owl

You ever hear the Ted Leo/Pharmacists version? It's pretty cool too. The Pogues version is definitely the real deal, though.

I'd say if you've already seen Sufjan, but not Califone, check out Califone. Of course, like I said, I am biased.

Spider's House - Califone

Pitchfork gave their new CD an 8.7/10. http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38893 That's not too bad. 'Roots & Crowns' comes out tomorrow.

I don't think that the gay element in this case is as much outrage as it is an enjoyment of repeatedly pointing out this congressman's "moral superiority," when you consider the things he's said in the past vs. his actual behavior. I suppose there is a similar hope in the Dem. party for Rick Santorum to get caught holding hands with a gay man (or maybe even a sheep), but this is pretty swell for them, too. The whole cover-up makes it even better, because it makes more high-and-mighty Republicans complicit in the homosexual man-boy love. Sure makes you wonder about Congress and that page pr

In all honesty, you should probably just get "In The Aeroplane Over The Sea." It's a great album, hands down. And I've never really been satisfied with their live recordings.

I think that the Internet might help there too- because there is no time limit or competition with lame human interest stories, like on the teevee. Of course, it will always be easier to find negative (and false) info on the Internets.

Yeah, I have it. It's pretty good. Proceeds go to charity, I think. I haven't listened to it more than a few times, though.

I might have to go to that one, then. Err - too bad it's a Monday.

I agree, although I'm thinking that because few people can really stand heated argument for too long, they'll eventually take on calmer tones, refer less to the abundant unsubstantiated opinion, and grasp for reality, whatever it is. Even if people drop out for a while because they're too frustrated, it could be seen as "sleeping on it," and they'll come back as calmer people. Anyway, obviously, I'm just using my imagination, here. I do think, however, that the abundance of video clips online even this year has changed the way people see things here in America. There's room for every gaffe

Here's a 2002 show that I just put on the Internets, if anyone's interested: Link

I was actually thinking about that yesterday. I'd say a pretty sizable amount. However, I think that it might just be the first stages of a much larger awakening when it comes to information, collaboration, and politics. We're seeing a pushback among citizens now- many fights start this way, with extremes- but I think that we will eventually see more collaboration, and more ability to relate to others, especially strangers in places like this, which will ultimately help the political process. People will soon see that Red and Blue really don't apply, and they will realize that they even

Youse guys sure are taking the fun out of this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I saw his thing on the Daily Show the other night. Hilarious! "...So just decided to start havin' sex right there?"

happy birthday!

Nope, just crack and heroin.

Almost as hot as when she and Brad Pitt are floating in the sex bubble in space, smoking Sector 6 cigarettes.

I can't wait for all these Republican scandals to blow over. Er...in December.

No, I think it's more like the kid is trying to avoid being labeled "gay," and that they tricked Foley into thinking that he was gay, thus leading to the messages. It's an awesome prank, though: Ruin your boss' political career by getting him to say things that portray him as a homosexual, teen-loving pervert. Ha ha! Gotcha!

As far as the whole entrapment thing is concerned. I'm suspicious of it whether it's a private citizen or the police. I think that entrapment is illegal for a reason- it is unethical.

No way in hell. But maybe the page is gay too. Either way, he certainly has bad judgment. And so does Foley. My point is this, though: Foley is 60, and the boy is 16. I'd think that one of the two would have better judgment.

I kept logs of all of my AIM chats (back when I used it), and I think it is automatically enabled. Sometimes I needed to go back and get information that came across through chat. I do the same for google chat through gmail. It's not much different from transcripts of your emails. Anyway- I only said "Explain your answer" because I was hoping to hear actual reasoning from people (not necessarily you), as opposed to a yes or no answer. I wasn't trying to offend. Obviously, four years makes a difference here. In four years, a twelve-year-old is sixteen. In four years, a sixteen-year-ol

I'd say that both teens did not accept sex, but may be somewhat flirtatious. i.e. Would you hold a 16-year-old male to the same standard as a 60-year-old male? Explain your answer. As a follow up: Even a twelve-year-old could be fully physically developed, flirting, wearing a bikini, and basically oblivious to the consequences that might follow alcohol consumption with a peer or even a fellow adult. Agree or disagree?

Would you say that these are roughly equivalent? A 16-year old boy provided alcohol to, seduced, and tried to have sex with your 16-year old daughter, neice, etc. A 60-year old man provided alcohol to, seduced, and tried to have sex with your 16-year old daughter, neice, etc. Which do you find to be worse, and how much?