FlaSoxxJim

A lot of girlie slapping I bet?

Got it in one guess! The importance of the Czech Republic/former Czechoslovakia in brewing history is simply impossible to overstate. Pilzn is the birthplace of the first light-colored lager - the prototypical Pilsner. The science and art of brewing dovetailed perfectly... new yeast strains spirited out of an Austrian monestary... the chalky, naturally soft water.... the decoction brewing techniques that allowed the undermodified Moravian barley to be properly mashed without the addition of dark acidifying malts... The emergence of the blown glass industry at precisely the same time as this gorgeous new beer style was coming into existence.... The stuff of fairy tales, Brother!

Getting back on topic... The situation in Sudan really f***ing sucks. The UN sucks for not fixing it. We suck for not fixing it. Humanity sucks for the incomprehensible brutality one group of people can heap on another.

Yeah, friggin' loser geeks. heh heh. And now back to my socially fulfilling online existence...

Moore addresses the deceits claims Still waiting for the landslide of libel suits bound to result in releasing such a heap of lies.. Still waiting for 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report to come out - you know, the pages that talk about Saudi Arabia - where 15 of the hijackers came from and the country that seems to have financed several of them...

It's not surprising, but it is sad that the cable powers that be decided to do it. I wish Moore could swig a deal with a broadcast group with some ball to show F911 on free tv on election eve. I was actually stunned to see that Wal-Mart DID decide to carry the DVD. I figured that the megastore that has no problems selling edited CDs (and using their muscle to demand the edited versions are made) of objectionable performers would not have touched F911 for fear of a mouthbreather revolt. I was happy to see I was wrong.

I think it's a great show - probably the best broadcast network comedy. And I think maybe that's the problem with audience, that it is on a network and not on HBO.

C'mon, PA, you know that's not how science works. Science isn't in the business of "proving" things. It can, however, compile a preponderance of evidence pointing to the likely explanation to natural phenomena. In example after example after example, from Chuck D. through the scientists of today, the evidence has been pilinng up in support of speciation by means of natural selection and accumulated change over time. When scientists started looking critically at homologous anatomical and physiological structures, the evidence became stronger. When they started loooking at the level of the cell, finding that our own mitochondria have their own DNA distinct from our nuclear (or, nukuler for the Bushies) and more than strongly suggesting that eukaryotes came oute of a symbiotic relationship between simpler organinisms tthe evidence became stronger still. Noow that we're able to compare genomes of vastly different species and we're seeing at the molecular level the bulk of the traditionally derived cladistic evidence for phyletic relatedness be born out, we have some of the best corroborating evidence we could ask for. There are flat-earthers still around today, they just don't havve any relevance to modern scientific thought. Ditto the "I didn't come from no damn monkey" anti-evolutionists. I'm trying hard to get out of the business of arguing with evolution's equivalent of flat earthers. Just watch so you don't fall off the edge. "Scientific guessing" is selling the process a little short.

Like evolution needed any more 'proving.' We're the walking, talking, singing-with-the-radio-in-the-car-when-we-think-nobody's-watching preponderance of evidence. I guess the snakeheads are pretty good evidence too. "Nothing of biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- T. Dobzanski

Maybe it can eat all the alewifes and zebra mussels... Seriously, exotics are big trouble if they become established. Not good to have the snakeheads showing up in the Great Lakes.

Yes it does, although his daughter is a free-thinking adult and is on the campaign staff as well so go figure.

You mean like all the battering Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton got at the hands of the press??

But nobody took a cheap shot at anybody, there was no cheap shot. Should we tell Gwen Ifill not to reference Cheney's own past references to his family? Gay rights is an issue this election. I think it is an interesting twist that the anti-gay rights Bush Adminsitration has a second in command who has to sidestep the issue as much as possible so it looks like there is unity in that camp when there is not.

I'm not a big fan of the guy (surprise!), but I think he's very likely been set up and he's being smeared because he didn't cough up however many millions in hush money demands.

I don't know. I know Cheney has to bite his tongue on the issue, when he most definately personally believes it should not be a federal manner but one for individual states to decide. The big hulabaloo about a constitutional gay marriage ban is designed precisely to court the Conservative Christian voter base that thinks gays should not be given equal rights in social matters because homosexuality is morally wrong. Cheney, as second in command but with his family situation, regardless of how much he obviously does love his daughter, is in a tough situation. He has to stand by the President's decisions and can't question these things in public, so it it probably best that the issue doesn't come up on a personal level.

Immediately before. Edwards "tribute" was in his 90 second response to the same question.

You are both incorrect. Gwen Ifill was the one to initially bring the Cheney family situation up in posing the question to Cheney: There's no big secret, and Edwards didn't spill the beans. In fact, only Edwards recognized Mary Cheney by name, while Cheney declined to advertise his family situation - for fear of alienating a Christian Right voter base perhaps. His answer remained very impersonal, and he did not even acknowledge Ifill's allusion to his daughter. Cheney also failed to answer the question as to his Administration's position on the matter. He said he'd rather see it be a state's rights issue (like Bush did 4 years ago). But then in the same breath said that Massacheusetts' (am I even close on that spelling?) decision to try and make it a state matter once and for all at the level of a change in the state constitution was "the wrong way to go" in the eyes of the President. I don't know if he says it's wrong because a state is now doing what most people feel the states should be deciding on, or because the change was made at the constitutional level rather than just a change in law. At the end of his answer he said, "Now, he [W] sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president."

Wino DUDE!! That was you! ?! Whoa, sorry. I think I told you I was Vavclev Havel or something so you'd buy me beers.

He kind of danced around it in the debate, and there has been a little prior dancing around the semantics of 'union' versus 'marriage,' and how something that the Bushies clearly held to be a matter best left to the states 4 years ago is now an issue warranting a change in the federal constitution. On that subject, if all it came down to was semantics and a gay 'union' afforded a couple EVERY legal and social right that a straight 'marriage' does, I don't care what it is called. Regardless, there is no room in the constitution for a discriminatory amendment to legally enforce that marriages are only for certain loving, committed couples but not others.

I've heard pundits on both sides say this was low, but I really don't see it as such, given that mary Cheney is openly gay and that her orientation was openly discussed just last week by Dick Cheney in the Cheney/Edwards debate. As such, it is hardly digging up dirt, although I don't know how effective it was to personalize the topic. If anything, If I were Bush I would have been kicking myself if I had answered a question about freedoms of gay Americans and FORGOT to personalize it by being the one to say, 'see we don't hate gays, we've got one in our own camp and we love her.' Noboday was outed, and the topic has already come up in the debates, so where is the (moral) low blow? Politically it might be a shot because it reminds people that even the Bush reelection campaign can have one of 'them' on it, and maybe we have better things to do as a nation than to figure out how to fold/spindle/mutilate the constitution to make sure certain rights are denied t certain people.

Bush stepped in it on boarder issues when he said the border issues were better protected now that he's NOT the Gov. of Texas.... and sadly Kerry didn't quip that it is just one of many things better in Texas now that he's not running the show. I understand that his comments were given in a post-9/11 context, but it was a great soundbyte opportunity and Kerry didn't pounce on it. But that is just one of several examples of where Bush's train of thought just got derailed last night. The biggest one was where he started to answer a question with something like, "that reminds me of the.... Oh, never mind...," like there was some implicit joke there pregnant with meaning. Bush completely sidestepped the Roe v/Wade question - it was not a question about how he'd go about selecting Justices, it was a matter of fact inquiry as to whether HE would like to see it overturned. And he failed to answere a number of questions in similar fashion... what he would say to a guy out of work turns into a rant on the need for early testing and head starts and bridging the performance gap in education. So he's essentially telling the blue collar out of work family man, you've outlived your usefulness but hey go back to school and learn some 21st century skills and you'll be set (nevermind the roof he can't keep over his head and the family he can't cloth of feed in the meantime). Sadly, Kerry would follow suit on those questions instead of staying on-point. He wanted to follow up on everything Bush said and unfortunately that kept him from getting to the heart of some things as well. Nor was Bush convincing when he said his religion was a personal issue that he doesn't try to push on others. That is precisely what you do when you attempt to legislate morality through constututional ass-wiping. Kerry, on the other hand, was sincere in stressing that he cannot in good consious categorically tell people what is right because his religion informs him. He publicly acknowledged the catholic vote is split on him, and that he's wrestled his whole life trying to rectify matters of faith with matters of social responsibility and personal freedom. His answers on religious matters were also much more inclusive of the divrsity of faith here and around the world. And finally, there's that Orwellian Bush spin machine - the same one that gives Rummy the audacity to say in plain english that there's no tangible connection between Bin Laden and Iraq, and then 15 minutes later when he realizes he's undermined his Administration's now transparent position of the issue says, No, I was misunderstood. Yesterday, Bush was reminded that HE was the one that said he really doesn't spend that much time worrying about bin Laden (remember, the guy who really DID attack us?), and we've all seen the quote, seen the video of the quote, and then he can still say, 'well there you go, that's just another one of those exaggerations.' 19 days and counting for people to wake the f*** up.

HB, POTUS!! Now it's time to get on with the ABV ASAP - just make sure not to get DUI...

Y'wanna know a creepy ad? I just saw it yesterday, and I can't even remember what it was for, but in it a guy says, "am I dreaming?" Another guy says,"no you'rre not," and then the first guy says "I feel like I'm dreeming because all of a sudden Cermen Elektra is with me... but she's got my old gym teacher's body..." Then there's carmen Elektra next to him, but she's got big hairy Man Hands and then the pull the shot back and it's her head digitized onto a fat dude's unflatttering physique! Really, really creepy. :puke

The midnight curfew is a bit extreme for a Vegas setting. As for the boobis moratorium, insecurities in a spouse/spouse to be are sometimes a reality and it's better to figure out a way to give the reassurance needed and grow that security then to scuttle the relationship because "he/she won't give me the freedom to do what I want." Now, if this is just a tip of the iceberg thing, and a partner has nothing approaching an equal say in the marriage then it's over before they even get off the ground.