It's a nice idea, Kerry, but the real problem here is not that the discussions are too narrow, but too few. You're basically the only poster, with the highly occasional anti-Hillary screed from Steve. The number of conservative posters has really dropped off (as has total readership). It's interesting and ok to get into religious debates with you, Kerry, but not every single thread, and that's not your fault. I get the impression that Steve has lost interest in maintaining this site (one of these days he might consider removing that awful "Chappaquiddick" graphic that I'm embarrassed to let my coworkers see...or or overhaul the layout, period). Over time, the most interesting debaters have found greener pastures, and the discussions that remain are all too predictable. Thanks for trying, Kerry, but it's going to take some effort from the top.

Fine, then I'll start.

Go watch "Flight of the Conchords" on HBO. It's hysterical.

And one more thing (there always has to be). Does anyone have an address where I can sign a petition to ACCELERATE global warming? I am absolutely FREEZING here in the miserable Midwest, in the longest, coldest winter we have ever seen. It has been below zero for more continuous days this winter than I have ever seen, and tonight it's SNOWING AGAIN!!!!

And my children will either have to stay home tomorrow or be delayed for two hours--OR--and this is another fun part--they will have to go out and wait for the bus in the driving snow in below-zero weather because the school doesn't want to HAVE any more snow days (never mind they used to get 2-hour delayed for simple FOG just a few months ago! NOW we can't AFFORD to have any more snow days, because they might have to stay in school too far into the Summer. So the school pretends it's not inhumanly cold and makes them go anyway.)

Is weather a really bad reason to consider homeschooling?

Hey, let me whip out a couple liberal canards: you may be happy for global warming by the time of peak oil, because it will save you tens of thousands of dollars on home heating!

The funny part is that I'm only half-joking.

Here in Seattle, it feels like early spring. Mostly mid-to-high fifties. Beats the hell out of the blanket of snow that my old home in NY is burrowing out of. I really didn't need my jacket today, can't beat that for late Feb. Say what you want about Seattle rain... the weather is otherwise pleasantly mild as hell. And most of the rain could be more accurately described as a fine mist, which is only a pain if you like leather jackets (like me).

Sorry, but I hate Seattle. Hate fine mist, paganism, witchcraft, Democrat and Green party bumper stickers and expensive coffee. And, of course, Nirvana and all its demon spawn. The mist is only the half of it.

And there's nothing "globally warming" about your weather. It's been like that forever.

And I am not kidding. If there is such a thing as global warming, I am looking forward to it.

By the way, I was right. It was, in fact, snowing viciously again this morning, and there was no school cancellation and no two-hour delay for us (though there were both for various surrounding school systems--evidently our superintendent has figured out how to get out of his own driveway). But I shouldn't complain. At least it's above zero. And this is, apparently, just the beginning. We're expecting snow until Friday.

Personally, I think the school year should run from April to November. That way, nobody has to worry about snow days, flu, or whether to have a "Christmas" tree or not, or fight over Easter. Having the day off would be a day to go over to someone's house with a pool, where a few stay-at-home moms could keep track of a large number of kids. And the school wouldn't have to pay for heat. And you'd get two weeks off to celebrate the fourth of July. I don't know why someone doesn't try it.

Oh, and by the way, SF, it intermittently feels like early Spring here, too. About every two weeks, we get some days of that. For example, last Sunday, it was 58 degrees. And by Tuesday morning, it was four below zero again.

So I can't even celebrate the nice days, because I know THAT'S the time to go shopping and snatch up whatever the other lemmings haven't stashed away for whatever long-term food need it is they think they are going to have from six inches of snow.

And, of course, Nirvana and all its demon spawn.

Oh my God! Nirvana is demonic?!

Oh my God! I had no idea, thank you SO much for letting me know about their ungodliness (I thought they were just some shitty band, not a spawn of satanic hate!)

I am so glad I am able to come here and learn more about this complex world we live in.

Kerry, thank you so much, I would not have known otherwise, you're amazing!

Fella, I hope you're aware of the evil Cobainian Demons floating around the city. You do know the proper way to protect yourself is constant playing of the Creed song "With Arms Wide Open" on your ipod on repeat? That should discourage the evil... and people with taste.

SSE,

Give me a break. They're not ACTUALLY "demonic." It's a figure of speech. I was talking about all the crappy music they influenced other people to make.

By the way, Creed wouldn't do you any good anyway. They weren't a Christian band:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2004/scottstapp-0804.html

Hey! How am I supposed to know you're using a "figure of speech"? I mean religious folks like to think rock music is derived from demons and sin (the pope said Lep Zepplin, The Rolling Stones were satanic, from what I remember) Is most of your Christian ranting a "figure of speech" then? Maybe just the references to demonic spirits are? Maybe I have you all wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26religion.html?ref=us

People are changing faiths like fiends! Notice one of the larger changes was to the "unaffiliated" group (nonreligious, agnostic and atheists are included in this group)

This has been known for a while, I personally know a few people who recently made the transition from faith to "lack thereof" Oh well!

Yes, SSE, I know all about the growth in the unafilliated (though I would note that there is no discrete representation in the data for third wave Protestantism, which continues to grow.) The mainline churches have been losing people for nearly three decades, which is actually a good thing, since they have been moving steadily away from God, anyway. Precious few "mainline" Protestant churches are much more Biblical than the Unitarians, these days.

Though I would have to say much of the data indicates that the switchers (especially into the "lack thereof" category) weren't what Biblical Christians would consider Christians to begin with--that is, they had not made a choice of their own to be "Christian."

It is, however, an interesting data set, and one that has a wealth of information in it that was previously known only anecdotally or not at all.

But read it here, not in the NYT:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Yikes! I can't access that site from work; it's blocked by my company. What type of organization is that?

That's odd. It's the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. I wonder why it would be blocked. It's an academic research site.

It's probably because it has "religion" in the URL I think it blocks any religious material or even seeing the word "religion" (it gets a bit carried away) I can't even access personal email, only work email. PME is allowed, although probably shouldn't be ;)

Kerry, have you heard about this Youtube silliness in Pakistan? They blocked access to the website for a period of time on Sunday and now I believe they have reconnected.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/pakistan.youtube/index.html

Fella......Seattle will ALWAYS have mild/temperate but very wet weather/climate for one reason and one reason only.

It's in the northwest quadrant of the continent.....simple climate 101 stuff.

Take a look around the world at eachy massive body of land (euro-asia, Americas, Australia and Africa toa lesser extent) and the northwest quadrant of each and every one of 'em is wet/temperate pretty much year round.

Seattle area, Great Britain, NW Australia....

What you will also notice is that the northeast is cooooooold winters and temperate summers (Maine, Siberia), the southeast is ALWAYS tropical with rainy seasons in the summer (Florida, IndoChina/India), and the middle of each continent is a dry/steppe reagion....Great Plains of America nd Russia.

Global warming will not have anything to do with it. Speaking of which.....the average global temperature from last January to this January dropped 0.65 deg C.....almost the entire "warming" of the last 100 years. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA

Hint: sunspot activity.

Please, Sarge, do you know the secret?

Do you have the key?

Can you teach me how to make it warm? Please?

I'll kill the polar bears myself, if I have to.

Please, oh wise one?

(I'm soooooooooo COOOOOOLD!!!!)

First on the weather, whilst I am totally against global warming, the weather over here has been amazing. We had the crocus' out in late Jan and the it's been fantastically spring like all through Feb. These are the worse two months for the British weather and I've got to admit it's been brilliant going from Christmas straight into spring. I've absolutely loved it.

Second one, its just come out that Prince Harry has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Afghanistan. Perhaps we might be better served if the only people who were allowed to send troops into a dangerous situation had children serving amongst the troops being sent in. I wonder how many children of Members of Parliament, Congress, the Senate and Bush and his advisor's are actually in Iran and Afghanistan? I don't raise this as a question about Iran/Afghanistan and whether we should have gone to war in these two places but rather about the right of politicians and heads of state only gambling their careers on declarations of war and asking others to gamble their lives fighting it for them.

Oh and I heard something that made me laugh today - another forum were discussing what new event we could introduce into the Olympics to increase our (the UK's) chances of winning a gold medal - someone suggested para-Olympics Theoretical Physicisting.

Actually, I do know that Duncan Hunter's son is in Iraq (or was; these things change, you know.) John McCain's son, Jimmy, is a Marine, and was set to go to Iraq, according to a Time magazine from 2006. Montana Senator Max Baucus's nephew was killed in Iraq. Last August, Senator Biden's son's unit was told they would go to Iraq in 2008. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's stepson and his wife are Marines who have done tours in Iraq. Senator Kit Bond's son has done a tour of duty in Iraq.

It's harder to figure out about Parliament, Bush, and his advisors (I'd have to do the latter with a name-by-name list), but that's just what I got googling "senator" and "congressman" with "son" and "iraq."

It's another base canard of the left (perpetuated by Mikey Moore in his abominable Farenheit movie) that the armed forces is made up of brainless, poverty-stricken fools, while the elite sits home and laughs. Class warfare. And untrue.

Until the Olympics has "American" football, you can't call it sports. :-)

SSE,

As to Pakistan, I'm not surprised. In fact, I AM surprised that they allow youtube at all. Personally, I wouldn't be put out if youtube totally disappeared; as far as I'm concerned, its only use is to catch idiots breaking the law. Otherwise, it's just narcissistic nitwits who think everyone with a camera-phone has a right to be famous.

With Viacom pulling everything half-decent every time it pops up, youtube has become the bottom of the bottom of the barrel of the non-porno sector of the Internet.

Kerry, I agree with you to a point regarding Youtube but I disagree in terms of its potential. Much of Youtube is people posting nonsense and attempting to claim their 10 minutes of fame, but frequently, I find many interesting videos on Youtube ranging from academic lectures, to music videos and television shows to political debates. Youtube is a great source for finding video media that you may have otherwise missed out on.

SSE,

But unless you have reams of empty time, there's no way to find anything specific, is there? I mean, if you already know what you're looking for, that's easy. But to just happen on something worthwhile takes a good deal of serendipity. And you have to wade through a lot of trash to do it. Just doesn't seem worth it to me.

But my kids like to search "lego" and watch everything. So, I have to admit it could have something to do with the way I use it.

Is there a useful way to sift through it that I'm just not aware of?

Until the Olympics has "American" football, you can't call it sports. :-)

"Sport" as the wonderful blokes in the UK call it was around long before America. Now of course, I take it as a "jest" when you said this but you must be corrected. If anything your joke should have regarded baseball; ain't nothing more American (sports-wise) than baseball. Sure it has that pesky drug controversy, but compared to Football the athletes are much more gentleman-like and a better representation of the type of athletic activity us Americans can produce; baseball - the real American sport.

Btw, wb, I think it's just rotten that someone let slip that Prince Harry was on the line. Now he has to go home, and everybody loses. Poor kid.

yeah, leave it to the Drudge Report.

Youtube is great if you're looking for instructional video. I find myself on there at least once a week looking at fly-casting and fly tying videos.

Yes, there are a buncha friggin' idiots....but we're a country and a world OF idiots.

No, SSE, I mean it.

Football is a real sport. It's competitive, violent, and dirty. Things like tennis are games. And figure skating is a performance.

There's not much for me in the Olympics. I think it's a colossal waste of time and money.

Baseball is American, but to me it's just another game. BTW, I don't consider "gentleman-like" (that's "gentlemanLY," anyway) to be the hallmark of a sport. It's an adjective for the drawing room, where the wimps and the women hang out. Give me football, basketball, or hockey. The only things I really care for in the Olympics are hockey and boxing. It was sweet to beat the Russians, but since then it's all been girly-girl stuff.

As to the drug "controversy," it's none of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's business. Seems to me that committee ought to be investigating whether Congress should eliminate about 90% of its committees. That would be REAL "government reform." If Roger Clemons took steroids, let baseball and the courts take care of him. Wasting the taxpayers' time on this is ludicrous.

Is there a useful way to sift through it that I'm just not aware of?

Most of the time, I'll search very specifically for what I'm looking for; I'm usually successful but sometimes do find myself sifting through trash. At other times, I'll receive an interesting link from a friend that has done all the work for me.

One of the worst examples of the misuse and waste of the site is when if you find yourself watching video after video, clicking on similar videos on the right of the screen until you realize you've wasted 10 minutes watching a bulldog skateboard or a squirrel water ski. I suppose this is similar to what you were referring to originally. In my experience however, I’ve been able to find exactly what I’m looking for just by searching for it; for example, a few months ago I was searching for a clip of Christopher Hitchens on Hannity & whatshisface. I typed “Hannity Hitchens” and a few clips came up, specifically the one I was searching for. I don’t know, I’ve never really had a difficult time finding what I was looking for on Youtube.

SSE,

That assumes you are looking for something specific to begin with. I do go over there to catch things from Colbert or SNL that I've heard of but not seen, but lately they're getting snatched away fast.

I did catch the once-a-year-period ad from SNL last week and the Huckabee appearance on Weekend Update.

That reminds me Kerry, you said earlier in this thread to watch Flight of the Conchords. I've been a fan of the show for a while and actually became a fan from watching it on HBO even though they both did their musical standup for a while prior to getting the show. I am reminded of them because I saw "The Humans are Dead" standup on Youtube and really enjoyed that over the later recorded song in the episode on the HBO program. If you haven't seen that standup sketch, watch it, it may be my favorite of all their performances.

I saw that episode of SNL, I'll be frank with you, I've never liked Huckabee. After seeing his performance on SNL I don't know how anyone can take him seriously; Oh wait, they don't.

SSE,

I wish Conchords would do more than 2 shows a month on HBO (that is right, isn't it? It's all we could find.) We first saw them on a Comedy Central showcase.

I don't know what it is about them, but my 5-year old has watched those two episodes about 500 times this month. It's that opening tune that does it, really. There's something mesmerizing about it.

Personally, I love "you're so beautiful, you could be a waitress...." and "depending on the room...."

As they say, pure comedy gold. And, yes, I saw the "Humans Are Dead" video, because my kids looked up all their stuff after we saw them on CC.

Huckabee: I like the part where he says he's counting on the Superdelegates. I think he's counting on a catastrophe for McCain. Even so, if anyone has a chance to jump in should McCain be somehow out of the picture, it's Romney. He's got the money, and he still has loyal followers. And he proved himself a stand-up guy by doing the team thing. I would see a McCain meltdown as an opportunity for a Romney/Thompson ticket to take a brokered convention.

What was the opening skit about? And apparently there was something on update?

"I poked one; it was dead." :-) (Or, perhaps :-| is more appropriate?)

The opening sketch made fun of the apparent media support of Obama (taking place during the last debate, the one from last week I believe). I guess it made such a "big impression" that in the debate earlier this week Hillary referenced it and asked Brian Williams and Tim Russert if they'd like to ask Obama if he needs a pillow. The whole ordeal made cringe, she referenced an SNL sketch during a debate to defend herself against the bias she thinks she sees; it was at that moment, that she lost any chance of becoming president.

Binary solo! 1111001 1111001 00011110 1111000.

Hi Kerry,

Actually, I do know that Duncan Hunter's son is in Iraq (or was; these things change, you know.) John McCain's son, Jimmy, is a Marine, and was set to go to Iraq, according to a Time magazine from 2006. Montana Senator Max Baucus's nephew was killed in Iraq. Last August, Senator Biden's son's unit was told they would go to Iraq in 2008. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's stepson and his wife are Marines who have done tours in Iraq. Senator Kit Bond's son has done a tour of duty in Iraq.

It's harder to figure out about Parliament, Bush, and his advisors (I'd have to do the latter with a name-by-name list), but that's just what I got googling "senator" and "congressman" with "son" and "iraq."

It's another base canard of the left (perpetuated by Mikey Moore in his abominable Farenheit movie) that the armed forces is made up of brainless, poverty-stricken fools, while the elite sits home and laughs. Class warfare. And untrue.

Actually that list is quite impressive. I suspect the British Parliaments list is not so impressive. As for the armed forces being made up of brainless poverty-stricken fools I suspect it changes from country to country to some degree. I think there is little doubt that a good part of the British Army is made up of people who use it to escape their local environment and are people who join the army in large part as an opt out from their economic situation. There's also a good deal of people who amoungst the officer class who went to private school but weren't bright enough to go to university.

For my own part I knew 3 people at school who joined the armed forces and tbh I think they were all profoundly unpleasant - all racist, two of the three out and out bullies. Having said that I have yet to mean someone in adult life who went through the armed forces who I didn't like - so maybe if those are samples of the quality of the input and output maybe they are doing something right.

As for Harry, I think it's fair to say he's leaving the theatre of war has raised the average IQ of our forces out there. Even so I'm pleased he had a chance to go out there - I'm an out and out republican as far as the monarchy is concerned and have been since I was a kid. I have nothing against the individuals personally and I think there are parts of their lives which are pretty unpleasant/sad. However as one of the people not likely to be Monarch I think there is a real possibility of a very futile existance and I suspect as he gets older making his life meaningful will become progressively more difficult. One thing I do think some of the royal family have is a sense of service and I think that in part may have been his motivation.

I do think it's interesting he went to Afghanistan rather than Iraq as politically it's a less contentious area.

WB,

The American armed forces are made up of volunteers, from all economic strata and "classes" (if you will; we don't technically have such a thing.) The libs want you to believe they are all poor and uneducated, desperate to have their educations paid for. But I know quite a few people who went because it was the right thing to do, who felt a call to duty, who didn't want to sit on the sidelines while others protected THEM.

From what little I know, I do get the sense that the royals have, if nothing else to recommend them, that sense of "noblesse oblige" that propels them toward things like this, where they are not only serving, but in a position where no one is supposed to serve them, for a change. I think it's probably good for them, and I think it's a very fine thing to do.

I'm not sure how your assignments go over there, but if they are like they are over here, it would be mere happenstance as to whether he went to Afghanistan or Iraq; he goes where his unit (or whatever you all call the groupings) goes.

Hi Kerry,

My impression is that there's quite a difference as to how people view the military in the UK and US. I think that the US probably does have a more diverse intake. However, I haven't a doubt that some are there because it was a way out of where they were. Fighting in these situations is tough and I don't doubt many are wary of doing it. We all have to make our way in the world and I think for some joining the armed forces is their best option.

I'm probably the nearest to a pacifist of the regulars on this site and as such I find it hard to understand why people are willing to agree to kill others based purely on who their government tells them to. However I'm also an adult and I at least try to be honest intellectually. I'm able to have the freedoms I do and the lifestyle I have because in part I am protected by the military. I also think there are reasons to go to war - sometimes. I have to consider what I would have done in WWII - I think there is a good chance had I been called up, that I would have been a consciouses objector. If I'd been brave enough (and yes I do think it takes bravery to go against society in that way). With what I know now as opposed to what I would have known at the start of the war I think that I would have been wrong to be a consciouses objector. I think my extreme reluctance to kill is right, but I also think it may prevent me from acting for the best in some situations. I'd also say the obverse is also true for the typical conservative position - there's a definite potential to be too likely to go to war. I think both sides should be honest about this - unfortunately there is a tendency to be too wary of people scoring points off either side.

As for where he went - no it absolutely was chosen. His regiment went to Iraq and there was a big public and private debate as to whether he should go. He wanted to go and while he should be free to make his own decisions the clinching argument was really about the increased danger the people he was serving with would face. He would so obviously be a target - the publicity his death would bring would make him a very obvious target. The Scimitar tanks he would be in (he was trained to command a small unit of lightly armoured scout tanks) would be targeted. His nickname over there was btw "bullet magnet" and obviously this is why he was pulled out when it became public knowledge. It's interesting that he was put in the middle of the Gurkha's rather than a division of British soldiers - if you don't know these guys are a Brigade who are taken from Nepal and stem from the days of the empire - you can see more about them here.

Back to SNL this week. Loved the opening sketch. Thought Hillary acquitted herself rather well, seemed like a good sport, and was brief. Giuliani had the right few good lines and out. Neither one probably changed anything important.

Like the digital short better than the rest of the show. But we've been watching DVDs of SCTV Network 90 lately, so I'm getting spoiled.

"Whispers of the Wolf"--Now that's SCARY, boys and girls! BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, SSE. I do actually agree with Hillary and the SNL sketch premise. Nobody is challenging Obama to say anything of substance. She is being raked over the coals, and he is being treated like the Messiah. It actually isn't fair. But it's what she should have expected. After all, the Clintons created this empty-headed mob that Obama stole from them.

Nice going, "first black president." Hoist by your own petard.

Am I the only one that lost a boatload of respect for SNL BECAUSE they had Hillary on? I was waiting for the Obama cameo to make it seem like SNL was playing both of 'em.....nope. Even my lib girlfriend was put off by it.

As for the armed services.....I'd say the libs are about 33% correct in their assertions about the poor joining up.

About 50% of the infantry I was in was middle-class.

About 33% were dirt poor.

The rest were army-brats....neither dirt poor nor middle class.

We had intelligent people, average smart people, and absofuckinglutely dumb-as-a-post people.

There wer plenty like me that came from the lower middle-class that just joined up because it's what my family does. THEN we go on with our lives after a few enlistments. 36 of my cousins on my dad's side...34 of us served, the other 2 were denied for medical reasons.

There are also plenty that join up to get the hell outta the town they grew up in and the military's a very easy and quick way of doing so.

...but ANYONE that thinks that someone joins up because it's their only option for a life doesn't know jack shit.

Am I the only one that lost a boatload of respect for SNL BECAUSE they had Hillary on?

No Sarge you are not. I haven't really watched SNL recently aside from the two latest episodes (I watched the first because I was curious about it after such a long hiatus, and I watched the second because Ellen Page was the host and she was amazing in "Juno.")

SNL sucks bad. It has sucked bad for a while, having Hillary show she can be "funny" moves it off the "suckage graph" (she's not funny) Some of the sketches during these episodes made me ponder, "who is writing this? I thought the writers were back."

"Am I the only one that lost a boatload of respect for SNL BECAUSE they had Hillary on? I was waiting for the Obama cameo to make it seem like SNL was playing both of 'em.....nope. Even my lib girlfriend was put off by it."

Obama was on for the Halloween episode. He played himself disguised as himself.

I heard a joke that I'll clean up for public consumption. "It's not really fair that the important primaries took place during February. That's black history month. Unfortunately for Hillary, there is no white witch month."

I haven't *really* liked SNL for about the past ten years. It's always been a hit or miss thing, anyway, but except for Andy Samberg, it's been mostly "miss" for a long time. I'm not sure why the Keenan sketch with Ellen Page pretending to be black doesn't qualify as a racist hate crime. But I did LOVE the once-a-year period ad.

Still, you have to give SNL credit for being a first-class star machine.

PS: Reaper's coming back Thursday! YAY!

Hey, remember this conversation?

""I don't think the majority of them [vets] would take a billion dollars.""

"Oh man, you have such a wonderful shining idea of these honorable warriors. Look, I truly appreciate their sacrifice, but try to stay grounded. These are human beings, not angels, ok?"

My point there was that serving in the armed forces isn't about money; it's about honor.

Now comes this fine young man to prove my point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23411839#23411839

SNL and others should stick to comedy about candidates and not become spots for candidates to get free air time. They have probably done this forever, but seems to me that it started with Clinton blowing his sax and has gone down hill from there.

ahmanrah,

TV shows have, in fact, "done this forever." But Clinton wasn't on SNL. He was on the Arsenio Hall show, a legit late-night interview show, when he blew his sax (so to speak.)

But you can go back to Richard Nixon saying "Sock It To Me"" on Laugh-In in 1968. To be fair, the Clintons had successfully avoided being on SNL until (I believe) this week, though I'm sure they could have anytime they wanted.

BTW, I was wrong about Reaper. Looks like it's coming back NEXT Thursday.

But you better lap up the tv and movies while they last; the actors are preparing for a possible strike beginning at the end of June.

Judging from the way the writer's strike went, they'd be better off negotiating nicely.