Other reports state that on this lap that Stewart was following another car. The lead car swerved to miss Ward leaving Tony no where to go. At this point to say Stewart has any fault is a major leap which is unsupported by anything. That may change, but I doubt it.
This car slip and slide all over the place, that is the design. When they got together that led to Ward spinning out into the wall, Stewart was in front. Stewart slide up the track which all these cars do exiting the turns. Ward did not apparently plan for that, over wise he would have backed out a little to avoid contact.
 July 23, 2014 at 8:08pm
again did you read the article????? In what world is original research plagiarism???? Jud was not and is not even making that claim. Jud was researching estuarine (brackish, med to low salinity water) impact of the Lionfish. And his research was not experimental research but observational research. He had never done any research on the tolerance of LionFish in fresh water. NONE. His only research into this area came after Lauren’s experiment showed that they could tolerate fresh water, thus posing an entirely different threat to Florida waters. His experiment confirmed Lauren’s.
Lauren did not publish a paper, she presented her experiment at a Science Fair & since her presentation included some of Jud’s (as a starting point for her research) she cited his research. But her research went beyond his research into whether Lionfish could tolerate fresh water and if so how much. Totally different research.
It was Dr. Layman, who had co authored Jud’s 2011 paper, that published a paper based on Lauren’s research.
The media got wind that a 12 year old doing original research had made an important discovery. Jud is simply upset that all of his years doing “ground breaking” research on the lionfish in salt water was not mentioned in any of the national media coverage of Lauren’s discovery. He was upset that his work was being ignored. And of course it was ignored, for one he is not a 12 year & his research did not discover something totally new.
 July 23, 2014 at 6:00pm
Did you read the story???? Really it is amazing. She did not steal anyone research. She did experimental research inspired by his observational research. He was studying lionfish and their impact in the estuarine (brackish, med to low salinity) waters of Florida. Lauren did original research into whether lionfish could tolerate fresh water and thus oppose a threat far beyond (rivers and lakes) what Jud was doing.
So you have a 12 year girl who conducts experiments (that had never been done by anyone) and fines the in fact Lionfish can tolerate pure fresh water. She cites Jud research in her Science Fair Project. This get the attention of the National Media.
Let me say that again Her Research that LionFish can tolerate fresh water gaining national attention and Jud feels his “ground breaking work” on “estuarine lionfish” is “being intentionally ignored” by the national media, if only his “name were mentioned” cause “at this stage of his career” he could really use the attention.
But what the national media were covering were two things, Lionfish can live in fresh water and that this discovery was made by a 12 year old. The impact of lionfish in the estuarine waters of Florida seems now like small potatoes
One final note. Based on her research Jud then did do his own set of experiments on if or to what extent lionfish can tolerate fresh water. His experiments confirmed hers. Confirming the results merits nothing in and of itself.
That's one way of looking at it I guess. The other is her "research" was formulated and directed by her father. Which while perhaps a reasonable amount of parental help for a school science project is not exactly something she should call her own.
 July 23, 2014 at 5:42pm
No mistake to correct. Her research was original research. I can’t really figure out what is issue is here (except that her research gained national attention and his did not). Jud in fact have not even done any research on this issue, he was studying lionfish and found then in the low salinity portion of the river. But he had not done any research to see how far up the river the fish could over time move, if they could live in pure fresh water. After her research he did do additional research that confirmed her research.
It sounds like he wanted his 15 minutes of fame and did not get it. In fact he admits as much in his facebook post “At this stage in my career, this type of national exposure would be invaluable”.
He thinks it is unfair that all the ground breaking work in “estuarine” lionfish is being “intentionally ignored”. But it wasn’t. Lauren gives him credit for his work in her science project (which included the story of where lionfish are now based on his work). However her research went well beyond “estuarine lionfish” and showed that lionfish could move into fresh water (his study had nothing to do with fresh water).
Was he being malicious, No, Petty yes.
 July 23, 2014 at 5:29pm
Did you read the article? Jud published a paper in 2011 showing the discovery of loinfish living in the a lower portion of the river where the water salinity was low (no longer 100% salt water but was transitioning over to fresh water. He did no experiments to test if lionfish could exist in low salinity or fresh waters. Rather is studying the lionfish he found that they were living in the lower portion of the river which was low salinity. From that point it makes no difference at all whether he speculated on how low of a salinity level the fish could tolerate, he can’t claim a speculation as original research or even research for that matter.
Lauren reads his paper and goes to his presentation. It makes no matter if she got the idea to do the research based on his speculation or if her research idea was original to her (in science most research is based off of or inspired by research done by others). The fact is her research itself was original research. She cited Jud’s 2011 paper and he cited her research in other papers that he later publish. In fact the experiments he did were inspired by and confirmed her research. PLAGIARISM is not an issue here in anyway.
Jud was/is upset that Lauren’s research gained national attention while his has not. But that is a function of the fact that it was a 12 year old girl who did the research. Had Jud done the research no one would have noticed.
November 12, 2012 at 4:37pm
How can we argue if the term racist is being used “a little to often” when so few actually know the meaning of the word. Rowgue you state at the end “I’m not seeing the racist aspect of it. Nobody was insulting or mocking or attempting to demean native americans.” While I agree with you in principle, the word racist does not have anything to do with “insulting” or “mocking” another race. A racist is someone who believes (believes as a matter of fact, as part of natural law) that one race is superior to another, period.
The progressives have hijacked the word racist and racism and expanded its meaning to include a whole array of meaning and actions that it does not. Progressives have expanded these two words to include bigotry, prejudice, discrimnation, stereotypes. But it doesn’t stop there they have expanded it to include actions such as disagreeing with a person of another race, mentioning, discussing or pointing out differences between not only races but between regilious beliefs.
There purpose is to shut down those opposed to them on whatever topic, to control the discourse of public debate and advance their policies and social world view. And Conservatives have simply gone along with the incorrect use of these two words and thus allowing Progressive to achieve their ends. If we cant battle them on the correct usage of words we are finished.
July 1, 2012 at 1:09pm
While I think Joe Williams comment about Mitt Romney tells us more about Joe’s liberal and racial bias than anything, I think his firing (if it is in fact based solely or largely on this comment) is as wrong. We are rapidly approaching the day in this country, if in fact we are not already there, where simply making any comment about a person of another race will be grounds for losing your job or smearing you in the press as a racist.
How in God’s name is a country that has been and still is considered the melting pot of world to continue to exist when simply disagreeing with a person who happens to be of another race brands you as a racist. This has been one of the liberal’s tactics for years and has increased hundred folded over the past almost four years. I do not know if Mr. William’s observation is in fact correct about Mitt or not. It might in fact be dead on correct, my question is so what? Everyone feels most comfortable around people they are like, be that racial, regions, national etc. This fact is not an indictment of the persons character, intelligence or leadership ability. The old saying birds of a feature flock together is and will always be true. Obama certainly seem more comfortable around white liberals than any other single group, at least in political settings.
Whenever one of these situations arise, whether it is a race baiting comment from the left or a comment like Joe’s that ends up arising to a level of being fire, I feel as if Martin
May 20, 2012 at 1:37am
OHNOMRBILL are you really suggesting that wealth is created by the Middle Class? Did you actually read your post after you wrote it. You and Hanauer are basically stating that demads comes before supply which is with out question WRONG. You say that if the middle class does not buy cars and homes etc no jobs will be created. Please tell me how anyone can buy a car or home with out a job. Your own comment directly confirms that jobs are needed in order for the “middle class” to purchase those things that then create jobs. There was zero demand for Henry Ford’s model T. There weren’t people writing Ford asking him to build it, people weren’t sitting around waiting for Ford to built it. Ford determined that if he built the model T people would buy it. Ford created the demad for the Model T by creating the supply. The same thing goes for TV, HD TV’s, IPad, Cell Phones, Computers etc. etc. etc. Only the wealthy by definition have the capital to invest that create the jobs. Jobs and Gates both created products that had there not been wealthy people with capital in invest in there ideas we would not have computers, ipads etc. too day.
OHNOMRBILL it is you that needs to get a clue. Businesses existing and new ones are who create the jobs. They will do so in a situation where they can have a good sense of the future and feel they can earn a return on their investment. When Government threatens business directly and thru tax policy and regulation businesses will s
May 4, 2012 at 6:36pm
I am sorry to say most of the Constitution we think, believe and have been taught, protect us and give us the liberty we love are already 90% null or so preverted has to make it meanlingless. A quick stroll through the Bill of Rights & 14th will hi light my point. 1st- “Congress shall make no law” this restriction on the Federal govt now applies to State & local govt, which is the basis for banning religion not protecting it. 2nd Where the 1st says Congress shall make no law the 2nd states that this right to own and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Meaning no authority Fed, State or local can restrict this right. We all know thats no longer the case. 3rd not an issue, the housing of soliders in private homes. 4th Right against unreasonable search and seizure has been expanded to a general right of privacy which was never intented & has led to numerous other “rights”. On surface this might sound good in fact only aids those involved in criminal activities and the new found rights resulted in rights or others being lost. 5th The double jeorady portion disappeared if the parties are of different races. 6th Right to speedy trial, need it say more. 7th N/A. 8th Cruel of unusual punishment now meaning bad food in prison. 9th and 10th two of the most important as far as the anti federalist were concerned are totally ignored. The 14th meant to correct issues relating to the end of slavery now gives the govt limitless spending and mandate all to purchase health insurance.
May 4, 2012 at 5:57pm
The thing I noticed right off about Julia’s life that no one else has mentioned (that I have seem anyway) is that while she is in college and needing surgery the claim is made that Julia can have her surgery because Obamacare increased the age that dependent students can remain on their parents health Inusrance to the age of 26. First off Obama’s health care reform increased the age by one year.
Secondly while we are not told what age Julia is when she needs this surgery and quick review of what we do know can help us figure this out. Gaining all the benefits of HeadStart we can assume that in Obama’s world Julia graduated from high school at age 17 or 18. Continuing the benefits of HeadStart and certainly Race to Top one would have to expect Julia to graduate from college in say 5 years or because of the surgery 6 years. Making her age at time of surgery somewhere between 18 and 24. Guess what Obama’s health care reform and increasing the age from 25 to 26 had no impact on Julia’s ability to have her surgery. But as usual why let the facts get in the way of a story.
First, u have to start believing this crap...then we can start a conversation.
April 26, 2012 at 11:38pm
I certainly have issues with schools or businesses etc taking action against someone based on postings on facebook. While schools have a responsibility to protect students while in their charge, that responsibility ends when the student leaves the school campus and is returned to the authority of there parents. The only exception to this would be a students conduct outside of school that was such as to create a danger to others if that student was allowed to return to school.
The ALCU’s defense of the girls, using the First Amendment of the Constitution, is misplaced and doesnot (should not ) apply. Since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech…”. As far as I know a policy made by a local school system has never been confused as an act of “Congress”.
April 25, 2012 at 4:35pm
The left could care less about what the Constitutions actually says or what was actually intended. For example the First amendment states “Congress shall make no law….”. There is no prohibition against state or local communities deciding whatever they wanted regarding religion or religious practices.
Futher the amendment states “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. Yet groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation, as there name clearly states are in fact trying to do exactly that in direct violation of this section of the Constitution. By using wording that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, words that were used by Thomas Jefferson but taken completely out of context in the manner of which he used the wording “a wall of separation between church and state.”
But they dont care. If they can twist and torture the Constitution to fix there ends fine if not they either simply ignore it or look to get in front of a judge would will ignore it. And trust me they know the intent of the First Amendment and they know and understand all the phrases of the amendment. They simply don’t care.
You really should head back to school because your understanding of our laws is embarrassingly bad. We are a nation of laws, those laws final check is the Constitution. Which means, no one can make a law that is conflict with it.
Besides, what these groups are doing is helping religion. The last thing you ever want to do is to let the government control your religion. And if you let the government choose which religion is to be promoted as American and which isn't, there is no stopping them from changing that to suit their needs. So unless you have 100% faith in the government's ability to choose how you pray, when you pray and who you pray too, it would be wise to separate your personal faith from those of your government.
April 25, 2012 at 4:00pm
since racism is a believe system, a belief that one race is superior to another race, and a racist is one who believes in racism how does this cartoon show in any way that the cartoonist is a racist? While eating dogs make not be something that we in the West do or consider an appropriate food item other “cultures” do. Making comment on or fun of what other cultures eat doesn’t even deal in race since it is cultural. The cartoon might be playing on some stereo typing image at worst.
Racism does not address:
Hate of other races ( that is call bigotry)
Stereo types of other races (this is called, well stereotyping or in todays world maybe “profiling”)
differences between races, such as diet, skin or hair colors or physical attributes (well there are differences between races, duh)
Prejudging people based on race (this is called prejudice) While some might say that racist are in fact prejudging, the racist would tell you different. That they have in fact studied and judged the race they deem as inferior and have come to a “scienitfic” conclusion. So no matter how flawed there methods racist are not Pre Judging.
While I wish people would start using the word correctly I hold out little hope, for to many have too large a stake in fighting “racism” real or imagined that if what ever racism there is could be wiped away tomorrow these people would fight against it.