Funny, the Schubert video took me to youtube which led me to this Charles Grodin classic, I watched it this morning, I didn't know he was gone Link to video RIP Mr. Grodin

Make something new.

@george-k said in Sokolov's Schubert Impromptus Op 90: I got an ad for VRBO That seems to be happening to me more the past couple of days. I'm thinking the folks at "Don't be Evil, Inc." are seeking more income.

@george-k said in Liz Cheney on SNL Weekend Update: @doctor-phibes said in Liz Cheney on SNL Weekend Update: unleash another Kraken. That post should be in the "snarky caption" thread. LOLz

Macau has one of the world's most vibrant Jenga scenes.

@bachophile said in Tuesday Morning Snarky Caption Contest: Law Enforcement Edition: Finally the model for Rodin’s thinker is found. ROFL!

Big talk.

The bread house. That's the charitable interpretation, anyway.

@mik said in Smugglers' Blues: Knowing how metric converts to English in grams, ounces and pounds is a product of my misspent youth. LOL. Do tell? Nah, never mind. We can guess.

@mik said in I missed that part of the constitution: @lufins-dad said in I missed that part of the constitution: Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart. Don't get me wrong - I am not what you would call pro-choice. I simply recognize the reality of what we face here. Anything that goes to lessen the suffering is a good step and a compromise worth making. You're not going to get rid of abortion until you change people's hearts and jamming prohibition down their throats is not going to do that. I get that, and that wasn’t meant towards you, more the other side. The Safe, Legal, and Rare comment has been a part of the Democrat playbook for decades and there is a fundamental flaw in that discussion.

The Right Politics.

Well you are one up on me. I've not listened to her by choice.

@george-k said in Mid-air collision: Very violent, and any pilot who's "punched out" will say they never want to do it again. A guy I worked with many years ago ejected from the co-pilot seat of a B-52 over Hanoi. The ejection broke both of his legs which made his stay in the Hanoi Hilton even more uncomfortable.

Aaron Rodgers and Harry Styles are good friends. True story.

It is indeed, and he sums it up well. "Get out of the way, stop telling us that, on the one hand, America is a racist society. And then those same races are the agents that's going to deliver you from yourself. What kind of message is that?"

Another thought about the old hospital cafeteria...Staff was not served breakfast, except for doctors. And the docs got whatever the patients were having. But no doctor ever paid for any meal. Another story... British regiments have a tradition of 'dining in". The hospital had a Resident's Dinner, once a month. Residents were required to attend and most staff physicians did also. Dress was coat and tie. Food was a grade up from our standard fare and was eaten off of china on white tablecloths, with silver utensils and crystal stemware. Alcohol was not allowed on campus, but it was rumored the docs enjoyed very strong grape juice with their meals, limit of two. Henry (or the head cook at the time) would be present, along with two of his staff. Short welcoming remarks to the hospital would be made by the Administrator and the CMO, before the doctors were served. After that, the docs could eat, visit or talk about whatever. It was very old-fashioned, but it served its purpose.

A review is certainly in order. On the other hand, I can see where split decisions could nullify the effect of all sorts of prejudices as well as promote them. I'd imagine in some cases you get a juror who will not return a guilty verdict despite clear evidence, or one that will vote guilty on the flimsiest of evidence.