chasfh

I’m not sure they’ll get that last one past the union.

No way Sacramento taxpayers could be made to foot any bills.

Stafford is by far the greatest quarterback in Lions’ history, and his Super Bowl wasn’t even with us. And Goff is already breathing down Bobby Layne’s neck.

This did.

These did not age well. 😉

Probably, but we don’t want to get him hurt.

I don't think the "looney left" is in the Democratic Party. I think they are beyond the Democratic party. I do think they will vote for Democrats from time to time, but they are no more reliable at the polls for all Democrats than Nazi sympathizers are for all Republicans.

I'm guessing some magical thinkers will be getting boners dreaming about our own Sodom and Gomorrah event here.

And that's why you can't treat the gallows as an empty threat.

President Susan was probably over the top, but she was a hoot.

Yes, I disliked Murders in the Building, for one thing because I don't like mysteries per se, but for another, it's a vehicle more or less for Martin Short, who I can take maybe 15 minutes of before I run away screaming.

Is the point here to turn it on or turn it off?

A couple of series I can recommend: A Man on the Inside (Netflix): This might be the best-ever series Mike Schur's done. It's a rather droll comedy, but it's also an examination of the ethics of doing undercover detective work. Despite how that might make it sound, it's not at all boring, and it has practically a surfeit of heart. Funny Woman (PBS): The premise is a plucky young beauty queen from the sticks moving to London to try to make it as a comedian a la Lucille Ball on 1960's British TV. This is an almost guilty pleasure in that it's not quite to the level of prestige TV, and it's definitely written for young women (e.g., before-its-time female empowerment, hunky boyfriend left behind, hooking up with beautiful men, romantic tension with the attractive boss). But it's good enough to stick with if you like the basic premise, which I do. The show isn't just like Mrs. Maisel, and definitely not as good, but it is in the neighborhood, and an easy watch.

I don't feel so bad now for crapping out in the second episode of the first season.

Are you Chris Ilitch? 😉

I’ve been watching a lot of old baseball film, mainly from Musial’s era and somewhat before, and most of the batters are squat in the box, hands close to the zone in their stance, and their swing is far more level from where the bat is held going into the ball than today’s hitter who holds the bat high above his head and has to bring it down to meet the ball, and batters struck out way way less back then, and I wonder, if a first-rate home run hitter came to the plate holding a bat like Stan Musial, would he ever hardly strike out, too?

I don’t think we know where anyone is going to end up until late March. Infield is a mess right now, so consequently, it’s pretty open and subject to change.

Closed to us. Open to insiders, apparently.

Because that’s where the money is for her. You’re right. Not difficult.

A quarter mile away is only the length of fewer than four football fields. It's not like it's a different area code.

Not the Daily Beast.

Offhand, I would say because Daily Beast and Salon are journalists, while the Trump regime is a party with an interest in obscuring any bad truths about her and all of their appointees from all of us. Laugh if you want about the "journalists" part, but do you truly believe Daily Beast is flat out lying about what Russian state TV verifiably said? After all, the only counter to it is, "Russian state TV didn't say that at all." Would the Daily Beast spin out such a lie at the expense of their integrity? Or is it because the Daily Beast is not CBS, or Fox News, or whatever news source you most frequent? Also, what do our country's agencies actually say about Tulsi? I don't mean what her technical standing is with them—I mean what do they say, in words?