gehringer_2

I remember taking the HD out of my Comcast box and transferring the recordings to my desktop when I cancelled the service before we moved a few years ago. If I actually want to capture anything for a permanent collection from DirectTV I have make the reservation, then play it and and capture it to a PC while it's playing. Needless to say, even though I can, I never do.

our old friend Cristin Stewart playing against Toledo for Worchester tonight. Hens win the game 6-2. 1/3 for Clemens, 1/3 HR(5) 2BB for Short.

Garcia 'hung' a slider exactly where Skubal gave up a HR yesterday. Schoop fouled it off.

IDK, that sounds like a nice argument, but the reality is that any one of million choices either of your biological parents made in their lives could have resulted in the 'you' that you are not being there. You were either born or you weren't. Whether abortion is legal or not is not really what bore in any major way on your particular existence. People are fine to feel however they want of course.

Well one side sees it's rigged because their majorities still end up with minority representation, and the other side sees it as rigged because they've already done their damndest to make sure the other side can't win at all and are PO'd they still do once in a while. 🤷‍♀️

It's still Hinch's decision to put those guys out there, I can't give him a pass to blame it all on AA.

LOL- actually HW DVRs are history. It's all in the cloud. All you really get is a link to an entry in the server library. Downside is then the library turns over, your 'recording' goes bye-bye. DirectTV holds everything 9mo now I think, which is up from 90days when the service started. I guess they got a bunch more disk drives.

I think I'll put the rest of this on the DVR and watch the MiLB boxes. These roster choices are just too frustrating.

I guess Meadows is under the weather, but where the hell is Hill? Hinch may be the greatest thing since Leo Durocher but I wish he would learn you can't give teams 4 and 5 outs an inning.

well, yeah. If it weren't, like Buddha said, we would have a national abortion law that looked a lot like RvW because that's were most of the public is and this wouldn't be a 40 yr controversy.

needs to throw a breaking ball other than the change a little more often. Lets see if next time through he tries to shift gears.

I separate people who I have to assume hold a view honestly from hypocritical misogynist GOP office holders who I know don't.

Erie drops a close game 2-1 but Dingler with another 2/4

Correct, but if we are not to live in a theocracy people must respect the right of others to believe that is not the case.

possibly, but are the people who are that detached going to be bothered one way or the other? Seriously, for as much heat as it generates, it's not a issue that directly impacts the life of very many people who probably care more about whether their garbage gets picked up on Thursday or Tuesday.

Au Contraire mon ami. MI has an anti-abortion law on the books from before Roe and no hope of getting its repeal through the current GOP legislature.

yes and no. There is a lot more energy around the Evangelical anti-abortion position as that carries the tone of a religious crusade. OTOH, for the majority of status quo supporters it isn't that big an issue. I don't think it will energize the middle toward the left as much as it lets air out of the balloon on the right. Everyone with a pulse knew this would be the ultimate outcome if they sat on their butts after Obama, but it wasn't enough to drive enough of a wave of turnout other than in '18. But the right side grievance generating machine is pretty well oiled today and it may chug merrily along even without one of it's biggest single issues.

sounds like everybody loves Jimmy Rutherford, but he's a little cheap.... I don't know what kind of personal changes they made when Boudreau got there but the turn in the record was pretty dramatic.

yeah - if a contract has an opt out, I find it hard to fathom anybody's lawyer would agree to attaching vague, non-verifiable conditions to it.

to play Devil's advocate for a minute, I'm going to create a straw man here just for the sake of thinking about an argument. Let's go back to the question over slavery. In an ironic way it is in a large measure the people of the Old Confederacy who are arguing that abortion is too great a moral imperative to leave to a compromise consensus, which of course is pretty close to the exact position that abolitionist forces argued against the Old South in demanding slavery end everywhere. Funny how history turns the wheel. That said, while there is a parallel kind of motivation to taking both abortion and slavery abolition as moral imperatives that are justified in being imposed on others, the underlying argument for that moral imperative is much different in the two cases. First of course, slavery was a continuing frontal assault on the most fundamental charter statement of nationhood in the DOI, the contradiction of which was obvious to all even at the time of the writing of the Constitution. "All men are created equal" carries none of the arguable ambiguity of when life begins. Further, the understanding of the immorality of slavery requires no particular religious background, it quickly came to be shared nearly universally across the globe by the religious, secular, and humanist alike, even if that view did not, as a matter of fact have 'deep historical' roots. In the end there were no 'moral' arguments to stand up in favor of slavery, only property interests. In contrast, complete abolition of abortion depends nearly solely on arguments stemming from a single religious view, which is not even a consensus within US Christianity, let alone the entire now largely secular nation. In case of abortion there are also clear competing moral issues around the rights of the mother. Thus I don't think it's unfair to conclude that imposing emancipation on the South was justified but imposing abortion abolition on the US is not.

True, and a measure of American misogyny that only women are criticized for lecturing. Well sometimes black men as well.

LOL- the modern language minefield. A recent topic that has come up here is that the IEEE is having to deal with the fact that in control theory 'master/slave' is common terminology to describe the relationship of various components in a control system and people are pushing back on that. Well, that is the nature of the relationship as a general proposition. If you change the terminology will that terminology just also become pejorative eventually? And there is always a tension between social sciences types who are more than happy to see language 'evolve' and the hard scientific community for whom stability in language is actually a desired thing. If we tell someone they need to 'learn to speak well' is that far enough away from saying, "Well, you seem to be well-spoken" ??? Beats me!

I think the problem was worse than that. Politicians had done their job at the state levels and it left what was increasingly regarded as an intolerable inconsistency across the country. The national legislature can't resolve the question to the overall public will because it is no longer a sufficiently democratic institution to codify the public will on any issue with a moderately narrow consensus. Maybe it's unfair to blame Congress for being what it was designed to be but it is what it is at this point. The court was/is sort of in the 'nature abhors a vacuum' situation.

Yup. We see that it's absolutism that gets both side in trouble. Sure the left thinks that it solidifies that privacy arg to claim it as an absolute right, but you are correct, taken to the extreme it undercuts the practical appeal of the argument. And again - it goes back the truth that nobody knows and anyone who claims they do is a liar or arguing from faith rather that fact. Faith can be a wonderful thing in life, not so much in law or politics.

so in essence the current court exposes the bad faith of the whole American conservative jurisprudence effort of the last 40 yrs by doing all they can to reverse a court that tried to do the right thing.