It’s a government mandated punishment for the exercise of free speech. It’s about as open and shut as it gets. The open intent is chill speech.

I get to leave my husband in bed, home from his university job, for two weeks as I sludge off to work, and then come home to him, still in his PJs, playing the video games I got him for Christmas.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s government mandated punishment of an expression of free speech, as defined (repeatedly) by the Supreme Court. It’s one of the few instances of consequences of speech that does fall squarely under the First Amendment.

We definitely have the ability to make equipment that takes advantage of how women best carry weight, instead of just relying on shoulder and chest strength. For instance, we’ve got these amazing hips.

And you understand that less muscle mass is required to move lighter loads, right?

No, I think they’re heavy, and I think training and equipment has been directed to bigger bodies over time, but that it isn’t necessarily, well, necessary.

Honestly, I think there is a good argument for starting with gender-segregated units. My guess is that IF equipment and training (and testing) is adjusted for typical female physiology, all-female units will match or exceed all-male units in the field.

My thought is why does a Green Beret need to weigh 220 pounds? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to get rid of the big dudes who take up more room/weight on a helicopter and require more food, probably move slower, etc., etc., etc? How much of special forces activities in combat rely on bench pressing?

I guess we’ll never know since they never asked.

Her attitude appears to be “there is no such thing as rape when alcohol is involved”, yet somehow also, “the choice of women and girls to drink alcohol causes rape.”

I have a friend who owns a few “mixology” bars and he won’t even serve vodka. He considers it the the ketchup of liquors, a lazy and ultimately vulgar way to transmit alcohol without adding any worthwhile flavor to a drink. He hooked me up with booze for my wedding and I had to convince him that, yes, I was going to…

He’s a more recent blind taste test with regular people, not professional tasters. Smirnoff wins again.

The first time I had Chopin neat, it totally changed my understanding of what vodka could be.

What? Nader didn’t touch on ANY of that (minus a throwaway, and unsupported claim about “stock and bond processor” jobs). The only thing he addressed was savings accounts and CD interest rates.

Of course he thinks Akerlof is more qualified. Why else would he suggest a consultation? Tim Robbins liked Nader’s “pro-consumer” outlook in 2000, so should Yellen be encouraged to defer to his (complete lack of) expertise?

He won his prize for information asymmetry in markets, not federal interest rates. His work is much more market based.

Even if you assume that her husband is “more qualified” in the area of monetary policy (that wasn’t the basis of his prize, so I’m not sure why anyone would make that assumption), you’d have to continue that logic to say that Yellen is far more qualified than in monetary economics than Nader could ever hope to be.…

Also, “accommodating” is not a synonym for “pandering”. Arguably, one can only pander to those who have power over one.

The important thing is that you made it out of Greenville