TriGirl

I was reading school reviews of a county we're thinking of moving to last night. One of the students at the local high school actually typed out a conversational "like" in their review. They actually thought it needed to be in the sentence. They weren't using it to mean said, the sentence was approximately, "... and the teachers are like super cool." One peeve to follow this ^^ -- Starting conversations (most reporters start their interviews this way) with, "so, okay...." The other peeve is the incorrect use of the reflexive because the speaker thinks it sounds more professional. Ex: "If you have any trouble in the process, please come see Mr. Brown or myself." I think I've had some influence in getting it out of narrative summaries of military awards (at least at my commend). Many of them, at the end, read, "Colonel White's steadfast devotion to duty reflected great credit upon herself, ..." See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

+1. And from a different perspective, we should learn to differentiate between "tolerance" and "irrelevance." I don't have to tolerate any adult relationship that doesn't appeal to me. Someone else's relationship is simply irrelevant to my life. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Ugly American, used to describe the culturally insensitive, or rude things Americans do that make people of other countries/cultures dislike us. Um, no. That moniker comes from a book of the same name, in which the title character simply was physically unattractive. This guy was a diplomat in the fictional country of the book and behaved counter to the arrogant, uneducated ways of his colleagues. He lived with the regular population, learned the language, learned the culture; and as a result, was able to do his job much more effectively by understanding the citizens and their issues. While I may regret the way and reason the phrase has taken on the opposite meaning of that character, I think it pains me more than necessary because so few of my peers (who operate internationally) have read the book. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Wasn't that one of the suggestions for SC nominee? Daring them not to conduct confirmation hearings. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

no no its beans beans the magical fruit. The more you eat the more you toot Nah, we had both versions in Idaho and Michigan. One is just more, um, polite. Nope! ...It's "beans, beans, they're good for your heart; the more you eat, the more you fart!" Prolly a regional thing. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Season 11 is already up to Episode 20, so it shouldn't be long! I buy those seasons on iTunes, so I get to watch them as they're released. :D The season passes also get you special productions, such as the ComiCon panel and other behind-the-scenes documentaries. Been hooked on this show since Season 5, and have gotten several others hooked along the way as well. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Michelle Branch performed a new version of her song "Good-bye to You" on Samantha Bee two nights ago: "Good-bye, Ted Cruz!" It was hilarious! http://uproxx.com/tv/michelle-branch-goodbye-to-you-ted-cruz-drop-out/ See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Ah, the good ole days, when these simple civics lessons were taught at home, AND reinforced at school (I'm sure if one of your teachers caught some kid showing such disrespect to his female classmates, he wouldn't have forgotten the lesson!) ETA -- too few homes teach these basic lessons to kids these days, and woe to the teacher who tries to enforce a code of behavior! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I like seeing girls naked, but you have to be a real loser if you need to do it that way. Well, you've just described the mind of the average 13-yo hetero boy in America! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I think you're talking past each other - I think the scenario TriGirl is positing goes something like this; Boy tells his friends 'Hur hur hur, I've got this really cool idea to see some boobs.' Boy walks into girls locker room. Girls say 'Aaaahhhhhhhhhh! Get out you creep!' Teacher says to boy 'What the hell do you think you're doing?' Boy says 'Well I've always really thought that I should be a girl and that's why I did it.' Principal says 'Kid, I know you and I know that's horseshit. Detention for a month and next time you're suspended.' Boy tells his friends 'Didn't work, got busted.' We're not talking deep cover agents assuming a whole new identity, just horny kids trying it on with teachers. Which the NC fuckmuppets legislators would have us believe is a major problem that the status quo has been unable to deal with And the SECOND that someone in the admin does that - Law Suit. Wether it is right or wrong the district would pay. No, THAT is the "pretending to be TG just to get a look" that would get the kid harassment. I don't think the average straight kid in middle or high school is going to carry the prank that far, for exactly that reason. He'd have to maintain the pretense for longer than the above scenario in order for a lawsuit to carry through. Thanks for the example, Jakee. That's exactly the scenario I meant. Note the bolded section. Educators should know their students well enough to handle situations like this*. I've seen this exact example being used as justification for passing the law or requiring laws to be considered/enacted. *and if the one educator who comes across this situation does not happen to know that kid, they take that kid aside and have a sincere conversation to determine what is really going on. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

No, I was simply referring to the jokers who DO simply claim the identity because they want to see the girls naked. I was NOT saying that legitimate boys who identify as female do so because of this. The educators should know who is just being a jackass, and who legitimately identifies this way; then deal with each situation appropriately. Sure, educators make mistakes (and some are just as bigoted), but my point is that the school shouldn't need a LAW to enforce appropriate conduct between students (respecting privacy, etc). The educators at the school have that responsibility. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

And perhaps a lawyer can clarify something. It seems to me (this is where I'd like a legal review), that public restrooms are not covered by any law. They are place identified by gender, simply so that people can use one or the other in a more "comfortable" environment. The age-old joke of women screaming when a man walks into a ladies' room simply does not happen. In my experience, if someone goes into the restroom of the other gender, people generally point and giggle, but no one can get arrested just for going into a different restroom! (a store manager may ask that that person leave the restroom and use the other, but that's about it). Besides, what parent lets their young kid go into a public restroom unattended, and doesn't keep track of who else is going in, and how long the kid is in there? We have laws about registered sex offenders having to disclose where they live, and having to stay away from playgrounds and schools (places where it's easier to get a kid away from the crowd). But implying every transgendered individual as a sex offender, or "possible" sex offender, has discriminatory practice written all over it. [I use this comparison because of some of the politicians saying they're trying to prevent men from being in the restroom with their wives or young daughters] Okay, so perhaps there are some enterprising teenage boys who want to declare the "identify" with being female so they can go into the girls' locker room while the girls are in various stages of undress. I submit that any educator who really knows the story of each boy would be able to recognize and handle that situation and move on. We don't need a law to keep those boys' behavior appropriate. [/soapbox] See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Well, in comparison to the increased spending on healthcare and support for affected babies (if they don't support that spending, I can only imagine the backlash!). Or, trying to justify their attempts to shut down a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. Spending a smaller amount, without any social landmines (everyone can agree to help stop a disease, right?), would have been a whole lot easier than the political nightmare they could face in the fall. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

First let me be clear: I do not wish to see the effects of this virus on developing fetuses. However I think we can agree that the correlation between this virus and the occurrence of fetal microcephaly is too strong to ignore. What will the R-strong Senate do when more fetuses are diagnosed with this condition, and more women either want to terminate those pregnancies, or now have a need for extensive assistance for a severely disabled child? I'm sure at that point Senators will wish they had done more to prevent the effects of this virus early, when they had the chance. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Interesting source. I've identified "Hispanic" as those whose ancestry comes from Hispanola, which is modern-day Dominican Republic and Haiti. My definition of "Latino" follows what your source cites -- from the region known as Latin America, which is Central and South America. But the description from your source (Espana) does make sense. And yeah, it is interesting how some people will make a federal case out of it (I don't). Someone texted into a radio presenter this morning that he should stop using the "racist" term marijuana (the topic was full legalization and medical use), and instead say "cannabis." Huh? Marijuana is racist? See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

That photo of it in your hand is so cute.

It is not inaccurate considering the context of the preceding two sentences: ***All skydivers now carry reserve chutes in case something goes amiss with the first one (it rarely does). Even if you find yourself paralyzed with fear in midair, you’re likely not going to plunge to your death. A small gizmo called an automatic activation device, or AAD, will blast the canopy open for you when you reach a predetermined altitude. If an AAD isn't intended to open your reserve parachute if you're too paralyzed with fear to do so, what then is an AAD there for? Why would you just open your reserve? Or to put it a better way, if you're just too paralyzed with fear to deploy your own parachute (don't look at the sentence before it that talks about a mal), then according to this article, the AAD will deploy your main for you. Other than that little lack of clarity, I think the article is written just fine for what it's meant to do: demystify skydiving so the average whuffo will consider making a jump. If anyone could just walk off the street, rent or buy any old rig, self-manifest and get on a plane, then yeah, the article is missing a lot of important information! But since we have TIs and AFFIs to go over all aspects of safety, and a lot of other rules in place (both as an industry and the rules of the individual dropzones) for how and in what condition people skydive, I think the article is good. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Best meme yet! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

You both make good points, but I'll present the other side of the coin. The point of the article is not to give the reader all they need to know to make an informed decision. The point is to highlight (read: wavetops) the advances in the sport that make it less like it was depicted in "Gypsy Moths." If we were a sport where anyone could walk in off the street, buy or rent gear, then head straight for the plane, then yes, this article would most definitely be irresponsible. But in our world of trained/accredited/licensed instructors (to include TIs), we can be sure that the details of the risk can be clearly explained face to face with prospective jumpers. I don't think the article paints too pretty of a picture. That isn't the point anyway. The point is to demystify the sport and get the average person to check it out (I mean, so far no one has a problem with the writer implying that the AAD deploys the main, right?). In that, I think it does a great job. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Oh, holy crap. This is an excellent read during a stressful day when I need a good laugh to wind down! This guy's photo editors did an amazing job of removing all evidence of his tinfoil hat in his photos. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Looks more like a teletubby wearing camera wings. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Especially considering his stance (activism) on intellectual property. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

yeah, I've laughed every time I've heard that one! "Anywhere else, splat!" See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Specifically left the Electoral College out for the sake of simplicity. Since we're roughly equating percentage of votes in each state to winning all the electoral votes of each state, then the states that do not allow for write-in voting would inherently be out of reach for any non-registered candidate. And states that do not include a particular party on the ballots of that state give no chance (aside from write-in, if that is an option) for that third- or fourth-party candidate from having that state's electors cast their vote for him or her (again, assuming the faithful electors). See how much longer my post would have been had I included the EC? And I won't even get into how much of the definition of "democracy" is left out when we limit the discussion to voting! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

No, makes total sense. So since (FAIK) there is no federal law dictating how the voting for the electors is to be conducted (e.g., write ins, ballots, levers, electronic, etc), then the states can determine their own systems for voters to select those electors. That means some states have a write-in option, and some do not. Thanks!