Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619

Also a lot of Armenians there....

If you want something to remain private, why text or email it? You've createted a permanent written record....

I'm on my second Toyota Sienna AWD minivan. Both have been the best ice and snow cars I've ever had. And I'm in the mountains Nordic skiing etc. Great traction to drive and stop in the worst conditions: thin water on pure ice. Drives like it was bare asphalt.

We have long-time friendly relationship with the two next-door neighbors about mail, newspapers, etc. Particularly with one, we bring in their mail and papers and vice-versa on trips. We'd do the same with packages though it hasn't come up, I think. Most of our kids live in the neighborhood and they handle it, too.

Philipines are in Asia. Named after the Spanish king of the time by the Spaniards. They ruled the place for a few centuries.

I'd add Warren Zevon to the list, except I like the singing of Waits, Dylan, and Nelson. And Zevon.

I'll weigh in.... Leaving Jeff Bridges aside (who was great, but that's a matter of taste I figure), True Grit is the story of Mattie Ross, who narrates the entire book. Kim Darby was totally, utterly miscast as Mattie, Hailie Steinfeld was perfect. John Wayne's Rooster was iconic; the rest was much less so. I believe that he definitely deserved the Oscar for his performance though. One could go on, but the ending of the John Wayne version was a total departure from the book, which, after all, was written only a couple of years before. Mattie just has a bandage on her arm, all is well and happy; she'll be fine, and no doubt she and Rooster will have happy reunions! The Charles Portis novel is great. Read the opening, and then the last lines at the end. Powerful, and captured by the 2010 version perfectly. I've wondered why the first movie ended as it did. After all, the book was brand new, and was a big bestseller. I think movie audiences back then wanted unambiguously happy endings. More than that, I specuclate that John Wayne didn't want the actual more sobering ending for whatever reason. But that's just my guess, as I try to figure out why they did it that way back then. I never had read the book until I had watched the 2010 movie. It is a great work. The later movie reflected it much better.

At the same time Richard Boone was known as the heroic Paladin, he played two great Western villains: Frank Usher in the Tall T (with Randolph Scott and Margaret O'Sullivan), and Cicero Grimes in Hombre. The former in 1957, the latter in 1967, with Paul Newman and a great ensemble cast. Grimes in particular is a really great bad man. Both movies based on Elmore Leonard stories. Are there other examples of the same guy playing classic heroes and classic villains in Westerns?

This brings up the question of what is a remake. I think of it as a movie based mostly upon an older, usually successful well-made movie. Movies based on the same story, especially a classic story like A Christmas Carol, aren't really "remakes", because they're not remakes of an earlier film as such. The best example among Westerns' is True Grit. Both are based directly upon the short Portis novel, which is practically a screenplay in itself. The Jeff Bridges movie is closer to the book than the John Wayne version, especially as to the ending, which is an important part of the original story. So I don't think of it as a remake, though it's sometimes called one.

The conservation of angular momentum is a very interesting law.

Of some interest on the subject, President Trump appointed 14 federal judges in the post-2020 election period, all of which were confirmed by the Republican Senate. Needless to say, the Dems cried foul, for the reasons some have given here. Indeed, only one post-election-defeat appointment of a federal judge had been made and confirmed for generations before that. So it cuts both ways. The President is the President until Jan. 20.

I was 15, in 10th grade. It was a bad day, and the harbinger of many to come in the ensuing few years.

It didn't. The difference between the executive transition in a parliamentary system and the US system is usually first pointed out, with the historical background, in high school civics classes. At least it was in mine, a long time ago. There are downsides to the parliamentary system, at least the English one. The executive is not directly elected. The party in power decides when elections will be held, and can time them at favorable points. Elections can be suspended during 'national emergencies'--- such as WWII, where British elections were suspended for the duration. Contrast with the US Civil War and WWII here-- elections took place on schedule notwithstanding the 'emergency'. Our system seems to have worked. And, of course, this particular issue cuts both ways.

It's the difference between our system and parliamentarly systems, where leadership and cabinet heads (as the 'shadow cabinet') are already in place by the time elections are called. And ultimately, as has been pointed out, it's the Constitution that is the reason.

They don't latch anymore, and haven't for a long time.