*=Crazy x=Big
6:26 PM
You left the chat by logging out or being disconnected.
Michael Smith is now online.
x what's good
8:07 PM
*doing laundry/sweating my nads off
x no ac?
*trying to live green
only use it when i sleep
x ah
xi don't try to live green
i use just enough energy to be comfortable, no more
no less
*a true citizen of the globe
x i am
the green movement is a communist movement
and im a lot of things, but i sure as hell ain't no commie
*your applying adam smith to something thats kind of outside its perview
x huh?
*laisezz faire and capitalism
dont apply to the environment
x no
what im saying is
*unless the rich have some new earth thats built for them once the planet goes to shit
x communists have backed off from the overt commie angle
and have moved into the environmentalist niche
but theyre the same people and they have the same agenda
don't let them fool you
* i could give 2 shits about the developing world getting equal parts
i just dont want long island to turn into a reef
x if we really wanted to save the environment, we'd just nuke china and india
send a few H bombs there way
it's not going to happen, long island turning into a reef
you not using your ac
will make 0% difference
you say laissez-faire doesn't work
it works
look at how people's behavior is changing now that gas is over $4 a gallon
* because carbon emissions in cars drop without government intervention
x this is not some thing where if we don't make drastic changes soon, the earth is going to be fucked in 20 years
* until theres profit in conversation, no corporation will be interested in it
x we'll naturally progress and find alternative energy sources
they're already interested
they all research it
they know there's only so much oil in the ground, they know there is an environmentally conscious niche market, they get government grants, they research it for the sake of science
plus, they know the first person to figure it out controls the global energy market
so there's plenty of incentive
*explain the lack of hydrogen cars
this isnt the space age where competition spurs invention
x what's the point?
* if it was, shit would be coming out every day
x there's no feasible way to do
you need to burn fossil fuels to get hydrogen
*no
x yes
*nah
x there's no plain old H occurring naturally last time i checked
*i know of several water splitting engines as well as several biochemical pathways being exploited to produce massive amounts of hydrogen
its a matter of people know pouring in the money to make them feasible
x what do the engines run on
* http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm (cheap plug for Howstuffworks)
x this isn't even what im arguing though
i 100% support government grants for that kind of research
i just don't think the govt. should punish the average american in the mean time
if they released a hydrogen car that did everything a regular car did as well that was price competitive, id but it
buy*
* as would i
but the american consumer is a dick
x no
* is there any need for a hummer
to be sold commercially
x if everything else was the same
and the only difference was the engine
most americans would choose the hydrogen engine
im confident in that
*i think so too
x if it was cost effective
*but the car is as much as status symbol
which removes practicality out of the equation
for the middle class, it works
x but for the 10% who want the v8 because its cool, you dont fix them without regulation
make a hydrogen v8
why isn't that possible?
you can do upper end too
*true
*but that doesnt solve short term problems
x the short term problems aren't going to kill us
*might kill our grandkids
or their kids
x then by definition they're not short term
*not even the loss of oil
the climate shift is the shit that'll cause the most problems
x ah fuck the climate change
* dude im a scientist, you cant dispute the changes
x what is it like half a degree?
they were saying there was gonna be another ice age 30 years ago
*yeah, that was before 2 billion new people had cars
x in 30 years?
i don't think so
*i mean the proliferation of vehicles in china/india
as well as their indusries
x i think they were just wrong
earth is a big, tough mother fucker
it can take it
for a couple more decades
* tell that to the dinosaurs
x o so conservation is going to stop a big fucking asteroid from hitting us?
* no, thats bruce wilis
x they didn't even burn fossil fuels
they are fossil fuels
we can't last as a race forever anyway
we've had a good run
time to let the next great race have a shot, i say
* our insect overlords?
x something that can withstand the new earth climate
listen to this
side story
cold blooded animals
i remember in like 6th grade
in religion class, we were reading the old testament, genesis, and learning about creation
and i raised my hand and asked, where do the dinosaurs fit int
b/c they tell you of course that they were around millions of years ago
which makes no sense in the context of genesis
i thought this was a smart observation
my teacher laughed at me
and so did the whole class
i hated that bitch
* was it a public school?
x no of course not
* i meant CCD
x i was catholic educated k-8
it was catholic grammar school
*no comment on it whatsoever
x yea
just laughed
and moved on
isn't that kinda fucked up?
* probably wasnt qualified to answer it
x yea definitely
she was like 26
*theological its a relatively simple explanation
x depends if you're evangelical or not
* evangelical its simpler "if it aint in the bible, it didnt happen"
x yea but that's, of course, ridiculous
x the catholic explanation is either that it's a parable or they were 7 really long days
*well humans invented the concept of time
x you're a scientist
you shouldn't be saying that
* science and faith arent exclusive
there are plenty of things that are unexplainable in science
x but time is just a measuring system
isn't*
*exactly
x o ok
* time is a human construct
x i think it's more accurate to say that humans invented the system for measuring time, not time itself
*what is time
its an arbitrary system developed by humans
its only a constant because we have no other rules for it
x time is a dimension
a fundamental structure of the universe
* because we defined the universe
x aright, whatever
* its all a matter of perspective
x i dont really care
we just post this convo on the blog
*because your getting philosophiucally pwnzord
THE END... FOR NOW????
philosophical conversations between big and crazy
philosophical ruminations
yea
i'll do it
ok
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Choose Your Own Adventure
I haven't added content lately because of a new job, and Crazy hasn't because he's a lazy asshole (well, so am I). So I asked Greg, friend of the blog, to make a contribution. He decided to make a choose your own adventure story, where at the end there are four choices for how the story progresses. Vote in the comments section of the entry.
Intro:
You, the Main Character, Vincent D’Marco:
You, a 31 year old male, are a detective for the New Haven, CT police department. You’ve been apart of the force for almost 8 years. You were promoted to detective 3 years ago and have been working hard towards a promotion to captain. The recent rash of gun violence the past few years has, perhaps somewhat sadly, bolstered your reputation around the city. You are known as a cunning detective, an investigator that can both stick to the rules and think outside the box. Most of the department respects you, but there are a few cops on the force believe you to be too soft at times. You don’t make arrests and until you are certain you have the evidence for a conviction, much to the chagrin of a few colleagues. The men and women on the SWAT team are particularly fond of you, having almost made the team before deciding to accept a promotion to detective.
Detective Casey Breyers, your partner:
Your partner is a 27 year old female, fairly attractive, just recently promoted to detective. Many around the precinct believe she isn’t ready for the responsibilities of detective, and some suspect she was promoted solely because she is a woman. You’ve been partners for about 9 months now, and from what you’ve seen she’s intelligent and a good cop, but lacks an air of confidence the other detectives carry, perhaps from the both the pressure of the new promotion and her gender. You think she might be interested in you romantically, but the last few months have been busy and you hesitate to ask out someone you have to work with every day.
Captain Francis Giancano, your boss:
A 47 year old male, tough on crime and sometimes tougher on his precinct. Demands results, and doesn’t care how he gets them, often leading to confrontations with some of the officers that do things strictly by the book. You and the captain get along most of the time, but only because your arrests lead to convictions. He and Casey do not get along, and he resents her mostly because he felt pressure to promote her from department brass.
More character intros as the story progresses
You sit at your desk and take a glance at the clock on the wall in front of you. 4:50pm. 10 more minutes and you can leave for the day. You look forward to getting home, cracking open a beer, and catching the Yankee game. Your paper work is done, so you grab your jacket and start to head out a few minutes early. You begin to walk away from you desk when Casey strolls down the hallway calling you name. Almost simultaneously the phone on your desk begins to ring. What do you do?
A)Ignore the phone, and see what Casey wants
B)Ignore Casey and answer the phone
C)Put your cellphone to your ear pretending to be on a call, ignoring both Casey and the phone and leaving the station.
D)Motion to Casey to come over and chat while you quickly see what the phone call concerns
Intro:
You, the Main Character, Vincent D’Marco:
You, a 31 year old male, are a detective for the New Haven, CT police department. You’ve been apart of the force for almost 8 years. You were promoted to detective 3 years ago and have been working hard towards a promotion to captain. The recent rash of gun violence the past few years has, perhaps somewhat sadly, bolstered your reputation around the city. You are known as a cunning detective, an investigator that can both stick to the rules and think outside the box. Most of the department respects you, but there are a few cops on the force believe you to be too soft at times. You don’t make arrests and until you are certain you have the evidence for a conviction, much to the chagrin of a few colleagues. The men and women on the SWAT team are particularly fond of you, having almost made the team before deciding to accept a promotion to detective.
Detective Casey Breyers, your partner:
Your partner is a 27 year old female, fairly attractive, just recently promoted to detective. Many around the precinct believe she isn’t ready for the responsibilities of detective, and some suspect she was promoted solely because she is a woman. You’ve been partners for about 9 months now, and from what you’ve seen she’s intelligent and a good cop, but lacks an air of confidence the other detectives carry, perhaps from the both the pressure of the new promotion and her gender. You think she might be interested in you romantically, but the last few months have been busy and you hesitate to ask out someone you have to work with every day.
Captain Francis Giancano, your boss:
A 47 year old male, tough on crime and sometimes tougher on his precinct. Demands results, and doesn’t care how he gets them, often leading to confrontations with some of the officers that do things strictly by the book. You and the captain get along most of the time, but only because your arrests lead to convictions. He and Casey do not get along, and he resents her mostly because he felt pressure to promote her from department brass.
More character intros as the story progresses
You sit at your desk and take a glance at the clock on the wall in front of you. 4:50pm. 10 more minutes and you can leave for the day. You look forward to getting home, cracking open a beer, and catching the Yankee game. Your paper work is done, so you grab your jacket and start to head out a few minutes early. You begin to walk away from you desk when Casey strolls down the hallway calling you name. Almost simultaneously the phone on your desk begins to ring. What do you do?
A)Ignore the phone, and see what Casey wants
B)Ignore Casey and answer the phone
C)Put your cellphone to your ear pretending to be on a call, ignoring both Casey and the phone and leaving the station.
D)Motion to Casey to come over and chat while you quickly see what the phone call concerns
Friday, June 13, 2008
My Fury / Why I Will Not Hesitate When I Pull the Lever Next to John McCain this November
My vote for John McCain was never really in doubt, but I can't say I was overly excited about his candicacy. That was until today. I consider myself to be an old school pro small government, pro state, and most importanly pro separation of powers Republican. The U.S.'s separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is one of, if not the, most fundamental tenets of American republicanism. I know this because I actually got a decent education in civics from kindergarten through high school, and it continues to grow to this day. But many do not have the benefit of this education, including, (perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not), five justices of the United Supreme Court. John McCain does know his civics, however, which is why he's getting my vote and I'll sleep guilt free the night November 4, 2008.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm refering to Boumediene v. Bush, yesterday's apalling Supreme Court decision. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed literally hundreds of years of established law by extending the right of habeas corpus to enemy soldiers captured by our military in foreign theaters of war. Habeas corpus, sometimes called the great writ, is a legendary legal right that we inherited from English law that allows a prisoner to challenge his detention in a civilian court. So if you're arrested, you can apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and the government will have adequately show that they have lawfully detained you. If they fail to do so, the court will order your release. This right was always extended to the far reaches of wherever this nation may have jurisdiction, but no further. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed that and opened our civilian courts to detainees in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, in the sovereign nation of Cuba. If you want to fully understand why this is so horrible, you need to read Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Scalia's dissents to the case, but I'll do my best to lay everything out for you.
For decades our Supreme Court's case law always said that during war, lawful enemy combatants are held as P.O.W.'s, while unlawful enemy combatants (like our current enemy which fights in plain clothes) are subject to military tribunal. Yesterday our Supreme Court changed that. This is how enemy combatants were always dealt with in a foreign theater, because, oh I don't know, it was logical. This is how wars are fought. The U.S. is not unique in this way. Did the Nazis get habeas corpus? If you don't know the answer to that question, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. Until yesterday, habeas corpus had never been interpreted to extend beyond a nation's jurisdictional territory. This was the case 2 days ago, and this was the case when our founders formally adopted the great writ from the English common law.
One of the main reasons President Bush set up the prison at Guantanamo is because the Solicitor General advised him, based on the case law, that he could keep the unlawful enemy combatants there and try them in military tribunals if need be. He would not have set up this prison if he thought they would have civilian courts opened to them. Otherwise he would have made a temporary prison in Iraq or asked our allies to help with them. And now that is what is most likely to happen. This is a military base in Cuba. I don't care what you think the law ought to be, but the legal fact is, the Constitution as a legal document does not extend beyond wherever the United States may have jurisdiction. Now our Supreme Court says it does. The other thing you may not realize here is, the Supreme Court shouldn't even have gotten to the habeas issue. You don't get to habeas if the case can be decided on other grounds, particularly if due process is already being provided. Habeas corpus is a last ditch resort you get when the executive has violated your right to due process or other Constitutional rights. It's the court's final ability to check the corrupt military or police officer. These detainees were already getting ample due process. The Supreme Court itself outlined what that process ought to be in cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. And Congress modified federal statutes at least twice to comply with these decisions. Quoting from Roberts' dissent, this is the process the Court had previously given these enemy combatants:
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm refering to Boumediene v. Bush, yesterday's apalling Supreme Court decision. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed literally hundreds of years of established law by extending the right of habeas corpus to enemy soldiers captured by our military in foreign theaters of war. Habeas corpus, sometimes called the great writ, is a legendary legal right that we inherited from English law that allows a prisoner to challenge his detention in a civilian court. So if you're arrested, you can apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and the government will have adequately show that they have lawfully detained you. If they fail to do so, the court will order your release. This right was always extended to the far reaches of wherever this nation may have jurisdiction, but no further. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed that and opened our civilian courts to detainees in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, in the sovereign nation of Cuba. If you want to fully understand why this is so horrible, you need to read Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Scalia's dissents to the case, but I'll do my best to lay everything out for you.
For decades our Supreme Court's case law always said that during war, lawful enemy combatants are held as P.O.W.'s, while unlawful enemy combatants (like our current enemy which fights in plain clothes) are subject to military tribunal. Yesterday our Supreme Court changed that. This is how enemy combatants were always dealt with in a foreign theater, because, oh I don't know, it was logical. This is how wars are fought. The U.S. is not unique in this way. Did the Nazis get habeas corpus? If you don't know the answer to that question, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. Until yesterday, habeas corpus had never been interpreted to extend beyond a nation's jurisdictional territory. This was the case 2 days ago, and this was the case when our founders formally adopted the great writ from the English common law.
One of the main reasons President Bush set up the prison at Guantanamo is because the Solicitor General advised him, based on the case law, that he could keep the unlawful enemy combatants there and try them in military tribunals if need be. He would not have set up this prison if he thought they would have civilian courts opened to them. Otherwise he would have made a temporary prison in Iraq or asked our allies to help with them. And now that is what is most likely to happen. This is a military base in Cuba. I don't care what you think the law ought to be, but the legal fact is, the Constitution as a legal document does not extend beyond wherever the United States may have jurisdiction. Now our Supreme Court says it does. The other thing you may not realize here is, the Supreme Court shouldn't even have gotten to the habeas issue. You don't get to habeas if the case can be decided on other grounds, particularly if due process is already being provided. Habeas corpus is a last ditch resort you get when the executive has violated your right to due process or other Constitutional rights. It's the court's final ability to check the corrupt military or police officer. These detainees were already getting ample due process. The Supreme Court itself outlined what that process ought to be in cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. And Congress modified federal statutes at least twice to comply with these decisions. Quoting from Roberts' dissent, this is the process the Court had previously given these enemy combatants:
"The right to hear the bases of the charges against them, including a summary of any classified evidence.
The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. Some 38 detainees have been released as a result of this process.
The right, before the CSRT, to testify, introduce evidence, call witnesses, question those the Government calls, and secure release, if and when appropriate.
The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before a CSRT.
Before the D. C. Circuit, the right to employ counsel, challenge the factual record, contest the lower tribunal’s legal determinations, ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws, and secure release, if any errors below establish their entitlement to such relief."
Keep in mind, Congress made this process available to enemy combatants at the direction of the Supreme Court. And they changed their mind again.
The sad irony is, the process the detainees will now get in federal civilian courts is likely to be far worse than what they were getting before. Our civilian courts are not equipped for these types of hearings and trials. How do they know if the military lawfully detained a combatant? They know about warrants, probable cause, and Miranda rights. They know nothing about U.S. military capturing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even if they did, are they supposed to call in witnesses? What's a soldier going to say on the stand? We arbitrarily detained that guy? No! They're gonna say he had a bomb strapped to him, he had a trunk full of guns. It's ludicrous.
These people were detained in a foreign land, in the theater of war, in violation of the law of war, by our military. And they get access to our civilian courts just because they were brought to a prison that could only be considered within jurisdictional reach by some abstract technicality? --access to civilian courts that our own military personnel would not get. I cry outrageous! And if you're living in the real world, that's the only appropriate response.
So, what does this have to do with John McCain? McCain called this decision one of the worst in our nation's history. And he said he'd nominate justices like John Roberts. McCain understands that the role of the judicial branch is to tell us what the law is, not make up new law. That's something of fundamental importance to our system of government. If you remove that pole, the tent collapses. I don't know about you, but that's something I'd rather avoid.Friday, June 6, 2008
20%! You don't just give them 20%!
For full effect, reread the topic title aloud while doing your best George Costanza impression.
So I ran across the folowing article on MSN: http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=6273622. It's entitled "Things a Man Should Never Do in the Company of a Woman". I scanned down the list and came across this gem: "Tip less than 20%". I was outraged. This was an overreaction, but it's beside the point and I'll get to that later. I bring this up with my buddy Greg, a friend of the blog. He says he always tips 20%. Many of his friends do too. Apparently, 20% is the new 15%. I tell him this is ridiculous. 15% is a standard tip for ordinary service; 20% is for excellent service.
I knew Greg couldn't be right. How did I know this? Because I've been at restaurants all the time that apply an automatic gratuity of 18% if the party is 6 or more people. Since a party of 6 or more is obviously more trouble for a waiter/waitress, logically it should follow that a less than 18% tip is perfectly acceptable for smaller parties. Sometimes logic just isn't good enough for people, so I set out to settle this debate the best way I knew how:
Wikipedia.
And here's what the Big W came up with:
"Today 15 to 20 % (before tax for good to excellent service) is apparently now the norm. According to Fodor's: At restaurants, a 15% tip is typical for waiters; up to 20% may be expected by some waiters at more expensive establishments.
Many restaurants include a tip at 18% or more on the bill for groups of 6 or more guests."
Seems like game, set, match to me. But Greg takes the first sentence to include 20% as part of the norm. This is true enough, but he ignores the fact that the big W clearly says that 15% is still a normal tip, and more importanly ignores context. To me, it's clear that in the context of those three sentences, 20% could be the norm at fancier restaurants or for excellent service, but 15% is still the standard for normal service at your run of the mill diner, pizzeria, or Friday's.
Still a little irked that I have not definitively won the debate, I turn to the best conglomerate of useless knowledge I know: Teh Vesti. By this time, I had given the topic of tipping etiquette considerable thought, and revised by initial definition of what constitutes a standard tip. 15% is still the default, but several circumstances could warrant a higher tip. 16-19% is for good service (with 18% often being the default for large groups). 20% and up is for excellent service, fancy restaurants, or if you're trying to impress a woman.
This is why I say I initially overreacted to the MSN article. I still think the article is wrong, because it talks in absolutes. It says you should never let a woman see you tip less than 20%. This is just flat out wrong. If you're dining with a girl you've been dating for a while, or friends, family or coworkers, the normal rules of tipping should apply. But if you're just starting to date a woman, it's probably a good idea not to skimp on the tip. So I gave my revised idea of tipping etiquette to the vesti. I admit this was a bit unfair to Greg because I didn't give him a chance to rebut my modified theory. But I don't feel too bad, because he was contending that 20% had become the standard tip, and I was still contending that this notion was preposterous. You can see the results for yourself here: http://boards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=164941578&brd=5296&replies=23. Most people's conception seemed to be more in line with mine, but a few people did agree with Greg.
I haven't gotten a concession call from Greg yet, but I'm preemptively giving myself a win in the first ever Blog Wars.
BigMike 1, Greg 0.
O, and Crazy, I know how you might be tempted to respond, but those jokes are just too easy and beneath what I want this blog to be.
So I ran across the folowing article on MSN: http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=6273622. It's entitled "Things a Man Should Never Do in the Company of a Woman". I scanned down the list and came across this gem: "Tip less than 20%". I was outraged. This was an overreaction, but it's beside the point and I'll get to that later. I bring this up with my buddy Greg, a friend of the blog. He says he always tips 20%. Many of his friends do too. Apparently, 20% is the new 15%. I tell him this is ridiculous. 15% is a standard tip for ordinary service; 20% is for excellent service.
I knew Greg couldn't be right. How did I know this? Because I've been at restaurants all the time that apply an automatic gratuity of 18% if the party is 6 or more people. Since a party of 6 or more is obviously more trouble for a waiter/waitress, logically it should follow that a less than 18% tip is perfectly acceptable for smaller parties. Sometimes logic just isn't good enough for people, so I set out to settle this debate the best way I knew how:
Wikipedia.
And here's what the Big W came up with:
"Today 15 to 20 % (before tax for good to excellent service) is apparently now the norm. According to Fodor's: At restaurants, a 15% tip is typical for waiters; up to 20% may be expected by some waiters at more expensive establishments.
Many restaurants include a tip at 18% or more on the bill for groups of 6 or more guests."
Seems like game, set, match to me. But Greg takes the first sentence to include 20% as part of the norm. This is true enough, but he ignores the fact that the big W clearly says that 15% is still a normal tip, and more importanly ignores context. To me, it's clear that in the context of those three sentences, 20% could be the norm at fancier restaurants or for excellent service, but 15% is still the standard for normal service at your run of the mill diner, pizzeria, or Friday's.
Still a little irked that I have not definitively won the debate, I turn to the best conglomerate of useless knowledge I know: Teh Vesti. By this time, I had given the topic of tipping etiquette considerable thought, and revised by initial definition of what constitutes a standard tip. 15% is still the default, but several circumstances could warrant a higher tip. 16-19% is for good service (with 18% often being the default for large groups). 20% and up is for excellent service, fancy restaurants, or if you're trying to impress a woman.
This is why I say I initially overreacted to the MSN article. I still think the article is wrong, because it talks in absolutes. It says you should never let a woman see you tip less than 20%. This is just flat out wrong. If you're dining with a girl you've been dating for a while, or friends, family or coworkers, the normal rules of tipping should apply. But if you're just starting to date a woman, it's probably a good idea not to skimp on the tip. So I gave my revised idea of tipping etiquette to the vesti. I admit this was a bit unfair to Greg because I didn't give him a chance to rebut my modified theory. But I don't feel too bad, because he was contending that 20% had become the standard tip, and I was still contending that this notion was preposterous. You can see the results for yourself here: http://boards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=164941578&brd=5296&replies=23. Most people's conception seemed to be more in line with mine, but a few people did agree with Greg.
I haven't gotten a concession call from Greg yet, but I'm preemptively giving myself a win in the first ever Blog Wars.
BigMike 1, Greg 0.
O, and Crazy, I know how you might be tempted to respond, but those jokes are just too easy and beneath what I want this blog to be.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Apparently since its the Flavor of the Month, Time for my Top 10 list of Famous Brawds
10. Emma Watson
Yes, not exactly what we'd call classically beautiful yet, but this is my buy low, sell high choice. She just keeps getting hotter, and the lack of coke-whoriness will only help her prospects.
9. Lacey Chabert
I gotta go her over Jennifer Love Hewit from the Party of Fivers. Younger, cuter, not as talented (but who says Ghost Whisperer takes talent), but I saw her on Celebrity Poker Showdown and she's a vision.
8. Diora Bard
No idea what she's done, but there's a picture of her in Maxim that is just awesome.
7. Leighton Meester
Never have seen an episode of Gossip Girl, but maybe I should start
6.Kristen Bell
Smart, pretty, sassy... whats not to like
5. Eliza Dushku
The Bathing suit montage in the New Guy... nough said
4. Minka Kelly
In a straight up fight between Meghan Fox and Minka Kelly, I'll take Minka Kelly, bonus points cuz she slept with Tim Riggins, and I'm jealous
3. Elisha Cuthbert
She outlived the mountlion, only increases her hotness
2. Jessica Biel
Jt's a lucky man, classy beautiful and sexy at the same time
1. Rachel Bilson
If only I was Seth Cohen
Crazy's Take on The Democrats and their Latest Idiocies
Hey all, I know so far we've kept it pretty loose in terms of what we've talked about, but now its about time we had some grownup time. So gather around, my peeps, and I will weave you a tale of retardedness and ineptitude that will cost the Democratic Party of the United States possibly the easiest win in Presidential history.
The Democratic National Committe, in its infinite wisdom, has had a restriction on the states for their primaries could not be held before February 5th. This was the way the DNC kept the Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada in the spotlight because, lets be honest, none of those states have anything going for them except Nevada (gambling and legalized prostitution, but they also have nuclear waste depots, so i would call it a wash). However, the state legislatures in Florida and Michigan decided to push up their primaries because they felt Iowa and New Hampshire had unfair advantages in choosing who the next presidental candidate would be. Newsflash: those states have like a combined .2 delegates. In terms of actually choosing the president, they have about as much say as Guam and Puerto Rico. The only reason they have any real say is because the media gives them a say by covering them insanely. Also hilarious, not a single democrat cast a vote in these vote to push up the primary. It passed amongst republican and third party officials 21-17, if the democrats had any common sense and had cost a vote against the measure, they might have disenchfranchised all their constituents.
So over the weekend the DNC decided to seat the delegates and give them each a 1/2 of a vote. Clinton voted the delegates fully seated, because essentially she would have carried both states' delegates because of the demographics favored her as well as the fact that since Obama didnt campaign in either state (his name wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan). However, the point seems to be moot now, with the South Dakota and Montana primaries all but giving Obama the nomination, Clinton still refuses to abdicate her position in the race. She has begun to say that she is welcome to the possibility of the vice president position, but but just refusing to remove herself from the race, she continues to run the risk of alienating the rest of the Democratic Party and making Obama unwinable come November.
Obama's first job now is to try and unite the Democratic party. During the primaries, the young, the educated, black voters, and upper class Dems all leaned towards him. However, Hispanics, older voters, and blue collar Democrats all leaned towards Clinton. During the primaries, there were multiple polls that showed that if one person's candidate didnt win, then they wouldnt vote for the winner. If Obama cant even rally the majority of the Democrats to his side, he's never going to be able to get undecided voters to come over (let alone all the problems he's gonna run into the south just for being a black guy running for president, the one thing everybody doesnt seem to want to bring up). Hillary needs to do as much as she can to try and get her supporters to get on the Obama bandwagon, convince those who wanted her "experience" that Obama is more than capable of taking on the challenge. If Hillary remains too close to his campaign, then Barack loses all the momentum of the "reformer" that he's been carrying since Iowa. And if he doesn't have that, he's got nothing. And the democrats will have nobody to complain to when on January 20th Chief Justice Roberts is swearing in President McCain.
The Democratic National Committe, in its infinite wisdom, has had a restriction on the states for their primaries could not be held before February 5th. This was the way the DNC kept the Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada in the spotlight because, lets be honest, none of those states have anything going for them except Nevada (gambling and legalized prostitution, but they also have nuclear waste depots, so i would call it a wash). However, the state legislatures in Florida and Michigan decided to push up their primaries because they felt Iowa and New Hampshire had unfair advantages in choosing who the next presidental candidate would be. Newsflash: those states have like a combined .2 delegates. In terms of actually choosing the president, they have about as much say as Guam and Puerto Rico. The only reason they have any real say is because the media gives them a say by covering them insanely. Also hilarious, not a single democrat cast a vote in these vote to push up the primary. It passed amongst republican and third party officials 21-17, if the democrats had any common sense and had cost a vote against the measure, they might have disenchfranchised all their constituents.
So over the weekend the DNC decided to seat the delegates and give them each a 1/2 of a vote. Clinton voted the delegates fully seated, because essentially she would have carried both states' delegates because of the demographics favored her as well as the fact that since Obama didnt campaign in either state (his name wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan). However, the point seems to be moot now, with the South Dakota and Montana primaries all but giving Obama the nomination, Clinton still refuses to abdicate her position in the race. She has begun to say that she is welcome to the possibility of the vice president position, but but just refusing to remove herself from the race, she continues to run the risk of alienating the rest of the Democratic Party and making Obama unwinable come November.
Obama's first job now is to try and unite the Democratic party. During the primaries, the young, the educated, black voters, and upper class Dems all leaned towards him. However, Hispanics, older voters, and blue collar Democrats all leaned towards Clinton. During the primaries, there were multiple polls that showed that if one person's candidate didnt win, then they wouldnt vote for the winner. If Obama cant even rally the majority of the Democrats to his side, he's never going to be able to get undecided voters to come over (let alone all the problems he's gonna run into the south just for being a black guy running for president, the one thing everybody doesnt seem to want to bring up). Hillary needs to do as much as she can to try and get her supporters to get on the Obama bandwagon, convince those who wanted her "experience" that Obama is more than capable of taking on the challenge. If Hillary remains too close to his campaign, then Barack loses all the momentum of the "reformer" that he's been carrying since Iowa. And if he doesn't have that, he's got nothing. And the democrats will have nobody to complain to when on January 20th Chief Justice Roberts is swearing in President McCain.
Did they just do that?
http://gawker.com/5012149/
No, I don't think they did. But Seth Rogen and James Franco made quite the buzz Sunday night when they presented at the MTV movie awards with what people are dubbing "Weedgate" (People meaning me). That video, linked above, is probably NSFW (although it aired on basic cable), so I'll summarize:
Seth Rogen and James Franco come out to present the award for "Best Summer Movie So Far". Pretty pointless award if you ask me. Iron Man, which I'm finally seeing tonight, kicked off the summer movie season, and everything since has been a disappointment. Summer doesn't really start for me until The Dark Knight debuts next month, but I digress. So Rogen and Franco do a shameless, yet ingenious viral type plug for their upcoming stoner action flick Pineapple Express. Rogen says they don't actually smoke real weed on set, and he proceeds to pull out a giant bag of "fake" weed that they use in the movie, followed by a "fake" joint. Rogen and Franco then "fake" light up. During this, the camera pans to various celebrities. Chris Brown's reaction in particular is priceless. Then, instead of showing Rogen and Franco "fake" light up, the cameraman zooms out so you can't see what they're doing. Naturally, this fueled speculation that they weren't merely "fake" lighting up.
I don't buy it. Sure, they could get away with smoking a joint at an event like that, filled with celebrities and not much in terms of law enforcement. But that bag of "fake" weed was big. Big enough to get them a possession with intent to distribute charge. They definitely ran the risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement, which they just don't need at this point in their careers. One possibility is that MTV intentionally filmed it that way to manufacture the controversy. But I don't think MTV is that clever anymore. I think the more likely scenario is that MTV initially signed off on the sketch, and then chickened out at the last second. Drug use, along with nudity, is really one of the last taboo's that mainstream television has yet to embrace. Whatever actually happened, it's sure to give a big boost for Pineapple Express. The movie's been on my radar for a while and is sure to jump to the top of my most anticipated list after The Dark Knight debuts, but I don't know of a lot of other people that were aware of it. A lot of people apparently do think that was real weed and they really smoked up on national television. I'm curious to hear what you guys think, so leave a comment.
No, I don't think they did. But Seth Rogen and James Franco made quite the buzz Sunday night when they presented at the MTV movie awards with what people are dubbing "Weedgate" (People meaning me). That video, linked above, is probably NSFW (although it aired on basic cable), so I'll summarize:
Seth Rogen and James Franco come out to present the award for "Best Summer Movie So Far". Pretty pointless award if you ask me. Iron Man, which I'm finally seeing tonight, kicked off the summer movie season, and everything since has been a disappointment. Summer doesn't really start for me until The Dark Knight debuts next month, but I digress. So Rogen and Franco do a shameless, yet ingenious viral type plug for their upcoming stoner action flick Pineapple Express. Rogen says they don't actually smoke real weed on set, and he proceeds to pull out a giant bag of "fake" weed that they use in the movie, followed by a "fake" joint. Rogen and Franco then "fake" light up. During this, the camera pans to various celebrities. Chris Brown's reaction in particular is priceless. Then, instead of showing Rogen and Franco "fake" light up, the cameraman zooms out so you can't see what they're doing. Naturally, this fueled speculation that they weren't merely "fake" lighting up.
I don't buy it. Sure, they could get away with smoking a joint at an event like that, filled with celebrities and not much in terms of law enforcement. But that bag of "fake" weed was big. Big enough to get them a possession with intent to distribute charge. They definitely ran the risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement, which they just don't need at this point in their careers. One possibility is that MTV intentionally filmed it that way to manufacture the controversy. But I don't think MTV is that clever anymore. I think the more likely scenario is that MTV initially signed off on the sketch, and then chickened out at the last second. Drug use, along with nudity, is really one of the last taboo's that mainstream television has yet to embrace. Whatever actually happened, it's sure to give a big boost for Pineapple Express. The movie's been on my radar for a while and is sure to jump to the top of my most anticipated list after The Dark Knight debuts, but I don't know of a lot of other people that were aware of it. A lot of people apparently do think that was real weed and they really smoked up on national television. I'm curious to hear what you guys think, so leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)