“Well, at least they're completely honest and upfront about it being a GoPro commercial, what with the opening and closing logo and all. I'm more annoyed at the ones that attempt to be stealthy. Also, I find puppies work better than kittens, but that's just me...”
“Everything I've read attributes the decline to the simple fact that black youths aren't interested in baseball - basketball and football are far more popular. I've read this article twice and I can't find that explanation mentioned anywhere in it. What horrible reporting (if that's what you want to call it).”
“I think it was a leg from Denver to LA that flew over the Grand Canyon and then went on to pass over Yosemite. Clear skies everywhere, I could see most of the Canyon, Half Dome, etc. It was spectacular. I ALWAYS ask for the window seat.”
“Paterno didn't "pass the buck", he took the issue to his superior AND the administrator in charge of the campus police. I've read the Grand Jury report and, to the extent that it mentioned Paterno, it was relatively complimentary. But Paterno wasn't mentioned hardly at all because he had almost no involvement in this incident; McQuery (stupidly) went to Paterno who turned him over to the authorities and then very properly stepped out. He wasn't involved in the investigation. Paterno's biggest crime: a famous name. The Grand Jury assigned full blame for the coverup to the two men who actually investigated the incident, but who's ever heard of "Schultz" and "Curley"? EVERYONE's heard of "Paterno". Hence the extraordinary attacks against him, despite his very minimal involvement. He was viciously savaged in the media and in "the court of public opinion" FAR more than the two men who actually were responsible for the coverup.”
Keith Colquitt on Mar 5, 2014 at 12:10:24
“I attended a Penn State campus myself and recently graduated. Joe Paterno was revered at the university. I always liked and respected the man but I think that I would have acted more vigorously if I was in his shoes. I would have told the police and those at the university who I reported to. I would have also interviewed McQuery and if I found him to be the least bit credible, Sandusky would have been banned from PSU facilities.”
“So, tell them some families have two moms or two dads instead of a mom and a dad. They'll accept it without even thinking about it. Young children are actually the LEAST likely to be confused by this.”
“A: His "nuance" is that Adams follows the "Warrior" approach, WHICH HE SAID is "deserving of our respect".
B: There’s no reason to insult cheerleaders, “cheerleaders” is a perfectly acceptable term and is applied to both men and women.
C: He tells us enough about Adams to illustrate his subject, which is NOT Lisa Adams. It is different methods of dealing with cancer. Regardless, I learned enough from this column to develop admiration and respect for her fight.
D: The “Warrior” approach is overwhelming held up as the ideal (remember Valvano's magnificent speech "Don't give up. Don't ever give up"?). He's correct that this implies those who do NOT use a “Warrior” approach are "giving up", ie lacking willpower. BTW, that approach is not the same as simply “stopping treatment”.
E: The closing sentence he chose to best illustrate his article is "Equal praise is due to those who accept an inevitable fate with grace and courage." If you agree then you agree with the column. If you disagree, well...
There is a class of people who read an opinion piece and WANT to find something to be "outraged" by - and will twist themselves into pretzels to find it. I don't have a lot of patience with that. Keller's article was not an attack on Lisa Adams, it was a thoughtful look at how fighting cancer is portrayed and his closing quote is a call for compassion.”
“Quotes from his column: "I cannot imagine Lisa Adams reaching a point where resistance gives way to acceptance. That is entirely her choice, and deserving of our respect...her decision to treat her terminal disease as a military campaign has worked for her. “ He also praised her support for cancer research: "Adams has been a cheerleader for cancer research in general and Memorial Sloan-Kettering in particular. In fact, she has implored followers to contribute to a research fund set up at the hospital in her name, and has raised about $50,000 so far. "
Regarding respect for other ways of dealing with cancer: "Adams is the standard-bearer for an approach to cancer that honors the warrior...that, implicitly, seems to peg patients like my father-in-law as failures." (Keller's FIL did NOT follow the "Warrior" approach). He also mentioned an associate dean at Stanford who "cringes at the combat metaphor, because it suggests that those who choose not to spend their final days in battle, using every weapon in the high-tech medical arsenal, lack character or willpower.", who said "Equal praise is due to those who accept an inevitable fate with grace and courage.”
YOU ARE WRONG. LEARN TO READ.”
mrsaskew on Jan 15, 2014 at 08:55:55
“I read it: you seem unwilling to grasp the nuance of "I cannot imagine Lisa Adams reaching a point where resistance gives way to acceptance." Or, "Adams has been a cheerleader for cancer research..." That tells us lots about Bill Keller, none of it good, and very little about Lisa Adams.
"cheerleader"? It's either an sexist word choice or a cliche that should not have gotten past the editor. Given the entire article, I'm reading it as both.
Bill Keller's insight into the human mind seems limited to me. He does not realize that a cancer patient can be both "a warrior" and capable of acceptance. And, he seems to be ignorant of how elderly cancer patients are treated in the USA. In my experience as a witness, elderly cancer patients are not treated aggressively unless that is what they wish. I have seen oncologists repeatedly and firmly assure elderly patients that it is their quality of life that matters---not how hard they "battle" by enduring treatments.
Not a one ever suggested that when the patient decided to stop treatment, that he was a wimp or a failure.”
“I read Keller's column, he did NOT in any way criticize Adams for the aggressive, all-out-war approach she uses to deal with her cancer. He was speaking on behalf of OTHER cancer patients who choose a more accepting way to handle their disease. In Adams’ very public and very aggressive fight she tends to imply that people who are more accepting of their condition are “giving up”, are “quitters” (although Keller points out that in some studies those people may actually live longer). Keller was simply saying that THOSE people’s way of dealing with their disease deserves every bit as much respect as Adams. In other words he was SUPPORTING the idea of allowing different people to handle cancer each in their own way. His column was completely correct and it’s too bad that people are twisting it around to make it seem like he was criticizing the way a cancer victim manages her ordeal. He was doing no such thing.”
Dec 29, 2013 at 10:21:43
“They're not moats, they're just water features. Congrats to the writer for taking a perfectly normal outdoor landscaping feature, one that's been around forever, and hyper-sensationalizing it by substituting a term for a medieval castle defense mechanism that it has NOTHING to do with. So basically, you're saying water features are becoming more popular in home landscaping? Well. That's nice.”
Muzzle Me on Dec 29, 2013 at 18:43:23
“Just an FYI, appears this was written, once again, by an intern.”
Dec 24, 2013 at 11:27:31
“The most outstanding aspect of the original was the very clever way they constructed the outcome of the courtroom case. The D.A. being set up by his own son, the judge running for reelection, the postal worker trying to figure out what to do with all the mail addressed to Santa Clause... It all added up to a very believable court ruling that Kris Kringle actually was Santa Claus. You really believed this could actually happen (and "I believe" was the theme of the movie). Excellently written script. This was the climax of the movie, and all of it - EVERY BIT OF IT - was removed from the remake. How could anyone possibly think the remake was better?”
Laer Carroll on Dec 24, 2013 at 14:29:34
“I disagree. Love both. See no reason it must be one OR the other.”
“Why in heaven's name are so many people buying CFLs instead of LEDs? CFLs were bad solutions to begin with. Now the LED cost is down to where they're cheaper than even incandescent over a lifetime, they're brighter light, they're easily dimmable, they turn on instantly, they don't have mercury, the new ones are better at providing natural light... I replaced incandescents with LEDs and had to LOWER the dimming on them because they were brighter than the bulbs I replaced. CFLs are horrible, get LEDs.”
“Jail is far FAR more expensive than the extremely expensive "intensive inpatient" form of drug rehab you referred to. In the US, the average prison cost per inmate is $37,000 PER YEAR. A 10-year jail sentence would be over 7 times the cost you claim, and in fact a short 2-year sentence would be more than your cost. And if the therapy doesn't work, you still end up saving money over prison. Prison won't cure them either.”
“Portugal decriminalized drug possession 12 years ago. They didn't LEGALIZE it, they replaced criminal convictions and jailtime with the offer of therapy (which, BTW, is cheaper than jail). Since then, illegal drug use among teens has dropped, HIV rates declined, number of people seeking treatment for drug problems has doubled, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs have been cut by more than half, and they have among the lowest drug usage rates in the E.U. Meanwhile the U.S. has the highest prison population in the WORLD (both in terms of numbers and as a percentage of population), due largely to our incredibly stupid drug laws and mandatory sentencing requirements. Stupid.”
exitor on Dec 20, 2013 at 13:24:09
“Intensive inpatient drug rehab is much more expensive then jail. A 30 day stay can cost $50000.
"Therapy" doesn't cut it for the majority of addicts.”
JCCameron on Dec 20, 2013 at 11:15:19
“That would take money and power away from Government institutions and reduce the amount of stops the cops can make due to "suspicious" activity. This ain't gonna happen unless libertarians get into power.”
“From photos I've seen, it appears those aren't even "wings" but "wing pieces" - that INCREDIBLY annoying habit restaurants have of cutting whole wings into two and then counting and selling each piece individually. It's infuriating how the restaurant industry has managed to establish a standard that a "10-piece wing pack" consists of 5 wings. The McDonald's pricing would be bad enough if they sold REAL wings, but that's an absolutely atrocious price for just stupid little pieces of wings.”
“I too was thinking that the span of humanity is more likely to be the CAUSE of the beginning of a new epoch, not the epoch itself (we're the metaphorical comet striking the earth). Epochs are measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years. OBVIOUSLY this is personal opinion but it's absurd to believe humanity will last another million years (or even ten thousand), in light of what we've done to ourselves and our environment in such an incredibly short timespan already (not to mention the exponential rate of acceleration of our impact over just the last few hundred years).
At any rate, reliably determining whether this is a new epoch will require the viewpoint of an observer positioned at LEAST several hundred thousand years in the future. The fact that this is impractical is a poor excuse for science to say "well, then let's just declare one now". You can't define and name a new epoch only a (relatively) few years into it. Who KNOWS what the world will be like even in the paper-thin period of a thousand years from now? And, considering the uncertainty over whether humanity will still exist, even if it IS a new epoch does it make sense to name it after ourselves? Of course, if the new epoch is void of humanity, it means there won't be anyone around to criticize the name. Personally I think it's all just grandstanding on the part of the scientific community.”
“I completely agree, and perhaps I'm being too critical of the article itself which isn't too bad (it appears to be largely from Scientific American, not Huffpost). I was a little irked by the title - "When did the Anthropocene Begin"? The bigger question should be "IS there an Anthropocene?". The determination on whether to fully accept the term, which I'm sure will happen, will be based upon much more than simply its starting boundary. The Wikipedia article on it is far more interesting than this article, being a more thorough overview, but of course it's longer too.”
stevensgorge on Dec 9, 2013 at 20:13:48
“Yes- another criticism- although I am perfectly willing to assign the present times to a period called the Anthropocene, only because we are "anthro" are we able to assign a starting date. No other period has a start/end time so precisely determined, with the possible exception of cataclysmic boundaries such as the K-T (apparently now known as the K-Pg!! Learn something new every day...:^) ). One might argue that we are in a boundary time, and the characteristics of the next period, even while being human caused/dominated, are not yet clear...”
“As I have stated elsewhere, my comment is not about the validity of man's impact on nature, most of which I agree with, but the absurdity of how the media reports science. "Look! They have a name for the timeperiod of man's disruption on on the environment! Wow, it even rhymes with Pliocene! Boy, that's REAL science! It's official now!" What a farce. The proposed Anthropocene epoch has NOT been adopted, although "Steps are being taken by independent working groups of scientists from various geological societies to determine whether the Anthropocene will be formally accepted into the Geological Time Scale." (Wikipedia). I don't know if they'll have a ceremony, but there IS a process to make it an accepted term, so you should write about something you know more about. The Anthropocene boundaries are based on very fuzzy questions regarding mankind's impact on nature - questions which, regardless of how much you believe that mankind has significantly impacted nature (as I do), have not at ALL been solidly and scientifically resolved. The PROPOSED epoch begins with mankind's disruption - but the timeframe, extent, and even validity of that disruption is itself still being figured out. But as far as the media is concerned, we've got a fancy name so it's all real science now.”
“I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and I'm an atheist who strongly believes in global warming and that it is caused by man. My comment was not about the validity of these issues, but on the absurdity of the media jumping upon a new term that has NOT yet been adopted by the scientific community, for no other reason than it makes everything "official". These issues have been under discussion for decades and a new official-sounding scientific term doesn't change anything. But it SURE DOES give the media something fancy-sounding to talk about.”
stevensgorge on Dec 9, 2013 at 12:10:09
“OK- rationale accepted. But why shouldn't the media discuss the nomenclature decision process in science? They sure had fun with the re-classification of Pluto...”
“a) I am not advocating adding "criticize" as part of the definition.
b) Of course it's not a "scientific opinion". What an odd statement. I wasn't writing a scientific treatise - I'm making a comment on the invention of "official sounding" terms as a new way to discuss issues that have been on the forefront of the media for decades, and especially how the media jumps on them - "Wow, it has a scientific name so it must be official now, huh." I was also commenting on the way this article makes it sound like the "anthropocene epoch" is an established period just like, say, the late cretaceous.”
Worldview99 on Dec 9, 2013 at 15:56:13
“A hundred fifty years ago there was no "late Cretaceous" either.
The term "anthropogenic epoch" from the article is the term coined by a new on-line journal that appears to be devoting itself to the science surrounding an age defined by the domination of the environment by man.
This is no different than the identification and scholarly treatment of the Cambrian as the initial explosion of species. The press, and the opinions of the press, or criticisms of the new definition, have little or nothing to do with the science behind the new term or its validity.
That validation is the purview of science. Not the press.”
“First of all, if you read the Wikipedia entry, "Anthropocene" is actually a recently invented informal term that has not been officially adopted as any kind of "epoch". Basically it's just another way for scientists and environmentalists to criticize the impact humanity has had on the environment. It pairs rather well with the term "Holocene Extinction", the Sixth Great Mass Extinction which is also blamed on humans. "Holocene" is another informal term that hasn't been officially adopted. However, all these fancy names sure does make it sound scientific, doesn't it?”
SocBeat on Dec 9, 2013 at 11:32:29
“Both anthropocene and holocene are terms that have meaning in geological and anthropological circles, and are not redundant with other generally accepted terms. Just what is it that you're looking for to make them "accepted"?”
Soilguy on Dec 9, 2013 at 11:11:55
“Well I hope I'm on the invitation list for the official Anthropocene Adoption ceremony!
Whine about things you know more about.”
mzackcpa on Dec 9, 2013 at 11:09:18
“Preach, Brother, Preach”
Worldview99 on Dec 9, 2013 at 11:06:11
“You're right in that its a new term. It's description is therefore never more malleable than in its infancy.
But the article argues from it being the time humans begin to dominate the planet's ecosystems and environments. Your opinion of "criticize" as part of the definition would seem to be yours alone.
That reflects a bias, not a scientific opinion.”
stevensgorge on Dec 9, 2013 at 10:55:38
“Not very good at accepting changes in the world since your elementary education, are you? Do you know how many new words have entered the English language and scientific terminology since then?”
“Wrong. The "typical American citizen" ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT BUY THIS CRAP. I don't know a single person who buys this junk, or has the slightest interest in seeing candid pics of celebrities, let alone their kids. You're swallowing the excuse the paparazzi's themselves use, that they exist because the American public wants what they provide. Well, here's the reality: they are NOT serving a huge market of nosy Americans, all it requires is a tiny number of fatbutts standing at the checkout line at Walmart to make it worth their while to go to these extreme lengths. The vast majority of Americans would agree with Affleck about the need to protect little children. The fatbutts at Walmart don't rule this country. Yet.”
“I was, in fact, making a cynical comment about the media grabbing a "patriotic moment" and stuffing it with sickly flag-waving brave-soldiers-and-apple-pie sentiment, for absolutely no other reason than to sell breakfast cereal. Didn't you notice how you had to sit through the ad to get to the photo? If you don't think that's precisely and entirely why they ran this story then you're incredibly naive. And those of you teary-eyed heart-swelling "patriots" who got all weepy by this story, quit letting the media manipulate you just so they can run advertisements. It's disgusting. Either that or go buy some breakfast cereal.”