birdog1960

they are much more relevant than those of a couple of chicken hawks

now there's a solid argument...

do you ever write anything unpredictable?

he's a fictional character and no one iuncluding m has ever met him. is batman a d bag? the hulk? as i recall, chief was used in a scene where will was attacking his therapist re deeply personal matters he cleverly inferred. the therapist was defending himself, albeit inappropriately.

invariably, anyone i've ever met that ever uses the names skippy or chief have been total douch@bags. still looking for an exception... currently about 27% of voters id themselves as liberals. about 10% less than those that id themselves as cons. so how did such a small minority cause the downfall of america? what have the other 73% been doing. oh and btw, 27% is the largest number of that group in quite a long time.

he's a major republican donor. that's how he interprets the situation. i on the other hand see more greed than stupidity, especially at the top.

not so much stupid as greedy: "Preference is also given to those with big business pedigrees. As Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in a Nation cover story last March, Bush's agenda is "to systematically turn government science over to private industry by contracting out thousands of science jobs to compliant consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profits." This Administration's war on science "is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition," he argued. In the last few weeks alone, Bush's assault on science has intensified. In an unprecedented move, the White House has announced that scientists now need approval from senior Bush political appointees to participate in World Health Organization (WHO) meetings. This has outraged the WHO and others in the scientific community, who believe this decision opens the door for the Administration to blackball scientists who don't follow the line on controversial health issues."

“The problem with Republicans — a lot of Republicans, not all — they just don’t understand the issue,” said Andrew Sabin, owner of a New York-based precious-metal refining business and a longtime GOP donor. “If they saw some of the things they could do that wouldn’t affect the economy and in fact increases jobs and cleans the air, they’re all for it.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republican-climate-change-jay-faison-118755.html#ixzz3cZpdq8Gg this is how i justify it: http://www.thenation.com/blog/bushs-war-science. many more example, in fact entire books on republican anti science positions, exist.

i don't understand why this is such a partisan issue. if it were really about the science, then one would expect that conservatives and liberals would be similarly divided on the issue (discounting the fact that so many conservatives are scientific illiterates). but they clearly are not. i wish someone could tell me why conservatives lean so strongly towards instinctively denying this. do they really like being controlled by unelected industtrialists with no concern for their well being or anyone elses? doesn't make any sense.

rick santorum takes on the pope over climate change FOX news (Yes,Fox news) bites back: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/fox_news_chris_wallace_slams_rick_santorum_if_the_pope_cant_talk_about_climate_change_why_can_you/ bahahaha!!! i'm thinking this is rick's maccaca.

it's good general advice. a happy wife, happy life. i'm guessing you're lacking both.

the mac and pickle juice makes me wonder if this is serious but if it is... here's another idea that's quick, easy and pretty sure to please. i did it earlier this year: seared scallops, grilled beef tenderloin with beure blanc sauce, grilled or flash fried (in butter of couse) asparagus. garnish with a dozen quality long stem roses, a nice shiraz and candlelight.

500 mil is half the annual budget for the entire country of haiti and they buil SIX houses with it. many smaller charities built many more with much less. when npr and propublica asked for detailed accounting, red cross refused. i'm wonder if it has more to do with thievery than incompetence.

disturbing report from pro publica on the red cross use (or nonuse) of $500 mil meant for haitian relief. - http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief. spoke to a friend that worked tangentially with them and he has not been impressed. anyone with other experiences or info on this very large charitable organization?

propane.

exactly how i feel. i think the pressure of people jumping ship may bring prices down but it'll be too little, too late.

20-30 i guess will have to see what comes out June 8. the article i cited gives the $40 number for possibly 20-30 channels including networks. from what ive heard nbc isn't playing ball and might be out, fortunately, that's the easiest to get for me on a decent inside antenna. the article also states service might start in the fall or might start june 8. finally, apple tv allows mirroring from any apple computer or iphone or ipad. with most networks having archived shows, that's a whole bunch more available free content. and no, i don't work for apple...but i do despise direct tv.

i pay $120/ mo for direct tv now + sundy tix. direct tv doesn't have internet but have some deals with the phone company. i priced them. it was cheaper and faster from a local cable company. i think it's $40/mo. so the starting point is $160/mo or thereabouts + sunday. tix. the proposed deal: $40 for apple+ 15 for hbo now + 40 for internet= $95. 95<<<<160. over a year it's about $800. some of the current cost is hardware rental and dvr fees. there's no need for that if it's all on demand like HBO now. the unobtrusive apple tv boxes are now $69. even if you don't have one, it doesn't take long to recoup from not renting and they'rew about 1/5 the size of a satellite box. additionally, you could turn off the dish for 6 mos and save 1/2 on that bill but the same can be done for apple tv. personally, i'd rather have apple tv all year for the price of about 6 mos of Direct tv. one more thing,: never have to deal with some of the worst customer service people in all of business!

we have a rinnai. we don't like it all that much. it takes about 3-4 minutes for the shower water to get hot in the master bathroom. the last owner of the house added a bathroom himself under the master and the plumbing is a bit funky so that might have something to do with it but even at other sinks, hot water is not instantaneous. cold pathces wjhile hot water is running is another complaint. it's a known and documented issue even on the rinnai site. additionally, you will need to have the tank descaled yearly which means a plumber visit unless you're pretty handy. my experience is that few plumbers want to work on them as well. we had a guy that is factory authorized for rinnais but as far as i know he's the only one in the area. i'd make sure that whatever brand you buy has people to maitain them in your area. overall, i'd advise against them but i know other folks that really like them.

update: apple likely to announce a new version of apple tv June 8th. it's expected to have networks and all current offerings and my broadcast at 4K definition. cost is expected to be $40/month. hoping that fx, amc, pbs, espn are part of package. http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/new-apple-tv-2015-release-date-rumours-all-new-apple-tv-box-and-streaming-service-could-launch-this-fall-if-announced-at-wwdc-30073 i'm doing the free trial of HBO now through the current apple tv and at $15/ mo it seems a no brainer. virtually identical to hbo go. i'm calling to suspend dss today until NFL begins and will cancel altogether if i can stream sunday ticket by hitting a button as noted above.

hmmm. hospice nurse/stanford ethicist/someone who gives actual orders to hospice nurses. i'm betting you can guess who are most likely well versed on the issue. no implication that you are lying. it's likely that the hospice nurse didn't understand the law or even more likely, didn't like the orders he/she was given by the doctor writing them.

nope. from the npr piece: this is how it usually works. it's how i do it.: If Hope had asked Stanford medical ethicist David Magnus, he would have explained what assisted suicide is – and what it isn't. It is legal for people to take or give large doses of narcotics to relieve pain, even if a known side-effect is that it may hasten death. "The difference really has to do with intent," Magnus says. "And that's a tricky thing because it has to do with what's going on in the mind." the point is the first step to single payer. shhhh…it's working.

i think you sense that i'm attributing this change to the aca. I'm not. it's about ridiculous costs for goods and services in medicine as clearly demonstrated for cancer treatments.

they were. that's changing very quickly even under a for profit, private insurance system.

in fact there is: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/05/384061583/planning-through-oil-booms-helps-independent-drillers-weather-the-busts. yall really need to listen to npr on your morning commute. they have answers to many of your questions you've got it wrong. even in countries with well established socialized medicine, there is tiered care. wealthier people have more options. and for me, 9and most other liberals i know) that's ok. as long as a minimum, basic, reasonable level of care is provided for everyone that isn't. what's different in the US has been that middle class people have often been afforded cadillac level care through their employers. that's changing rapidly especially through higher copays and things like 200k treatment regimens. it will soon approach the same tiered levels of the social;ized nations if the current trajectory in insurance and drug and treatment costs continues. the thing is, most people don't realize that this has largely already occurred until they get really sick.