SF/PF

To be fair, I think the public backlash had as much to do with the way the situation was framed, as the coalition itself.

Yeah that was bad. We'll see if the media calls him on, well, being called on his bullshit.

It is certainly better than it was in the past (knocked out by Matt Serra... ouch). But I maintain that it looks a lot better than it is due to the threat of his wrestling. Put GSP in a straight striking match vs. the top strikers in his division, and GSP is in for a world of hurt.

I'll agree that it has certainly improved, but I still hear the boo's pretty often.

Proof that I deserve a Chorus radio network show and a column in the National Post, I say.

Awww man. I wasted a perfectly good minute reading that article, realizing paragraph by paragraph that I had wasted my time. And then, to add insult to injury, I get to the bottom to see this sentence, openly mocking my wasted minute: From now on, I read articles from the bottom up.

To be fair, he only pointed out the Conservatives party's own stated priorities.

What does that question even mean? "Accept the verdict of voters?" Is Ignatieff going to seize power in a military coup and install himself as President-for-Life if voters elect a minority Conservative government? Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!Coalition!

Alternatively, they could drop the "in-and-out scheme" language and go with "electoral fraud scheme."

Well, I was here and I can't begin to fathom the anger and talk of seperation. Any suggestion that talk of Alberta seperating existed outside a small fraction of talk-radio callers (a small fraction of a small fraction of Albertans) is pure hyperbole.

His striking is certainly passable, but Koschek is a pretty one dimensional wrestler, and GSP just physically dominated Penn in every way. I think the threat of GSP's takedowns really hampers his opponents ability to strike effectively and makes GSP's striking look far better than it actually is.

I would say that rules of the sport generally favour wrestling, not striking. Though I suppose it could be said that its not the rules so much as the way fights are scored that favours wrestling. Part of this is pure economics. Its not uncommon to hear the fans boo-ing a highly technical stand up or ground fight. The majority of people buying PPV's and going to the events don't want to see technical strikers or fighters putting on a BJJ clinic. They want to see brawlers swinging for the fences and wrestlers ground n' pounding someone. On any technical evaluation, the Bonnar-Griffin fight has to be one of the worst fights in the history of the UFC. And yet, it's legendary. Yeah that one looked a little bit excessive. We don't know if Henderson realized how badly the punch hurt Bisping, and merely pounced to try to end the fight. But it certainly looked bad. Size matters, but I think GSP and Penn differ in a very important way. GSP has intense natural athleticism and trains really hard. Penn doesn't hae the same genetic athleticism, nor does he train particularly hard.

Irrelevant. A state has the responsibility to ensure, through force if neccessary, that its citizens adhere to international law. To suggest otherwise would lead to ridiculous situations, such as a nation claiming innocence through inaction while its civilians exterminated an ethnic minority. "It wasn't us.. the people did it on their own!"

If a judge found someone guilty of illegally violating the section of the criminal code prohibiting first degree murder, but never said the word "murder" in his judgement, would you argue that his judgement did not in fact find that person guilty of "murder?" I think not.

Its not relativism, its a simple fact. Some schools teach the traditions behind christian holidays, and some don't. Some schools do christmas projects in art class, some don't. If you believe that is "relativism," I'm not sure what else to say. That said, insisting that all views ought to enjoy equal presentation and airtime in the interest of "fairness" is bordering on relativism, but still not there.

Yeah, Silva's takedown defense certainly isn't spectacular. It definitely happens. But if you land 3 takedowns (and miss 20) in a fight, you'll probably win. The risk/reward of takedown attempts is out of whack, I think. GSP's striking isn't anything special, but its passable for sure. If pushed, I'd put my money on GSP in that fight too.

Definitely. But I've seen a good many fights in which one guy stuffs a half dozen take down attempts in the first 3 minutes of a round, and stays busy striking. On the 6th or 7th attempt, the other fighter finally gets him down and holds top position for a couple minutes. Assuming neither fighter does any significant damage to the other during that round, who should get the nod? The fighter that controlled the fight on the ground for 2 minutes and succeeded in only 1/7th of his takedown attempts almost always wins the round. The guy that controlled the fight for 3 minutes and successfully stuffed 6/7 takedown attempts almost always loses the round. Thats a problem, in my opinion. It happens, but failing a takedown is, on balance, pretty safe.

Its not so much a lack of takedown defense, but the rules in MMA. A Fighter that sprawls and stops a shot is left in a pretty neutral position, physically able to launch devastating elbows to the neck and back of the head of his opponent but unable to legally do so. The rules are such that there is very little downside to going for a takedown and failing. On the other hand, a fighter that attempts 15 takedowns and only lands 1 is going to win the round in most cases, even if they don't do any substantial damage from the top position.

I'm interested in the result of a GSP/Silva fight, but I'm pretty confident it would be either extremely boring or extremely short. There are only two ways I see that fight going.. GSP "lay n prays" on Silva for 5 rounds, or Silva knocks GSP's head clear off. Neither is particularly exciting.

Perhaps you may want to try responding to posts individually. Including a quote in your response typically implies that you're responding to that post.

Many nations in the world are still pretty leary of jumping into the middle of a civil war. As has been pretty well demonstrated as of late, crushing the military of your opponent can be the easy part of the job. Did I say there were dozens that could "do it better"? Oh, thats right. I didn't. And yes, a poorly trained and poorly equipped military is easy to beat. If you don't recall, Iraq's military was crushed pretty damn quickly. Of course, thats when the real work starts. Did I criticize the US for not helping some other nation? Oh, thats right. I didn't do that either. I would love to see a free and democratic Libya. I'm not convinced that backing a regional group in a civil war is likely to lead to a unified and democratic Libya. But we can all hope for the best. More ranting about stuff that you think I said, but only exists in your mind. Must be nice to rage against people for saying things that they never actually said.

I am unaware of any collective agreement that dictates the terms of organizational structure except those levels in the structure that include the workers. Sometimes these levels are the problem. Most of the time, problems in companies exist at a much higher level. You may have a point if it was possible for workers to have those laws enforced without incurring cost to themselves. Someone that has been unlawfully dismissed often does not have the option of hiring a lawyer, since they're unemployed and facing mortgage and bill payments. Collective agreements, for the most part, do not include protections for workers beyond those already enshrined in law. The important difference is that a union provides a means for workers to enforce those protections. Items such as seniority protections are often the only additional benefits contained in agreements. Labour is also a form of investment in a company made by workers. They seek maximum return on the investment of their labour. Again, you make the leap from "There exists a law against companies doing X" to "Workers are protected from companies doing X." An important difference. Perhaps. In the meantime, well run companies will continue to ensure that management is not negligent in its duties by not buying into the "blame the labour!" rhetoric. I agree completely. A very well documented example of ineffectual management. Nor should it. Workers do not fill that role within any well run organization. So if management has set the bar too low, we'll just blame that on the union? Management has the responsibility to determine and enforce reasonable standards of productivity. If they fail to do so, or set the standard too low, they bear sole responsibility. Well, yeah. If they don't "improve" they actually end up reduced, due to inflation. The alternative is considerably worse. They never lost control of the budgetary process. They merely neglected to use the controls they always had. Another excuse for management neglecting their duty. "It's too hard!" or "It's not good for my career!" are not very compelling defenses.

I'm not really sure what you're raging against here. I responded to a post that claimed that there was only one nation in the world capable of stopping a poorly trained second world military. Calling it second world is being charitable, IMO. What "scornful attitude?"

Why would they?

Looks like I'm down $5 virtual bucks. I am a little disappointed that Jones got two free warnings for attacking the throat of his opponent, though.