• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    jmac on Arrows Up
    jmac on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    jmac on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Kansas Nope
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Kansas Nope
    Propertius on I Think That There Are Democra…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022 by Tony Wikrent   Restoring balance to the economy Becoming the Workers’ Party Again Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), August 5, 2022 [The American Prospect] …A toxic combination of shareholder capitalism and pliant politicians gutted our middle class, hollowed out our towns, and dried up opportunity for people […]
  • Top Posts

The difference between men and boys

is the price (and dangerousness) of their toys. The video shows a life-sized Hot Wheels loop-the-loop.

This is an open thread cuz the last one was getting sluggish.

64 Responses

  1. My brothers had the loop-the-loop tracks and I just assumed it had been done before.

  2. Motorcycle Wheelie on Highway

    • My Gosh the joke from the other day stayed and but I guess ya figured who it was.

    • I quit trying stunts when I was still riding a Schwinn (pre-motocross era)

      I tried doing a wheelie down an embankment to impress the neighborhood kids. I was going pretty fast as I approached and yanked on the handlebars at the top.

      The handlebars broke off and I went down the embankment trying futilely to maintain my grip on the banana seat with my ass cheeks. The neighborhood kids weren’t impressed but they were very entertained.

      Then there was the time I popped a wheelie and the front wheel fell off. Another bad landing.

      Back then nobody wore helmets or protective gear. Looking back I’m amazed I never broke any bones or lost any teeth.

      #1 last words for rednecks:

      “Watch this”

      • So, you aren’t a strawberry boy (ginger) with super powers. Ah!

      • my friends used to get upset with me because I refused to treat my sons like little hot house flowers. I figured there might be danger in the world and they might run in to it, but it was better than treating every day as if you should be scared.
        they both had stitches a few times, but they never even had a broken bone.

  3. Night! I often wonder when it is that you sleep?

  4. I saw one with a motorcycle going around a caged in loop, with a guy on roller blades holding on to the tail pipe.

    Good times.

  5. Tony Manero (aka John Travolta proving why the 70’s sucked)

  6. No sign of Scrubs from OZ? Night!

  7. So question. You know how often in the blogosphere, people like to be topic police and try to ensure opinions expressed on a certain hotbutton topic they feel strongly about fall within a certain range or they get mad? BUT then the exact same person will turn around and whine about suppression of dissenting opinion?

    That doesn’t make any sense and is totally contradictory, right? Or is it just me? Am I missing something? It seems to me like getting mad about one or the other makes sense, but not both.

    • I suppose a better question is–why can’t I resist the temptation to visit places that I know drive me crazy???? Yes. Good question. Very.

      • That’s the best part of the blogosphere – arguing with people you totally disagree with. I’m not talking about trolls who argue just for the sake of arguing, I’m talking about genuine debate.

        • Yes, but some places are too ridiculous to even bother with. Especially if you’re not even registered and can’t participate anyway.

    • Everybody supports freedom of speech in the abstract. In practice it’s a different matter, and nobody likes being censored.

      I”ve said before that TC is Riverdaughter’s soapbox. She shares it as she sees fit. She has chosen to give several other people (myself included) moderator and site administrator powers.

      We try to maintain a consensus on the range of discussion here, and try to keep a balance between too much and too little moderation. We also give regulars a little more leeway than visitors.

      Don’t forget that this blog was started as a refuge from the Obots on the Kool-aid blogs. We have a low tolerance for obot trolls.

      But we’re just one blog. There are lots of others, and everyone is free to start their own.

      • Nobody likes being censored, but nobody was being censored. The whiners (btw, just to be clear, this didn’t happen here) were whining because they didn’t like what other people were saying. So somehow it becomes a “censorship” issue because they can’t win the argument and the other people didn’t just go away. I don’t know how anyone was supposed to help that. Like you said, they’re free to start their own blog if they’re upset.

        • Somebody went GBCW from here yesterday or the day before because people disagreed with her – she made it sound like she was being attacked.

          • Yes, I saw that, and it’s a good example. She was totally mischaracterizing rd’s position, and most everyone who replied to him or her was more polite than he or she was. But she’s somehow being Attacked or censored. WTH? It’s your blog, your rules, you would be justified in kicking anybody off you wanted, but you didn’t.

          • Sometimes you have to wonder if people really believe what they are saying or if they’re just posturing.

            IOW – are they lying or crazy?

          • I used to tell people they were either lying or stupid and they could pick. That used to get me in lots of trouble. = )

    • I’ve never understood people who get so incensed at disagreement. I can see if someone is being abusive, or an ass, or deliberately provocative. But just disagreement?

      And its not just that they get mad over the issue – even that I can understand. It’s that they seem to take disagreement as a personal insult and affront. As if to live in a universe where someone else doesn’t think like them is deeply and pathologically uncomfortable for them, and they are DRIVEN to rectify that discomfort.

      It’s really weird. I’ll argue most any topic with anyone under the sun, and it never occurs to me to take it personally. I’m always a little surprised and frankly puzzled when others do. I usually wonder what sort of home they grew up in, or what sort of insular life they lead, that they are ever and only surrounded by affirming people – because they sure as heck lose their shit when confronted with a person who thinks differently.

      • I’ve been arguing politics since I was a kid. I never took disagreement personally.

        But last year was like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Even mild criticism of Teh Precious triggered unhinged attacks – personal insults – from total strangers.

        The behavior of the Obots was what first turned me against Obama.

        • Followers are always a clue to the personality of their messiah.

          I like that word — MESS i ah. MESS — that what 0bozo is.

        • me too. Actually I am a die hard Gore person. But the behavior of the Obots and the Edwards people toward Hillary and her supporters on dkos was what made me look at her again as a candidate. I did it as first to defend her people on dkos, but then I remembered what an extraordinary woman she was.

      • I just can’t wrap my head around multiple simultaneous contradictory rants! Lol How can both things be true, they can’t! So if 5 separate contradictory things need to be true for me to be right, is it time to consider the possibility I may be wrong? Yes! Yes it is! 🙂

        • I’m always willing to be proven wrong, but calling me names won’t get you there.

          • Exactly! Yes! Don’t claim you’re engaged in dialogue if you’re not! Mischaracterizing people’s positions and acting like they’re stupid is not dialogue. You don’t have to engage in dialogue if you don’t want to, but don’t pretend you are if you’re not. Asking for clarification if you don’t understand where people are coming from is always preferable to rudely mischaracterizing their positions, if you’re about the dialogue.

          • When people show up and start getting personal or argue in bad faith (distorting other people’s comments, repeating debunked talking points, avoiding specific questions etc) we don’t fuck around – we slap a troll label on there ass and then ban them.

      • Agree with pretty much all of that WMCB. It gets personal maybe when the counterparty is someone personal to you.. For instance, I love my sister dearly, but she lives in Berkeley and she’s a raving Obot. Dunno, we’ve maybe spoken twice this year. Hopefully we’ll be able to make up some ground over xmas break. So for online, especially in politics environments, I’m learning it’s best not to get personal either in friendships or in the debates themselves. Still a relative newbie. The other way it gets personal is when one sometimes can’t help but bring personal real life issues and stresses to the conversation. Most of the time that seems alright to do, as long as one doesn’t direct it to any particular member in the group. But in the end, I agree with Myiq. Debate is healthy. Not too many places online where I see that happening in a sustaining manner, not blogs, facebook threads, or on twitter. Most seem to be either personal echo chambers or group think cults.

        • There are quite a few people in the blogosphere who seem to have “issues.” Lots of drama queens (and kings) and way too many shit-stirrers.

          This is a blog, not a group therapy session.

      • Yeah, twitter is not a place where you can have really meaningful political debates, but it seems useful for collecting current information and motivating action. Facebook is a bit different. There are for example some reasonable media people who have fairly open pages for friends. Jake Tapper, Joan Walsh, Howie Kurtz come to mind, and what gets debated on their pages (when reasonable) definitely feeds into their thinking and make it on air in the mainstream media. Especially these days when everything seems to be at a tipping point and a lot of people are changing their minds about parties, pols, and issues.

      • The phenomenom WMCB speaks of is merely a modern day manifestation of our instinctive fight or flight mechanisms.

  8. DUDE. Physics are Awesome.

  9. What a jackass:

  10. Off topic — sort of.

    Email address for AARP — their server is getting overwhelmed with all the email! So send them more

    member (at) aarp(dot)org

    remove spaces and insert correct stuff for a valid emil address.

  11. Is anyone going to write about what is being called “Climategate”

    Computer world — among other publications has some interesting insights & comments.

    Wikipedia has an article on the hacking of the email etc.

    Seems like the climate deniers are doing exactly what they’ve accused the climate scientist of doing — cherry picking the hacked email to validate they claim that humans have no impact on the climate.

    Meanwhile the climate scientists are hording data and refusing to share their research.

    As for me– I think that the scientists live in ivy covered towers and only do science-speak –they don’t want to be brother trying to but their work into plain English.

    The BBC also has a good article —
    “Show your workings” — which explains how scientists need to change with the times and learn to be more transparent with their data.

    What the authors of the BBC report have to say on this topic — show the data — would apply to most science — both the hard science and behavioral science.

    The key lesson to be learnt is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned – the IPCC does a fair job of this according to its own terms – but that in the new century of digital communication and an active citizenry, the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned.

  12. Oh, noes! The NYT has to share space with bloggers! (partisan ones)

    • “Waiter! There’s a fly in my soup!”

      “SIr, that’s impossible! The chef used all of them in the oatmeal raisin cookies!” :mrgreen:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: