• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Koala

  • Rank
    The Benchwarmer
  • Birthday 01/28/1980

Profile Information

  • Location
    Philadelphia, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Its August, there's no end in sight, we are not in a bad place -- we are approaching the outer circles of Hell. Its kinda fun reading old posts from early 2020, when were still so innocent, and free.
  2. You're assuming theirs going to be a (normal) election. I see two trains on a collision course -- the COVID virus at 300% strength during election season, and in-person voting rules -- and I dont see how its going to be possible to hold an election, as things stand right now. We have to agree NOW, on a plan for what to do in the likelihood of nationwide shutdown amidst a resurgent Coronavirus come election time. We cant wait any longer to come up with a plan, otherwise we KNOW Trump is going to use as an excuse to delay, cancel, or dispute the election. And honestly, aside from the fact that we know he did this on purpose, he would actually have a decent point. There's also the possibility, considering the only people who dont take the Coronavirus very seriously are Trump voters, that Trump could outright win an election that is conducted in-person in the majority of locales. If in-person is going to be risky, and the only option in many places, thats gonna skew the vote heavily towards the idiot-population.
  3. Unless the Post is about to publish a picture of 'The Dan' shooting a puppy in the head while getting peed on by a Russian prostitute draped in a confederate flag, I wouldnt get my hopes up.
  4. I believe what everyone is talking about is what's known as a mental status exam. Doctors and psychiatrists use variations of it commonly in their assessments, in fact its sometimes technically part of the full physical examination guidelines. But noone really even does full physical exams anymore except medical students, even your annual checkup is an abbreviated version. Anyhow, the simplest version of the exam, the mini-mental status exam, mostly can even be done without you even noticing by smooth/experienced physicians. They just want to know if the patient is oriented to time, location, and self. Meaning, do they know what day it is, do they know where they are now how, do they know why they booked the appointment? If there are any inconsistencies, or any reasons to suspect (from the history, etc.) cognitive dysfunction, then and ONLY then would you move on to a more complete version. In the more complete version, is where patients will become aware they are being tested cognitively. So basically, if you become aware that you're being test cognitively (either the doctor outright states it, or it becomes obvious from the types of questions being asked), then that means there is is something in your history or current presentation that indicates possible issues with cognitive function or that you are at risk for that. Not all elderly patients, for example, will automatically be given the complete version, because significant cognitive decline and dementia are NOT a normal part of aging . In the more complete version, typical tasks would require a patient to replicate a drawing of a stick figure or a cube, recite the alphabet backwards, Count backwards from 100 by subtracting 7 (100, 93, 86, 79), asked to repeat the names of three randomly selected objects immediately and again after 5 minutes, etc etc. These are tasks that most adults can complete, but require some concentrated effort. The (mostly) successful completion of all the tasks are what is to be expected as normal for an adult. It does not indicate high I.Q., It indicates normal cognition; the very fact you were administered one may be something you may want to keep quiet, unless there's a reason for it (concussion, high risk for dementia, etc.).
  5. Dan Snyder draws his identity from this franchise. If we want to take back this franchice, we're gonna have to pry this franchise from his cold dead hands. So you know what Dan, you can have it. You want it that much? Have it. **** you and **** the Washington Whatevers. Im done.
  6. We cant just let this thing die, we have to make sure this is the spark for real change. Its time for mutiny, revolution, whatever you wanna call it, we're gonna have to wrest control of this frnachise back from Dan Snyder ourselves. So maybe like a small protest demanding Dan Snyder be held accountable (by selling the team) for allowing this culture of misogyny to take place. He is the owner, he is ultimately responsible for what happens in the franchises name, for what happens in that building. You could turn it into a general protest against NFL's widespread culture of misogyny and permissiveness to sexual harassment in the NFL. That might get CNN's attention. And if that get's CNN's attention, it WILL get the NFL's attention. That might make them re-think their decision to not force Snyder to sell the team in light of these allegations, it puts them into danger by association and would actually be proof that their is a widespread problem that the NFL is failing to deal with.
  7. I dont think there are any Snyder apologists left. The vibe of this thread is cautious optimism that this may be the beginning of the end for Dan Snyder. I think the caution is what you are misinterpreting to be support/excuses for Dan Snyder. He has displayed the survivability of a bad infestation of bed bugs. Or better yet, ****roaches -- Im pretty sure even if there's a nuclear war, somehow Dan Snyder will emerge as the owner of the Washington Whatevers.
  8. With Dan, when it comes to media relations, no. No I dont. Why give people the opportunity to sit there a line up to take shots at the franchise and its name? Put it to rest already, get out ahead of the controversy, and for once be a step ahead. Its just frustrating watching the Redskins bungle their way through media relations, I know for a fact I could do better. What announcement? Thats an honest question.
  9. I dont understand why we are still talking about this. How is Snyder this ****ing retarded when it comes to media relations? It boggles the mind. FedEx, Amazon, now even Loudoun County are lining up to condemn the team name. This is clearly different than the other times. This is clearly the end of the "Redskins" name, the current socio-political climate makes it impossible for such a controversial name to survive beyond 2020. Its over, Dan, its obviously over, its over to anybody with a set of eyes. Why hasnt there already been an announcement? Every second that the announcement is delayed, damages whatever might be left of this Franchise's reputation. The franchise is starting to look as obtuse and tone-deaf as that Police Union chief that was screaming about, "Why cant people just show us the respect we deserve." Dan is making it ridiculously ****ing hard to root for this franchise. Look, if Dan doesnt make an announcement soon that the team is beginning the process of looking for a new name, then Im done with this franchise. Im done. **** them. Not even because Im so offended by the name, but I am offended by this unnecessary obsequiousness. Get over it, you man child, the world has dictated you cant have your team-name. Grow up and move-on. It just such a douche move to make, at this time in history. All Im asking Dan to do is not be biggest **** in the D.C. area not named Donald, and he's struggling way too much with that task right now.
  10. I hate the term Islamophobia. Suggesting that muslim women should be hung by their scarves isnt a phobia of muslims -- thats incitement of violence, thats terrorism.
  11. I posted awhile ago what I thought was the Trump/Republican gameplan for staying in power (step 1 -- reopen states too early; step 2 -- let covid marinate through the summer; step 3 -- block any attempts to modify in-person voting policies; step 4 -- shut down everything due to COVID resurgence; step 5 -- cancel/delay/dispute election due to voting difficulties in midst of pandemic/shutdown). I made that post a couple months ago, and now, much to my frustration, Ive watched the Republicans apparently execute this plan verbatim. Im no genius; it was the obvious plan for anyone smart and wicked enough to try. If I knew this, Im sure some Democratic strategists must have seen it coming too. And yet, I see absolutely no plan to deal with it from the Democratic side. As usual, the Republican strategists are playing chess, and the Democratic strategists are banging pots together while drooling on themselves. The Democrats need to do something, other than watch the Republicans pull off this plan. Anything. Scream bloody murder. Hit the Republicans over the head about this voter suppression strategy -- flood the airwaves with ads about how Republicans are trying to subvert democracy. Put it in peoples heads that Republicans want COVID to spread, so that they can stay in power and shutdown the elections -- by saying it outloud, in campaign ads, everytime a Democrat has a chance to speak, they should be saying Republicans are trying to kill people so that they can stay power. Say it over and over and over. Let the Republicans cry foul all they want, because they WILL cry foul. Keep saying it until no Republican can suggest continuing to re-open states without people automatically assuming its part of a plan to disrupt the election. Link the two things in people's head -- reopening states means disrupting election, repeat repeat repeat. Then have Democratic states shutdown again as soon as possible, like yesterday -- and make that a sign of smart governance in contrast to the Republicans (i.e. we'd rather risk the consequences of shutting too early down than the consequences of reopening too early). Can you imagine if Cali/NY/Michigan had the cajones to have never re-opened, so that COVID would be well on its way to being non-existent in those states -- precisley while FL and GA and the other Republic-controlled states are dealing with what looks like a massive COVID resurgence?? It would have meant ****ing the end of the Republican party. Forever. Check-mate. Thats how you play chess folks. Or we could just bang some more pots together...
  12. ^^Just playing Devil's advocate here, but Andrew Jackson, while being a terrible person, was still a president. Not every statue of him has to signify allegiance to confederate ideals... And I am outright surprised by pulling down the Roosevelt statue. Whats the meaning behind that?
  13. True, and its also true that we all know that if Brett Favre had Peyton Manning's work ethic, he woulda been the Wayne Gretzky of football
  14. Agreed. If we are to believe the rumors of poor preparation from last year from last year affecting his work, then it only makes sense to get excited about rumors of the opposite this year. And all in all, that makes him exactly what I thought he was when he was drafted -- a guy with some maturing to do on and off the field. This is actually normal for his age, and not an indication of a character flaw. I was exactly like that at his age. Went through the same thing, messed up a little bit when admission to medschool was denied, re-dedicated myself, got another opportunity and took it. Its totally normal, you can be dedicated to a profession AND a little immature about the expectations of that profession when your 21-22, especially if you run into some doubters early on. It takes some maturity and confidence to say **** them, I know I can do this, and I can do it right. Long as you see the light eventually, and put in the work, you'll get there -- pay no mind to the folks in the peanut gallery, theres always haters (especially if youre black, and trying to break into a mostly white profession, I must say), that are gonna try to pounce on every mis-step. So stop mis-stepping, and shut them up the right way -- thats exactly what I see Dwayne Haskins doing right now. I see a lot of myself in him right now, and thats why Im rooting for him, and confident he'll come out of this and turn out to be as awesome as people thought he would be.
  15. Looking back at the early back and forth in this thread between Kilmer and Brandymac was a perfect microcosm of the highly ineffective manner in which racism has traditionally been discussed in America. One side points out that racism is really terrible right now, and the other side responds by pointing to the abysmal past as some sort of proof of progress. One side cites Philando Castille, the other responds by pointing out Jimmie Lee Jackson. One side cites police brutality, the other side responds that things were much worse in the 1960's. This type of thing has always been the case, develoving into argument where the two sides are speaking past each other. You could go back to 1960, and that same argument would be taking place -- one side would cite segregation, the other side would says hey thats better than slavery. I hope these recent demonstrations mark a turning point in the discussion. I hope we are mature enough to realize both that racism remains a cancer with the potential to destroy the entire society, while also recognizing that some progress has been made. Not enough progress, not nearly enough -- but enough hopefully to encourage us to redouble our efforts to expunge racism from society. When you have cancer, you dont stop when the tumor stops growing and there are signs its receding. But you also dont discount the apparent progress therapy has made. You either maintain, or preferably increase the dosage regimen -- thats your only shot at survival.