jimtkruk
J.T.
jimtkruk

I think usually an interviewer says “not to get into the specifics” as a way to clarify that he isn’t stupid enough to expect the interviewee to divulge some big secret.

This is a really great article. Glad you wrote it, glad I read it. I was talking with my father this weekend about similar issues - specifically transgender athletes. He was a high school athletic director and it seems that that issue has only recently begun to be seriously discussed at that level. He didn’t pretend

I just don’t understand how some people think that they get to be in a public space and dictate the actions of other people in the same public space. Other than basic rights and the even more basic societal standards of decency (meaning ‘don’t take a shit on the subway’ kind of standards), you don’t get to decide what

EVERY month. This happens EVERY month. It’s not my job to look for deals, but I realized this about 6 months ago. Maybe there are exceptions, but in the past 4 or 5 months I don’t think they’ve skipped a month.

EVERY month. This happens EVERY month. It’s not my job to look for deals, but I realized this about 6 months ago.

In this specific case, I think it’s right for the NCAA to not have one specific ball, because one specific ball means the NCAA itself is taking all the money. At least this way it’s the school and each school can make the decision how to use the money (and maybe one school would actually use that money to lower the

I did “Youth in Government” in NH as a high school student. There were a few incidents where some people (one being our supervisor/advisor teacher) felt like our conduct on the floor of the House was a slap in the face to this sacred institution. Nice to see that the kids trying to change the state animal from a deer

Steve Jobs famously carried around an IBM Thinkpad when he came back to Apple. It showed a few things: 1) during the time he carried it around, he was saying that he understood he wasn’t making the best computer in the world and 2) when he did start carrying around a mac, he had more credibility to back up statements

I’m pretty familiar with asylum law. I think I can win that case. You usually have to show that the persecution was either by the government or by a person/group the government is unable or unwilling to control. I’d say there’s a strong case for “unable or unwilling” at this point.

The 6th suggestion is clearly the most effective. 8th might be a close second, but nothing is more unattractive/irritating than sub-professional level improv. Except maybe those people talking about their sub-professional level improv. Even a good person can fall off the path, but nobody can resist the disgust of bad

Visually, this barely works for her. It's the kind of dress I usually hate and it seems like it would be good for most to stay away from it because pulling this off is an extremely high degree of difficulty.

"Innocent until proven guilty." In the court's eyes, she was still innocent. In the absence of evidence showing that she would be a flight risk - which has clearly been established at this point - this is the result of living in a democracy. Sucks in a case like this, but this is the rare case. The only solution