Mrs Whiggins

In the early days of the polio vaccines there were some incidents with the manufacturing and administration of the shots and the medical community had to work hard to restore trust. Therein lies the difficulty with so much--education and trust go hand in hand, but when both are lost you're back in the Dark Ages.

I'm not sure, but the Houston section could just be the Aggie collective following their Ring Beacon back to the Mothership at Kyle Field.

Clarifying--yes, I enjoyed it too but it didn't score at the box office unfortunately. Stiller produced and directed and I guess I liked some of the little touches he put into the scenes. The running past the "Time" covers was cool; the filming in Iceland (in lieu of Greenland in the film) was spectacular, the Stretch Armstrong -which I suspect may have been something from his own childhood or the screenwriter's perhaps; Kristen Wiig playing the unattainable attainable woman; the shipman's "Stay gold, Ponyboy" along with the "It's not a shark it's a porpoise" scene; and throughout the entire movie this ordinary man viewed through many different lenses (metaphor I guess?) even as his own lens was literally and figuratively changing. Critcs were kinda wishy-washy on it but I thought Stiller reached his goal. He wasn't trying to remake Danny Kaye's movie, he was making his own movie in his own time with his own take on Thurber's short story and it worked. At least for me it did. Plus I can make my husband crack up by looking at him and saying, "Cinnnnnibon!" The remake was in development for a long long time, but I agree--it was a hit for us and we liked the cast, including Penn, and watch it whenever we happen to see it playing.

I think someone should've made Elon's citizenship test a lot more difficult.

This idea (of the thread) is really weird. For a fan I mean. A player during the season that needs motivation I guess I'd shrug but yeah, um are you okay?

What did you learn today kids? How to stand in line!! Should be good for when we undergo the next Depression....

Oh man, she has been a hot topic among some friends of mine that are really really fans of Glen Powell. Don't get me wrong, I think he's fine and nice looking (loved his acting in several movies) but I thought I was going to have to separate the two of them arguing about whether Sweeney was worthy onscreen co-star for him. (I think, but have no psych degree, that there was some projecting/jealousy going on??) I haven't seen the movie they were talking about but boy I had no idea people could get that delulu over acting vs reality vs their own lives. Admiring character or looks or ability, sure but ladies he is NOT going to be ringing you up.

Derail--there are quite a few of the types of consumers out there you're talking about but not all the young people are falling for that. Some of the luxury/name products are simply not made well; perhaps once but some of the companies have gone with the quick $$ and I get that. My children take a pretty good look at the sewing and such before they spend their money and consider the item's use and care and purpose. Their friends are similar (and perhaps that's why they're friends) and some of that could be the changing attitudes over our throwaway society? They're Gen Z but not really into social media so perhaps that's helped them avoid some of the influencer stuff. No doubt that as one ages one's priorities and perspectives change and I'm sure many a shallow purchase gets rationalized into something noble but I'm okay with giving people the benefit of the doubt. Something well made that happens to be expensive may be their own reward at twenty-five same as at age forty. (OMG, I actually moved out of the basement!!)

Interesting question and some of the responses have been equally so. Seems like there are a couple of ways to think about a 20 year down the road future. One is ideologically as folks have brought up with changing views on the rights of athletes, injuries (both immediate and long term such as CTE), climate (no CR, just reality of playing/viewing in crazy hot weather has always seemed dangerous), rules (a rule book never gets thinner IMO), and such or one can think about it framed the way many have also done with team alignments, financing, organizational structure, and so on. As much as I grew up watching football, you are going to have a tough fight to change my mind that athletes should be denied the opportunity to seek resources elsewhere. By that, I mean coaches/personnel are bound by their contract but they leave all the time-- buyouts and all that. A nonathletic student can transfer if they wish provided the incoming school accepts their work and the student has the means to do so. A scholarship (academic) is an investment in the student and I'm not so sure that an athletic scholarship is all that different. UT says 'here's 10K for acing the SAT, being a Merit Scholar, etc' but maybe your student decides that Austin isn't ideal in some way. Some academic scholarships are portable while athletic scholarships aren't really, but if one thinks about it, if your child is a hotshot math major and *Cal-Tech says, "hey, come spend your last two years with us and we'll foot the bill" you might say "pack up Johnny, you're going to Pasadena!" That's what the mutually beneficial part of what public unis used to be in a way; they provided an opportunity for the student or athlete for a value education while the State gained an educated taxpayer (at potential a higher rate) who most often stayed in the state where they went to school or an athletic promotional boon in terms of NFL/NBA/MBL and other positives. But that was then and this is now. So, IMO, twenty years from now and thinking about that right now, it goes back to those topics mentioned above and by other posters regarding generations. In 2044, the youngest group, Gen Z, will range in age from about 32 to 47 while the oldest group (I'm using Gen X here) will be about 64-79. The larger group, Millennials, fit in the middle at 48 to 63 years. That's normally good $$ years wouldn't you say? That's where I have to think the good old days ideology is going to meet financial reality and the personal (see above) when it comes to the sport. Football of the 70s, 80s, 90s on up to now didn't have to compete with eyeballs everywhere looking everywhere at everything all at once. Football won't disappear but at the collegiate levels it seems likely to change. Some of that may depend on the $$ bringing the stick. Whomever ends up controlling all those dollars will decide who gets most benefit. I have doubts it will be fans or athletes. Schools maybe, but certainly not most. This is long enough, but it was an interesting thing to think about, especially given this last year. Another sport that's been going through some change is golf. TL/DR--"There are three kinds of pipe. There's what you have, which is garbage - and you can see where that's gotten you. There's bronze, which is pretty good, unless something goes wrong. And something always goes wrong. Then, there's copper, which is the only pipe I use. It costs money. It costs money because it saves money."--Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck (1987) * Cal-Tech is private and that is part of the point. Private and public universities don't always have the same mission nor serve the same students the same way. I have doubts, however, that Harvard will suddenly begin paying out for a championship football squad.

That is what you take away from my post? Like I said, I learn so much from other posters on this message board.

The movie wasn't a big hit, but his small gig with Ben Stiller in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was funny. "Now that hurt my feelings." Gets me every time. Just typical Penn delivery. Ethan Hawke is okay by me. I guess I didn't consider him a big movie star, per se. He's known and all but I wouldn't say he's bad. Haven't read every page, but the late Paul Walker would make my list. I remember watching him in an early role--(not Varsity Blues, where his performance was okay) Timeline and he just didn't seem to have the skillset. This was after he'd made two of the Fast movies and perhaps this goes back to the staying in one's lane phrase. I can like a person, appreciate their humanity but also recognize that maybe others see something I don't and he was one of them. Seemed likeable enough but not great at the craft.

I suppose there are people moving to Texas and the South from elsewhere, but one does wonder if there was a consistent outflow of one gender...guys be:

Pair of noise cancelling headphones and I am so happy. Now I can go to HEB/work in the yard, play tunes, and avoid the other Karens who try and interrupt me with gossip. I'm here to buy groceries/mow not chitchat about the wild puma you spotted that everyone else knows is obviously someone's pet cat.

I forget who it was, but a poster made a comment about Ted Cruz attending the Sugar Bowl and several others took offense. When I read the initial post, my immediate thought was the Ted jinx/t-shirt fan which had become a bit of a running gag with him but I hate the political knee jerk reactions that happen these days. It is not uncommon (female) to have people talk over me, mansplain, etc but it is beyond irritating when someone asks a question or makes a remark and I am assumed to be an idiot because I don't respond right away. Maybe, just maybe, I am giving the topic a measured thoughtful perusal before I open my mouth. I get it, we reward the snappy comeback and on message boards those quips can be downright hilarious. But not everything (in person) is a sit-com and the conversation shouldn't have to move at a breakneck speed when the situation isn't at DEFCON 1. I've learned a lot from many posters on this message board, even the ones with whom I vehemently disagree.

Valid points especially regarding investment dollars. Mine was more of a personal observation, and comments made among other friends (regarding characteristics we find attractive about our spouses/men in general). Granted, we're not twenty somethings either and to your point--we're not likely to say anything aloud to anyone other than our guys. It's not a status thing nor a 'how much did one spend or have to spend'--it's hard to explain in a way. It's more along the lines of, or perhaps similar to the way one might notice how a nice pair of heels accentuates the calves and so on. As a rule, I don't comment (in person) on other people's clothing, etc. It's a minefield and diplomacy, manners, and tact are underappreciated these days. But this is Surly so I thought I'd say that watches are a useful and attractive accessory. *My spouse has several nice watches but he wears a beat up Timex for work (sentimental reasons). My oldest's bf is into the mechanical watches but I'm not sure what all he has other than I think he has a Hamilton of which he's fond. My older brother inherited our dad's watches and he had a solid collection.

I had no idea my spouse posted on this message board....really though that's what he does. To all you that wear watches every day, especially the nicer ones: It's sexy a good watch is and fwiw, when a guy is wearing a quality watch and has his sleeves slightly rolled up his forearms so you can see it, well that's just mighty fine. Eye-catching and practical is not a bad compliment when you consider it, yeah?

"...an independent voter from Odessa, Texas..."

Behind The Scenes At Epstein's Island.

I don't disagree with that point. Edit: the point regarding the RW and racism etc)

She was supposed to be the replacement for Misty Mountains but when Sid Shattuck got killed she needed a new source of income.

Thanks @pyrohornIII I was ribbing you a little. Don't have any answers, really. @bolverk --Is calling Elon Musk a racist or misogynist really political? Those two terms seem rather equal opportunity to me unless one specifically brings up a belief that X Y Z party has that in its platform? I mean it's something that gets tossed around in CR but if a celebrity/public figure (Elon holds no office in government) says (hypothetically) women are inferior to men and should not be allowed to hold jobs or drive, attend school, etc I don't consider that political necessarily but I will call him a sexist. Maybe even a sexist pig but pigs are actually useful.

@bolverk Try this link: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stephen-hawking-epstein-island-orgy-allegations You have to scroll down a ways but it's there. Here's the text explanation, the pic/meme is on the website

I dug a little deeper but was somewhat blocked due to paywalls--one blurb around that poll indicated that it was a Deseret News-HarrisX poll.

I mentioned in the Cloak Room (because that is really where most, if not all, of the posts in this thread should be) that on Epstein's legal team when the sweetheart deal with former Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, (at the time of the agreement, Acosta was if you all remember the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida), in addition to Dershowitz was the late Ken Starr. That agreement granted immunity to Epstein along with four named co-conspirators and any un-named potential co-conspirators. This agreement was, as you know, later ruled illegal due to the Crime Victims' Rights Act. So, Ken Starr and Dershowitz did what they seem to do best: act in the best interest of their client. Former Bush (junior) envoy Jay Lefkowitz was the head of the team IIRC and the one who followed up the handshake agreement with an email (oops). To his death, Starr defended his actions in the 2008 case. Anyone surprised by that? It's the same old rich guys sitting on the edge of the pool laughing while the rest of humanity circles the drain.

This thread belongs in DT. (j/k--it really doesn't but it does not actually belong in the CR per se either) Most of the threads in DT don't belong in DT once a day or two has passed--the topic changes into something that is ideological and does not remain a relevant evolving discussion/situation related to a current event. Not sure why more topics don't get moved that way.This board was created by people with academic know-how.