My dad's house features nothing newer than probably about 1995. Small-town life, man.
35 thoughts on “March 4, 2016: Antiques”
I've only slept four hours, but I'm still fresh enough to say that, should The River Tour be coming near you and your even remotely interested in seeing them, Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band still put on one hell of a show. Jake Clemons did his uncle proud last night on "Jungleland."
TSA Pre ftw
do they know about the dangerous hardware you have hidden in your hip?
That's been some of the best $80 bucks I've let my company spend on me.
I don't mean this to be a slam on anyone here who has TAS Pre, but I really dislike how it divides people in to "It's Okay, They're With Us" vs. "Possibly Terrorists and/or The Poors." Not to mention it being a very cynically designed relief valve for frequent travelers' exasperation with airport security theatre.
At the Las Vegas airport on Wednesday there was a vendor station with a lovely pitchwoman selling a service that, for just $279 per year, allows you to get TSA pre status on all US airlines.
Murica. Capitalism. Rah-Rah.
The poor ain't flying. Psychologically, I understand the resentment, as I am one of the unwashed masses. And I see how empty the pre-check lanes typically are at the TSA checkpoint. But it's probably efficient to divert well-identified, frequent travelers. Particularly when they are paying for the privilege.
just to be clear, it was a random assignment -- I paid nothing for it, nor did I fill out any paperwork for it. frequent fliers have it pop up periodically.
The last two times I've flown with my wife, she got pre-clearance while I did not (and never have). Neither of us fly more than a few times a year. I'd sure like to get a look at their profiling algorithms.
I'd like the ACLU to get a look at those.
... ... ...
Small sample size?
Heh.
Same thing in our family. Sheenie somehow always gets selected while I don't. Good thing is that the Valet is now around as a prop so they let me sneak in rather than break up the family.
Fun statutory interpretation battle in an opinion released by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.* As you'll be able to tell from their examples below, the issue is whether a modifier coming after a list applies to all three things listed or to only the final thing in the list.
From Justice Sotomayor's opinion on behalf of the court:
Imagine you are the general manager of the Yankees and you are rounding out your 2016 roster. You tell your scouts to find a defensive catcher, a quick-footed shortstop, or a pitcher from last year's World Champion Kansas City Royals. It would be natural for your scouts to confine their search for a pitcher to last year's championship team, but to look more broadly for catchers and shortstops.
But from Justice Kagan's dissent:
Imagine a friend told you that she hoped to meet "an actor, director, or producer involved with the new Star Wars movie." You would know immediately that she wanted to meet an actor from the Star Wars cast - not an actor in, for example, the latest Zoolander.
*some work is still getting done with just eight justices
But they both agree on the comma at least.
The only correct interpretation. All commas are living commas.
I notice that both Justices favor the Oxford comma in their examples. Judge them if you must.
But, but... which side is the Republican one and which is the Democrat? How will I know where to direct my indignation at the opposing side?!?! This isn't how the courts is supposed to work!!!
general manager of the Yankees vs. new Star Wars movie, and you have to ask?
Ha! Nice.
I have to admin I laughed at this part:
Fun statutory interpretation
I had thought about posting that DPWY has a very different definition of "fun" than I do, but then I read it and went "Huh, those are interesting arguments".
So if the modifier is intended to modify the entire list, shouldn't it come before the list? You tell your scouts to find from last year's World Champion Kansas City Royals a defensive catcher, a quick-footed shortstop, or a pitcher.
My thinking exactly.
See, where you're going wrong here is by making the implication that the legislators are "thinking".
What about Sotomayor's thinking? Some of it seems...troubling:
1. As a position, catchers are generally more defensive rather than offensive (with Joe Mauer a recent exception proving the rule)
2. The requirements for being a Yankee shortstop appear to have changed with Jeter's retirement
3. Good luck getting KC to part with any of their pitchers under contract
Even more troubling: Why does anyone want a thin-skinned catcher?
I've been in Minnesota for over 13 years and am still in awe of the quality of hockey in the state tournament. Went to see it in person for the first time yesterday and had so much fun. Wish getting tickets was easier or cheaper, would love to take my son to the AA semifinals tonight but we'll still have a good time watching on TV.
Anyone else see Barry Melrose during an intermission last night? Sure seemed like he spent some time at Tom Reid's or some other nearby establishment before going on air.
Ugh, seems like Flight of the Conchords sold out immediately.
Yeah, I went out to see if I could get better seats and there was a rather oddly instant "no tickets" response. Suspicious.
Lightly mentioned yesterday, but this happened nearby:
I was friends with the Waseca coach back in my band geek days (he's the son of the Waseca band director from the 80s and 90s). His nephew made the rather long three pointer.
I've only slept four hours, but I'm still fresh enough to say that, should The River Tour be coming near you and your even remotely interested in seeing them, Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band still put on one hell of a show. Jake Clemons did his uncle proud last night on "Jungleland."
TSA Pre ftw
do they know about the dangerous hardware you have hidden in your hip?
That's been some of the best $80 bucks I've let my company spend on me.
just to be clear, it was a random assignment -- I paid nothing for it, nor did I fill out any paperwork for it. frequent fliers have it pop up periodically.
The last two times I've flown with my wife, she got pre-clearance while I did not (and never have). Neither of us fly more than a few times a year. I'd sure like to get a look at their profiling algorithms.
I'd like the ACLU to get a look at those.
... ... ...
Small sample size?
Heh.
Same thing in our family. Sheenie somehow always gets selected while I don't. Good thing is that the Valet is now around as a prop so they let me sneak in rather than break up the family.
Fun statutory interpretation battle in an opinion released by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.* As you'll be able to tell from their examples below, the issue is whether a modifier coming after a list applies to all three things listed or to only the final thing in the list.
From Justice Sotomayor's opinion on behalf of the court:
But from Justice Kagan's dissent:
*some work is still getting done with just eight justices
But they both agree on the comma at least.
The only correct interpretation. All commas are living commas.
I notice that both Justices favor the Oxford comma in their examples. Judge them if you must.
But, but... which side is the Republican one and which is the Democrat? How will I know where to direct my indignation at the opposing side?!?! This isn't how the courts is supposed to work!!!
general manager of the Yankees vs. new Star Wars movie, and you have to ask?
Ha! Nice.
I have to admin I laughed at this part:
I had thought about posting that DPWY has a very different definition of "fun" than I do, but then I read it and went "Huh, those are interesting arguments".
So if the modifier is intended to modify the entire list, shouldn't it come before the list?
You tell your scouts to find from last year's World Champion Kansas City Royals a defensive catcher, a quick-footed shortstop, or a pitcher.
My thinking exactly.
See, where you're going wrong here is by making the implication that the legislators are "thinking".
What about Sotomayor's thinking? Some of it seems...troubling:
1. As a position, catchers are generally more defensive rather than offensive (with Joe Mauer a recent exception proving the rule)
2. The requirements for being a Yankee shortstop appear to have changed with Jeter's retirement
3. Good luck getting KC to part with any of their pitchers under contract
Even more troubling: Why does anyone want a thin-skinned catcher?
I've been in Minnesota for over 13 years and am still in awe of the quality of hockey in the state tournament. Went to see it in person for the first time yesterday and had so much fun. Wish getting tickets was easier or cheaper, would love to take my son to the AA semifinals tonight but we'll still have a good time watching on TV.
Anyone else see Barry Melrose during an intermission last night? Sure seemed like he spent some time at Tom Reid's or some other nearby establishment before going on air.
Ugh, seems like Flight of the Conchords sold out immediately.
Yeah, I went out to see if I could get better seats and there was a rather oddly instant "no tickets" response. Suspicious.
Lightly mentioned yesterday, but this happened nearby:
http://deadspin.com/bananas-boys-basketball-game-goes-to-4th-ot-on-full-cou-1762805369
I was friends with the Waseca coach back in my band geek days (he's the son of the Waseca band director from the 80s and 90s). His nephew made the rather long three pointer.
Bartolo Colon last active Expo after Maicer Izturis retires