formerly33

If anyone could, it would be Van Gogh.

The other day my mom asked me, "Who's Van Gogh again? was he a Renaissance artist?" Nope, mother dear ... nope. Not any more than Bark's creations are prehistoric cave paintings.

I'm a little late to the game, but I must say I really, really like the idea of Terry Ryan fishing. It reminds me of Justin Moore's Bait a Hook when his rival had the hot girl and the fancy car and boat and all, and all he had was his dog. But he had one thing over this fella ... the man couldn't even bait a hook. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XB2peAKwOA

Do you have other pictures to share with us then?

Well, hey! This is from February. How long do we have to wait??

I like this game! I'm sure I'll do absolutely terrible, but now that there is more than one guess anyway, somebody's got to be wrong, and no one will think the worse of me if I am. Let's go with Baltimore.

I'm listening to the Beatles right now, if you care to join me.

If you want to put an end to this horrible mental image that is haunting me, yes, please do. http://www.rookiestew.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/finger-in-your-ears.gif

HU?!?!?

Wait ... what?! That's not what I'm hearing: http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/randmid_1291158384_jetercardtwins_1.jpg

Actually ... I would never have guessed it. How should I address the exalted Mr. Pohlad in the future?

Will it seem like a slightly "bigger" trade if it's Arcia we sacrificed? Personally, I won't care as much as some TD'ers.

ROSARIO!!!!!!!!! BAAAABYYYY!!!!

Nah, that's step 5.

So ... only extremists can take a stance on this and everything in between is hypocrisy.

Levi, you are opposed to the idea of weeding out the natural predators in North America (which, by the way, I do not think is okay, contrary to what you seem to believe), yet you try to justify the killing of lions because it's low down on your list of wrongs. We can't just ignore it because of its level of offense, and we can't say that it's wrong to single out one offender when there are many, many others. Sometimes you need to use someone to set a precedence. It may be ugly and against your moral code, but that's just the way life is. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world. Back to my original point, do you mind telling me why you think that just because other Americans brought down the numbers of grizzlies and cougars, etc., that we have to let the slaughter of wild African lions go by unheeded? I feel like that is similar to saying that since a couple centuries ago there were witch hunts in the colonies that we should overlook a wacko group that wanted to go back to the old way of living, i.e. a woman goes to jail or at least sits in the stocks if she back talks her husband. And I am in complete agreement with ChiTown that hunting an endangered species for pleasure just shows a disgraceful lack of respect for life in general. I don't care if it's a frog or duck or deer or lion or whatever ... it's not right and I don't think we should let it go by unheeded.

This is absurd. Cows and chickens are domesticated animals and are raised to be killed for our own livelihood. You don't have to be a vegan PETA extremist or a carnivorous African game hunter to take a stance on this. Say for instance someone got control of the whole world and said, "Since the people want us to save the lions, we are going to save the deer too. No lion or deer hunting allowed from this date on." What do you think would happen? Lions might thrive in Africa, but over here in North America, deer would run rampant. It would not be good for the environment at all. The overall effect on the deer would be worse than if we were to remain hunting them because they would overpopulate and begin to starve. Then the said leader noticed that and said, "Okay, that didn't work ... let's hunt the crap out of 'em all now and see how that works." The deer population was controlled, but lions immediately dropped back onto the endangered list. Hopefully this leader can reason through his past errors and realize that there is a median that can be rationally attained. And hopefully we can learn from his mistakes and not turn them into a reality. Stop hunting the lions for sport. Is there anything, anything good that is coming of this? And think about what makes animals "exotic." It's not the long mane or the shiny feathers; it is the fact that they are facing extinction. If deer were on the verge of extinction in 2050, I'm sure something would be done to protect them. I don't think there is anything unreasonable or silly about being concerned over this irrational killing of lions. And Bark, Walter Palmer is not my dentist ... but I may have to seriously consider scheduling an appointment with him sometime this winter. I have a strong jaw.

TL;DNW But, in all seriousness, this is hardly a debate over whether Dr. Nucatola has a heart or whether Planned Parenthood is doing this for profit. I'm not sure why, but a lot of people are trying to draw the attention away from the fact that Planned Parenthood is performing partial birth abortions, which by law are illegal. If you want to defend Planned Parenthood in this specific issue, tell me why partial birth abortions, even if performed for fetal organs to save lives, are okay. I won't agree, but I'll be more willing to watch 15 minutes of professionalism on that subject than 15 minutes of deliberate caricature as shown here. You may agree with the news anchor that as a conservative, I don't really believe in life after conception - all I really want is for girls who have sex to get pregnant and "suffer the consequence." This is hardly what I believe. Look at it this way: if I thought that, I would also want to see people who experimented with drugs to suffer from severe drug abuse and addiction so that they would suffer the consequence of their bad choices. I would want someone who touched drink to become an alcoholic. I would want all homosexuals to get AIDS. I do not want that of anyone. Back to suffering the consequence of getting pregnant, though ... I will say that I am extremely hesitant to judge people who have sex outside of the context of marriage, even if I, as a born again Christian, choose a different lifestyle. And the same applies to the other topics I alluded to. Grant it, in my humble opinion anyone who experiments with drugs is ... well, dumb, for lack of a better word ... but I'm not going to point my finger and shout, "You're a sinner!" Hey, you know, in reality, even the word dumb is too harsh. In a lot of instances, you could replace that with the phrase "under a lot of stress." And that is not sin. To put it simply, I am a firm believer in not judging lest you be judged. And by the way ... I kind of like your new signature. I suppose you could apply it to me and say that this is pointless dialogue since obviously I'm not going to convert you or anything. But in point of fact, I am not making even the slightest attempt to convert you. I think I'm smart enough to know that I could talk until I'm blue in the face and type until my fingers fell off and I still wouldn't convince you that what I believe is right. Therefore, that should make writing this pointless dialogue. But I find it to be slightly offensive that you have such a contorted opinion of me as a conservative ... not that it matters what you think of me ... but I'd thank you to be aware that people can strongly disagree on a subject without either of them being idiots.

Seriously ... freaking out about Tyler Jay is taking it a little bit too far, in my humble opinion. I'm too lazy to do the research, but I'd say this is fairly normal. I'm not worried at all. Come on, he's thrown a mere 6.2 innings thus far. Cut him some slack and be patient. I think that hoping that he would be in the majors by the end of the season raised some people's expectations to a ridiculous level, and now you're going into shock since he's not pitching like a man amongst boys (or whatever other comparison you want to use). Think about it! He's in High A Fort Myers. He's not facing easy competition. Give him some time, and he'll find his groove. He's had a long season. Throwing him into the rotation would be an unnecessary stretch ... and I bet I'd hear people whining that he was being pushed too hard if he was in the rotation. Take it easy. This is a very small sample size we're talking about here. Why not pause and imagine getting all excited over a 30th round pick who threw 6.2 scoreless innings to start his professional career.

Okay, I'll try to be rational here. I know I'm addressing a predominantly liberal audience, so I'm posting the link to the article I found on the Chicago Tribune. It's pretty good, though of course I don't agree with the author on this subject, but yeah, I know you're not going to want to read a delirious rant in some conservative paper. My take on it is that this has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be legal. Scrap the argument over whether unborn babies are alive or not, forget about bickering about whether it's a moral or philosophical concern, and focus on the issue at hand. The actions of Planned Parenthood are illegal, according to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This is appalling news, and in my opinion it can't be argued about based on each individual's political views, though to tell the truth I'm expecting to see plenty all over the internet until this simmers down (who knows what will ultimately come of it). As one person tweeted on the subject, "calling vivisection of babies and selling their organs 'medical research' is akin to calling cannibalism 'alternate cuisine.'" Take that as you will. Here is the link to the Chicago Tribune's take on it: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-huppke-planned-parenthood-video-20150715-story.html There are a few points I find to be interesting. First, I thought that people knew about this before, but since it blew all out of the water the other day it's on my mind more than it was last Wednesday. Maybe I was wrong ... ? Secondly, I don't know how much can be done with the evidence at hand since I'm pretty sure it was obtained illegally. Obviously I could be plenty wrong, though. Thoughts?

A man with your powers of jinxing should never make a comment like that. But by the way ... I like the streak you're on!

Those are letters ... but if they were indeed words, that looks like four to me.

Luke Westphal started the Kernels game tonight and threw 6 innings, allowing just 1 run on 3 hits while walking 1 and striking out 3. In Cedar Rapids this year he has started 3 games out of 4 appearances and thrown 16 innings, posting a 3.38 ERA with 16 strikeouts and just 4 walks.

Well, duh ... WINNAH!!! (Though I'm not sure if I like that simply because I like it or because it only happens when the Twins win). And I'm still trying to decide if I were to ask Chief, "Is it Yes or No?" and he said "Yes," would that mean Yes or Yes? Hmm, well, I guess my favorite meme is USAFChief. No offense to the rest of ya'll. It used to be this, but it's no longer recurring:

I think there are two generally accepted "sides" on this subject that tend to go at it hammer and tongs. Both agree that there needs to be an end to rape, but they have completely different theories as to how to stop it. One believes in teaching "how to avoid getting raped," while the other goes with the approach of "don't rape." Both are right … and yet both are wrong. Of course awareness is an important thing, but it's not going to put an end to rape. Rapists don't care that what they're doing is wrong. They're going to do it to anyone, no matter what's going on. And while I haven't really done much study on this (nor have I read the whole thread on here), I'm pretty sure that drunk sex can't be classified as rape. Yikes. I've heard of plenty of cases of "provoked rape" where the victim did nothing wrong, in my humble opinion. And I've heard of plenty of cases of rape where the victim did nothing wrong, even in the world's opinion. So awareness obviously isn't going to do the trick. I may be an extremist, but the idea of just teaching how to avoid it really ticks me off. And when I say "really" ... that's an understatement. And then of course it's all fine and dandy to teach not to rape, but again, rapists don't care. Anybody who rapes somebody has to know what they're doing is wrong, but that doesn't stop them. Teaching them not to rape isn't going to stop that. That's not something that anybody needs to be taught to know. Anyone with a brain in their head can figure it out for themselves. So in my humble opinion, how about scrapping both theories and crack down on punishment. Stop making excuses for the aggressor and stop acting like it's the victims' fault because it's not. I don't care if someone is dressed or even behaving provocatively - this is something that NOBODY should ever have to go through. There are countless people of both gender and any age who never tell that they've been raped because they're afraid of people being mean to them. And then there are those who do tell and suffer more from doing so than the person who abused them. It's a perverted system that needs to be changed. So quit teaching "how to avoid getting raped." Quit teaching "don't rape." Teach "bad choices result in bad consequences." Maybe that'll make the brainless, potential rapist think before they act … and if they don't, well, they'll suffer the consequences - no if, and, or but about it. And quit with the nonsense of ganging up on the victim. Anyone who acts like that obviously doesn't know what they're going through, so they can get of their high horse and quit judging lest they be judged.