TampaYankee

Count me in too. I'll miss Brenda and the entire cast. Great characters. It has been a good run but there comes a time to move on. I think they called it just about right although I will miss them.

Oz, nice review. I'd definitely stay if I were a member of Mariott's hoy poloy club or just had deep pockets Are there any Motel 6 establishments in Thailand? Clean but cheap?

Now you know why you haven't been invited to work in our Fusion Research industry.

I like Sherlocke, Lucy, and Johnny Lee. I'm eagerly awaiting and hope it is well done.

It's very hard to make most books into movies that are 100% true to the book. They are two different mediums with different criteria that must be observed. First, each reader helps each book author present his story. The authors uses words that the reader's mind paints into a scene. Good authors inspire readers to paint great scenes. A movie director has to do it on his own with help from actors, wardrobe, make-up etc. The picture is presented on the screen which is almost impossible to paint as richly as one's mind can. The viewer contributes nothing. He just sits back and observes what mere mortals have been able to cobble together, with limitations, to try to capture a scene. Second, the reader has no time limitations in exploring the author's story. He can read as little or as much as he desires by his own schedule. This permits complex story lines, maybe multlple story lines, to be woven intricately that captures interest and draws readers into the plot. Oh, and at anytime the reader can get up to take a leak or a dump or get a beverage to enjoy while reading. However, theater patrons have limitations on bladder capacity and possibly sitting in a cramped, maybe cold screening room. Not to mention that the theater itself stays in business by cycling audiences through over the day. All this goes to say that movies must fit time constraints that readers of books do not have and authors do not expect. Transferring a book to the screen usually requires pruning of the book down to one story line, maybe two at most, with reduced characters and compressed time for presentation. Necessarily, much must be lost to the reader. That is the nature of making movies from books. Not everyone can do that well. Probably no one can do it well every time. Also, not every book is well suited to be made into a movie. Yet the basic storyline may be compelling and public interest great enough to attempt to spin off something that can be made from a book title. Remember, people make movies for money and they pursue a potential payoff. These are some things to keep in mind when you compare a movie inspired by a book. It's a tricky business to make one. Some succeed better than others or better one time than another. Judge the movie by what it presents and not the book it was inspired by. It may be a good movie even though it wasn't a true rendering of the novel.

Romney is a political schizophrenic. One the one hand he will do or say anything to gain favor or certainly not offend anyone in his base. On the other hand when he speaks he tries to say as little as possible in the way of details so as not to offend anyone in the middle or give the opposition any factual red meat traceable to his lips that they can debate. Romney paints policy in broad amorphous strokes. He certainly is not a man of consistency and principle as demonstrate by his taking multiple positions on various topics over the years and sometimes within the same week. Clear that he succumbs to bullying from the base, the GOP congress and the right wing media , in terms of his actions and remarks. The Right has truly found the presidential candidate that they have been looking for, a guy who is readily steered from the wings.

Never heard of him. I'm stuck in the Billy Ocean era I'm afraid.

Don McLean’s “American Pie”: 20 Things You Might Not Know About The Ultimate Boomer Anthem By Chris Willman | Stop The Presses! – Tue, Jul 3, 2012 5:29 PM EDT http://music.yahoo.c...-212950674.html I suspect that many of us were young adults when this song hit the charts. Many times over the years I have pondered the meanings behind the lyrics ever since it was introduced -- confident I understood some and scratched my head over others. Here is an article that addresses other's thoughts into those lyrics. I found it interesting, some confirming my views and addiing information I was unfamiliar with about others.

I'm sure he made Uncle Sam very happy too.

Maybe so but most of the faces seem to belong to women.

The passing of a generational icon.

It is not as simple as that. There is something to what you say but it goes only so far. There are real differences in food quality and how it is metabolised and in individual biochemistry, i.e. metabolism. A calorie is not just a calorie and some people never gain weight whether they move or not. These are observed facts.

I gave up any hope of a magic silver bullet drug that would be a safe, effective, and affordable weight loss and weight control solution. This new drug does nothing to change my attitude. I believe that the only effective solution lay in future gene therapy discoveries to control metabolism. That is what really separates the truly chronic obese from the rest.

Why car salesmen have such a well deserved bad reputation. Cars were first sold, largely, by horse retailers who also sold the carriages. They were the retail 'transportation' market of the time. Of course they had to sell the old and worn out along with the young. Hence the embellishments and lies, and the occasional home remedies that gave new life to old hags, even if short lived. A tradition that has lived on although the techniques have become a bit more refined under modern consumer protection laws.

You can say that again. If i were decades younger and a bit more svelt he'd be boy friend material.

I stumbled in half-way through. Enjoyed what I saw and hope there are more to come. Next week is Inspector Lewis. Not sure if new or an encore performance,

I take it that you are not into computer generate music -- much.

Yup. That sums up the last three years of GOP/Right Wing rhetoric inside Congress and outside. Nothing is beyond the pale. I'm surprised they have accused Obama of sleeping with his daughters. You know, a long-practiced Kenyan-Moslem custom.

I have had a few of those. And yes, that exclusion was a mistake.

Gosh darn gee whiz... did this blow in with one of those summer twisters??? Some days one wakes up to the craziest things. Escort obession.... I thought that is what this site and others like it are about. Some guys obsess on one escort others obsess on the next escort. It's all obsession. Anyone not here for that must think we really serve booze!! As for this Trump thing... well, some days one wakes up to the craziest things. Disclaimer for those who might over-read this message. Obsession does not equal stalkng, it is a pathological subset against board policy.

Lucky's been boiling down the cough syrup again, also known as Memphis Meth, even though its not actually allowed in town.

Lead the way... I could have a huge closet filled with all sorts of 'toys' and a LOT of disposable income. In fact, I could have them all over the world. Of course, I'd be playing close to the edge and might eventually be outed anyway, like that T... Tra... you know, that guy. I suspect this will be a bitter battle unless she is willing to chance the payout. Pursuit of sole custody ususally means scorched earth tactics, in defense.

This decision gives me a glimmer of hope for Roberts. He hasn't exactly been a favorite of mine. He has lead many decisions I disagreed with. He undoubtedly still will. But maybe, just maybe, Roberts is beginning to see a bigger picture to the role of the Supreme Court and the fabric of the nation. A nation made up by more than just Corporations and business interests and indivdual cases of people against the state. Maybe Roberts is beginning to understand the role of the SOTUS is more than simply interpreting sterile law in a centuries old context and that the SOTUS has a role in helping maintain the status of legitimacy of our legislative process as well as our judicial process in meeting the needs of the nation in the 21st Century, not the 18th. I believe that Roberts is very sensitive to the perceived legitimacy of the Court. That legitimacy would suffer grievously if the Court were perceived to undermine legislation based on political differences rather than the law. That is probably the primary reason for his decision. At least that is what he said and I believe him. He took the path of looking for a way to declare the law legitimate, a law enacted by a duly elected Congress. Others took the path to look for a way to declare the law illegitimate. That certainly separates him from the four other conservatives, at least this time. Several 'conservative appointments' to the SOTUS in the past have 'evolved' beyond their supposed conservative credentials, once on the court, to see a broader perspective that the Court has in guaranteeing that the fundamental rights and principles of our nation are given to all in the context of the times we live, not exclusively rooted in the times of our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers proffered those rights and principles as best the could in a time and place that necessarily limited their vision of the issues to be faced in future times. Even so, they laid out principles and rights to be applied to the present times, not just rooted in concrete in their time. Can anyone doubt that those mostly brilliant men thought that issues would remain static through time. That those principles and rights would be applied only to the circumstances of their times. I certainly do not believe most of those men believed that. That is why they proscribed detail in the Constitution itself (how to set up government and how it relates to the people) and painted the Bill of Right in broad strokes to see that those rights applied in the broadest circumstances whatever the times. That is why more recent 'rights amendments' have been written broadly, even though they were discussed in the specifics of their time too. I have hope for Roberts that he sees the larger role of the Court as part of the fabric of our nation, rooted in present times and not the past and that it must shore up the legitimacy of the other branches of government in order to guarantee its own. I am hopeful because of why he decided the for the Majority even though his politics naturally run counter, and even though he knew there would be severe blowback from those who appointed him and from their supporters. Each of those Justices of the past that 'evolved' had to face that barrage and chose to because they felt it was the right path. That shows men of character and principle. I believe this decision by Roberts puts him in that class. I hope so. Citizens United gives me pause about too much too expect as it was recently reinforced by Roberts. But maybe, as I supsect, the 'evolution' of some of these conservative justices in our past had their watershed moment on a specific case that forced them to delve deeper into meaning of the Constitution -- not just its words but its intent -- in the rights it bestows to Americans, not in history but in present times. (Cases like Brown v Board of Education, Poll Tax Laws, etc.) Perhaps this was Robert's watershed moment. I suspect he will still group with the other conservatives on most decisions. But on really big ones that mark a major turn for the country maybe, just maybe, he will be more independent and be the swing vote in the balance again. I am hopeful for Roberts, but I have not bet the 401K on it.

I have said it many times and it bears repeating... The MOST IMPORTANT reason to vote for a Presidential candidate is the Supreme Court Appointments. No other decisions that a President makes, short of nuclear war, will have as lasting an impact on the course of the country over decades. Bad decisions can last a century, if not for eternity. Everything else pales in comparison. Much of modern day America is owed to the SOTUS: Labor rights, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, gun rights, Bedroom Privacy rights, Birth Control and Choice rights, declared corporations to be people, the right to buy elections through unlimited anonymous money, even the power to decide who will be president. The list goes on and on. Now they will decide the right to have accessible affordable health care. Do not let the fact that you didn't get all you want or were otherwise disappointed with some aspects of your candidate deter you from voting for the person running who most closely represents your overall views, especially of the Supreme Court. Failure to do so could have a lifetime impact. Don't make perfection the enemy of the good. NO candidate is perfect, only better or worse than the opponent and his course for the country and the SOTUS.

This is an essential read if you, like I, have been unclear exactly was this episode is about, or unable to separate fact from fiction from politics. It is well worth the read if you want to know what the program was suppose to do, who was involved in setting it up, how it rocketed to news headlines, how ineffectual different branches of government were in prosecuting the effort, who was scapegoated, and how it became political. As mentioned above it is a long article in order to delve into all the aspects and issues but well worth the read to the interested.