, which suggests that our young president is just not mean enough. He's too intelligent, they say, too virtuous, too principled to be ruthless. Sure, it's complete nonsense, a story for children and true believers, but they repeat it, again and again, desperately, like some secular prayer. Without ruthlessness, how will he get his health care plan passed? Especially as some Democrats back away and the Republicans say no. Though Americans generally support some aspects of his agenda — covering the uninsured, protecting those with pre-existing conditions — a majority are opposed to Obama's overall health policy. That's because they're reasonably nervous about two things: Those two claws of the federal leviathan grabbing one-sixth of the national economy. On the eve of Obama's Health Care Kabuki, The New York Times desperately cleaved to the conventional wisdom about the president: "Ever since his days as a young community organizer in Chicago, Mr. Obama has held fast to the belief that by listening carefully and appealing to reason, he can bring people together to get results, an approach that in Washington has often come up short." Oh, please. That approach comes up short everywhere. After the Hopium smokers nod off to pleasant dreams, what counts is who has the muscle. Obama knows this. So Thursday might mark an epiphany for many. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrat from Nevada, foreshadowed how the White House will use force — through a parliamentary trick known as the "nuclear option." Formally, it's called "reconciliation." It would allow Senate Democrats to pass national health care legislation with a simple majority, without Republican support, by bypassing Senate rules that require 60 votes to stop a filibuster. The Senate of the United States was explicitly formed to slow down legislative passions and let them cool, not heat them up as in the House of Representatives. The Senate was not born as an institution where a simple majority rules. But we Americans don't read history much these days, do we? Instead, we watch "American Idol," and vote for our favorite performer. "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Reid said of Republican outrage. "It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones who used it more than anyone else." Reid's right. And Republicans have problems crying about it now. Yet what Reid, Obama and others avoid is that a few short years ago, they were shrieking. Republicans sought rule changes so a simple majority could approve then- President George W. Bush's judicial nominees who had been held hostage by Democrats. "(Bush) hasn't gotten his way, and that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever," said then-Sen. Obama in 2005. Sen. Joe Biden, now Obama's VP, gave the best sound bite of all. "I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field for now," Biden speechified with dramatic pause, lip bite, shake of head, "but you won't own it forever. I pray God that when the Democrats take back control, we won't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." Obama needs a victory. He must claim momentum before leading nervous Democrats toward November midterm elections. Either that, or he faces irrelevancy and insurrection. Americans won't know exactly what's in that federal health care bill that will change our lives. We won't know how much it will cost us, or which insiders get rich, until after it's all done. Naturally, the insiders will know. And after it becomes law, they might let the rest of us in on it. That doesn't sound much like a man transcending the politics of the past, does it? It sounds as if The Washington Way is just like The Chicago Way. [email protected] Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 23, 2010 -> 07:37 PM) Ah yeah, Shea Weber just hit a slapper so hard it went THROUGH the net only leaving black stains on the cord. I dont think I've ever seen that before. 1st time I've ever seen that.

Dam fans supporting their country. Fans' fervour rattling some athletes as Own the Podium goal slips away Huge, roaring crowds may be throwing some contenders Off the Podium BY DAMIAN INWOOD, THE PROVINCEFEBRUARY 23, 2010 The boisterous and deafening barrage of Maple Leaf support at Olympic venues may have thrown Canada's athletes off their game, admit officials. And that may be partially responsible for the county's low medal count, they say. "We've never seen anything like that and maybe we were ill prepared to how we would react to Canadian fans really showing their colours," Nathalie Lambert, chef de mission of the Canadian Olympic team, said Monday. "We've never seen this before." The Canadian Olympic Committee was sifting the entrails of the first 10 days of the Games, which saw Canada standing fourth with nine medals and the U.S. almost out of sight with 24. Before the Games, Canadian officials vowed Canada would win the most medals. Lambert said the athletes may not have been ready for a city that has gone Olympic crazy. "I think we definitely had some cases where nerves were not totally under control," she added. "And that's the only sad part of all this — that some athletes with great hope and great potential didn't live up to their expectations and are really devastated right now." Lambert said she experienced both Montreal and Calgary, and the level of frenzy was nowhere near levels seen in Vancouver and Whistler. Chris Rudge, CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), said Canadian athletes have never performed before "an audience so big, with so many Canadians and so loud . . . and how each athlete responds to that I don't know." And Rudge admitted that Canada will not finish first in medals at its first home Games in 22 years. COC sport leaders are going to look at the "adrenaline rush" that the support caused, he said. "The size of the crowd and the level of support and the noise — I'm not sure to what degree it was addressed by each of the coaches and the team leaders." Rudge said he still thinks Canada will get a final medals total in the 20s. Vancouver 2010 spokeswoman Renee Smith-Valade said the $117-million, five-year Own the Podium program was designed to make sure Canadian athletes arrived at the Games believing they had everything they needed to succeed. "We're confident that we've achieved that," she said. Smith-Valade said the program makes sure Canadian athletes "have fire in their eyes and they'll make the country proud, no matter how they perform." [email protected] © Copyright © The Province

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) It is a nice story.... But, I have to disagree with you CC. As a divorcee...and the way it happened, even though I may forgive...I'll never forget. And while I certainly don't want anything bad to happen to her, and I do try to remember some of the good times, I will always remember the way it ended and how thoughtless and cold she was. Alright, I guess I'll tell you. Long story short: There was always a guy she spoke differently about. From our first dates on, I never really trusted this guy, even though I didn't know him. Anyway, we dated for nearly 3 years and got married. I come to find out about a month before our wedding, she was talking to her friends about contacting this guy. Turns out...she did. First through email, then by phone, then by seeing him...and when she came back to town, told me she was out. And after a month and a half of back and forth of "I'm staying." "I'm going." She finally moved out. When? Well... She called me and said, "Could you be out of the house this Sunday, because that's the day I'm coming to get my stuff." I said, "Um, sure, but why this Sunday? I mean, do you know what this SUnday is?" She said, "No." Me: "It's our 1 year anniversary." Her: "Oh. Well that was the only day I could get a truck." Ouch. So...yeah, not gonna be letting anything fall to the wayside. I agree with you 100% COC. When I said relationships, I didn't mean to include marriage. I should have mentioned that. Marriage is a whole different ballgame. That's a special commitment you make to each other. Things don't tend to fall to the wayside when you're talking about lives being altered. Getting divorced carries way more weight, especially the way it happened to you. I'm truly sorry you had to go through that man...that sucks.

QUOTE (PlunketChris @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) my thread is only at 29 pages right now.. what's the usual post per page ratio because I think I have 50/page Im at 58 pages.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) Not to be a dick, but what is a source for then? I believe the quote was something like "people are running around." Okay, is there an office fire or something? Or are people just busy? Because if they're just busy, then no s***, it's a front office for a Major League team. Of course there's activity, I mean it's reported everywhere that the Sox are in the mix for Damon. Saying there is activity isn't news. I can claim I have a source and say the same thing. Isn't a source supposed to, at the very least, give a clear idea on how things are going, be they good or bad? If a source simply says there's no activity, just silence, then doesn't the entire value of this source come from his or her ability to accurately describe what this silence means? Any source that is that ambiguous isn't a source, it's just relatively informed speculation. Again, not trying to be a dick here, but the reason I said that is because I've seen these source comments before and they all seem to perfectly follow the tide of what is being reported in the national media. Anyone can do that. A source is only supposed to gain validity when it is consistently accurate and when it provides new, relevant information. People give Cowley s***, but the guy has sources. Maybe I've missed where Rock's source has revealed itself to be worthwhile, and if so, I truly apologize. You're being a smelly butthole. Rock has given out some good info before. Either you believe him or not...no need for negative comments.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) My first great love was a neighborhood girl a year behind me in high school, but best friends with one of my friend's (bassist in my high school band) sisters, so the summer before my junior year in high school we spent a lot of time as part of the larger group of delinquents hanging out in the neighborhood. During that time I quietly fell totally head over heels for her, and unbeknown to me so did another best friend of mine (the drummer. . . what an ABC afterschool special we were!). Long story slightly less long. . . I won the day and the girl during the course of the next few months, we dated for a few months and then she broke up with me and on the rebound I got swooped up by a girl of incredibly lax morals which was just what I needed at the time. Love of my Life sees that other girls are interested in me and rethinks her decision to kick me to the curve, and besotted as I still am I go right back to her without a second thought. It's all going extremely well at this time, except two years has gone by and I have to head off to college. We manage the long distance thing for a year, but when it's time for her to go to school she goes to Western and I'm at UofI. She decides she wants to explore her new independence (and does so behind my back), and we break up while we're home together over Christmas break. So. . . this in no way ended amicably, though of course I got the "want to stay friends" line. Thing is, she was absolutely one of the most beautiful souls/spirits of anyone I ever met, and even as I moved on to other loves/losses/loves, I always felt I was a better person for he time I spent with this girl. And, eventually it turns out she felt the same way. We reconnected a few years ago via email, and although we have families and lives that are literally and figuratively a thousand miles apart we're very close again. So basically it's totally weird. We had as bad a breakup as you can have, but have ended up in the long run being close to each other and important to each other, although in a completely different way than when we started out together. It doesn't sound weird at all. I think over time the grudges fall to the wayside and the important moments you shared are what you remember most. You were in a long relationship with this person for a reason...regardless of how bad it ended, there were more highs than lows. Nice story Jim. So who contacted who first a few years ago?

Thankfully, this looks like an isolated incident and nobody died.... NIU Shooting: One Injured on Northern Illinois University Campus (Northern Illinois University)DEKALB, Ill. (CBS/AP) Two years after a shooting rampage at Northern Illinois University (NIU) left five students dead, including the shooter, and 12 injured, someone opened fire on another student this morning. Police have a suspect in custody and one person is injured. The victim was taken to Kishwaukee Community Hospital for treatment, according to police. The person's condition is not known. The shooting happened near Stevenson Hall, one of the residence halls on campus. And police believe it was an isolated incident between two individuals. NIU issued a campus-wide alert shortly after the shooting, but officials say the campus will remain open and classes will be held as scheduled Friday.

What's up with Roenick and Milbury? It seems like they constatnly go at it? Is there a history there or something?

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) I have zero idea about skiing, so I ask this question completely seriously, why don't other women use them then? Does she have the skill to handle them why other women don't? Or do other women use them too? Found this article on it. Vonn pushes limits on men's skis Two-time overall World Cup champion Lindsey Vonn is shaking things up this season in her fight to stay on top of the Alpine skiing world for a third straight year. Last weekend at Val d'Isere, France, she snagged her 25th World Cup victory using a pair of men's downhill skis, a move that is pushing the envelope in the conventional ski industry. By Steve Porino, Special to Universal Sports | Posted: Dec 23, 8:12a ET | Updated: Dec 23, 10:12a ET Dec. 18, 2009: Conventional wisdom tells us it’s easier to get to the top, than to stay there. The gist is that no one pays you much mind when you’re coming up from behind. When in front, the competition sees, tracks, copies (if they can) everything. Chalk one up for the heavily marked American Lindsey Vonn, who just won the 25th World Cup of her career in Val d’Isere, France, a super combined, with the help of men’s downhill skis. That’s a first on the women’s circuit to my knowledge, and a secret she and her husband Thomas managed to keep from cameras and curious eyes since testing men’s downhill skis (about 5 cm longer than women’s) and men’s super-G skis (7 to 10 cm longer) this summer. At first blush, given the 1.5-seconds margin Vonn held over the field in the downhill portion of the super combined, it might seem like an unfair advantage. Conventional wisdom, however, has always held that men’s skis are too hard to turn for women. That’s why women don’t use them, and that’s probably why they didn’t think to try them. If you ask Lindsey's husband Thomas, a former U.S. Ski Team member and an incurable tinkerer, he’ll tell you the ski community is a slave to convention. When Lindsey started testing men’s slalom skis (10 cm longer than women’s 155 cm) the previous summer, “Everyone laughed at us,” he said then. Months later, she won the first slalom of her career, and the laughing turned a flurry of mid-season testing. They were too little and too late. Vonn is bigger (5’10”) and stronger than most, if not all of her competitors. Most who tried them found them a detriment. Others, and rightly so, were reluctant to switch mid-season. This year, almost all women’s slalom skis have grown, in no small part because Vonn shirked convention. Here we are a year later and it’s happening all over again. Whether or not it’s a measurable advantage is hard to say. This is not a corked bat, or Dennis Connor sailing a catamaran to victory in a race full of mono-hulls. This is Vonn taking a risk to push the limits of the sport in an effort to stay on top. I saw Vonn struggle to manage the men’s super-G skis on Sunday in sharp turns and finished third. But it was not lost on anyone that she crushed the field where the course straightened. Indeed, the bigger blow here might just be psychological. Friend and rival Maria Riesch, of Germany, stands 6'1". It’s reasonable to believe she could handle a men’s ski. But she made it very clear to German online ski magazine Ski2B she was NOT going to jump on that grenade. "To me [the stiffer, longer ski] is too dangerous," Riesch told them. "I will not get bogged down [with switching] in the Olympic season." She added that Vonn had never been seriously injured whereas Riesch has suffered two serious knee injuries, and a dislocated shoulder. Of further impact to the 2009 World Cup overall runner-up has to be that Vonn switched to Riesch’s brand, Head, essentially demoting the German to second in command. Here’s where it gets interesting. Vonn came aboard when U.S. star Bode Miller, a Head athlete, was uncertain to return to skiing. So, Vonn acquired Miller’s serviceman Heinz Hemmerle, who is widely regarded as one of the best in the business, ever. The skis servicemen prepare belong to them as much as to their athletes. So guess what: Some of Vonn’s skis once belonged to Miller. I like the idea that Vonn is chasing Miller’s American record 31 victories on his skis. If in fact, that’s what she’s racing on. When I asked Thomas this very question he said only this: “You can apply common sense to that one.” Notice he did not say conventional wisdom.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) I am so over the Lindsey's. (Vonn/Jacobellis) First, Vonn's camp is going out of their way to tell us that her "shin was throbbing" after a practice run. Guess what! You're not the only skier who has injuries!! Stop it!! Then there's Jacobellis. I'm really supposed to feel bad for her because she wrecked while being a poor sport and showboating with a huge lead 4 years ago? I was so happy when she hit that gate yesterday. But she's got good spirit! She made a HUGE deal about how she went out and won the consolation race even though she normally wouldn't have bothered trying. She said her coach gave her "props" for going out and trying to win that race instead of sulking. Give me a break. Enjoy your endorsements, but these two can take a hike for all I care, and I love the Olympics. kinda harsh dude. She was injured...it's a story...just like when any athlete is hurt and performs anyway. She did appear to be favoring that leg in her run...so not sure why it upsets you so much. It isn't a 'made up' injury. And she had even more pressure to push harder and faster cause of Mancuso's run. As someone who doesn't watch much skiing(evidenced by the fact I had to look up how to spell "skiing" just now cause it doesn't look right), it certainly looked like a great olympic moment. As for Jacobellis...I never got the impression from her that she wants anyone to feel bad for her. 4 years ago or now.