This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. ... So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.
I suppose this sort of unrivaled gibberish should be expected from someone who doesn't recognize that 9+3=12, and having twelve justices doesn't lend itself to tiebreakers.
So, since we have a few Keystone bloggers here, would any of you care to explain how, with a state unemployment rate of almost nine percent, Stanbecile still has a job? Is the Philadelphia Inquirer such a miserable place to work that the only people they can hire are cretins with a poorer understanding of math than my four-year-old? I'm fairly certain that if I walked in with a box of a dozen chocolates, and asked her if they could be divided evenly with her brother, I'd receive a correct answer. Yeah, she might have to count on her tiny fingers, but she's not getting paid by a major metropolitan newspaper to do simple fucking addition, is she?
1
I don't know anybody who takes the Inqy seriously, but then again, I'm a good 160 miles removed from Philly.
Posted by: JoeCollins at February 28, 2010 10:15 PM (jtJig)
2
I thought the Inky was supposed to go bankrupt, or did they find a buyer?
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 28, 2010 10:46 PM (GcfAO)
3
FDR tried this in the '30s and got bitch-slapped by the public and his own party. It's called "packing the court"-Google it.
Posted by: Don Carne at February 28, 2010 11:01 PM (wSNS7)
4
Luckily, our Burgh rag just imports its drivel straight from the AP and the NYT. I'd really have to be hard up for material to look at the Inquisitor online.
Posted by: cbullitt at February 28, 2010 11:42 PM (gwh5D)
5
The sad thing is this is par for the course as far as advocating for the unethical, the fascistic, the unconstitutional, or the illegal for this paper.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 28, 2010 11:56 PM (GcfAO)
Give us Jake Tapper already, ABC
Elizabeth Vargas' performance on ABC's This Week didn't exactly instill me with great confidence in her objectivity:
How are we going to...empower Congress to be able to pass the sweeping kinds of changes that we need in the country?
ISeeWhatYouDidThere. Um, aren't they empowered by, you know, having massive majorities in both houses? Yes, clearly the problem is that Congress has too little power. Good gravy...
Isn't the obvious pick for the slot the only guy at ABC who is even cognizant of the idea of journalistic integrity? Stop screwing around with Vargas and Baba Wahwah. Give us Tapper!
Smart Foreign Policy (tm) in action: Obama refuses to endorse British sovereignity over Falkland Islands
The lyrics of Stephen Sondheim’s Send in the Clowns captures the comedy of errors which the British establishment now finds itself in with regard to the Falklands. How could they have guessed that the man they had been waiting for, the person who they assumed would be so implicitly like them — their soulmate — would turn to be so different from what they imagined? UK pundits are still shock over the administration’s announcement that it will remain neutral in any dispute between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands. The London Times summarizes things succinctly:
Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.
Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.
As usual, the administration’s given reason for its actions is that “Bush did it”, only in this case it is “Ronald Reagan did it”, even though he didn’t. The Times continues:
Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.
He really does have it in for the British doesn't he? Way to maintain relations with our closest ally there Mr. President. Can't wait until the next time we need British support on something.
I really messed this up the first go around - I didn't properly attribute. Fixed it now. Sorry for implying I wrote the quoted portion.
as the only other person who reads this blog, Elliot, I take umbrage. not.
Despite his physical height, Pecedent Iwon seems to be a very bitter mean little man, imho.
Posted by: mrfixit at February 28, 2010 03:09 PM (Bsm1s)
5
I used my 100% accurate Obama predictive formula:
If an action will foster freedom, liberty, or help an ally, Obma will decline.
If an action will suppress freedom, liberty, or assist an enemy, Obama will proceed.
Posted by: jukin at February 28, 2010 04:58 PM (vkkNZ)
6
as a commenter noted at CDR Salamander's, the official US position hasn't changed. But that doesn't mean we can't pick sides. My take:
Fair enough. But
that doesn't let Obama off the hook. There's any number of ways Obama
could have condemned Argentina's actions, leaving no doubt in anyone's
mind which side we stand on, while not at all addressing the issue of
sovreignity.
Simply stating that Argentina's actions are
"troubling" while not criticizing Britain would send a clear message to
any tea-leaf readers.
Posted by: XBradTC at February 28, 2010 05:54 PM (cB95w)
7
You don't get it, Argentina could drive right up here and kick our asses. So of course we have to mollify them.
Posted by: Alice H at February 28, 2010 08:57 PM (qJHYy)
8
What I don't get is where all his hostility towards Britain is coming from. WHY is he trying so hard to antagonize them?
Posted by: MikeD at March 01, 2010 11:27 AM (FkL60)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 28, 2010 12:14 PM (GcfAO)
3
I guess I need to see it again cuz I fucking hated this movie the 1st time I saw it.
Posted by: Spank at February 28, 2010 01:00 PM (0FiCa)
4
I love it when Cage channels his inner Pacino which, as it turns out, is generally quite often
Posted by: MM at February 28, 2010 01:59 PM (ELVVE)
5
Spank! NO!!!! You were right the first time, it is Nic Cage's worst ever movie, and that's a tough competition. You don't need to see anymore than the youtube clips above.
Posted by: fozzy at February 28, 2010 02:00 PM (ccEuN)
Yes, fuck you lefties. Fuck you for what you are trying to do to my family and my country. And may you never run into me if the shitty care you intend to impose upon us leads to ill events happening to the people I know and love.
Posted by: Mortis at February 28, 2010 07:54 AM (QjuDE)
5
See, what they think is that once it's been passed it's the Full Democratic Employment Act as all their campaigns are going to all be "Don't vote for the GOP because they'll take away your health care".
It's been a lefty wet dream for decades, they're so close they probably will figure they have to do it because it's now or never.
I don't know if that makes any sense in reality-land, but I do think it will screw them the next two elections if they pass it. If they pass it, they'll start their ads about the GOP taking away health care (before it's implemented), and the next two elections will be a blood bath, and the GOP had better rescind it.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 28, 2010 09:04 AM (f1Y40)
Why would the US Government target Chile's second largest city for destruction so soon after destroying Haiti? Could it have something to do with the new regional organization being formed by Cuba and Venezuela?
These are questions that mus be answered before this fearsome weapon is deployed upon a helpless world again.
The quake downed buildings and houses in Santiago and knocked out a major bridge connecting the northern and southern sections of the country.
It struck at 3:34 a.m. local time and was centered about 200 miles southwest of Santiago, at a depth of 22 miles, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. The epicenter was some 70 miles from Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city, where more than 200,000 people live.
Phone lines were down in Concepcion as of 7:30 a.m. and no reports were coming out of that area. The quake in Chile was more powerful than the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that caused widespread damage in Haiti on Jan 12, killing at least 230,000, earthquake experts reported on CNN International.
...
Eyewitnesses on Facebook and Twitter reported that the quake was felt from Japan to Argentina. The quake struck at the end of the Chilean summer vacation, with hundreds of thousands of people expected to be traveling back home this weekend.
Seriously, this is a huge quake. Historically it would be about the 4th most powerful ever. The most powerful being a 9.5 quake in the same area back in 1960. That killed 1700 people. So far the death toll is low compared to Haiti. I believe that is due to lower population density and better building codes. That doesn't mean the quake won't be devastating. If you are a prayer keep them in your prayers in you are a donater the Red Cross will probably have something set up soon, so will World Vision and Doctors without Borders I'm sure.
Party like it's 2008
Did you see the Hot Air post on the "Coffee Party" movement?
If you didn't, their founder, Annabel Park is claiming that it's an
alternative to the Tea Party movement that's based on stuff like
"cooperation" between the parties in Washington.
Um, yeah. You may want
to sit down for this, but it turns out that Park is (GASP!) an
Obamaton...
Well, I guess she had some foresight there about Obama taking over bankrupt companies, so she's got that going for her.
By
the way, it took me about ten seconds to find that video and decide to
mention that Park was an Obama supporter going back to the 2008
primaries. Which was apparently too difficult for WaPo Staff Writer Dan Zak, who never mentioned it in his article, though he took pains to mention that another of the new Coffee Party group's members, Alan Alborn, voted for George W. Bush and Obama. Yeah.
It's bi-partisan, see?
Update: Gee, Ms. Park sure is a real non-partisan
voice for Change in Washington. How did that (and by "that," I mean her
previous association with an organized leftist convention) possibly slip
Dan Zak's attention?
1
I get the feeling Zak really didn't want to ask.
Posted by: eddiebear at February 27, 2010 10:00 AM (H7EBn)
2
I think this Annabelle Park is the same flake that is a cohort/sidekick of Eric Byler, wannabee "documentary filmmaker" who did the 9500 Liberty series about the illegal sign in Manassas, VA and the subsequent demonization of the pro-enforcement crowd in Prince William County, VA.
If so, she's always been an Obamatron and a big time Astroturfer and is 250% flake. It doesn't surprise me that she would be floating something so childish, ridiculous and off-tempo --- these two are always seeking some controversy to extend their 15 minutes of fame.
Mock her for the fool that she is.
Posted by: Moonpie at February 27, 2010 04:14 PM (Fm/4+)
Posted by: Sean M. at February 27, 2010 09:18 PM (rLWHv)
4
The story implies that she was an Obama supporter; it's so evident that I didn't think it needed mentioning. I did make sure to note that she campaigned for Jim Webb. If you read the full story, you'll also see that, indeed, she is the same Annabel Park who did 9500 Liberty. I made no effort to hide any of that. As the story says, she's a progressive activist.
Posted by: Dan Zak at February 28, 2010 11:23 AM (DhoaO)
5
Sorry, Dan, but I don't see anywhere in your article where she and Obama are mentioned in the same sentence, much less any mention that she drank a big ol' glass of the Hopey Changey Kool Aid as far back as at least 2008. On the other hand, I see a lot of language about "compassion," "conversation" between the two sides, and coming together in the middle, which makes her sound a lot more like a centrist than an Obama partisan.
Oh, and don't you think there are more than a few differences between Webb and Obama?
Posted by: Sean M. at February 28, 2010 09:07 PM (rLWHv)
6
Also, I've read your article through four or five times after seeing your comment here, Dan, and Annabel Park is never identified specifically as a "progressive activist" anywhere in the text.
Go back, read what appeared on the WaPo site (I understand that something you wrote may have been edited out) and show me where she is ever clearly identified as such.
The only specific mention of anybody's voting record in your piece is Alborn's, which is conspicuous to suspicious bloggers like me because of the fact that you made sure to mention that he voted both for Dubya and Obama. Hmmmm...why would you go out of your way to mention that?
Could it be that you were trying to imply that the Coffee Party people were a bi-partisan bunch?
Posted by: Sean M. at March 01, 2010 01:36 AM (rLWHv)
7
What is interesting to me is the sudden need for a counter-group to the Tea Party.
As someone who has been active in Tea Parties since April of 2009, and went to the rally on the Mall on 9/12, I have listened with amusement as the movement has been dismissed as "non-existent", and inconsequential. The number of people at the Mall was amazing, and would have been more had the Obama administration not played games with shutting down the Metro for "maintenance", stranding citizens at the Vienna metro, turning back buses filled with protestors, and any other manner of cheap tricks, all the while having Gibbels state "what Tea Party? There was a protest?".
I've endured the ruly frightening level of irrational anger from the Left for years -- my car has been vandalized and spat upon by anti-military protestors because it has a military decal on it, terrifying my children, and my husband's young Marines have also been the victim of vicious Left hate. One young Marine had recently purchased a brand new Mustang, only to have a "concerned" protestor carve a Swatika into the hood. But, I'm just supposed to let that go, dismiss it as okay, turn the other cheek, only to get slapped again while the Obamatron appartachiks and their enablers in the MSM identify Tea Party protestors peacefully assembling to voice their concerns as "domestic terrorists".
I must thank the Obots, though. I no longer have cable because I can't stomach the lies and spin anymore; and I haven't had a subscription to the Wash Post for years, when it became obvious the only corruption and scandal they are interested in uncovering and publishing are scandals about Republicans -- during Pelosi's reign over the "most ethical Congress ever" there has been barely a peep.
The mood of the country is indeed changing, and the Left has lost their power to demonize and quiet the Loyal Opposition. I fully understand that by voicing disapproval or dissent to any of the media-approved Progressive agenda I am a "hater", "racist" and "dangerous terrorist". Got it. Check, check, check. But such screeds don't make me back down, they make me more engaged in changing my community back to a place where there is freedom, liberty and individual choice -- and accountability -- the corollary to Pelosi et al's vision of a grand Nanny State.
I must also thank the Obots and the PUMAs. Before the election I was never engaged politically -- I may have written a letter to the Editor on a few times, but I never really followed political blogs. Reading what was happening during the primaries and the rise of the PUMAs in response to the hateful, vitriolic misogyny of the Obama campaign changed all that. I definitely pay attention now. In fact, I'm going to my first local Board of Supervisor meeting to protest tax increases and spending at a local level.
Posted by: YTZGal at March 01, 2010 10:56 AM (Fm/4+)
Minitru
Nothing major, just another example of why I started calling them Minitru a little over a year ago. First, we've all seen Hot Air's story about Rubio's credit card. I hadn't read it earlier (I usually don't read the Capt's posts unless I can't get to sleep), so I did when I saw the update. I'm waiting for the hockey game to start and nothing's going on here. Lo and behold, the article was substantially rewritten, removing much of what Capt Ed quoted, with no mention of how or why. What was left was pretty typical of Minitru.
They manage to find a bunch of people to say bad things about Rubio. Like Ana Navarro, "Rubio contributor" who's 'concerned'. Yup, she contributed to him, she gave more to a Dem congressman. It's also disingenuous to call her a "contributor" she's a pac treasurer and bundler. The Pac is "Friends of Liz Cheney" but I can't find any money going in or out of that pac anywhere from 2002 to today. Personally, she gives to both Dems and the GOP.
The rest of the quoted are similarly misrepresented, including the last quote by "U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston" who is also 'concerned', she is not listed as a Democrat.
They do get a quote from a Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum, the Republican front-runner to replace
Crist as governor, said of releasing the credit-card records: ``To open
this at the present time could compromise a criminal investigation.''
Heh, maybe I'm just paranoid (well, too paranoid) but that surely looks as though they're trying to imply that Rubio is the target of that investigation. What is the investigation? I'd guess it's who leaked it, if Rubio was the target that would have been the headline, the lead and every other paragraph would have included that.
Another, smaller, Minitru moment. My alarm clock is set to WTOP (traffic, weather, conventional leftism), this morning it came on to one guy saying something about Obama's "We're not campaigning" as the other two tools laughed, laughed, laughed at McCain being all bitter about not winning and Obama slapping him down. These are "news" guys, not opinion. I mean, they're called "news", but like the rest of Minitru, they have ceased even pretending to be neutral even as they screach about how they are neutral.
Duh.
Apparently, when you take thousands of young men and women at or near the height of perfect human physical condition and pack them into a dorm for two weeks they have a lot of sex.
You don't say. My mind has been fucking blown.
I'll put it this way, if I was 22 years old, able to lift my body weight with one arm, and surrounded by the female athletes I see at these olympics, I wouldn't be reading a fucking book in my hotel room every night.
I'd by looking for the UK curling team. Like a viking.
1
You see these stories every Olympics. They always make me laugh.
Go Team USA!! 2-0.
It's funny that the Fins have one of the 3 or 4 Islanders' "Goalies of the Future" floating around the NHL.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 26, 2010 03:21 PM (SbhZU)
2
One of my favorite bits of Old Man's War is that when everyone shows up with their perfect new bodies, the first thing they do is fuck. That's one of the most realistic responses I've ever seen in sci-fi.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 26, 2010 03:27 PM (lvYSc)
3
In Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga the characters regenerate every few decades so they are back in the bodies they had when they were 16 or 17 and they all go to these special clubs for newly rejuvenated people for that very reason. I'm looking forward to science catching up with this.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 26, 2010 05:00 PM (GC5S2)
4
*snerk* I swear, when I saw this on my google reader I thought it was another DADT post....
Posted by: Foxfier at February 26, 2010 06:44 PM (n2RW8)
Well, that's a new way to look at it
Apparently, if you have doubts about the validity of the AGW theory, you might as well believe that O.J. Simpson didn't murder anyone. No, really.
That's what this guy says, anyway. Note that the word "scientist" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in his bio. Funny, that.
Posted by: eddiebear at February 26, 2010 04:39 PM (wnU1W)
5
Isn't that the dimbulb who went into a church in Copenhagen and wailed like a banshee on helium when COP15 locked 3,000 "concerned environmentalists" out of the second general meeting?
Posted by: BillT at March 01, 2010 04:51 AM (7xRyj)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 25, 2010 09:10 PM (lvYSc)
3
I bow before Bruce, his demi-god status is firmly in place. And how awesome is Burn Notice?
Posted by: Jonahex at February 25, 2010 09:11 PM (DyuyX)
4
They combine my love of stomping, heels, and guns in the most bizarre way ever. I almost want a pair ...
Posted by: Ember at February 25, 2010 09:19 PM (LdRAG)
5
If you haven't read Bruce's autobiography, I'd highly recommend it. He actually lives (or at least did when he wrote it) just a few miles away from me.
Posted by: Sean M. at February 25, 2010 09:26 PM (rLWHv)
6
That Old Spice commercial cracks me up. I saw it probably 4 times in a row the other day and laughed each time.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 26, 2010 10:11 AM (9u9oT)
7
Makes me proud to wear Old Spice. Ok, not really "proud" but they DO have excellent advertising.
And yes ladies, I smell like the man your man could smell like.
Posted by: MikeD at February 26, 2010 10:45 AM (FkL60)
8
Nothing is better than Bruce. Don't care how many ships, horses, CGI effects you use...Bruce Campbell is Old Spice personified, and the perfect Sam Axe for "Burn Notice"
Posted by: Jonathan at February 26, 2010 04:48 PM (Isbas)
If the answer is yes, you might want to gulp down a handful or two before reading this post by former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy:
The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves.
While
the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony
show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new
provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today.It is an attack on the CIA:the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” (See here, scoll to p. 32.)
The
provision is impossibly vague — who knows what “degrading” means?
Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger
the statute (I’ll get to that in a second), but it is not true.The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to”
the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic
that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g.,
subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer)
could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.
There's much, much more at the link, and it's all fucking disgraceful. Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say smart, strong.
The rest of next week will be officially swear-word free if both houses approve the resolution {fuck that shit. Fuck it with the fuckstained fuckbag of fuck-ed}.
The resolution by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge (fuck him. And fuck that area.-ed}, was inspired by a South Pasadena teenager, McKay Hatch, who founded a No Cussing Club {I guess Student Council was too butch for him-ed}at his junior high school in 2007. His efforts to stamp out profanity have generated international attention, with 35,000 members joining the No Cussing Club's Web site {oooohhhh....I now have a purpose in life!-ed}.
Portantino said the California Legislature -- known for imposing strict clean air and clean water laws {yeah, and how has that fucked up the state?-ed}-- is the first state legislative body in the nation to consider a statewide profanity-free week {fucking losers-ed}.
Hatch, now 16, said he sees a link between cussing and drug use, bullying and other harmful behavior {prove it, junior. I curse, and yet have never used drugs-ed}. A cuss-free world would be a more harmonious one, he said {and it would be more fucking lame, antiseptic and fucked up with the fist of Fuckitude-ed}.
"I want to bring as much awareness as I can to people about their language and how they're speaking to each other," {hey. I'm fucking wellfuckingaware of how I speak-ed}Hatch said in a telephone interview Wednesday as he was headed to Sacramento. "We need to stop tearing people down and uplift them instead." {that is some weapons grade naivete-ed}
Portantino said his resolution is simply a guideline, a reminder to "act like you're at your grandma's house." {so I get to sleep on the couch in the lobby in the middle of a party and get ass ripped drunk on a case of beer? Sign me up!-ed} There would be no enforcement mechanism included. {typical. Stupid fucking hippies-ed}
Good luck, kid. I admire your pluck. As for the Assembly, they can fuck off wit their failed budgetary plans.
Posted by: jukin at February 25, 2010 04:45 PM (vkkNZ)
3
Which Moron bloggers are in the Bear Flag league? They should have a cuss-a-thon on that day. Maybe let eddie and Ember guest blog a few posts.
Almost forgot, Fuck.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 25, 2010 04:48 PM (igEq+)
4
Why don't they just rename themselves the fetid syphalitic ass-ramming support group reception committee.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 25, 2010 05:22 PM (GC5S2)
5
This is the stupidest mother fucking thing I have ever fucking heard. How about the CA congressfuckers focus on pulling their state out of fucking bankruptcy before they worry about how many times someone says fuck on any given Tuesday.
Posted by: Ember at February 25, 2010 06:44 PM (LdRAG)
6
You know, I can remember a time when this used to be a decent fucking
place to live. Those days are long fucking gone, and now, thanks
to these fuckers in fucking Sacto, we're all fucked.
Posted by: Sean M. at February 25, 2010 07:26 PM (rLWHv)
Last time I checked....there is a right called "freedom of speech."
WHAT A CROCK OF BULLSHIT!!!!
It's so nice that all the "makers" and "enforcers" can feel so fuckingly self righteous as they try to control our speech.
FUCK THEM!!!
Gee, California, why don't you concentrate on things that actually mean something? No wonder your state is in such a crisis....you guys can't see the forest for the trees.
WHAT A FUCKING BUNCH OF MORONS!!!
Posted by: Charlotte at February 26, 2010 01:25 PM (iXIlj)
8
Actually, wouldn't you think that's a much better use of their time than increasing taxes or regulations or voting themselves a raise?
I'm always in favor of ridiculous legislation even as I point and laugh.
I think they should keep doing stuff like that. You need teh funny and you also need to keep them from passing laws that take away some more of your freedom.
Too bad CA's legislature seems to have ample time to do both and call their constituents idiots and greedy as well.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 26, 2010 02:33 PM (SbhZU)
Kirsten Bowie
Some people seem to hate Kirsten Dunst, I dig her. I think it was John Derbyshire who said (when she was around 18 ) that every day was a good day because he had a chance of seeing her nipples on tv.
Semi-related, I had to prove I was over 18 but I forget my password and email address when I opened a youtube account so now I have to, for the first time ever on the intertubes, not be Veeshir somewhere. That pisses me off.
Forgot the H/T, gandalf23 (I think it's a hereditary position) and fixed stupid "smiley face" thing.
Probably, but I just go the latest post in the pile due to time/memory (my memory, not RAM) constraints.
Posted by: ECM at February 25, 2010 02:44 PM (nYKDd)
6"Some people seem to hate Kirsten Dunst, I dig her."
My problem with Dunst is twofold. One, I distinctly remember the first time I ever saw her, I was on a hot date with a VERY cute female soldier I worked with and we saw Interview With a Vampire in the theater. So she both reminds me of how old I am, and I see her now (hot tho she may be) and think of the little girl... and that's WAY too damn creepy.
And two, she opens her mouth. She's world class dumb but thinks she's insightful and brilliant. Like most Hollywierd folk, it's not that uncommon. But I do wish she'd just shut up.
Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 02:48 PM (FkL60)
7
I never saw Interview with a Vampire. I didn't like the book and the people who liked the movie said they liked it for reasons I wouldn't like.
I believe she's dumb, but I bet she's freaky and would be lots of fun.
If I didn't like an actress because she opened her mouth I'd have to stick with....uhhhhhh........ help me out. The puppet chick from Team America? She's freaky too.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 25, 2010 04:16 PM (igEq+)
8
ECM Heh, so now you're pretending you read the blog? Nice try. Nobody's buying it.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 25, 2010 04:17 PM (igEq+)
who is Kaikai kiki co. ltd and why have they excerted their copywrite influence? the video is unavailable, and now i am sad. I will go cuss at a californian until i feel better.
Posted by: vermindust at February 25, 2010 06:48 PM (ccNpT)
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.
Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.
1
Who would have thought that anyone would really buy into implementing this in America, given the NHS & Canadian examples? Just another sign that this government is way out of touch with what people really want & need...
Posted by: Jonathan at February 25, 2010 01:48 PM (Isbas)
Public service announcementMarried men, rejoice. You now have justification for getting your wife triple-D bolt-on boobs for her birthday. Because of her health and safety and all.
1"Jaime Paredes, the alleged shooter, awaits trial."
Look, I understand "innocent until proven guilty" and that news organizations style guides call for "alleged" to be prepended to each and every criminal, but can we PLEASE dispense with it when dude tries to murder an office full of people and execute every witness (even those he's already shot)? Dude did it, get over it.
Oh and, triple-D is unnecessary, my wife's a DD and that's awesome. Not looking for compliments here guys, just bragging. So
Posted by: MikeD at February 25, 2010 12:28 PM (FkL60)
2
My wife has 'em. She's a D and the only projectiles she needs to worry about come from me.
heh
Posted by: EC at February 25, 2010 01:45 PM (mAhn3)
3Related, Married women despair. Big fat beer bellies save lives!
H/T ecm in the wrong thread.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 25, 2010 02:08 PM (12Tcn)
If something appears on the Intarwebs 57 times, it must be true
Why Veeshir didn't post this himself is beyond me - it so clearly illustrates the wisdom of our 16th president.
“The problem with quotes on the internet is that it is difficult to verify their authenticity”
more...
