Big fan of the show. I am glad no one got hurt, but I can well imagine that the Build team got a severe chastising by one James Franklin Hyneman. He's usually in charge of safety, and someone could have easily been killed or hurt by this lapse. I don't know what happened, but I bet dimonds to dollars that the cannon was not anchored properly before it want off and the recoil probably kicked the barrel up just high enough to clear the hill the shot was supposed to go into. The Mythbusters themselves probably didn't set up the cannon - unless it was the home-made cannon that Tory did for the "Ball & Chain prison escape" episode. That was more like a mortar though, and not designed to fire laterally. I hope this incident makes a blooper show, or gets broadcast in some way. You KNOW they have footage on the accident right up to where the shot went bad.

Not the first time the build team has had a bad accident though. In "Hollywood Car Myths" they were testing the movie axiom of when a car goes full speed under a semi-trailer and gets the roof knocked off but is still drivable. The myth was confirmed - the car slid right under the trailer. But the car went off the safety track and kept on going at like 70 miles an hour... It went right off the track, off the course, up a hill, and over a fence. Kari Byron had a horrified look on her face and just said, "Uh oh..." Luckily in that case (also) no one got hurt, but there was a road not too far past the fence the car flew over and someone could have gotten really clobbered. In that case it was also not the Build Team's fault. The site's safety rigging must have failed somehow.

I'm a Stooge fan. I own the chronologically released shorts on DVD and I've seen all thier shorts at least 3 or 4 times.

As far as the trailer goes, the Stooges themselves look and sound great. They really seem to have nailed the Stooges' mannerisms, voices, and style. The guy doing Larry Fine is a little taller and thinner than he should be, but for the most part in every other way they are a faithful re-creation of the classic characters. They nailed it. And what slapstick I saw sure looked like it had the punchy, zippy choreography that made the stooges so great when they were on thier game. Kudos.

I'm a bit nervous when I see nuns in slingshot thongs though, and women walking around with 6 inches of cleavage. The Stooges were certainly no strangers to spicing things up a bit and playing the wolf-hounds. But they kept the innuendo pretty subtle, and the pool nun was about as subtle as a crowbar. I liked how they kept Curly innocent though. "Is your hair different?". I sure hope they keep the boys innocent. I'd hate to see the movie become nothing but a scatological, sex humor cesspool. The Stooges should not go there. That's no thier thing. But it IS a Farrel movie, so (sadly) such pandering seems likely.

Aw - the Frankfurter is sad because of a lack of substance? Well - maybe he'd have been happier if the reporter had dove into the following topics of substance...

1. Frank's role in the housing and banking collapse (IE his role with AIG in pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall)...
2. The coverup of fixing parking tickets for the prostitution ring that was run out of his house...
3. Frank's involvement in a banking scandal in Boston with OneUnited...
4. Frank's abuse of office in forcing Fannie Mae to hire his lover, Herb Moses.
5. Falsification of documents where he claimed a $30,000 'gift' from hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was only $1,500...

Just a few 'substantive' issues that may this total sack of crap would have preferred to discuss. Barney Frank is one of the primary reasons for the recession. It is always impossible to pin such a big thing down to just one person, but if you could name one person that was to blame for the economic collapse it would be Barney Frank. This piece of human filth should be dragged out of Congress today, banned from all public service for life, should have every penny he owns confiscated, and then he should be tarred & feathered, pilloried, and tossed in a dank prison cell for the rest of his miserable, misbegotten life.

And that would be letting him off easy.

Fridges built in the 1950s still work just fine and look fantastic. Does that mean we should all be using them? Of course not. They weighed a ton more, used 'environmentally unfriendly' coolant, and were much less efficient. So even though the old timey 1950s fridge is not 'obsolete' in the sense that it is still functional, it very much IS obsolete in the sense that modern options are far superior.

This concept that every product ever made should be some sort of immortal, immutable Jungian archetype is just some person's idiotic fantasy. I've had the same fridge, microwave, dryer and dishwasher for over 14 years. Our clothes washer was also that old and was still working like a champ, but I got a new front-loader because they are more efficient. As my life goes on, I will replace these older 1990s appliances with newer ones that are better. And I will not feel either (A) guilty about it or (B) ripped off as if I was somehow being gypped.

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

Uh - no offense - but Frank Luntz is about as 'insider' as you can get. He is not a conservative. He is a GOP wonk. Putting it simply - he's one of those RINOs that real conservatives can't stand and who sells true conservatism down the river every chance he gets.

The GOP insiders want Romney. They want Romney because he is the person they have polled as being the most 'normal'. Above all else, the GOP insiders want someone bland, flavorless, and easy to swallow. They don't want the Sarah Palins, or the Herman Cains, or Ron Paul, or anyone else. They want vanilla, plain-jane, smart sounding, pretty for the camera, non-controversial candidates.

Romney would probably lose to Obama though. So why does the GOP want him? Quite simply, the GOP (as a political party) wants to keep the House, and win the Senate. And they think that Romney is the guy that would give them the best chance to do that. He is so inoffensive, that he would not really 'damage' the critical House/Senate races they want to win in 2012. And if the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate then the GOP gets to head up all those committee chairmanships, get charge of all the appropriations, and basically run the show. They wouldn't care whether Obama was still President as long as they got to run the town. That is the perspective that Luntz is coming from. Any candidate that risks the GOP 'master plan' is seen as someone to beat down and toss off the overpass rolled up in a flaming carpet.

The normal voters don't give a flying handshake about OWS. OWS is a bunch of freaks, losers, and radicals who will have absolutely no impact on the presidential election whatsoever. But they have a remote chance of messing up a few House & Senate races... That's the only thing our dear Frank cares about.

The only reason the Proglibdyte left is such a fan of Ron Paul is because he is a non-interventionist. The liberal left's vision of the ideal world is the United States giving all its cash - no questions asked - to the United Nations. At that point the US is supposed to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the UN orders them to do. Then - in the minds of the left - we will have world peace. RP would do about 90% of that by just being an isolationist. He won't give the UN any money, but the left will settle for the US just shutting down all its involvement (especially military).

But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

Is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes. ... My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

Well said. IMO this is a key truth that the (what I call) 'militant atheist' movement seems to deliberatly ignore because it is somewhat inconvenient to their self-image. Populations of human beings have a spectrum of individuals in them that run a gammut from 'good' to 'bad'. This is true of religions, sciences, governments, political parties, charities, businesses, or whatever else you care to name.

It must be said that militant atheists love to cherry-pick the 'bad' followers of religion, and try as much as possible to ignore the 'good' ones. Are there a lot of bad people who belong to religions? Sure. Do they do bad things in the name of God? Of course. To an atheist, what is a simple statement becomes a illogical grand condemnation of both religion in general, and God as a concept as somehow culpable (to blame) for all the bad things that those people did.

But there are 'bad' atheists too. If all those bad 'God people' were instead atheists, would atheism be to blame? I rather think that militant athiests would deny such a ridiculous statement. And yet many atheists of this militant stripe refuse to follow the same logic and allow people of faith the same leeway. That says something.

As a person of faith, I freely admit my own faults. But I see both God and 'religion' as a means towards self-improvement. I obtain great strength from faith, and have learned many things from both the philosophies of Christianity as well as from the examples of those who follow a religous life. Involvement in religion has provided my with many opportunities for service to others. Put simply - religions and God can lead people to a life of self-sacrifice, improvement, and service to others that they would not otherwise have found.

What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, and I'll rightfully ignore any argument that says otherwise.

I've been enjoying the game a lot. My only gripes have nothing to do with the graphics, but with the shoddy, slap-dash way they ported the game over to the PC. The GUI, video options, and other controls are horrible for keyboard/mouse. There are so many little things wrong with the way they handled the PC interface that Skyrim really should be a case-study in how NOT to do a game interface. It sucks. It really does.

Other than that, the game is fantastic. Let's hope Bethesda fixes the lousy interface (including that awful perks menu) and gives PC players their due. Either that or let's hope that the 3rd party mods compensate for Bethesda's incompetence.

The OWS proof is in the pudding. Thier 'rap sheet' is an odious pile of thefts, sexual assaults, property damage, threats against police, and many other things far too numerous to list. Oh - wait - you can...

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

OWS had a purpose at one point. As time went on it collapsed into a bunch of hooligans even more crass and vile than the yobs in the UK earlier this year. They are what they are - Cap'n H or not.

And OWS does not have a message. No matter how much you or anyone else may try and protest otherwise, OWS never once articulated a unifying message that they all got behind except "we're the 99%". It is not a disingenous statement to make, because it is uncontested truth. In fact, OWS was quite proud of the fact that they had deliberately avoided putting forward any sort of message.

Not sure why you're trying to deny this. OWS shot itself in the foot in that regard. But it's hard to put forward a unifying message when your 'movement' is comprised of about a thousand different factions.

He's nowhere NEAR as "cool" as Obama and voters totally love "cool".

Totally disagree. Obama 'cool'? Since when?

The man looks like Soupy Sales, but with even bigger ears. He's a scrawny, pencil-necked gooney bird who looks less 'cool' than a white guy trying to bust a move.

Obama isn't cool. He's cold. The man is condescending, insulting, and unsympathetic to anyone he meets who doesn't fall over themselves to kiss his butt. The second anyone says anything that disagrees or contradicts him, his face tightens up and you can just see the daggers stabbing out his eyes.

Obama 'cool'... Barf. Could not disagree more stridently on this point.

After seeing this and all the other Prog-Lib-Dyte videos this week desperately trying to explain away the OWS meltdown, I have reached the firm conclusion that I need to act swiftly. I need to open up a tin-foil hat stand and go to OWS sites right away before this lucrative market dissapates.

I think the answer is far simpler.

When kooks are rejected by society, they invent conspiracy theories because they cannot (above all else) ever bring themselves to admit that they are just a bunch of kooks. Far better for them to believe the cops, the mayors, the media, and society at large are involved in some sort of machination to 'keep them down' or 'bury thier message'. Yeah - that makes tons of sense guys. (cuckoo!) A movement with no leader, no message, and populated by a bunch of drug using rioter/rapists is simply 'misunderstood'. :eyeroll:

One of the fundamental tenants of Christianity is that all human beings are "morally compromised". All have sinned and fallen short of perfection. A true Christian person makes no attempt to deny the fact that they are morally compromised, flawed, or imperfect. Religious people humbly acknowledge their faults, and bring them to God. They rely on Christ's atonement for forgiveness. Then they try as much as they can to abandon the faults, and fix whatever damage they may have caused. And after they have done all this - they admit readily that they are STILL morally compromised beings and that they have to keep doing this process over and over and over and over and over seventy-times-seven.

So this guy's argument really is somewhat laughable on its face. He thinks he is somehow scoring a point, when in fact he is only reinforcing the Bible's underlying message. Those who beleive in God are not insulted, or put off, or otherwise effected. We see his position merely as a rather quaint, and amusingly miscast reminder of the real message taught by the Book of Job. And what is that message (to inform our non-believer friends?) "No matter how good you may be or how much you may have, you must always be humble and remember that you need of God in your life." I think this guy needs that message as much as anyone. Some of you guys too.

The more likely and logical explanation is far simpler than Cunk's conspiracy theories. The answer is OWS was a leaderless, messageless, impotent movement that collapsed under a mixture of its own incompetence and the ridiculous (and often highly offensive) behavior of its denizens.

The Tea Party - by comparison - was and remains a group that pushes government to reduce its power, scope, influence, and budget. In 2010 they had a significant impact on the mid-term elections, and they may still have a big influence on 2012 (time will tell). And they did it without pooping on cars, raping people, killing themselves with drugs, or having to have cops fumigate them out of parks.

Lesson to OWS - if you want to accomplish something meaningful then act more like the Tea Party.