papsrus

One hell of a spring cleaning, is all I can say.

Who's on first?

Wonderful to hear that Von Freeman has been awarded this honor. And yes, do hope there's a nice chunk of change involved.

Filed in February. Even though my taxes aren't really complicated, I use an accountant. Costs me about $150 (deductible, I believe) and he always wrings out a nice little refund for me, so its worth it to me.

Sounds like reason enough for a Palmerstonian gesture - the Windors have dispatched a gunboat to Florida. Send warning that DeSoto's descendants and an army of lawn ornaments awaits.

Spied this in a writeup in an issue of OffBeat that Jeff kindly sent along recently. (Thanks Jeff). Sound samples here. OffBeat review here. Hadn't been aware of Wiggs, but apparently he was something of a fixture in New Orleans, particularly during the revival period, who cites Oliver and Beiderbecke as his primary influences. These recordings feature, among others, Raymond Burke and Paul Barbarin, as well as a host of New Orleans locals. The list of musicians can be found here. On order. Should arrive this week. Looking forward to it.

I'm firmly indifferent, although the young bride is quite fetching.

Not to pile on, but this really does exemplify the confused reasoning you've displayed on this whole topic. The jurors did not acquit Bonds of anything. Period. They found him guilty on one of the counts and could not reach a verdict on the others. The end. If they had acquitted him, then there would be no discussion of whether or not to retry him on the same charges.

It's a little surprising, although maybe not, that Goodspeak misunderstands this. Pretty basic.

Yes, but acquittal was not the verdict on any of the counts. Therefore, your statement that he was acquitted is incorrect.

Not exactly. A conviction on one count of perjury would have been sufficient for, well, a conviction on one of the perjury counts. Therefore, 11 of 12 jurors thought he was guilty of perjury on that count. Pretty much everyone on the jury, in other words. He wasn't ACQUITTED of knowingly using steroids. I can see how you get confused though.

It's amusing, and telling, that someone can see a felony conviction on obstruction of justice as a victory. Or, for that matter, that Bonds' admitted use of steroids had no impact on his athletic performance. But there it is. No correction needed: My statement (misquoted by you) was "pretty much everyone." And "pretty much everyone" includes all but one of 12 jurors, who initially did, then didn't agree on one of the perjury counts. So if we're talking about the jury, "pretty much everyone" is perfectly accurate, thanks.

Musicians are always messing around with the alphabet -- wanting to put the 'C' in the middle, reordering the letters into weird EGBDF sequences, squashing the letters flat, or sharpening them.

Despite Bonds' admission of steroid use and the felony obstruction conviction, the prosecution failed, when all's said and done. They failed for the simple reason that they couldn't prove something that pretty much everyone already realizes is plainly obvious: that Bonds knowingly took roids. Ting's testimony catching them completely off guard kind of illustrates that they didn't have their shit together. He flipped on them. They should have seen that coming and been prepared. Having said that, the fact that Bonds sees an admission of steroid use and a felony conviction as some kind of victory, speaks volumes.

Or he's not guilty. Or see above. At least the trial established that Bonds took roids.

Seems like the longer deliberations go on, the more likely it is that Bonds is facing conviction on some counts and acquittal on some others. Or in other words, completely and unequivocally exonerated, in the upside down world of Bonds' apologists. Either that, or there's a Bonds' stooge on the panel and we get a hung jury.

The only upside to the Red Sox shitty start (and Rays' shitty start, for that matter, although no one expects anything from them this year) is that except for maybe the O's, the whole AL East is off to a ho-hum start. The Sox are only 5 games out even with their horrendous start. Mind you, they haven't looked good, obviously. Certainly not the team many were anticipating.

A) Steroids improve athletic performance by a broad measure of criteria. That's a fact. The inescapable logical conclusion, then, is that athletic performance, by this broad measure of criteria, would be reduced without the use of steroids. Therefore, it is not speculation to conclude that an athlete's performance would be lower, by a broad measure of criteria, without roids. It's simple, inescapable logic. B) The rest of the sporting and medical community acknowledges that using steroids does enhance athletic performance. Furthermore, it is broadly view as cheating. Therefore, not an assumption. Fact. C) Your argument that steroids don't enhance the specific skill it takes to hit home runs is confused. Steroids help athletes perform by a variety of measures. Like I said, roids won't help a cyclist hit home runs, but they will help the cyclist perform better within his given skill set. Similarly, roids won't help a home run hitter become a world class cyclist, but they will help a home run hitter perform better within his specific skill set. Therefore, this argument of yours, which you've trotted out repeatedly over the course of this discussion, is bogus. And now, a little break. Maybe George's excuse will remind you a little bit of someone.

Ridiculous arguments. Steroids would not make a cyclist or a sprinter hit home runs, but steroids would help those athletes perform at a higher level within their skill sets. Similarly, steroids would not turn a home run hitter into a world-class cyclist or sprinter, or a pitcher into a home run hitter, but they would help those athletes perform better within their skill sets. Bonds would have been a different athlete without his admitted steroid use. You have no idea how he would have performed without them, so supposing his home runs would have been a few feet shorter is baloney. His strength and conditioning would have been measurably lowered without them, and so he may very well have had average- to below-average power in the latter stages of his career without the help of roids. And they are not illegal solely because of the harm they do to the user's body. There are medically legitimate uses for steroids, after all. They are illegal because using them is cheating. Why? Because they give the user an unfair and artificial advantage. Fact: Bonds used roids. Fact: Roids improve athletic performance. What's in dispute: Whether he lied about knowningly taking them. If you believe he used them without knowing it, then you have to conclude he's a complete idiot, AND that his longtime friend Anderson had some reason for deceiving him and placing his baseball career and legacy in jeopardy. But there's no denying his athletic achievements are tainted. The rest of the medical and sporting world realizes this. You can choose not to, but you'd be mistaken.

Not true. As a general rule, elite athletes are acutely aware -- or should be -- of exactly what they are putting into their bodies. Health and conditioning aside, one of the obvious reasons for this is that they don't want to accidentally expose themselves to a banned substance. So when a trainer pulls a syringe out of his bag of goodies and starts singing the praises of the magic potion he's about to inject into your belly button, an elite athlete would have to be a complete moron not to find out exactly what is in that magic potion. And I'm not talking about memorizing the Periodic Table here. Some simple questions about whether the magic potion includes anything from the list of banned substances should be sufficient. And if the person administering the magic potion isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to answer those basic but important questions, then they shouldn't be administering injections (or offering magic creams, or whatever). So, the choices are moron or liar. Ignorance isn't a realistic or believable excuse -- particularly for an elite athlete.

I hate to be the one to break the news, but there's about a 99% chance that your allergy medications contain steroids. My advice to you would be that you ask no further questions. I mean, why would anyone want to know what someone was shooting into their body...especially if the person administering the injections wasn't a physician or even a medical professional? If Bonds didn't ask those questions, then they should drop the perjury charges immediately and arrest him for stupidity. Yep

Hey Dan. Red Sox and Rays are running neck and neck out of the gate! With Longoria on the DL, things ain't looking too good. I'm anticipating a first-to-worst year.

Yes, I'm familiar with the "steroids/hgh is equivalent to aspirin/boo boo juice" argument. It is pointless, because it's medically and legally nonsense to compare aspirin with roids. That's pretty ... er ... clear. I haven't heard anyone demand that Bonds be stripped of his MVP awards. Just a little * is all. That should goe for Gagne's Cy Young, too. Here's a concept: Lets hold people accountable for lying under oath (which is different from taking steroids). See Roger Clemens. I'd think that as someone who deals with kids, you might see this as a teachable moment. As in, hey kids, don't do something wrong and then lie about it to try to cover it up. Come clean, acknowledge you screwed up, and you'll be better off in the end. See Andy Pettitte.

Fact: Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs. He admits it. Fact: Virtually the entire medical community -- Dr. GoodSpeak excluded -- agrees that performance-enhancing drugs, well, enhance performance. So on those two established points alone, Bonds' baseball legacy is already toast. This case is about whether or not Bonds lied in sworn testimony about knowingly taking the performance-enhancing drugs he admits to taking. The evidence so far is pretty convincing that he did knowingly take drugs. But the trial isn't over, the defense still has its shot, so you never know how a jury might be swayed by whatever evidence the defense produces. But the outcome of the trial is almost irrelevant at this point. If Bonds is found guilty, it simply exposes him as a liar, in addition to the already established fact that he was a drugged athlete. If he's found not guilty, then he'll be exposed as just another dumbass elite athlete who didn't care what someone was injecting into his belly button, as long as it enhanced his performance.

I believe that Whole Foods does not sell any food products that use artificial coloring. Here's a list of ingredients they say they find unacceptable in food. Of course, you pay higher prices.