"Swiss authorities conducted an extraordinary early-morning operation here Wednesday to arrest several top soccer officials and extradite them to the United States on federal corruption charges."

"As leaders of FIFA, soccer�s global governing body, gathered for their annual meeting, more than a dozen plain-clothed Swiss law enforcement officials arrived unannounced at the Baur au Lac hotel, an elegant five-star property with views of the Alps and Lake Zurich. They went to the front desk to get room numbers and then proceeded upstairs."

What a scene!

ADDED: Shouldn't America leave soccer problems to the countries that call it football?

"A growing body of scientific evidence shows that exercise alone has almost no effect on weight loss..."

"... [R]esearchers who reviewed surveys of millions of American adults found that physical activity increased between 2001 and 2009, particularly in counties in Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. But the rise in exercise was matched by an increase in obesity in almost every county studied. There were even more striking results in a 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that people who simply dieted experienced greater weight loss than those who combined diet and exercise. How can this be explained?"

Asks a WaPo article titled "Take off that Fitbit. Exercise alone won�t make you lose weight.The obesity problem has little to do with our sedentary lifestyles."

Do you think it's hard to explain? I think the more interesting question is: Why are we so easily drawn into the theory that exercise is the answer? To my question, I would say: 1. Exercise seems virtuous and we like to call others to virtue, 2. Exercise (unlike not eating so much) can be seen by others and admired and encouraged (you look like you're doing something), 3. We love to eat, the primal urge is so basic and ever-present, and we don't want to give that up, 4. We want to believe we accumulate virtue points for the exercise we do and feel entitled to spend those points on what we really love, eating.

Of course, #4 is the answer to the article's "How can this be explained?"

"You can look at these people and say, 'They are stupid'... I might say, 'That is their personality.'"

Said the psychologist quoted in a WaPo article titled "A 73-year-old base jumper died after intentionally setting his parachute ablaze. Why did he do it?"

Think about it: Maybe stupid is a personality type.

"I know it�s insane to think that I could fly. But to make it possible, you truly have to believe in it � to go to a place that�s not accepted."

Said the extreme climber, Dean Potter, who would rock climb, then jump using one of those fly-squirrel-style wingsuits.

Saturday evening he died in a base jumping accident at Yosemite National Park. He and a fellow jumper were found dead below Taft Point, a 7,500 foot cliff overlooking the park�s famous valley. Their parachutes were never deployed.

So, 2 men died, with neither parachute deployed. Was that a game of chicken or some freak wind shear experience?

�I�m addicted to the heightened awareness I get when there�s a death consequence,� he told ESPN. �My vision is sharper, and I�m more sensitive to sounds, my sense of balance and the beauty all around me. A lot of my creativity comes from this nearly insane obsession. Something sparkles in my mind, and then nothing else in life matters.�

"It's a lot sillier than exercise today is."

"What? It's going too fast! I don't know what you're doing. Explain the move to me."

People of today try to follow 80s workout videos.

When have you ever taken a political position that was hard for you to take?

It's my hypothesis that people take the positions that are comfortable to them. Living in Madison, Wisconsin, I often wonder about the depth of the political opinions that seem to be everywhere. To express an opposing view would take some effort and maybe even injure your personal life, so it's easiest to go along and get along, even to adopt the views of the people around you and to avoid exploring the possibility of thinking something else.

These beliefs, then, which seem so entrenched, are actually  shallow beliefs. The behavior patterns and commitment to getting along may be deeply rooted, but the ideas themselves are fairly insubstantial. The engagement with politics itself is insubstantial. Why pay so much attention to politics when deviating from your comfortable point of view would only expose you to pain?

Have you ever taken a political position that was hard for you to take, that exposed you to consequences? Or has all your political posturing displayed you in a position that your friends and neighbors find appealing?

You know what got me thinking about this topic? Basketball! Over there in the basketball thread this morning, garage mahal � a Madison person � said: "The time of year when Republicans don their Badger wear proudly.....of the university and city they would like to see destroyed. On Wisconsin!" And I took a shot at that: "Oh, you know damned well the lefties would abolish college sports if they could."

That is, I tried to turn it into a political debate. I'm a little weird in that I enjoy being a spectator to political competition and making a lot of random observations. But I think most people don't enjoy fighting about politics. Sports is a refuge from that. It's perfectly easy to be on the same side as everyone in your vicinity. And the competition is fun and real � out there to be seen, not brewing and festering in other people's head � you can watch it and gab about it and feel cozily comfortable without any nagging sense that you should be thinking more deeply or showing some courage and individuality.

"Charles Barkley Says Paying NCAA Athletes Is A Turrible Idea, And Americans Still Agree."

Can someone explain to me why the Huffington Post used that "turrible" spelling? Is it mocking Barkley's speech? It it mocking the idea?

The idea sounds right to me, by the way:

"There�s only a couple of players on the college team that actually can really play in every sport, so sometimes you have to look at the big picture... All of those kids are getting a free education. But let�s say we do it your way � we have to pay the diving team, the swimming team. That�s crazy. Less than 1 percent [of college basketball players] are going to play in the NBA... What about the other 99 percent that are getting a free education? Think about it."

I'm looking at the comments now and see that the top-rated comment is:

The spelling of terrible in the article title ("Turrible") diminishes both the point of Mr. Barley's opinion and his education. Further, given how some in his country have worked to to portray African American men, it can also be interpreted as racist.

That gets the response "but that's how he says the word" � which is something I wondered about, but didn't know � and the original commenter comes back with "And in how many instances have journalists used regional accents when writing on a commentary's opinion?" � which is exactly how I would have responded to the assertion that Barkley happens to pronounce "terrible" like that. I mean, he'd have to be awfully famous for that word, pronounced that way before it wouldn't seem disrespectful and a cheap way of discounting what is a damned good argument. He's not famous enough for saying "turrible" that I knew it. Are there any other cases of famous people so famous for a way they pronounce a word that the respelled word would be used like that in a headline? The only thing I can think of is a bunch of dumb old headlines about Ed Sullivan and his "really big shew."

"To mount, I kneel down and put my head between Charlotte's legs from the front and then stand up. She doubles over and grabs my waist, so unfortunately for her, her head is pretty much on my backside."

Said Jon Schwochert, the husband half of the winner of the UK's wife-carrying race. Notably, he's from Milwaukee.