Clearly Emmett should be grateful to exist at all.

Well, Emmett doesn't wear a jockstrap for his cup (which he loves to wear for some reason), but it's a kind of special underwear with a pocket in the front that holds the cup. So from that evidence, I'd say Slate may be right.

Oh right, I thought this was just fashion craxiness, but yeah. Jockstraps still abound as an efficient way to house goolie protection, but the shorts with the front pocket are becoming more prevalent, since they can make them from underarmour-type fabric, and they assist with shedding heat. I have no idea what the market share is, but even I have a pair of the shorts.

The federal budget is at record deficit levels. How can Congress justify reducing income? Is the "fiscal responsibility" party just going to make the deficit keep going up and up?

My answer to this is that, contrary to popular belief, the deficit doesn't matter, but it'll take me some time to get my ducks in a row to show why this might be the case.

More specifically, the argument rests on the presumption that the estate tax is somehow the only way the government can pay its debts! Which is false.

Keep in mind that our future generations would LOVE to have that money now, let it generate interest and pay off the deficit later when inflation makes it cheaper in real dollars.

And I was a catcher for two years, when I really should've had a jock and cup.

OTOH, you did have the big, honking mitt. That's what it's for, to keep the ball from hitting you.

I only wore a jock for basketball.

Hey, during the no-tax week, bow-ties were taxable. But ponchos weren't.

And if you got a tuxedo, no tax...except on the tie.

Because it's an incredibly slow day at work, I actually went and read the jockstrap article. And I gotta say, I can understand the decline if they don't actually do anything. On the other hand, not wearing a cup in those particular activities where you're highly likely to get nailed in the tender bits? CRAY-ZEE.

Right. Goolei-snugglies are still the same idea, even if they are house slightly differently.

And I was a catcher for two years, when I really should've had a jock and cup.

Buster Olney was on TV this morning, talking about unfortunate comebackers, and he mentioned some dude from years past who was hit on the inner thigh. Missed his crotch, but Buster reported that years later, that guy would break out in a cold sweat when describing the incident. And that was somebody who did wear a cup (I presume).

On the other channel was footage of Bryce Florie, who in 2000 got his face rearranged by a comebacker. Nothing like watching a guy exhale blood out his nostrils to wake one up in the morning.

And I was a catcher for two years, when I really should've had a jock and cup.

OTOH, you did have the big, honking mitt. That's what it's for, to keep the ball from hitting you.

Big, honking mitt: good. Foul tips, wild pitches, backswings: bad. I vote cups for catchers.

acc'ding to this there are reforms schedual for 2009 - the interesting part is the % of households that would acctualy be taxed

[link]

there have been movements to move the date to sooner than 2009, but those that want it gone would vote for changeing the time line ( acc'ding to this site)

MA is having a two-day "No sales tax" on anything under $2500 (Aug. 13-14).

Doesn't affect clothes since they aren't taxed here anyway.