Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to

Related Post Roulette

101 Responses

  1. Michael Cain says:

    Watched the NBA’s Western Conference Finals game last night. I’m going to have to give up watching the NBA. Missed goal-tending call, not reviewable; guy going up for a lay-up is hit across both arms, defender clearly not even trying for the ball, no foul called; color announcer saying, “Of course that blocking foul wasn’t called, it was a make-up for missing an earlier foul on the other team.” Too much of it isn’t basketball any more, it’s something that the refs are making up as they go along.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Michael Cain says:

      Personally, I’d like to see less reviewable plays. The decisions made after review strike me as arbitrary anyway (and therefore not an improvement over the initial call) and it really disrupts the flow of the game. But I’d also like to see a whole lot fewer time-outs given to each team so that the end of the game would be decided more by the natural flow of the game given the players on the floor and less about coaches one-play-at-a-time strategery.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Stillwater says:

        Yeah, “five minutes left on the clock — that means the game will be over in a half-hour” is ridiculous. I wonder how much of it is driven by the broadcasters wanting to get a last set of commercials in, like the two-minute warning in football.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:


        You’re prolly right about the advertising revenue angle to it, which means the NBA would never reduce the number of team timeouts even if it were good for the game. I think the logic against expanding the rink size in the NHL is similar: it would mean eliminating two rows of revenue-generating seats. I think in each case the game would be a lot better for making those changes, tho.Report

  2. Mike Schilling says:

    I just discovered that Netflix streams Archer. That is an insanely funny show, though it’s disconcerting that the superspy Sterling Archer sounds exactly like a struggling hamburger cook. But one of the best things about Bob’s Burgers is when Bob stops being the one sane man and goes wacko himself, and Archer is wacko all the time.Report

  3. Saul DeGraw says:

    I’ve discovered a Bay Area novelist named Don Carpenter. He killed himself in 1994 rather than die slowly from TB and Diabetes. He was never a huge novelist but earned money doing articles and screenplays and TV scripts. He was a writer’s writer. His last novels were published by small Bay Area publishers like North Point and are largely out of print. Recently his unfinished novel, Fridays at Enrico’s was released. He writes about an older and Bohemian West Coast, mainly SF, Marin, and Portland* (he grew up in Portland). The library has his novels but you are not allowed to check out most of them. I just finished Class of ’49 and will start From A Distant Place.

    I’ve also been reading Kevin Starr’s monumental history on America and the California Dream. I am currently reading the volume on 1940-1950. I’m reading the volumes out of order. I started with the volume on the 50s and early 60s (California in the Age of Abundance) and then went to the first volume which covered 1850-1915. The third volume I read was California enters the 40s. The other volumes cover the Progressive Era and the Great Depression.Report

    • Out of curiosity, I requested one of Carpenter’s books by inter-library loan (through my local public library, request will go to relatively nearby state university). We’ll see if they let me have it.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

      Marin has several of the novels available for request. You should be able to get them through LINK+ (interlibrary loan.) I did a LINK+ search and saw 20 books.Report

  4. I’m reading Amir Aczel’s “Why Science Does Not Disprove God.”Report

    • Saul DeGraw in reply to Gabriel Conroy says:

      Even Richard Dawkins can admit that in the end he is an agnostic because the existence of deities can never be completely disproven.

      That being said, science does a very good job at destroying taking the Bible literally as the truth and word of God and does prove that it is a very contradictory work written by a whole bunch of people.Report

      • At least according to Aczel, Dawkins in practice is less willing to admit of doubt than what you’re implying. But I’ve read only the Selfish Gene, which for whatever its faults and bonuses, is, I hear, a different book from God Delusion. And Aczel doesn’t deny science can destroy literalism, but he is saying that literalism does not account for all ways in which God is believed in.

        Frankly, most of Aczel’s discussion is over my head.

        And for what it’s worth, even many evangelicals, or at least people claimed by evangelicals, don’t deny that the Bible is a “contradictory work written by a whole bunch of people.” See Francis Collins and C. S. Lewis.Report

      • And to repeat a phrase, “for what it’s worth,” I suspect that Aczel is either going overboard or at least much further than I would Perhaps he can because he’s much more scientifically literate, but I can find a lot of places where he seems to be saying, “we don’t know x yet, so science hasn’t disproved god,” when I think to myself, “yeah, but that doesn’t mean we’ll never know x.”Report

      • Morat20 in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        Eh, going back to a favorite hobby horse: There’s basically two types of atheists — I think they call themselves ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ (at least that’s the terms I’m most familiar with)

        Strong atheists feel there is no god — they feel the concept is disproven regardinga particular God. Pretty much everyone is a strong athest towards some God concepts (like, say, Zeus. We’ve been to the top of Mt. Olympus. No bearded lightning thrower lives there in incestuous glory).

        Weak atheists go with a slightly softer stance, which is “I’ve never seen any reason/evidence/etc to believe in God, ergo I don’t”. Which is, IMHO, basically just people applying to a major religion what everyone applies to, well, every other religion — especially the dead ones. And also fairies and unicorns. 🙂

        Agnosticism tends to be separated out into a statement of limits of knowledge — like, an omnipotent, omniscient God could hide himself and we’d never be able to find him. So you can’t ‘know’ because whatever way you try to prove or disprove, he can BS his way out of via hacking reality.

        So you can have agnostic Christians (who believe in God because of faith, not because of philosophical proofs or worldy knowledge) and agnostic atheists, who are generally weak atheists. But not all weak atheists are agnostics, and of course ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’ are kinda dependent on which God you’re talking about anyways.

        I’m pretty much a weak atheist myself. I don’t believe in God for the same reason I don’t believe in Zeus or fairies: Why would I? I’ve never seen any reason to believe they exist. I do believe, quite firmly, in religion and Christians. Those exist for certain. I’ve met them. 🙂Report

      • Saul DeGraw in reply to Saul DeGraw says:


        I suppose I fall largely into the Culturally and Ethically Jewish but apathetically Agnostic to Atheist camp.

        Though what is interesting about the strong atheists is how perplexed they are by culture and ethical Judaism and/or Jews who proclaim their atheism but still practice Judaism by raising their kids Jewish, sending them to Hebrew school, having them Bar or Bat Mitzvahed, celebrating the holidays, etc. This seems to confuse Dawkinites especially those who came from Jesus Camp type of backgrounds and are psychologically damaged and bitter about that experience. The idea of something like liberal reform Judaism is odd to them. They know hardcore crazy and nothing with zero inbetween.Report

      • Saul DeGraw in reply to Saul DeGraw says:


        Maybe some really serious ones but the mass in America do seem to insist on biblical inerrancy and literalism.Report

      • veronica dire in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        @saul-degraw — I know a pagan-atheist-transgender-Jewish-rabi. She’s really awesome.

        Anyway, I mean, I’m not Jewish, but somehow I totally get it. It just works when she does it.

        One time she officially declared me a cat. And thus I am a cat.Report

      • James K in reply to Saul DeGraw says:


        Even Richard Dawkins can admit that in the end he is an agnostic because the existence of deities can never be completely disproven.

        Dawkins discusses this in The God Delusion. He does say that he can’t be 100% certain that gods do not exist but he rejects the idea that makes him an agnostic; after all no one can be 100% certain gods exist either, but if we then conclude everyone is an agnostic the word loses all meaning.Report

      • @saul-degraw

        Maybe some really serious ones but the mass in America do seem to insist on biblical inerrancy and literalism.

        That might be true if we equate evangelicals with literalists (I understand a lot–maybe not “the mass” and maybe not a majority, but a lot–of self-identified evangelicals do not deny that some of the Bible is metaphor and believe there’s a distinction to be drawn between some people’s fundamentalism and their own views.) After all, I’m the one who introduced the word “evangelical” into this discussion. You were talking about literalism, so I should meet you there.

        So I’ll riff off @morat20 ‘s excellent summary above of weak and strong atheism.* I’ll suggest that there are strong and weak versions of literalism. (“Inerrancy” might be another matter. Can a text that’s not taken wholly literally be accurately said to be “errant” or “inerrant”?) The “strong” version insists that the Bible is completely and literally true, end of story. The “weak” version will nod in agreement with that view or respond on surveys that they believe the Bible is “literally the word of god,” but in practice and when pushed will admit to the use of metaphors or degrees of interpretation or multiple and fallible authorship.

        To be fair, I admit I am moving the goalposts. If someone is going to claim to be a literalist, simply identifying inconsistencies perhaps means only that they are inconsistent, or selectively literal, which is arguably worse. So if someone identifies as a literalists, or adopts positions indistinguishable from literalism, then I’ll have to concede that’s what we’re dealing with. And for all I know, the “mass in America” do insist on what you say they insist on. I do believe, however, that this same “mass” includes some people of more personal depth and honesty than some caricatures give them credit for. It also includes extremist whackos. Further, as I believe is true of most populations, it includes people who sometimes display personal depth, generosity, and honesty and at other times are extremist, tribal whackos.

        Finally, I’ll just note that this conversation we’re having is different from the one Aczel appears to want to have. He specifically says he hasn’t proved the existence of god’s existence, only that science has not, and if I read him right cannot, prove his/her/its existence. He has no truck for literalism in his book.

        *I don’t mean to imply that my “riff” is one Morat would agree with or one that follows necessarily from what he’s saying. I’m saying only that his distinction inspired me to say something else.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        No no religion.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        James K,

        Given that it’s always logically possible that there is a God (just as it’s logically possible we’re just brains in a vat), agnosticism sorta logically follows. But a mere logical possibility isn’t sufficient for an affirmative belief, and in the absence of compelling evidence to affirmatively believe in God’s existence – coupled with compelling evidence against such a belief – atheism can be, and I think, is justified. It just lacks certainty since that conclusion (atheism) is based on empirical, therefore contingent, evidence. But again, the absence of certainty that not-X is the case isn’t evidence X is the case. Those are different types of things.

        At least, that’s how things shake out to me.Report

      • That being said, science does a very good job at destroying taking the Bible literally as the truth and word of God and does prove that it is a very contradictory work written by a whole bunch of people.

        This might be because I’ve been reading/listening to a lot of Bart Ehrman lately, but I’m pretty sure just reading say the Pauline Epistles vs. Acts vs. the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, or comparing the synoptic gospels to John alone would pretty much lead you to that conclusion.

        …of course that presupposes actually reading the text. I’m pretty sure the Bible is the #1 book that people claim to read without actually reading it, rivaled only by Romance of the Three Kingdoms (in East Asian cultures), Atlas Shrugged, and the collected works of Tolstoy (if you’re Russian) combined.Report

      • @nob-akimoto

        …of course that presupposes actually reading the text. I’m pretty sure the Bible is the #1 book that people claim to read without actually reading it,

        I agree, and I haven’t read the whole Bible, either (although I’ve read large parts of it), and when most people claim to have read it, I’m usually wary. I wonder what other books, beside the Bible and the two you mention (I have actually heard of “Romance of the Three Kingdoms,” by the way, but have never read), would make the list?

        Here are my candidates:

        1. The US Constitution (not a book, and it’s short and easy to read, but…..).

        2. E.P. Thompson, Making of the English Working Class (many, many, many labor historians claim to have read it).

        3. Hoftstadter, Age of Reform (many, many, many US Historians claim to have read it, or cite it as if they had).

        4. Any given work of Shakespeare that’s being discussed at the moment.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        I was under the impression that a great many Russian people had actually read their Tolstoy as a matter of national pride. Perhaps they just have really good Cliff Notes that they don’t share with Americans?Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        Yeah, but the Cliff Notes are 300 pages.Report

  5. Michael Cain says:

    I finished Charlie Stross’ Neptune’s Brood. I haven’t decided what I think about it yet.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Michael Cain says:

      Realistic space travel is depressing in it’s implications for organic beings?Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Morat20 says:

        Well, I was more trying to decide what I thought about a plot in which a 2,000-year-old scam perpetrated by an evil mastermind on most of the human-occupied worlds is taken down by an historian and forensic accountant. And they still needed the space-going bats with a miracle speed-of-light space drive to pull it off.

        Part of me wants to say it’s just a modestly entertaining 350-page poke at Weber’s whole Honorverse thing, much the way the first few Laundry Files books poked some fun at several of the prominent spy series from the 1960s.Report

      • Morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

        It’s a look at what scams would look like distributed across space with no FTL. In short, the long con rules.

        Heck, half the book was effectively about money and trade in a non-FTL civilization.

        Honestly, about half of Stross’ novels are basically him setting up some weird situation and thinking “How would I make money? And then, also, how would I scam the system?”

        I’d say it’s more of a poke at our Galtian Financial Overlords, as their robot Overlord equivilants got taken for the same ride 2000 years from now as they’re suckers for now.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Michael Cain says:

      I liked Stross’s Fuzzy book, except that it was so damned cynical, where the Fuzzy books are Piper at his very least cynical.Report

  6. Chris says:

    More Mann. Also read Chronicle of a Death Foretold while we were in Houston yesterday. It was very depressing. Turns out the guy dies.Report

    • Saul DeGraw in reply to Chris says:

      Thomas or Heinrich?

      And I see what you did there.Report

    • Chris in reply to Chris says:

      Oh, and watching Longmire, which I compare to Burn Notice, only in Wyoming, with cowboys.Report

    • veronica dire in reply to Chris says:

      @chris — “It was very depressing. Turns out the guy dies.”

      I wish they’d warn you when something like that happens. 🙂Report

      • Chris in reply to veronica dire says:

        The first words of the novella are “El día en que lo iban a matar, Santiago Nasar se levantó a las 5.30 de la mañana para esperar el buque en que llegaba el obispo.” So you don’t have to wait very long to find out the title wasn’t kidding.

        It’s a nice little book, with moments of real beauty, and full of GGM’s ability to capture the whole of a person in a simple phrase, like “Una pobre mujer, consagrada al culto de sus defectos,” “A poor woman, dedicated to the worship of her defects.”
        Worth the hour or two it takes to read it.Report

  7. Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    Just finished Skin Game myself. Butcher can’t write them fast enough for me to throw my money at him. As far as a Dresden novel, it’s not bad, but not as epic as some of them. It serves, I think, as a fun story that is busy setting up some pretty serious plot for future books.

    Now I am reading Three Parts Dead, which seems pretty good, so far.

    Also playing Dishonored, which is a good stealth game, It has a few issues with the game mechanics I’m not a huge fan of, but it works well enough & is fun for the Steam Sale price.

    Also watched Bourne Legacy, which was fun enough, but I’m glad I didn’t bother watching it in the theater.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

      I finished that last night. Butters, FTW.Report

      • Murali in reply to Morat20 says:

        I finished skin game the day after it came out. Agree with both @mad-rocket-scientist and @morat20 take on it. There isn’t any single super awesome thing that Dresden did. But Butters… I think every star wars fan out there who reads Dresden files as well just had his day made.

        V qba’g guvax gung guvf vf gur ynfg jr fnj bs Nfpure/Ynfpvry. Ynetryl orpnhfr bs gur ab-obql-abg-qrnq ehyr.Report

      • Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Morat20 says:


        I kinda like how only one of the Knights of the Cross is actually Christian. Butters has a lot of work (& working out) ahead of him, but I think Butcher is setting him up for some epic badassery in the later books.


        I think the Fallen Beast Angel is out of the game for the duration, but the Fallen Fire Angel is bound to be a bad penny, especially since she knows something of herself is new to the world.Report

      • morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

        IIRC, none of them now. Michael was the only Christian of the original three. (Shiro was only nominally Christian, the third..Sansha? Sasha? was an atheist).Report

      • Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Morat20 says:


        Until someone else takes up The Sword of Love, I consider Michael it’s wielder, even if he has Dresden holding onto it.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Morat20 says:

        I keep hoping that Michael will find a way to come back.Report

      • morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

        We should probably watch the spoilers here, guys.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Morat20 says:


      • Murali in reply to Morat20 says:

        My guess is that eventually either Thomas or Harry will end up wielding AmoracchiusReport

      • Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Morat20 says:

        Harry will never take up the sword long term, it’s not his forte (he’s more ‘blasty’ than ‘slicey’).

        Now Thomas, I could see Thomas wielding the sword. Love is a powerful force for Thomas.Report

      • morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

        Now Thomas, I could see Thomas wielding the sword. Love is a powerful force for Thomas.

        Love is anathema to Thomas. While it does indeed fit his character in the sense that he loves and is loved, I’m not sure what would happen if he touched that sword.

        I suspect “Fiery explosion of doom” would be a possibility.

        I suspect whatever it would be would be a bit more involved than handing it over and saying “make with the slicey”.Report

      • Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Morat20 says:

        I need to re-read the serious so far, too much detail forgotten.

        I think the Thomas of old would be destroyed by the sword. The current Thomas, perhaps not. It is the monster inside him that is anathema to love, not necessarily Thomas himself.Report

      • morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

        We’re talking the Thomas that couldn’t touch the girl he loved without suffering severe burns until she got the bright idea for a threesome? 🙂 As long as she ‘goes first’ with the third, they’re fine.

        Especially post, um, whichever the one where the Cthulu-esque shapeshifter got ahold of him. He’s not exactly better…Report

  8. veronica dire says:

    Right now I’m reading this book:

    It’s one of those books where I’ll read a few chapters, get a bit confused, go back, reread, go forward, read more, move forward a bunch of chapters, “see the light” on something, go back, reread from the beginning, on and on. Just today the relationship between node potentials and the dual problem in the linear programming model “lit up” in my brain — I’ve read the section 34093409850394850985094 times, but just today I finally get it.

    So anyway, when I’m done I’ll understand the fuck out of network flows.

    (I’m kind of a nerd.)

    My windows are open and I guess today is some kind of festival in Dorchester, ’cause I hear lots of street musicians and shit. Tonight I go to a “masculine burlesque” show up near Harvard. I have no idea what will happen.Report

    • Ah, fond memories. I did my masters thesis many years ago on linear network flow problems. It was at the time when academics had remembered that the simplex algorithm basis for such problems was a spanning tree, and that tree-manipulation algorithms had gotten enormously fast. We were solving what were very large optimization problems for that time — tens of thousands of variables, hundreds of thousands of constraints — in ridiculously short times.Report

      • veronica dire in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Right. It is just starting to dawn on me that the basis is a tree. (And actually I haven’t even gotten to that chapter yet, so I’m pretty happy with myself for seeing that.)

        I have this thing I do when learning a subject like this. I call it “finding the geometry.” Until I really find the “shape” of a problem, how I can twist up the problem to see it in my mind, I cannot really understand it. But always sooner or later I “find the geometry” and it all falls into place.

        My new job is going to involve finding optimal pricing for airline travel. I’m very excited.Report

      • Patrick in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Until I really find the “shape” of a problem, how I can twist up the problem to see it in my mind, I cannot really understand it.

        What’s creepy is when you get into really obtuse theoretical math and you start figuring out proofs for things without actually understanding the proof you just blurted out to the professor.

        That’s what made Dr. B think I had the brain to do really abstract algebra, and what made me think I needed to quit before I went to grad school and permanently broke my brain.

        Ah, youth.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Until I really find the “shape” of a problem, how I can twist up the problem to see it in my mind, I cannot really understand it.

        What’s creepy is when you get into really obtuse theoretical math and you start figuring out proofs for things without actually understanding the proof you just blurted out to the professor.

        This all sounds kind of like Siri Keeton’s “informational topologies” in Blindsight.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to veronica dire says:

      I’m making my way through Pierre’s Basic Category Theory because you and the PhD’s I work with these days make me feel dumb.Report

    • veronica dire in reply to veronica dire says:

      Oh and the dudely burlesque show was pretty great.Report

  9. Nob Akimoto says:

    Thinking of which of the Great Courses to listen to next. The fact that Audible offers them for just one credit (!) is like crack….Report

  10. Kolohe says:

    Finally saw American Hustle. Good, with at least two great standalone scenes, but I can’t say great overall.

    I really didn’t get Jennifer Lawrence’s character at all, script wiseReport

    • Saul DeGraw in reply to Kolohe says:

      What didn’t you get about her character?

      I think the first question I asked my dad is whether women really wore shirts like the one Amy Adams did in the movie. My dad’s answer was “Not that I can tell.”

      I thought the movie was entertaining and I would probably watch it again if someone suggested but it is not a movie I would rewatch on my own probably.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        Maybe women didn’t wear clothing like Amy Adams did in the movie. But they should have.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

        The introduction to JL’s character jjnf yvxr, “V unir fbpvny nakvrgl”*, ohg gura jvgubhg nal erny gevttrevat zrpunavfz be punenpgre qrirybczrag fur whfg jnyxrq hc gb ‘yrtvgvzngr ohfvarffzra’ jub jrer pbzcyrgr fgenatref. Ryvfnorgu Eöuz pbhyqa’g unir unq gung ovt bs na rssrpg ba ure, pbhyq fur?

        Nyfb, enaqbz yrfovnavfz, abgjvgufgnaqvat vg jnf gur friragvrf.
        *right? I mean, that’s what she said, not Christian Bale’s character, correct? If he said that, my opinion changesReport

  11. Will Truman says:

    I’m watching The Americans. Hey @glyph I have a question… Ubj qvq gur qnhtugre pngpu ba gb gur snpg gung gurer jnf fbzrguvat tbvat ba jvgu ure cneragf? V erzrzore fur pnhtug ure zbz qbvat “zvqavtug ynhaqel” naq gura ng gur raq fur jrag qbja gurer naq vg frrzrq yvxr fur qvfpbirerq fbzrguvat… ohg V qvqa’g sbyybj jung rknpgyl. V haqrefgbbq gur enzvsvpngvbaf, ohg abg gur guvat. Pbhyq lbh uryc zr bhg urer?

    I finished Revenge. It was a really good season ending. Vg’f qrsvavgryl bar bs gubfr “Abj jung?” guvatf. Jvgu gur Tenlfbaf bhg bs gur jnl naq nyy. Boivbhfyl, gur zbfg qverpg nagvpvcngvba jvyy or svaqvat bhg jung unccrarq gb Wnpx.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Will Truman says:

      IIRC, fur qvqa’g qvfpbirel nalguvat; ohg gur cvrprf bs gur chmmyr fgvyy qba’g svg sbe ure.

      How far along into the show are you? Cntvr’f fhfcvpvbaf znavsrfg va n jnl gung vf ng bapr sne sebz gur gehgu naq lrg dhvgr npphengr, jura lbh guvax nobhg vg.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Thanks @burt-likko and @glyph That was sort of the impression I was under at the end of the previous season, but this season started making me think that there was something more specific.

        One other question…

        Fgna whfg nqzvggrq gb Cuvyyvc gung ur’f univat na nssnve. Cuvyyvc zragvbaf gb Ryvmnorgu gung ur svanyyl nqzvggrq jung gurl xarj. V’q sbetbggra gung gurl xarj. Jura qvq gung unccra? Qvq jr xabj gung unccrarq? Gung fbhaqf yvxr na ragver fhocybg gung V zvffrq? (V zrna, V pna vzntvar C&R jbaqrevat vs gung pna or yrirentrq gb znxr uvz na nffrg. Vg gheaf bhg gung’f abg cenpgvpny, bs pbhefr, ohg gurl qba’g xabj gung.)Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Gurl jrer gbyq ol gurve unaqyre, jub yrnearq vg sebz gur Ermvqraghen. Npghnyyl, V qba’g erzrzore frrvat guvf unccra, ohg vg znxrf n ybg bs frafr gung vg jbhyq.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Will Truman says:

      @will-truman – She’s never found anything specific that I recall. It’s just a generalized suspicion (realization, really) that her parents are keeping some parts of their lives secret. That’s in my experience a pretty universal phenomenon, and one that would presumably be stronger in a family with secrets as big as this one (and perhaps, being the child of deep-cover spies who were presumably chosen in part for temperament and sharp mind, she’d have a genetic predisposition, an eye, for noticing little details that are “off”?).

      You can lie to many people, but it’s hard to deceive family forever.

      Paige has reached an age where A.) parents seem “weird” anyway – she knows P & E had marital troubles (so maybe she suspects an affair?) and B.) she’s old enough to realize that boy, my parents sure work long hours for “travel agents”.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Also, a question for anyone who HAS seen the season (Will, I’m not sure how far you are so I don’t know if this is a spoiler for you):

        Jura Cnvtr pngpurf C & R va n pbzcebzvfvat cbfvgvba – qvq nalbar ryfr guvax gung C & R yrsg gur qbbe bcra ba checbfr, ubcvat fur JBHYQ? Gurl xabj fur’f fabbcvat – jung gurl jrer qbvat (ebg13 qbrfa’g plcure ahzoref, fb V jvyy yrnir vg hajevggra) vf irel…vagvzngr, fb ubcrshyyl vg N.) fvzhygnarbhfyl ernffherf Cnvtr gung C & R’f zneevntr vf BX juvyr O.) fdhvpxvat ure bhg rabhtu gb ubcrshyyl fgbc fabbcvat.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Glyph says:

        I’m on episode four, whereboutsReport

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Actually IIRC it happened in ep 1, so you should be OK.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Glyph says:

        V gubhtug gung jnf gur svefg vaqvpngvba gurl unq gung fur’q orra fabbcvat. V erpnyy gurz jbaqrevat nsgrejneqf ubj ybat fur unq orra fabbcvat, ubj znal gvzrf fur unq orra va gurve ebbz jura gurl jrer npghnyyl bhg, rgp.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Maybe my memory’s off, but I thought Paige’d had some awkward interaction with either P or E about laundry already, that seemed to indicate to P & E that she was suspicious. Maybe in the S1 finale?

        I mean, come ON, they are spies, they can’t lock a door?Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Glyph says:

        @glyph Vg ybbxrq gb zr yvxr gurl unaqyrq vg gur jnl rira cneragf jub jrera’g fcvrf jbhyq unaqyr vg, obgu jvgu ure naq orgjrra gurzfryirf. V guvax gung fprar jnf gurer gb n) erzvaq hf, gur ivrjref, gung C & R ner npghnyyl va ybir jvgu rnpu bgure qrfcvgr, jryy, qrfcvgr rirelguvat; o) chg gur punenpgre bs Cnvtr guebhtu ure rzbgvbany naq zbeny cnprf gb frg hc jung fur trgf vaibyirq va arkg gb erory ntnvafg ure zbgure, naq p) trg hf n ovg bs Xrev Ehffryy ohgg, juvpu creuncf jnf abg fgevpgyl arprffnel sbe aneengvir checbfrf ohg juvpu V arireguryrff rawblrq nf gur frevrf unf gubebhtuyl erivirq zl pehfu ba ure.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        @burt-likko – V nterr gung vg jnf NYFB fhccbfrq gb pbzzhavpngr gb ivrjref fbzrguvat nobhg gur fgngr bs C & R’f zneevntr. Ohg vg frrzrq gb zr yvxr n tbbq jnl gb xrrc lbhe qnhtugre sebz bcravat qbbef.

        Naq qbvat GUNG cnegvphyne guvat…evtug nsgre gurl’q erghearq sebz n ubarlcbg zvffvba.

        Hzzz. Lrnu. V guvax V jvyy fgbc gurer…ohg C & R ner oenir naq haqrefgnaqvat, be gurl unq hygrevbe zbgvirf gbb. Orpnhfr gung cbfvgvba/cbfr jbhyq or na rnfl bar gb ubyq nf ybat nf vf arrqrq hagvy gur qbbe pna trg bcrarq.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Glyph says:

        Naq cbgragvnyyl n ybg bs sha, gbb.Report

  12. Burt Likko says:

    Also, watched Game of Thrones last night. And holy crap, I’d completely forgotten that Tertbe Pyrtnar xvyyf Borela Znegryy svefg.

    So I was just as shocked and surprised as my friend who hadn’t had a clue about either the Red or Purple Weddings. Kind of fun that way. Especially frrvat gur “bu, fuvgohetref V nz bhg bs gevpxf” ybbx ba Glevba’f snpr.

    Also, I didn’t recall Glevba’f pbairefngvba jvgu Wnvzr nobhg gurve pbhfva xvyyvat gur orrgyrf. Ohg V gubhtug vg jnf qnza tbbq qvnybthr. Jul qvq gur “fvzcyr” pbhfva xvyy gur orrgyrf? Zl gurbel vf ur qvq vg orpnhfr ur pbhyq.Report

  13. DRS says:

    Maybe not the right thread but couldn’t find another place to put it. This article is interesting because it discusses the decline in manufacturing capacity in SW Ontario (where I’m from) and what various public authorities (including but not limited to governments) are trying to do about it:

    None of these problems are unknown to Americans in the Rust Belt but what I’d like to point out is that nowhere do you find digressions into what might be called the moral decline of citizens as reasons for the economic situation. Rod Dreher et al are always willing to believe that the increased access to birth control is the reason why things are going to crap.Report

  14. Chris says:

    Did ya’ll see that HBO put a bunch of its older series on Amazon Prime streaming? So that prime members can watch them for free? I mention this in case any of you are looking for something to watch in the near future.Report