Bobref

Irish also host the “Dabo NIL Whiners” this season. That should be interesting.

Life is to the quick. State law!

Saw that movie the night before my first — and only — marathon. I know that’s a bit trite, but I was pretty desperate at that point.

All I will say about this is beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That cinches it. 🥱

I don’t know whether to laugh or yawn.

Ditto. Janis Qualizza and Amy Beckham at Merrillville, and Patty McCormick at Lowell come immediately to mind. There are plenty of others.

I thought it doesn’t count as a true no-hitter because the Pirates batted only 8 times.

Most of the questions I pose don’t necessarily reflect my personal beliefs. Rather, they are intended to stimulate discussion, force people to re-examine their previous opinions, or play “devil’s advocate.” I’m just a tired old trial lawyer who has taken a few thousand depositions, and examined several hundred witnesses in court.

Yes, indeed we do. That doesn’t make adding more desirable. Nor do I think this particular subject matter’s unique character can be overlooked … or overstated. Having said that, I generally agree with you and Jefferson.

I can certainly live with a legislative response if SCOTUS overturns Roe, but you have to agree a state-by-state patchwork of laws will be a sh*t show. And you have to consider the most important law of all: “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” The Law states: “Whenever a plan or strategy is implemented, regardless of the degree to which it accomplishes the desired goal, it will generate consequences that are both unintended and unforeseen.” And I didn’t say you were inconsistent. I said hypothetical questions are used to probe for inconsistency. But since you wouldn’t answer, I can’t tell whether there is logical inconsistency in your positions … although I suspect there is. 😉

This is a great story. The Bus is still very connected to the ND program, and the University in general. He is a true Notre Dame man. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-hall-of-famer-jerome-bettis-completes-his-business-degree-at-notre-dame-28-years-after-leaving-university/ Hall of Famer Jerome Bettis completes his business degree at Notre Dame 28 years after leaving university The 50-year-old can now add a college degree to his already impressive resume. Former Pittsburgh Steelers star running back Jerome Bettis is officially a college graduate. "The Bus" returned to Notre Dame decades after leaving the university to finish out his degree from the Mendoza School of Business. The 50-year-old wants to send a message to everyone that it is never too late to go after a goal and emphasizes the importance of education. The class of 2022 graduate shared the news on Twitter, writing: "A promise made, a promise kept. 28 years after leaving @NotreDame, I've completed my degree from the Mendoza School of Business. I hope my journey serves as reminder that education is the true equalizer in life and it is never too late to start.” The "promise" Bettis speaks of is one to his mother, who he told he would graduate college. When he first went back to school, he commented on his reasoning for why he decided to go back and pursue his degree. "I promised my mother that I would get my degree. In my immediate family, I'll be the first person to graduate from college," he said. "But most importantly, I have two children. For them to see dad finish a commitment that he set out some 27 years ago, for me to complete that, I think it says a lot to them." Embarrassing defenses seemed like second nature to The Bus, but college presented new challenges, especially after being away from the classroom for so long. "It is so strange. Because I'm so behind the times. I mean, I'm a dinosaur in the sense of school. I don't know where anything is. I'm struggling with the technology," he said. Those at Notre Dame know the Hall of Famer getting his degree sends a positive message to others at the school. "I say to all our coaches that there are three things we should be concerned about versus integrity: Do things the right way, second is help these kids get a degree and do well in their lives, and the third is winning on the field," Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins said. "And Jerome getting a degree after all his success just underscores how important that is." File this one as: Things you love to see.

Or maybe not. https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/2022/05/16/report-notre-dame-in-great-position-to-land-5-star-quarterback-moore/ On the other hand, this might just be cheerleading.

Hypothetical scenarios are a way to test someone’s position for logical consistency. It does not surprise me that you are unwilling to venture down that path, and risk exposure.

Here’s one: An unvaccinated woman becomes pregnant. Her doctor tells her that her unvaccinated status presents a threat to the viability of the fetus. If she contracts the virus while pregnant there is a significantly enhanced risk of stillbirth. She refuses to be vaccinated. Her doctor contacts Child Protective Services, who ultimately files a lawsuit against the woman to require her to be vaccinated in order to protect the fetus. How does Judge Swordfish rule?

You vastly overrate the ability of people to: Plan a conspiracy that will actually work; and Keep it a secret once they’ve done it. On the other hand, it does fit with your usual, tiresome narrative.

Unsurprisingly, the constitution does not mention abortion. Do you think that ends the debate?

I’m trying to manage expectations … primarily my own. 😅

An interesting slant on the debate, The author contends that, to date, the abortion debate has largely ignored important economic issues. https://michaelleppert.com/the-economics-of-roe-arent-being-discussed-enough/ THE ECONOMICS OF ROE AREN’T BEING DISCUSSED ENOUGH by Michael Leppert | May 13, 2022 | Politics/Government, Pop/Life I regularly tell my students these days, just like I used to regularly tell my clients, if you have an idea for a policy change in America, be prepared to successfully make your case purely on economic terms. In other words, trying to convince policy makers the change that is being proposed is simply the right thing to do usually won’t get the effort very far. Proponents for change need to show them the money. When government and politics in America get disconnected from this unwritten virtue, bad decisions are often made. We love to talk about our loyalty to freedom, the flag and the Constitution, but when it comes to change, real change, the dollar is king. This is how it should be. It is this component of public policy debates that make most issues, and virtually every newsworthy one, relevant to all of us. The abortion debate should be no different. There is plenty of data. It is easy to understand. But the loudness of the passions have prevented a rational economic dialogue from having the prominence it deserves. Oh, and one other big thing is keeping this discussion on the back burner: the court doesn’t care. Sheelah Kohatkar succinctly wrote about it on Wednesday in the New Yorker. “Whether and under what circumstances to become a mother is the single most economically important decision most women will make in their lifetimes,” says Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, widely recognized as a leading scholar on this issue. But during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court last December in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the discussion of the economic impact was cut off by Chief Justice John Roberts so he could discuss the fifteen-week deadline for an abortion, in which he seems so interested. The State of Mississippi makes the argument that the Roe v. Wade decision and the subsequent decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood are no longer relevant. It argues that access to contraception, availability of child care, and the existence of family leave laws are the things that make the economics of the issue different today than they were fifty years ago. Myers and 153 other economists filed a brief in the case obliterating that shallow perspective. On contraception, in a 2019 report, the Guttmacher Institute reports that 45% of all pregnancies in America are unintended. This is in an era of great available and advanced contraception to which Mississippi refers. Most of those pregnancies were “wanted later,” while only 18% were unwanted. 42% of those pregnancies end in abortion. I’m sorry Justice Roberts and Mississippi, but that is “relevant.” The moral debate on the issue leaves few Americans without an opinion on the matter. But what parent is oblivious to the cost of their children? When 49% of abortions today are being performed on women at or below the poverty level, and an additional 26% being just above that line, the cost of those children to all of us is obvious and beyond debate. But the economic impact of and outlook on those women is the thing rarely discussed. Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, explained it in simple terms this week. Emily Peck reports for Axios that Yellen said eliminating a woman’s right to seek an abortion would have “very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.” The proponents of these extreme bans in many of the states, including Indiana, lose the economic argument. They have had much of their success because the intensity of the moral debate has provided their vacuous economic one an inordinate amount of cover. The court is a great venue for this void–the court often doesn’t do economics. As much as we think politicians generally, and legislative bodies specifically, ignore the broad implications of their policies, they are designed to account for these things. The public often fails to hold them to account, but that’s just one of many failings for which we have no one else to blame. What the leaked opinion that was written by Justice Samuel Alito was predictably light on was the impact of his proposed decision. I’m betting that if pressed about it, the five justices who apparently support the overturning of Roe and Casey would give an answer that could easily be interpreted as “it’s not our responsibility.” It is a near-perfect storm of devastating consequences being made on behalf of the moral and political whims of the minority of Americans. It appears those who think it doesn’t matter to them are going to have to suffer until it does.

It’s very, very early. Let’s total this up after early signing day, Dec. 21, 2022. It doesn’t mean much until the ink is on the paper.

Things are changing. Adapt, improvise, overcome.

I guess this is one kid we don’t have to worry about de-committing. Here’s the tattoo Andrean’s Drayk Bowen just got.

I wonder if Mr. Davies takes his aluminum foil helmet off when he goes to bed at night.

He’s screwed the pooch for the last time.