home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

The Phillies meet the Dodgers tonight in the start of the NLCS. The Yanks are supposed to play tomorrow night against the Angels but the weather is bad right now in NY and the forecast is too.

Thursday means Fringe for me.

What are you planning to watch?

This is an Open Thread.

< Vitter Objects To Including Undocumented Aliens In Census: Prefers 3/5 Rule? | Limbaugh >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    when is your afghan piece coming? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    i was planning on "watching" that tonight........

    Too busy with work (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    Weekend.

    Parent
    Please address present situation in (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    Pakistan also.  

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by star on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:09:33 PM EST
    have been waiting for that.. espescially since I am from that part of the world.. would like to hear your take on stuff happening there..

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    opposed here and looking forward to your thoughts on it...have a great weekend.

    Parent
    Freeway series for SoCal (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:52:52 PM EST


    I cannot believe I am routing for the (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    Dodgers, ever.  

    Parent
    That would be a major Yawn (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    I'd prob hope the Dodgers won (it is Joe T after all) but certainly wouldn't watch much, if at all.

    Parent
    It would depend on the start time :) (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:33:36 PM EST
    I was think a coastal series could be nice. Only time freeway/subway/bridge series are any fun is if you happen to live there or have some other connection. I was born in SoCal, so I could go for either team if I wanted. But I have no BB connection from that point in my life, so the Dodgers have a connection for me through  Joe T. If I'm up late working, I might watch, but not something I'll lose sleep over.

    Funny though, I do remember Mr October, lol!~

    Parent

    Just for the pure nostalgia of it (none / 0) (#68)
    by byteb on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    Yankees v Dodgers. It's karmic.

    And of course, Yankees win.

    Parent

    Bitter about the Yankees not holding (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    on to Abreu?

    Parent
    Woot! Balloon boy alive and at house (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:07:43 PM EST
    No details other than he's at his home and fine.  Probably hiding because he didn't want to get in trouble.

    Maybe it's the mom gene, but that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    was the first thing I thought when I heard he wasn't in the balloon - that he freaked out, ran and hid because he was afraid his dad would be mad at him.

    Am glad he's okay, and I'm sure his dad is, too.

    Parent

    Big sister gene too (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    My coworker and I were looking at the update on the net and I told her they were probably having a serious chat with the brother that reported seeing him go in the balloon. I could picture my younger brothers doing the exact same thing if they thought they were in trouble for something.

    Parent
    Did I ever mention how (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    my brothers failed to mention to my dad I wasn't in the car when he took off driving away from a lonely gas station in CO?  

    Parent
    dad thing? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    I was certain the boy took it for a spin, and would not look at any news sites when it went down certain he fell out.  Happy to hear he did not.....

    Parent
    Yahoo news (AP) says he was (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    hiding in the attic.

    Parent
    Is that a ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    euphemism?

    ;)

    Parent

    For what? Reminds me of C.S. Lewis. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:53:10 PM EST
    Heh ... The Lion, the Witch and the ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    Balloon!

    Parent
    No. Literally (none / 0) (#61)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    in the attic.

    Parent
    So, was it a hoax? (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 06:20:21 AM EST
    Parents say no, but the kid made this comment on Larry King last night:

    Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he had heard his parents calling for him while he was hiding in the attic, a sheepish Falcon Heene had this to say:

    "You guys said that we did this for the show."

    Who knows?

    Parent

    That sounds like the parents (none / 0) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 07:41:32 AM EST
    talking in earshot of the kids, and complaining that those talking heads were (again) thinking out loud and accusing them of doing this for the show. What show? Are they swapping wives, again?


    Parent
    Oh man. On Larry King already? (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    Strange story (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    but certainly not the first kid who ran and hid when they realized they were in serious trouble.

    Parent
    Exactly what he said he did (none / 0) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:07:00 PM EST
    He said his dad was yelling so he went to the attic to hide rather than face the music.


    Parent
    That is good news. But rather strange (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    parents, don't you think?  And were the brothers who were watching the balloon from the roof happy their little brother might never bug them again?

    Parent
    Strange compared to (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:28:22 PM EST
    whom?

    Parent
    I think it sounds like fun for the kids (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    and also good for learning etc. They said the one today was a weather balloon. I would have liked that as a kid. Science geek that I was :)

    Parent
    Good point. Here is what I was thinking of: (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    The Heene family appeared twice on the ABC reality show "Wife Swap," most recently in February.

    "When the Heene family aren't chasing storms, they devote their time to scientific experiments that include looking for extraterrestrials and building a research-gathering flying saucer to send into the eye of the storm," it says.

    AP

    P.S.  I have no idea what the TV series "Wife Swap" entails.

    Parent

    Wife Swap (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    Entails two families switching wives/mothers/  They usually take two families that are so opposite in geography, culture, religion, mores, etc. and then film it.

    Yes, I wasted 1 hour of my life watching the show one time.

    Parent

    Oh oculus. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:12:39 AM EST
    You must realize reality tv/twitter/gawker holds more drama than all your operas combined!!

    Parent
    Got it :) (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    I thought for 3 active boys, the parents seemed like pretty fun and adventurous people.

    I only watched wife swap one time. Not sure if it was the best episode they had in their history, but the mom's went back to their own homes afterward with open minds and new ways of living. They appeared to choose some really rigid believers in what they were doing, so it was great to see them loosen up. I doubt I'll watch it again, though.


    Parent

    If they didn't have little kids (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:48:04 PM EST
    I might question the extraterrestrials, but then again, how much do we spend looking for life on Mars  ;)

    Parent
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Tony on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    Have you seen the rap video of the kids singing a song called "Not P***ified"?  Just a bizarre story all around.

    Parent
    Here is is. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Tony on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    Possibly NSFW.  I guess the "balloon boy" is the youngest one.

    Parent
    Always Sunny in Philadelphia (none / 0) (#2)
    by Samuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    Did anyone see last week when they created Paddy's Dollars to stimulate their bar?  It's all about the flow.  

    Not the slightest (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:26:51 AM EST
    clue what you're talking about.

    Parent
    TV show on FX (none / 0) (#82)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    Always Sunny in Philadelphia

    Parent
    Go Phillies! (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    Oh, and SUSA shows em all tied up in NJ:

    Q: If the election for governor were today, would you vote for... (candidate names rotated) Republican Chris Christie? Democrat Jon Corzine? Or Independent Chris Daggett?
    A: Christie (R) 40% Corzine (D) 39% Daggett (I) 18% Other 1% Undecided 3%

    Reallocate the black voters the way I think they're supposed to be, and Corzine pull ahead.

    I plan to watch (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    household goods going into boxes and getting lined up for another "lift" to storage, tomorrow.

    Whether the TV stays out of the box or not - open question.

    This had me speechless (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    Interracial couple denied marriage liscence out of "concern" for the children.  GAH!

    As for TV, Thursday is the best day.  Top chef dvred, The Office, Community, Parks and Recreation, Always Sunny...

    However, I'll probably watch it all on Sunday.  Trying not to "waste my youth".

    Heh, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    This should provide marriage equality opponents some opportunities to be inconsistent.

    Parent
    I noticed that too (none / 0) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    according to ACLU the gummint got out of the marriage deciding business in 1963. Tell that to same sex couples.

    Parent
    Well, I'd put it differently (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    In 1967 Supreme Court told the states that marriage is a fundamental right. States are very much in the marriage business, which is why this matters so much.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    It begs the question though that if marriage is a fundamental RIGHT as established by the Supreme Court then what gives the states the authority to take the right away from same sex couples. It is completely contradictory to call it a fundamental right and then allow states to arbitrarily stomp all over it.

    Parent
    The judge (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    isn't arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to be married, i.e., he isn't arguing it's against the law - he is saying he PERSONALLY won't marry them.  They are free to go to any other Justice of the Peace.

    Of course, I don't think he's allowed to do that either, but this isn't the state as a whole acting on this.  The judge, as a state actor, is acting contrary to the state law.

    Parent

    Is that within the Judge's discretion? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:59:53 PM EST
    Louisiana law I'm not even going to attempt to touch.

    Parent
    Do justices of the peace have discretion (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    such as afforded by federal law to pharmacists?  Go somewhere else.

    Parent
    Apparently not a state court: (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    Yes, even in my state (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:44:04 PM EST
    the so-called progressive state.  They have the right -- as do ministers -- to refuse.  I know this from experience recently, arranging a wedding rite involving immigration laws . . . and had to explain the reason for the rush job to the justice of the peace before he would sign off.

    Parent
    Justice of the peace is a strange position (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    Presumably even stranger at the intersection of civil law. Like I said, I don't know any Louisiana law. It seems to me like he shouldn't have any more discretion than the clerk at city hall.

    Parent
    I tried to research that exact question, (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:23:01 PM EST
    thinking also of the pharmacists.

    I think JP's in LA are gvt employees, unlike privately-employed pharmacists, though I'm certainly not 100% sure.

    I got married by a JP in MA. afaik, he was certainly not a gvt employee - we made the check out to him...

    Parent

    I hope his ancestors (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    if they were slaveholders, were as concerned.

    The South being what it was, if the couple also are from longtime families there, one and perhaps both of them already grew up as interracial children themselves.  Maybe the justice of the peace did, too.

    Just amazing how many people still avoid facing that reality.  Just amazing.

    Parent

    Louisiana? Quelle surprise! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    Hope it gets LOTS of headlines!

    I'm with andgarden - waiting for the first person who railed against same sex marriage to go "ZOMG!  How dare he!".

    Parent

    The Office and, newly, Parks and Rec, (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    are household favorites here. The dvr will earn it's keep tonight.

    Parent
    Concern? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    They rather people inbreed?  Mutts are healthier..we're just like dogs that way.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:26:43 PM EST
    Breed a mutt with genetic issues, you have mutts with genetic issues. Mix 2 PB with a gentic issue or more, genetically flawed mix breeds. Breed a PB clear of genetic issues with another clear of genetic issues, you have healthy PBs :) Some breed clubs are actually addressing the genetic issues through breeding.

    Parent
    Thanks for the... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    edumacation...another of my urban legends debunked...I've been lucky with my mutts, I'd never mess with a PB.

    Parent
    I'd mess with a PB (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:54:11 PM EST
    If it was an adult rescue, well, I'd just take my chances, as they would be the same as a mutts. If it was a puppy, then I'd do some screening to make sure the breeders (human) were doing right by the breed.

    I happen to like spotty monsters  ;)

    Parent

    You should look up (none / 0) (#75)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:22:42 AM EST
    the genetics of Dalmatians if you haven't already.

    Two points:
    IIRC - a Dalmatian's coat alone is worth 50 whopping points in a show.  That's a huge amount!

    The gene responsible for the spots is also directly responsible for congenital deafness in Dalmatians.  

    Can't find the research article on the spots, but after reading it, I thought Cruella was not the monster people thought.  Dalmatians are literally bred for their coats.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    Because of the genetics, a consistent judging criteria for Dalmatians wouldn't disqualify any dog for being deaf or not having a solid black or brown nose because those both come with with the perfect spotted coat.  It's just a matter of luck - if you tried to breed those traits out, you'd breed the spots out as well.  

    Cruella didn't need to kidnap any puppies.  She just needed to make a deal with Dalmatian breeders to take any deaf puppies off of their hands.  Those pups are usually put down anyhow - collectively breeders have killed way more than one hundred and one Dalmatians.

    Parent

    You can't show a deaf Dal (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    and responsible breeders breed away from deafness. I think if you looked at responsibly bred pups vs byb and other pups, the % of deafness would be lower. With their serious drop in popularity, the breed is having a chance to recover a bit. Not all breeders follow the DCA 'recommendations' on deafies as far as euthing them. I wouldn't have any prob taking in one :)

    I think the bigger problem is the uric acid issue. Some Dal breeders have split off from the DCA because of this issue and gone over to the UKC registry and are supportive of the Backcross Project.

    Parent

    Back crossing (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    is a serious investment!

    I saw that last night - IIRC it's four generations before a back cross can be shown.  It's worth it to the breed in the long run, but it's a helluva thing for any breeder to do in terms of lost revenue.  The genetic study on spots that I saw said that at least 25% of the breeding stock was genetically beyond saving (too many flaws) and recommended out crossing to save the breed from a fatal accumulation of genetic problems.

    Personally, I think the registered pure bred designation is a load of bollocks.  If you can produce a dog or b_tch that meets all the conformation requirements et cetera, then that animal IS a whatever.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....;-)

    Parent

    Showing isn't the end all though (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    Dals were bred for a purpose back in the day, so it's important that the dogs are retaining the Dal traits. I happen to think the patched kids are cute and they work just as well for ob, rt, agility, tracking etc :) The typical (common) Dal owner isn't interested in showing so much. Big responsibility when many of us just want a nutty smart dog :) Good breeders believe in bettering the breed. I can't think of a better way than the BC project, especially since proper breeding is always a revenue loss, lol!~

     

    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    Necessarily true.  There are a whole host of factors that play, including dominant versus recessive genes, combinations of genes (most diseases don't involve a single gene), gene DOSAGE, etc.  Breeding a mutt with a disease does not necessarily result in a mutt with a disease, especially if the disease gene is recessive (or multiple).

    Generally speaking, increasing the "gene pool" increases the likelihood of vigorous offspring.  Purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool than do mutts.

    For instance, hip displasia is a multi-gene trait that includes one recessive gene.  Breeding two labrador retrievers is much more likely to result in one or more offspring that has the right combination of genes that result in hip displasia, than, say, breeding a lab carrying recessive hip displasia and a mutt.

    Most breed clubs don't have a geneticist at their disposal....

    Parent

    I was being quite simplistic and general (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    Mostly trying to correct the simplistic myth that mutts are healthier, depending on your def of a mutt vs mixed breed etc. That Lab could also mix with a GSD, puppies land in pound as "mutts", yet both breeds have hip issues . . . you have no idea of their health/genetic history, so how does that make it a healthier dog? Mutts carry their genetic history just like any other dog, right? That means you have a whole host of poorly bred BYB dogs/puppy mill dogs contributing to that gene pool these days. Most responsible breeders have S/N contracts. Not so much for all those other dogs out there . . .

    Many breed clubs may not have a "geneticist at their disposal", but that sure as heck doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. And some breeders branch off from breed clubs to form their own if they feel the parent club is not addressing the issues and continuing  down a path that's bad for the breed. Part of going to a responsible breeder is knowing the generational health history of the puppies. If a breeder can't give you that, then it's the same crap shoot as a mutt, imo.

    Again, I'm working from the simplistic myth that it's a mutt, therefore it's healthier.  Mutts don't exchange their genetic generational backgrounds before they mate, nor do they give it to you when they land on your doorstep. There is no proof that any particular mutt is healthier than a well bred PB. Same with cross bred dogs. Those breeders aren't exactly walking around with a "geneticist at their disposal" either . . .

    Parent

    C'mon (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:33:32 AM EST
    Certainly true for any specific dog (or cat for that matter) but the odds are certainly a lot better of having a vigorous and healthy animal if it's a mutt and not a purebred.

    Parent
    I don't understand how (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 07:25:57 AM EST
    you can make that claim, or where you are getting these odds from.  Sure, there are irresponsible breeders of purebred dogs, but since mutts are not normally the product of intentional breeding, their relative health and hardiness cannot be presumed to be better than that of a purebred animal.

    But if you have some numbers that support what you're saying, I'd be happy to admit that my sense of this is wrong.

    Parent

    No, no numbers to pull (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    out of my hat, but it's a truism of nature as a whole that the larger the gene pool, the generally more robust the population of critters in it. Again, that doesn't mean any one mutt is by definition in better shape than any one purebred.

    But the average person with no ability to do knowledgeable research on the records of breeders is, by the odds, better off adopting a mutt than a purebred animal.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:39:28 AM EST
    My dog had hip problems.  Not bad ones, but he was a large dog ("giant" in official terms) and almost every breed that is "large" or "giant" has problems with hip dysplasia.  The only (unconfirmed) exception is the Afghan Kuchi (koochee) dog.  The only one that I know of.  Just one!

    That means that every single large dog, mutt or pure bred, may have hip dysplasia.  I've seen mixed breeds with bad hips.  Painfully bad hips.

    Ditto with the smushed face dogs that people adore because they look human.   You get a flat faced mutt and it will be prone to all the problems any purebred pug or bulldog has.

    Parent

    I'll probably watch it all on Sunday. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    I'll probably watch it all on Sunday.  Trying not to "waste my youth".
    Ha! I missed that sentance the first time around...

    Parent
    He's worried about the children... (none / 0) (#42)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:28:43 PM EST
    Like, maybe they'll turn out like that notorious product of an interracial marriage, Barack Obama?

    Parent
    Obama may not be the best example... (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.[snip]

    "In many cases, he said, the grandparents or a relative ends up with the children."



    Parent
    That's right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Spamlet on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    Can't forget the "single mother on food stamps" theme of the Obama myth.

    Parent
    Didn't seem to stop him from (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    doing well in his life.

    But it all depends on the family surrounding the kid.  Or, as HRC was known to say "it takes a village".

    Parent

    do you and a certain FPer at (none / 0) (#18)
    by jes on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 05:23:55 PM EST
    teh orange coordinate? It's really eerie but everytime  I read a new post (especially the last two) the echo gets more obvious.

    When their not burning books or such (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    the fundies are going jihad on 7-11.  This time, for Simpsons pron.

    It seems the newest issue of Playboy features Marge Simpson on the cover (I think she has a centerfold, too, or at least a photo layout).  The fundies don't like that b/c it will encourage kids to want to look or something.  (Well, last time I was in fundie-land, >10 yr ago, I stopped in a gas station where next to the Slim Jims and such they had pron displayed the titles of which would curl your hair.)

    Does anyone else see the irony, though, in the first issue by the new Playboy E-I-C, some guy named Flanders, as featuring Marge Simpson?

    I'll be watching FLASHFORWARD ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:28:19 PM EST
    though I'm still on the fence about it and FRINGE.

    Survivor and 30 Rock premiere (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    Looking forward to 30 Rock especially.

    Sen. Snowe won't be in the room, (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:50:32 PM EST
    per Sen. Reid:  [link://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4105597]

    But where will Polanski be? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    We must know at all times where he is, and we're counting on you, oculus.

    Parent
    As far as I can tell, he is still (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:54:12 PM EST
    in detention facility in Switzerland.  But not for want of trying.

    Parent
    Better linkage: (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    Go Phils (none / 0) (#73)
    by joanneleon on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    Three run homer in the 8th making it 8-4 Phils.  Dodger fans are booing.