DBD 7.7.09 BBQ Sauce Olympic Sized Pool
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 7:29 AM PDT
599 comments
I got 5 words for you, people:
BBQ
Sauce
Olympic
Sized
Pool
In a previous DBD, I had said the following:
But still, if you (yes, you!) had unlimited money and a series of people who would say "Let’s Do It Right Now!" to every one of your most unreasonable fantasies and dreams, you’d have some incredibly weird shit out there, too. Don’t try to deny it. Don’t lie to yourself. If you could live our every one of your dreams, no matter how expensive or unreasonable, it’d be a hedonist splurge of crazy inanities just like Michael Jackson.
Danzig took it a step further, explicitly stating what his inanities would be.
So, now the next question is what would YOU do with unlimited money? You know what I'd do. And man would I swim around in that amazing pool all day long, just swimming and chugging BBQ sauce and it would be the greatest thing ever!
Now, it's your turn.
ESPN names The Play the 3rd most iconic Sports moment of the 80s:
BERKELEY - The Play, Cal's improbable five-lateral return for a touchdown to with the 1982 Big Game vs. Stanford, has been named the No. 3 most memorable sports moment of the 1980s by ESPN.com Page 2 writer David Schoenfield.
In his list of the top 80 iconic moments from the decade, the USA hockey team's win over the Soviet Union at the 1980 Olympics was No. 1, followed by the ground ball going through Bill Buckner's legs in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series at No. 2 and The Play at No. 3. Kirk Gibson's home run off Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series came in at No. 4. Lorenzo Charles' dunk that won the 1983 NCAA men's basketball title for North Carolina State rounded out the top 5.
The 1982 Big Game was played on Nov. 20 in Memorial Stadium and featured the 6-4 Bears against a 5-5 Stanford team.
With his Stanford squad trailing, 19-17, with 1:27 left, Cardinal quarterback John Elway engineered a comeback drive that included a 29-yard pass on fourth-and-17 deep in Stanford territory. Finally, with the ball on the Cal 18, Stanford called timeout with eight seconds left. When placekicker Mark Harmon booted a 25-yard field goal, Stanford led, 20-17, with four seconds on the clock.
via grfx.cstv.com
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
1 recs |
599 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Bears swimming at USA Championships:
BERKELEY – Thirteen past, present or future California swimmers, including 12 Golden Bears from the 2009 NCAA championship team, will compete in the 2009 ConocoPhillips USA Swimming National Championships/World Championship Trials to be held July 7-11 at the IUPUI Natatorium in Indianapolis. New Cal alumna Dana Vollmer, who won two individual and two relay NCAA titles last March, and incoming freshman Caitlin Leverenz are among the Bears who will swim at nationals.
Other Bears at nationals include seniors Alexandra Ellis, Blake Hayter, Courtney Eronemo and Heather White; juniors Erica Dagg, Kelsey Hoff, Sara Sun, Tara Thomas; and sophomores Ursula Dailey, Shelley Harper and Liv Jensen. Most of the Bears will represent the California Aquatics club, other than Leverenz (El Dorado), Ellis (Blue Fins), Harper (Walnut Creek Aquabears) and Jensen (Palo Alto Stanford-PASA).
Five Cal swimmers from the 2009 national championship team are currently competing at the World University Games in Belgrade, Serbia. Cal alumna Madison Kennedy was part of the United States’ winning 400-meter freestyle relay on July 4. The foursome of Michele King, Kennedy, Ava Ohlgren and Morgan Scroggy posted a time of 3:41.81 to take the gold medal.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 7:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That last one was about the women’s swimmers. This is about the men’s swimmers:
BERKELEY – Twelve past or present California swimmers, including junior All-American Nathan Adrian, will compete in the 2009 ConocoPhillips USA Swimming National Championships/World Championship Trials to be held July 7-11 at the IUPUI Natatorium in Indianapolis. Also, six Cal swimmers are currently competing at the World University Games in Belgrade, Serbia, with former Bear Jernej Godec winning a gold medal in the 50-meter butterfly in a Slovenian-record time of 23.41 earlier today, July 6.
Other Bears swimming at nationals include former Bears Bennett Clark, Dominik Meichtry and David Russell; seniors Peter Davis and Troy Nissen; junior Martti Aljand; and sophomores Nolan Koon, Martin Liivamagi, Chris Rogers, Isaac Howell and Kevin Nielsen.
The six Bears in Serbia are Godec and fellow former Bear Will Copeland (USA); senior Sean Mahoney (USA); and juniors Guy Barnea (Israel), Damir Dugonjic (Slovenia) and Nick Ferrif (USA). Copeland was a member of the winning U.S. 400-meter freestyle relay, which posted a time of 3:14.74 to claim gold on July 5.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 7:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dont forget to vote in the Meme Invitational Sweet 16 Round for the UC Eugene Bracket!
and then also
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 7:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Ryan had a bit of an ego
From here, courtesy of our SBN buddies at Third Quarter Collapse:
Third Quarter Collapse: What are your thoughts on Ryan Anderson, in general? Does he have a bright future in this league?
D’Alessandro: Ryan: Great kid, quick study, well-bred, slight sense of entitlement, bright future, and his 3-point percentage should soar being the second pass out of those Dwight doubles in the post. Think a tougher, more determined, more versatile Pat Garrity, just not quite as pure. Remember, though, he’s only 21. Once he learns team defense, and improves his lateral quickness, you’ll have a player.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What 21-year old in Ryan’s position doesn’t give off a “sense of entitlement” (whatever slight) in his persona?
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
by Ohio Bear on Jul 7, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me. I’m as humble as can be!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
US Men's National Team Defender Onyewu
signs with AC Milan
This could be really big. AC Milan is one of the top 10 clubs in the world.
AC Milan have quickly wrapped up a deal for United States centre back Oguchi Onyewu on Tuesday in a bid to quell supporter unrest over their transfer policy.
The 27-year-old, who impressed in the U.S. side’s run to the Confederations Cup final last month, has joined on a free transfer from Standard Liege and penned a three-year contract.
The club announced the signing on their website and pointed out he holds a Belgian passport, which means Onyewu will not count as one of only two non-EU players Italian sides are allowed to sign each season.
by LeonPowe on Jul 7, 2009 8:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Was blown away by this
AC Milan need central defenders badly and he should be a good fit for the Italian league but will he play enough? Presumably Nesta and Thiago Silva will be first choice but Nesta is approvximately 2,147 years old and gets injured whenever someone farts loudly enough but still, a small risk to do this in the year before a World Cup. If he rots on the bench, his form will suffer badly. Still, the potential for a huge return if he muscles his way into the starting lineup. Milan need size at the back badly and Onyewu instantly becomes one of the most feared defenders in that league just due to his body type.
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
by Fire Starkey on Jul 7, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s too young to play for AC Milan. They are also not a force for footballing goodness, but I am biased a bit there – I mean in fairness, they’re no Lazio.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huge – there aren’t more than a handful of USMNT players at top European clubs, right?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are like 10, and maybe 5 who start.
by Kai on Jul 7, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty of Yanks abroad, but not many in top leagues or top teams.
I was very surprised to hear Oneywu signing with Milan, the spiritual home of defenders. Always saw him as a big strong guy that deals well with battering ram type forwards, but easily undone by both speed and skill. But there’s always hope for improvement.
by j.lee on Jul 7, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is awesome. Really deserves this opportunity. He will even get better in practice, playing with elite players.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What would I do?
hmmm…..
Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I’ll tell you what I’d do, man: two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That’s it? If you had a million dollars, you’d do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a millionaire I could hook that up, too; ‘cause chicks dig dudes with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well, the type of chicks that’d double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
by chowder on Jul 7, 2009 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Its an overrated experience. Spend your millions on something else like… a swimming pool filled with BBQ sauce!
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
by Fire Starkey on Jul 7, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
HELLZ YES!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously though, if I had unlimited money, I’d design and build my own city.
by chowder on Jul 7, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Chowderville!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody check your e-mail
Big Game tickets went on sale today at 8:30 a.m. western time. Apparently you have to have gotten an e-mail from the Cal ticket office, which gives you a customer number and password, which allows you to enter the system where you have to enter an alternate e-mail to purchase away game tickets.
Frankly, I don’t understand any of it, but I’m pretty sure I got Big Game tickets and that’s all I give a crap about!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the reminder. I just bought two tickets. Now I don’t know what to do with the extra one. Perhaps I’ll sell it on Ebay or Craigslist.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rollonubears, are you serious about buying my ticket? If you are, please send an email to goldenblogs at gmail dot com
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would give Spazzy the opportunity to buy it first.
How much did it cost?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Face value of $65. After fees, it’s like $70.50.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(jw, did you get my email?)
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I got it. Rollonubears gets priority over you, although, it seems as if he’s giving you first dibs at it now.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give Spazzy first dibs. He is more likely to follow through.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah its yours, I just got a ticket from an alternate source.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I FEEL SO USED!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
E-mailed!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll take it if I can’t buy any…and that’s looking more likely by the minute.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bought one. I think. It didnt give me any number or anything, I just logged in like normal and bought it. It was $74 bucks after fees and shit.
Now, Im all nervous that it somehow didnt work because of the fact I didnt plug in any number or anything.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you logged in, you should be fine. I just bought my tickets this morning too. $3 to print the tickets myself?? What a crock!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, I know. I decided to go with mail just because I dont trust myself to print.
I got a confirmation email, so it should be fine. It doesnt let me choose where I want to sit. Hopefully, like 2 years ago it wont be packed and I can mvoe wherever.
Also, hopefully, UNLIKE 2 years ago, we’ll win.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im lucky they still had tix available, I dint get back from ct until right now, I didnt even get the email so I had no idea. Whew!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does any one else have student season tickets and is trying to order away game tickets. I log in, and when I click on the away tickets tab it says there are no events/ dates for sale. Surely there should be ASU or Washington tickets still left?
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might be reading the email wrong, but those might go on sale on Thursday, July 9.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not entirely sure how student tickets work
It might be because you have to be sent an e-mail with a customer number so you can log onto the section to buy away tickets.
Away tickets haven’t gone on sale to the general public, which is probably the screen you’re seeing.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah the screen doesn’t change from before I logged in.
Single game tickets currently on sale to all other season ticket holders, and non-season ticket holders at the Coaches Club level & above. Tickets to away games for this group are limited to 20 per account, except for Stanford which is limited to 4 per account.
If i have student season tickets it seems like I should have the right to purchase this ticket.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what happens if you don’t get an email? Does that mean I’m not a priority ticket holder or something?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m confused about it all. My mom has season tickets and didn’t get an e-mail. I sent her my customer number and she got into the system. At this point I would just call the athletic ticket office because it seems like a big mess to me.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right now I can’t even find a link for big game tickets. There are only links to single away-game tickets and then a message saying they don’t go on sale until the 14th.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I know is I logged in under my account. Then, I clicked on Single Away Game Tickets. Then, it gave me the option for a variety of games, I selected Big Game, bought 1 Reserved and masturbated in celebration!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what you get if you can’t get into the system with a customer code and password. I can send you mine over e-mail if you think that would help
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should take it personally. They intended to screw you over. Just you.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
o o o! I know why! its because I’m a Texas alumn I knew it!
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you wish to buy a ticket to the Big Game? Thats impressive.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well im at UC for grad school , so I’m a Cal fan … and a Longhorn fan.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A rather unholy duet
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop giving him a hard time. Most of us have nothing against UT, its practically the Berkeley of Texas. We just have issues with their coach, who is undeniably an a-hole.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you in law school like seemingly everyone else on this blog?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nuclear Engineering. I would be stuck at aTm if i stayed in Texas for grad school. The horror!
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING?!?!
Remind me never to get on your bad side.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a big fan of F-18 and I-131.
You’re probably interested in how not to make nuclear energy kill people.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. I’m more a fan of the energy without the carbon emissions.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re familiar with it, what do you think of the Berkeley-derived comic strip based on nuclear engineer grad students: Nukees?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
phd sorry the formatting tools are wierd to me.
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who else is watching the Michael Jackson memorial?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
cue danzig’s MJ/sourdough loaf pic w/ toddler.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read that Ebay and Craig’s List weren’t allowing people to sell their Michael Jackson memorial tickets. Why is that?
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Probably cause it’s really creepy to try to profit from a funeral
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MJ fans, for the most part, are regulating Craigslist by flagging the ads as prohibited (unlike CGB, Craigslist flags are serious business). Ebay is blocking them based on principle – they don’t want to be seen as profiting from a funeral, as Nick points out. MJ fans, incidentally, are doing crazy bids on them to pretty much make collection impossible (one pair was going for $100 million)
by Harsha on Jul 7, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha that’s pretty cool. If they could only do that for the fucking concert scalpers too…
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re making a big fuss about enforcing the “non-transferable” nature of the tickets. They were going as high as $10,000.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jul 7, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts on Big Game tickets
Hey guys, I just bought my Big Game tickets and had to go on my annual rant about how they allocate tickets:
http://excusemeformyvoice.com/blog/?p=1337
FYI.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
I bought Big Game tickets from the Furd ticket office once so now I get their promo mailings. The flyer with the ‘We Work’ slogan arrived last week. It provided a little giggle as I threw it away.
by turkey on Jul 7, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU DIDNT RECYCLE?!?!?!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, that’s what I meant. Totally went into the recycle bin…
by turkey on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Faux-flagged for hurting Mother Earth!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ron Artest made his pitch to Kobe Bryant after the NBA Finals in 2008 — and in the shower.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 9:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Free agent wide receiver Matt Jones has completed a “drug court” program. As a result, felony cocaine charges filed against him last year have been dropped.
It’s unclear if this news will motivate a team to take a chance on the former first-round pick. So far, no one has shown interest in signing Jones.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Max gets his second triple-double in four games against Iran in a 91-80 2OT loss.
Zhang, Cal’s 7-foot-2 1/4 sophomore center, had 25 points, 12 rebounds and 10 blocks, playing nearly 47 minutes. China, down by as many as 19 points, rallied to force the extra periods before losing its fourth straight game in the event.
But China got another Max-imum effort from its blossoming center. Zhang leads the tournament in rebounding (16.5) and blocked shots (7.5) and is scoring 17.5 ppg.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jul 7, 2009 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Max Zhang will average 17.5 points, 16.5 rebounds and 7.5 blocks for Cal hoops this season.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Direct correlation – it’s indisputable!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure that would make him the number one overall pick next year by the Clippers.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, there’s no way the Clippers can win the lottery again. Just for them to win the lottery once was amazing.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Clippers need more centers.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok honestly? They lost to fucking Iran!??!?!?!?!?!?!?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, so now you’re an expert on international collegiate-age basketball teams?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why would you think I am not?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may now demonstrate your knowledge.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Max Zhang is good.
But really, you have to figure that the quality of basketball players in China is much higher than the quality of Iranian basketball players.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is that?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fradulent voting breeds good basketball players.
by CaliforniaBone on Jul 7, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So there must be a shitload of good basketball players coming out of Florida in the class of 2018.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One team has Max Zhang. The other doesn’t. Have you ever heard of any Iranian basketball players?
Man, someone seems a bit cranky this morning.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever heard of any Iranian basketball players?
Hamed Haddadi plays for the Memphis Grizzlies.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He averages a 19 and 19 per 48 minutes! With 5 blocks! And 8 personal fouls!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never heard of any Argentinian Basketball players either, but I know they beat the US in the 2004 Olympics.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manu Ginobili…
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manu Ginobili, Luis Scola, Andres Nocioni, Carlos Delfino, etc.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, now I’ve heard of 4 Argentinian basketball players. That wasn’t the case several minutes ago.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You hadn’t heard of Manu Ginobili?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a basketball player, right?
I don’t actually pay attention to the NBA.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously. Teenagers are smert.
by CaliforniaBone on Jul 7, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. I have never said anything wrong or stupid. Ever.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the humor, the drama, the sarcasm
Twist, I love your DBD…..ladies and gentlemen, Twist is back to his true form. His crankiness is gone, his sense of humor is back!
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ill take that as an insult that you felt I was unfunny previosuly.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Danzig - need help!
Not sure you’re much of a furniture guy, but I need to buy a sofa for my new place and have no idea where to start or what the fuck I should look for.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why do you just ask Danzig everything? Do you think he really knows everything??? I’m an interior designer in my spare time aside from five star chef extraordinaire. You could have asked me.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think he really knows everything???
Uh, yes?
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow…things just got…awkward
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Danzig- need help!
How do Hydro and YF solve this so it’s less awkward for everyone?
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jul 7, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hydro, let me ask your advice about this…..three years ago I bought some living room furniture from this discount place in the valley. Beyond other issues I had with them, the springs have started to give out and I’m having a lot of back pain (which I only get when I’m sitting on this particular couch).
So I was thinking about what my options are. Is it worthwhile to have the springs replaced, or put some plywood under the cushion….or just spend the money and buy a new and better-constructed sofa?
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and if anyone else has an opinion or advice on this couch situation, feel free to chime in
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just buy new. Recession makes for great deals on purchases.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where would you go, a big retailer like a Macys….or a specialty furniture shop? I feel like you get what you pay for. I’m hesitant to go to a discount place (the place I went to probably got shut down by the Better Business Bureau cuz its not there anymore).
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find you get the best deals
Along I-5. Like, literally, on the shoulder.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m not taking you on the boat.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t know where is best. If you feel like you get what you pay for, then I guess you should aim for the place with more expensive couches, and hopefully they’re having sales. Btw, I’m not really an interior designer. I was just joking about that.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's too bad.
You could have totes done a series on the way to furnish a living room from the ground up.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The potential for that is mind boggling.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bought my couch from Macy’s a few years ago, and I love it. Some sort of leather/microfiber sort of thing. Originally $900, it was on sale for about half of that.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Rags, good to know. I’ll give that a shot.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, maybe I’ll look into that too. There’s a Macy’s at the mall five minutes from my condo.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s worth looking at. Couches are pretty easy to shop for, I think: sit on ’em and see what you think. (Oh, and find out how easy they are to clean — especially important if you have kids/pets).
I think Macy*s stuff is quality, though you’re really only going to get value if you can find something on sale.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Try Ikea. Shit is cheap.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, you’d be surprised. Ikea sofas/couches aren’t that cheap, except for the really shitty ones that you just know are going to fall apart within a year.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weve had our sofa from there since like Jan 2007 and it was like 400 bucks or something. It works fine.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am going to guess you had no say in the decision process.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Twist would employ some Hebrew to say “what makes this day different from any other”….when does he ever have a say in the decision process? If you want a say in a decision process, you have to start a blog and vent your domestic frustrations.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mental Note: Start California Golden Blogs 2.5 years ago.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that actually applies to most everything Ikea sells. They have really cheap shit that’s great for furnishing student apartments, and by the time it breaks down, you’ve graduated and can just leave it on the sidewalk. The rest of their stuff is kinda expensive, though still a step down from Scandinavian Designs.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we look to Northern Europeans for all our designing needs?
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE AND INTERIOR DESIGN!?!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We spend more time crafting quality interior designs because it’s too cold to go outside for much of the year?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And thats why people from Hawaii have tacky interior design?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, those are my thoughts as well. I figure it’s one thing to drop 150 on a TV stand from Ikea when I’m looking more for functionality than comfort/design/whatever, but I’m willing to spend quite a bit more on a sofa because, well, I’m not in college anymore and I should probably start to develop standards.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bought a black square end-table like thing that I use as a TV stand from Ikea for $10. One of the best $10s I’ve ever spent. I’ve been using that thing as my TV stand for like 5 years.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got our hardwood tv stand
from the sidewalk on Davis Moving Day.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jul 7, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got my wife from a catalog!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll especially appreciate a comfy couch after a late-night fight with your lady.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Drool-covered cushion or else you have a little TOO much experience in that department.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The drool-covered cushion is from the dog sitting on it all day, I swear!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats cute, kinda
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beastiality is never cute, Twist
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
by Fire Starkey on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, dont blame me. Blame Ragnarok!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually Rags, that’s a big reason why I’m shopping for a new couch ;-) I refuse to sleep in the guest room on principle. Plus there’s no tv in the guest room.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I moved out, I furnished my entire apartment (except thebad) via craigslist. It worked out well.
by chowder on Jul 7, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to do baby furniture via craigslist. The wife shot that one down, captured the parachuting pilot, and tortured him for dayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssssssssssssssss.
We then spent a dollar amount on furniture that makes me cringe.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It even made your goatee hurt!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
she plucked the hairs one by one.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can’t argue with that logic, but then again I didn’t buy crap, I decked my place out with a nice modern motif, with plenty of glass tables, and entertainment stands, and black leather sofas in good condition.
hint: only craigslists in ritzy areas, it’ll be a longer drive, but the items are better.
by chowder on Jul 7, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I KNEW I shouldnt have gone with Craigslist Baghdad!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mrs Twist, is that you!?!!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ikea, they have arrows on the ground telling you where to go. I don’t like that, plus I have to assemble their shit.
AND, I was the only one of my friend’s with an SUV during college (or shortly thereafter) so whenever anyone wanted a piece of furniture it meant I had to drive them there and help them pick it up. Which usually involved sitting around for two hours as they tried to figure out if they wanted their desk in white or black.
by chowder on Jul 7, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the meatballs are delish.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
normally I wouldn’t ask…but I now feel it’s a must:
How did you vote on Prop 8?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my question
Why was it called Prop 8? And why was something enacted in 1978 called Prop 13? Why are the propositions not linear!?
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Will you please run for CA guv right the eff now.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
California has so many propsitions (because you can put so much weird stuff on the ballot in CA) that we ran out of numbers and started over at 1 again. In fact, we may have started over at 1 a few times.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering the same thing. Turns out Google (via Wikipedia) knows all:
Originally, initiative and referendum petitions were given a number starting at 1 each year. This tended to be confusing as often famous initiatives such as Proposition 13 might be confused with another initiative in a later year if there were more than 12 proposals on the ballot in any year. Starting in 1982, the proposition numbers were not reused but would continue to increment until at least a decade had passed from when a particular one had appeared on the ballot, eventually resulting in proposition numbers exceeding 200. Starting with the 1998 ballot, the count was reset back to 1 and will be reset every 10 years.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I was confused.
I have the feeling that 2008-2017 is just going to be HYOOOGE in terms of propositions!!!
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a chance that voters will finally realize the futility of ballot-box-legislating and try to put some brakes on the whole proposition system.
Of course, any changes would probably have to be made via a ballot proposition…
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's out of date
the last two elections have both started with Prop 1. Perhaps that’s because this last one was a special election, I don’t know for sure. All I know is that there was Prop 1-11 or so in November 2008 and Prop. 1a-1f in the special election this spring.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like someone just volunteered himself to go update Wikipedia!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I actually knew what I was talking about (like why that was the case), I would.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ballotpedia is better
For what it is worth, ballotpedia has much more detailed election info that wikipedia.
Ironically, it’s got the same explanation for the current numbering scheme, so I’ve got the feeling that the odd May 2009 numbering was some exception that proves the rule.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh. Was there anything about that May special election that wasn’t bizarre and unwarranted?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unwarranted? Trying to balance a budget is unwarranted?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a ridiculous way to attempt to do so. Even if you agree with the measures proposed, you can’t seriously believe that budgetary measures such as this should be put to a vote before the people in a costly, unnecessary special election. Even of the miniscule number of voters who actually participated, how many do you think really understood the financial implications of each of the proposals? I know I didn’t. Perhaps the California Constitution mandated that they be approved by the voters, I don’t know, but the very fact that there was an election over this matter is a shining example of just how out of whack our system of state government is.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the alternative? The Republicans in the legislature refuse to vote on a budget.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the alternative? Constitutional convention!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you happen to know if there is a good website for knowing exactly where CA’s budget goes? All I’ve been able to find is stuff like “35% of general fund—> health and human services” which is kind of vague. Everything funded with public money should be traceable, right?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here [PDF] are some charts showing revenue and expenditure breakdown from the official California budget website.
The California Budget Project has a bunch of information. There’s also the Next 10 budget game that lets you look at the budget in a more interactive way.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I’m not saying how to fix the system. I’m just saying that it’s clearly broken, and this was an obvious example.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was constitutionally mandated
Because each of the Propositions either modified an existing proposition or was a constitutional amendment, they had to be voted on by the public:
1A: Constitutional Amendment (spending limits)
1B: Modified Prop. 98 (School funding)
1C: Modified Prop. 37 (Lottery)
1D: Modified Prop. 10 (First Five funding)
1E: Modified Prop. 63 (Mental Health funding)
1F: Appears to have been optional, best I can tell
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, thanks for the info. The perils of direct democracy…
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They go 1-99 and then reset. So if you have Prop 56-58 in on election, the first Prop in the next election would be 59. etc.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t vote on Prop 8 because it was inferior to Prop 9. Prop 9 was EPIC.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Jul 7, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prop 10 was positively orgasmic!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but I really know next to nothing about furniture. Everything I own is black, leather or black leather. Most women find this pretty lame so I’m prob not the best person to ask.
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I’ll have to change my queries to begin with “Stump Danzig!”
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Safe word or you don’t just cover your furniture in black leather
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nailed it!
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I don’t think “Nailed it!” would make a very good safe word.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine is “CBKWit.” It immediately ruins the mood everytime!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought yours was, “cum auf meinen Rücken!!”
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cum on my backs!!
Even Babelfish was confused by that????
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be thinking my German is just rusty, but actually the phrase refers to both your ‘backs’… your actual back and the back of your head.
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That seems like a difficult feat to accomplish. I’m about 5’10", so that would require quite a large amount of spray.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
God dammit Twist.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s that 5-10 measurement referring to?
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CERTAINLY not his penis.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This conversation should probably end right here. If not several comments ago.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The size of my ego.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. I’m sorry Twist, but I refuse to believe Beyonce was singing about you.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer white latex and my safe word is sesquipedalian.
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soapbox time
On Steve McNair:
Articles like this piss me off.
First, the whole “two DUIs and a weapons charge” line must stop. It is, in reality, one DUI, an associated charge (the weapon was registered), and a non-charge (he was the passenger in the vehicle).
Second, having an affair is bad and that is a poor decision; however, it doesn’t mean that he was suddenly a bad person and deserved to be shot.
The general tone of a lot of articles coming out is that McNair had it coming. And that’s the unfortunate part.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel like that Banks article was a lot lighter than what you mentioned. It’s guys like Cowherd and the talking heads on radio who will end up being a lot more vicious. I thought Banks’ point was that no matter how well we think we know athletes from their play on the field, we know next to nothing about them off of it. Which is absolutely true.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody writing any article about McNair that reaches any conclusion, good or bad, is being way premature. With the lack of details and conclusions reached by the police, any conclusions will be speculative, which is going to be horribly unfair to somebody. I never like it when people write about unresolved crimes as evidence of somebody’s character.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That said, I don’t think Bank’s article tries to reach any conclusions, so I don’t have much of a problem with it. A little too much speculation, but that’s going to happen weather I like it or not.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, until we find details out, why can’t journalists just stick to honouring his professional life as a football player and honour his work done for charity?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cause they’re lame (although I don’t really think this applies to Banks much)
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His is more subtle than some of the other stuff I’ve been hearing.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, that would probably work if he and his 20 y/o mistress weren’t laying next to each other with bullet holes in their heads. If he and his wife were dead next to each other (and no mistress involved) then it’s a different story.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Solution = pissing on the man’s grave?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is no solution. He’s dead. His (eventual) grave doesn’t deserve to be pissed on, but I’m not advocating that.
I’m also fresh off attending a funeral for a friend of mine and the family lied to others about his actual cause of death. Instead of using it as something to learn from and help others, they vehemently denied it and covered it up.
Lesson here: Don’t chase loose women when you have a family, and don’t party like a rockstar.
The charity work is great and all but a true representation of one’s character is what you do when the cameras & the journalists aren’t looking. Let’s not forget they get a write off every time they donate. Those true character traits, as we’re learning, weren’t so hot.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Come on, you know just as well as I do that having an affair does not mean that he deserved it.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer the term micturating, but yes.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because journalists have to produce stories that generate readership and sell advertising, so that they can get paid. Unfortunately.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem (channeling Charles Barkley here) is that the media loooves to build athletes up into these larger-than-life role model type figures.
But they’re not. They’re just as likely as the next random person to get a DUI or have an affair or whatever. In fact, you could make a strong case that because a lot of these guys are taken from relative poverty, never get a chance to have a normal life in college, and are suddenly handed a shitload of money, they’re more likely to make what might be characterized as poor life decisions.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, he had a DUI and an affair now.
He also did lots of work for charity, contributed towards the community, and, at least in public, acted as a good role model for kids to follow…
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there’s been a good amount of that coverage as well. ESPN.com is tripping over themselves to remind everyone how great a guy he was, after all.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN has been doing well in the regards. Normally, their massive amounts of overpraising people irritate me (esp with Favre), but post-humously, the media ought to honour the person, especially in the first week.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When Farve dies ESPN is going to go on ShivaWatch for like a week straight. Itll be bad!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ll keep covering the story about whether Favre will change his mind about being dead and come back to the NFL.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
by Ohio Bear on Jul 7, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Recd!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree, he did a lot of good work and made a couple of mistakes. Which is probably par for the course for the average person’s life. I don’t think Banks is saying that he had it coming.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems more implied than other people out there, but Banks is definitely insinuating something.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I think they’re probably much more likely to have an affair, though one would think DUIs would be rarer due to the existence of an entourage.
Celebrity provides lots of opportunity.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, they’re always driving themselves around all the time. Half the fun of having money is buying expensive cars.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The general tone of a lot of articles coming out is that McNair had it coming.
Well…while his death is tragic…he did have it coming. He was living a certain lifestyle that was dangerous to his health.
As I mentioned yesterday, my Dad said “no fast cars, fast friends, or fast women.” While I fought it at the time he said it, he was right.
Not to be critical, but aren’t you Repubs supposed to follow the “family values” shtick? Is it like that SF Gate article on Modoc County where the Repub. residents vote against tax increases yet take more tax dollar per peson?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it’s a bit harsh to say that he had it coming per se, I agree that he wasn’t really on the straight and narrow. You can’t expect anything good to come out of a situation like the one he was in.
No longer wanting an interview with Ryan Anderson.
by yellow fever on Jul 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Rock once said: “why are ATMs open 24 hours? When’s the last time you got money from an ATM at 3 in the morning for something POSITIVE?”
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donuts to soak up the alcohol on the walk home from the bar?
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A cab to prevent you from drunk driving?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Affairs are mistakes.
We don’t know the circumstances of his life and death, but just imagine… what if he’s not happy with his marriage, he meets a girl that he thinks he loves, then, at some point, he draws back and says “no, I must maintain my family”.
What part of that sounds like he deserved it.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t had an affair or a DUI. Where’s my praise?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
=DDD
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ive never even had sex with my wife or drank alcohol. Wheres my praise!?!?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have never had sex. Period. Or Drank alcohol.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might actually believe this.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somewhere in heaven, an angel is crying for you
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ask him to describe MJ’s penis…..what, too soon?
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not soon enough!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show of hands for those who think he deserved it? Nobody. Okay, that’s what I thought.
He deserved to have his estate be split down the middle and receive joint custody of his kids. He did not deserve to be murdered.
What other people are hinting at or even stating baldly is that he’s a grown man who made the conscious choice to sleep, vacation, and own property with a 20 year old (she was 19 when they met) woman who was not his wife. That reveals serious, though not absolute, character flaws. Not that he is unique in this regard. But just as we harshly judge adulterers – male and female alike – who haven’t had the money to participate in his level of philanthropy, so too should we hold him to the same standard.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yet no one would say that they deserved it.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People make poor decisions all the time.
Doesn’t mean they deserve to be murdered.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the SF Supervisers who vote for the Drink Tax?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to a serious discussion. We are at max capacity right now.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congrats on joining the California Golden Blogs! Take some time to look around and get a feel for the place before you start posting. We welcome your readership and look forward to seeing you raround alot more!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, that’s like reaching the end of the internet. I wonder, if you truly reach the end of the internet, would you see a photo of Al Gore with the caption “Thanks for Visiting my Internet, Come Again Soon”?
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t happen. The internet is round, duh.
No one else here has read Snow Crash, have they?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve read almost everything Stephenson’s written. Did you read Anathem? Was it any good?
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I’ve only read Snow Crash. Want to read more, though. Just bought Cryptonomicon, will get to it after I finish Anna Karenina.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cryptonomicon was definitely my favorite. His Baroque Cycle trilogy was very interesting as well.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. Looking forward to it.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true, and of course I’m not advocating he deserved to be murdered. He did, however, “go to the well too many times” so to speak. When that happens, these unfortunate and tragic events occur and they are just all too typical. It keeps Lifetime Television for Women going.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, he’s not even like a Pacman type figure, who doesn’t learn.
He got a DUI and he had an affair.
How does this mean that his death was coming?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s really this simple: If he honors his duty as a father and husband, then he’d still be alive. That means no drugs, no booze, no late nights with loose women, no driving irresponsibly, etc. C’mon man your party’s supposed to have values!!!
Don’t kid yourself. Those are the two publicized discretions. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time he drank and drove, nor was it the first time he hung out with this 20 y/o crazy druggie. There were lots of learning experiences along the way…he just kept going.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I have drinks after I’m married and something bad happens to me, I had it coming?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Needs more active voice
Apart from the murder, nothing “happened to” McNair. He was the agent that caused the situation to exist.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well…there’s common sense that we use, right? If your wife is a good person she’ll likely keep you out of dangerous situations. When you get married and start a family your priorities just change.
Of course, some 13 year olds thought it would be cool to light off some firecrackers last night outside the house and they almost caught the labeled end of my 33" M110 model Louisville Slugger Clint Eastwood style.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry about that….
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm, carp my friend...
To say “When you get married and start a family your priorities just change” is a pretty broad statement. Would it not be equally valid to say “After 16 years of marriage, 4 kids and the end of his career, Steve McNair’s priorities had changed again”? Everyone is different, has different values and may not be enjoying the marital and parental bliss you are apparently existing in currently. You appear to be imposing your own value set on McNair’s situation is all I’m saying.
Interesting sidenote, I read somewhere that something like 75% of NFL players get divorced within 3-4 years of retirement. McNair was well on his way to adding to that statistic before this outcome.
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
by Fire Starkey on Jul 7, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed, but that doesn’t mean they need to change for the worse.
I’d argue that when one committs to marriage that’s a value that shouldn’t ever change. Especially with kids involved.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So regardless of circumstance, no one should ever get divorced especially if they have children…is that what you’re saying? I struggle with that as an absolute statement. Every situation is different and should be evaluated as such. Over time, couples grow closer, farther apart, indifferent to one another, hate each other…etc.
Divorce is sometimes the best option for both man, woman and children.
Joe Starkey...Scholar, Humanitarian, Cal legend, worst radio play by play man of all time.
by Fire Starkey on Jul 7, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you did there.
Yes, I suppose after exhaustive attempts, the McNair’s should have gotten a divorce.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So regardless of circumstance, no one should ever get divorced especially if they have children
To insert myself into y’all’s conversation, I would have to say that only specific circumstances should result in divorce (abuse or adultery is pretty much the long and short of it) if children are involved. I’d say that applies at least until you’re 18.
Over time, couples grow closer, farther apart, indifferent to one another, hate each other
This is certainly true, but providing a stable home environment for children is a higher imperative in my opinion. Only if these feelings lead to abuse or adultery should divorce be considered again. Then again, I’m not married, nor do I have children, so take that for what it’s worth.
Current divorce laws have overstepped the idea of no-fault divorce and actually permit unilateral divorce, that is without the consent of both parties. That practice, particularly when there are children in the marriage, should be stopped.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont understand why its bad to NOT require both parties consent to a divorce.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes money is involved.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Faux-flagged for failing to use ellipses as required by religious tradition
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Real flagged for being a lieutenant of the ellipstapo.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congressional Medal Of Honor or else I’ll a Commandant of the ellipstapo.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leaving out verbs out of sentences can to confusion.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant to write Im instead of Ill.
ILL NEVER USE AN APOSTROPHE AGAIN!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Current divorce laws have overstepped the idea of no-fault divorce and actually permit unilateral divorce, that is without the consent of both parties. That practice, particularly when there are children in the marriage, should be stopped.
One person can refuse to consent just to fuck the other person over.
You really think it’s good for the kids if one parent doesn’t want to be there?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One person can refuse to consent just to fuck the other person over.
Only if there is no cause (e.g. adultery or abuse/neglect).
If I were married and I’d been a faithful husband and responsible father to my children and my wife came to me one day demanding a divorce, I would absolutely contest it. In fact, I would tell her to f*ck herself and then take the family out for dinner at Red Robin. LOVE THOSE BURGERS!
If the discussion below that holds marriage as a “contract” then you better believe it should be treated like all other contracts with a penalty for unilateral withdrawal. I might be persuaded that unilateral divorce with no cause should be permitted if the divorcing party receives no consideration (e.g. walks away with what he/she had coming in).
If you wish to marry eventually as I do and don’t mind facing ugly truths, I would counsel you to read these two books: 1) Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville and 2) Women’s Infidelity by Michelle Langley.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the discussion below that holds marriage as a "contract" then you better believe it should be treated like all other contracts with a penalty for unilateral withdrawal
That should read “If the discussion below that holds marriage is a contract then you better believe it should be treated like all other contracts with a penalty for unilateral withdrawal.”
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contracts only have a penalty for unilateral withdrawal if a penalty for unilateral withdrawal is written in.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah. Well, this is why I’m not a lawyer.
I guess my point is that a penalty similar to what I described above (e.g. no consideration for the divorcing party if no cause had been established) should be written into the law.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yknow what, illusory contracts might lie within that definition, Im too dumb to figure it out.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well shit, where does that leave me?
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad – I thought you meant that under no circumstances should divorce be allowed unless both parties agree to it.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No worries. I don’t always proofread enough and if there was confusion in what I was saying then that’s probably because I said it more confusingly than I could have.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing I should make clear
Is that I’m really only speaking of marriages involving children. Unilateral divorce in a marriage that doesn’t involve children should probably be allowed.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
providing a stable home environment for children is a higher imperative in my opinion.
Agreed – but sometimes, a divorce is necessary to establish stability.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
I thought of another example.
If, for instance, the husband/wife has a serious drug/alcohol/theft/murder/Maury Povich problem then that could be considered adequate cause. But even in those cases divorce should not be the first resort, counseling/intervention should be.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you take away driving irresponsibly, I have no indiscretions left to me. Have a heart man.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting notes
McNair was shot three times from a distance, e.g. from greater than three feet away.
Kazemi was a contact shot, e.g. the gun was touching her skin when it discharged.
Furthermore, she bought the murder weapon the day after the DUI and the day before the murder-suicide/murder. Seems like the evidence is starting to come down towards a murder-suicide, though the police have not yet made a final determination.
The weirdest, and most suspicious, part is that someone was in the apartment for at least 30 mins before the police were called. I wonder what exactly was being covered up or removed in that time frame.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the article
Kazemi bought gun; motive remains unclear in McNair shooting:
Kazemi bought the semi-automatic pistol on Thursday evening from a person Metro police are not naming. She made the purchase just hours after she was bailed out of jail by McNair for a DUI charge. Both were found dead less than 48 hours later in a Second Avenue-area condo McNair rented just across the river from LP Field.
Police still aren’t classifying the deaths as a murder-suicide, though state medical examiner Bruce Levy said it’s a likely scenario based on the evidence. McNair was found dead on the couch with four gunshot wounds — one bullet in each temple, and two in the chest — Levy said. The autopsy showed that three of the shots were fired from at least three feet away. One, to the head, was shot at close range, he said.
Kazemi, 20, died of a single gunshot wound to the head and fell to the floor. The pistol was found underneath her body, police say.
The woman was not old enough to legally carry a handgun or purchase one from a gun dealer. The person who sold the gun to Kazemi is not in custody and may not be charged because the seller may not have known Kazemi was under 21, police said.
There still are no definite answers as to what prompted the deadly shootings. Police are continuing to interview people who knew Kazemi and McNair.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soapbox Time
I really want to make a lot of “The real reason Sarah Palin stepped down as Governor of Alaska is she murdered Steve McNair” jokes.
But I fear they are in bad taste and people will get all mad at me.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, she just felt that there was no point in going on now that the King of Pop was dead.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also have like a 5-10 minute routine full of 9.11 jokes that I fear to ever present.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TwistNHook needs help.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s edgy, there’s disgusting, and there is this.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
^^^this
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, you are judging me for thoughts now? At least I wait to judge you until you actually DO something!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually thats a lie. But with other people, I wait.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I’ll give you the attention.
Just please don’t make 9/11 jokes.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay! Attention! FINALLY!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a wonderful world, ain’t it?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or… don’t.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh no, not a joke! Please anything but that!
by Kai on Jul 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kai, don’t worry about it. I’m stupid, but I’m not THAT stupid! Also, its mostly the story of how I came to learn about the horrific events that day.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s extremely relevant to mention criminal history when discussing deaths occurring in suspicious circumstances. As someone else said, if his mistress weren’t lying on the floor next to him with the very real possibility it was a murder-suicide, then overplaying the angle of HE WAS CHEATING ON HIS WIFE would probably be excessive. But she was and it’s not.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating on your wife, while wrong, is not a criminal act.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh…my mom has another saying, “A liar, a cheater, and a thief go hand-in-hand.”
mama carp Cal grad (’80).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating on your wife, with a woman who owns a gun, might get you killed.
by CaliforniaBone on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This times a billion.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating on your wife, with a woman who owns a gun,might get you killed.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating on yourwife, withawomanwhoowns agun, might get you killed.
fixed for clarity
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating on your a who gun, might get you killed?
Did I write that!?!?!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, I meant
Cheatingon yourwife, with awomanwho owns agun,mightget youkilled.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So many women guns out there!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point.
But I may have misunderstood you earlier when it seemed you were complaining about how they keep bringing up his DUI, weapons charge, etc. That’s the point to which I was responding. I could have separated those two thoughts better.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, the two DUIs part bothers me, since he was acquited of the second one, which was a technicality.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Infidelity used to be and should be a crime
If the government finds being a party to a marriage to be an appropriate thing, which by making it a government institution it is, then by all rights infidelity should be a crime.
What the punishment for said crime should be is a more difficult question (and I’d hope we’d agree that it isn’t a capital crime).
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, what you are saying is its like a breach of contract?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worse
A breach of contract is something between two parties. The state is only involved to mediate between the two. Fundamentally it is a matter between the two parties and not the state.
But a marriage is more than that, hence why the issue of “gay marriage” is such a big deal. It confirms government privileges and benefits upon those who enter into marriages. This is because the state believes there is value in endorsing these marriages.
So, just as in other scenarios when one abuses a privilege granted to it by the state, it is generally a criminal offense, so should a violation of marriage.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the “violation” you speak of is only a violation if decided so between the two married parties. A marriage might be perfectly healthy/unhealthy if the two parties disagree on who controls the remote control. It might be perfectly healthy/unhealthy if one party decides to go out without the consent of the other. Or if one party decides to see another lady….or to do certain things with that other lady. At what point is the line drawn? Do you want the state annulling marriages based on whether one party claims they had sex or not? What defines sex, exactly, in the eyes of the law?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you’re basically arguing is that there is no definition of a marriage, when everyone practically knows the reality. Marriage is a (semi) permanent exclusive sexual union of two people.
Why can’t brothers and sisters be married? Fathers and daughters? Why? Because everyone knows that marriage is a sexual union and an exclusive one at that (why is polygamy illegal if having an extra-marital sexual partner is OK?).
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly don’t know the history of polygamy law in America, but I bet its illegality has to do with wars America fought with the Mormons during the 1800s.
Which, to me, means that it stems not from the ideological vaccuum of anti-polygamy for its own sake, but more due to the specific style of polygamy practiced by 19th century Mormons.
To me, its a contract. And if ALL parties give willing consent to the terms of the contract, then so be it. That might be a minority view.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is my understanding that America fought its wars with the Mormons primarily because they objected to the Mormon’s religious practices, which included polygamy. Same correlation, reversed causation.
Oh, and I totally agree with your third paragraph there.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does this mean I can sue my wife if she doesn’t put out enough?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going on the light-hearted side...
If you did, I wouldn’t expect that legal action to help you get any more sex with her than you are, irrelevant of whether you won.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if the judge orders specific performance?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really don’t know how much I’d enjoy court-mandated sexual relations.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
especially since AndBears may want a baby. Hahaha.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Rock thinks it should be part of the divorce settlement.
When it’s time to get a divorce, women got it made. You go to court, start talkin’ that s***. "Your honor, I’m used to this, I’m used to that. I’m accustomed to this."
…
…
What about what the man’s used to? It might not be money… but during the course of a relationship, a man grows accustomed to a few things. I would love to see a man go to court and say, “Your honor, check this out. I’m accustomed to ****** her four times a week. Now I feel I should be able to **** her at least twice a week.”
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’d advocate adding conditions to marriage that define it, legally, as a “permanent exclusive sexual union of two people?” If one partner does not agree to have a sexual union with the other for a given amount of time, can the other partner sue for breach of contract, as they are not living up to their end of the bargain?
And good question, why CAN’T brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters be married? Condoms could easily prevent any of the diseases associated with inbreeding, and if the parties agree to enter a “permanent exclusive sexual union” with each other, there should be nothing in the eyes of the law that finds their actions illegal. The truth is, marriage is based on two to four thousand year old religious traditions which, over time, have rendered the idea of incest abhorrent. Reconciling ancient, powerful religious beliefs and rule of law will always be a challenge, which is why, miraculously, the founding fathers agreed the nation would be more stable if church and state were kept separate.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Spazzy, there are very real reasons that religious traditions arose prohibiting incest, namely the increased incidence of malformed offspring. Yes, we’re much better at preventing pregnancy now, but it’s a taboo that remains for a good reason.
Also, I’d be very suspicious of any father/daughter combo that wished to marry that there was some level of abuse going on. But perhaps that’s what I get for having watched The Cider House Rules last night.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we’re much better at preventing pregnancy now, but it’s a taboo that remains for a good reason.
Oh, I totally get this, and I would never advocate brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters getting married. My only point is that reconciling traditions and law is difficult and challenging based on very set beliefs.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Serious mis-statement of separation of Church and State
There are very good reasons for the Church and State to be separate, but it has nothing to do with one’s religious views informing their sense of what should be illegal. Trying to detangle what is immoral for religious reasons and what is immoral for “regular” reasons fundamentally assumes an athiestic position. If one believes in God there is no difference between those two theoretically different types of immoral.
Separation of Church and State in no way disallows creating moral laws. All it prevents is the State from either sponsoring one religion over another or from making any form of religion illegal.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if that couple is polyamorous? If they choose to bring other people into their sexual lives, should that be a crime? Most marriages are sexually exclusive, yes – but by no means can we say that all of them are.
So yes, I would say that there is no one set definition of what a marriage should be or has to be. Marriage is not always about sex – it just depends on what those two people agree on. Yes, there are situations that fall outside general range of marriage (incest, etc.), but we can’t say that every marriage HAS to be this way or that way.
Also, I don’t think think that adultery should be a crime. Would it be a misdemeanor? A felony? What would the punishments be – jail time? a fine? Are the different levels of adultery, each with their own punishment?
If you want your mate to be punished for being unfaithful, draft and sign a pre-nuptial agreement that so stipulates.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious? What law does infidelity break? Just because (you think) something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Similarly, just because something is immoral doesn’t mean that it can’t be illegal. There are all kinds of laws that “enforce morality”.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And those laws are all absurd and should be repealed.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
We shouldn’t try to protect the environment? Or animals? Or safety laws for children (helmits, safety belts, etc.)? No minimum wage or other exploitation laws?
All of these are moral judgements that assume certain moral things are true, such as the dignity of the human person and of animals.
Moral laws make a lot of sense. Heck, they’re almost the only ones that make any sense.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By your definition, all laws are based on moral judgments.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But laws nominally at least reflect the view of a majority of a state’s citizens. So wouldn’t all laws be “moral laws” by your definition? And if a majority of people are in favor of something, wouldn’t that make it moral — by your definition?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Protecting peoples heads isnt a “moral” judgment. Its a utility judgment. Exploitation of children again, not a moral judgment. Its a utility judgment.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should just legislate the Golden Rule. Of course, this gives some pretty blanket protections to sadomasochists, but as we’ve seen, every law has loopholes.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me why those things aren’t moral judgements. If human life has no value (a moral statement) why does it need protection.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its an economic argument, for one. If people are dying left and right, your economy suffers. If children are going uneducated due to child labor, then your economy suffers.
Its a legal argument, for another. Children cant consent to work.
Yes, saving human life is good and all. But its not the only reason these laws exist.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is entirely possible to argue that society outlaws murder because it’s useful to do so (a society with no such protection would quickly devolve and be conquered by a more successful society), without necessarily providing blanket “sanctity of life” protection towards everyone (i.e., disposing of Timothy McVeigh, who society had no use for anymore).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/Start Devil’s Advocacy.
Racial anti-discrimination laws are certainly an example of “enforcing morality.” Ought those be repealed?
Just to cite an example: Malaysia has racial preferences for Malays written into its constitution. That is, the constitution specifically favors Malays above other ethnic groups such as the Chinese. Why, if we are to abhor all laws that enforce morality, should there be any objection to such a situation?
The answer of course is that some laws that enforce morality are good things, are not absurd, and should not be repealed.
/end Devil’s Advocacy.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Discrimination violates the Constitution. It also hurts society economically. That’s why those laws were put into place.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve responded to my argument that laws against discriminating on the basis of race are examples of enforcing morality by pointing to the fact that….there are laws against discriminating on the basis of race.
The 14th Amendment affords the equal protection of the laws yes, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts are those laws, but…why were they enacted? Was it because Kennedy and LBJ said “We could really increase GDP by a few points here?” Or was it because they decided it was morally wrong to deny blacks that which was given to whites? I think the answer is clearly the second part, which is why I stick by my original point that some laws that enforce morality are good things, are not absurd, and should not be repealed.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have explained better: I didn’t mean that people don’t have moral arguments for supporting or opposing certain laws. I mean that the legal justification for striking down or upholding a law is in terms of its constitutionality, rather than in terms of its morality. You won’t see the Supreme Court saying “we’re striking down this law because it’s immoral” (except maybe Scalia).
By the same token, I think that advocating for laws based on morality takes you into a gray area. I personally would support anti-discrimination laws because I think that discrimination is a bad thing. However, let’s not forget that people used the exact same justifications – subjective “moral” justifications – back in the day to justify whatever they felt like at the time – slavery, for example.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you say “I personally would support anti-discrimination laws because I think that discrimination is a bad thing.” you’re making a moral judgement.
As Nashville said, Bill of Rights was explicitely a moral document that was setup to limit what democracy could do for moral reasons.
There’s just no getting around that we make moral judgements as a societal all the time and it’s completely acceptable that we do and that it is coded in our laws. Do they sometimes suck and have to be reversed? Yes, of course. But so do our economic laws and trade laws and budgets and all sorts of things. Democracy is not a guarantee that we’ll get it right the first time (if anything it’s a protection against knowing we won’t get it right the first time).
Moral based law is a very reasonable thing.
And to be clear, I’m not saying that all morals should be codified in law, far from it. I’m just saying that something being a moral judgement does not exclude it from being law. The discussion on whether a moral judgement should be made law should surround two things:
1. Do we as a society view this moral judgement consistently enough be worthy of state-wide acceptance
2. Is it a moral judgement that is worth codifying in law.
Everything from discrimination laws to welfare laws (what is a more moral judgement that to feed the hungry?) are reasonable examples of moral judgements becoming law.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have too much to add to kencraw’s response, except to point out that there are more than a few cases that have struck down or upheld/created a law on grounds greater than the law’s constitutionality.
Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson not by proving segregation was unconstitutional, but rather by demonstrating through social science that harm was being done to black students as a result of segregation. I think you’d agree that was the right decision, but are you concerned that it doesn’t adhere to your method?
You’re absolutely right to point out that morality has changed through the years, but if it hadn’t then on a constitutional basis we’d likely still have segregation, chattel slavery, etc.
The issue ought to be rephrased from “you can’t legislate morality” to “as morality changes opportunities should be given to re-legislate the issue.”
by Nashville on Jul 8, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Decisions based on public policy =/= decisions based on "morality"
Brown was a ruling based on empirical evidence which demonstrated that segregated schools were failing— to a horrible degree— most of their students. It wasn’t some pie-in-the-sky, woe-is-us moral handwringing.
You can disagree with the Court’s interpretation of its authority to make policy judgments, and many serious scholars have in fact argued that Brown was an overreach that may have done more harm than good. To some extent, I actually agree with them, although it’s Monday morning quarterbacking to blame the NAACP for adopting a “courtroom strategy” when they felt it had a reasonable chance of working.
None of that, though, requires some concession that Brown was a “moral” judgment. It wasn’t— it was a rational policy judgment.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 8, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reasonable analysis
In my own defense, however, I did not state that Brown was the result of “pie-in-the-sky, woe-is-us-moral handwringing.” I merely pointed out
that there are more than a few cases that have struck down or upheld/created a law on grounds greater than the law’s constitutionality.
I think that we agree that’s a fair description of the Court’s actions in Brown. Also, given the nature of the above discussion, I suppose it was implicit that I was arguing that morality played a role in the decision. I should have been more clear in responding to HolmoePhobe that I was disputing the notion of a purely constitutional basis for upholding/striking down laws.
On the other hand, if what you mean by public policy is the introduction and passage of laws supportive of the public good, then it’s very difficult to escape the reality that a moral judgment as described by kencraw above occurred somewhere along the decision process. After all, almost this entire discussion has focused on the fact that many policy examples are themselves the results of moral judgments, such as instituting welfare safety nets or banning racial discrimination.
by Nashville on Jul 8, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t really think that sex is mentioned anywhere in the legal code, nor should it be. The bounds of a legal marriage are for the individual parties to decide, right?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not when it is a government sponsored entity. Just like tax-exempt, non-profits have to follow certain rules, so do people who benefit from a state-sponsored marriage.
If you chose to call yourself married but in no way involve the state, you can do whatever you want.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I look at it like a breach of contract. But the contract is very nebulous. What are the terms? The state offers certain perks to the married couple. What does the married couple have to do in return?
Nothing.
Just stay non-divorced. That’s it. They don’t have to do anything, in specific, as long as they stay non-divorced. So, in my view, infidelity isn’t the breach of contract. It isnt an action that relates in any way shape or form to the contract. Getting divorced would, thus, be the breach, at which points, the state stops holding up its end of the deal.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it’s not explicitely stated in the marriage code, what the couple has to do in return is raise the children that result of their sexual union.
The purpose of government santioned marriage is to try and limit the number of children who are not raised by their biological parents so that the state doesn’t have to take on that burden.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the marriage contract so ambiguous that we need extrinsic evidence to further explain the nature of its terms? It seems fairly self-explanatory to me.
And, look, its a one-sided deal and no real consideration is given, so I guess itd be illusory. The state has to give all this stuff and the married couple doesnt really have to do anything more than fill out some forms. Actually, I guess they do have to pay a fee, so that is consideration.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s the point Twist. The government doesn’t just give away free benefits without some carrot out there. Whether or not it’s explicitely in the legal code, there’s a carrot there.
So I’ll turn the question around. Would someone care to give me an alternate reason the state gives privileges to married couples?
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you got me.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming no one can come up with an alternate reason, I’d propose we as a society have two options:
- Disband marriage as a government institution because we refuse to accept sexual fidelity, the result of which helps with family arrangements and raising children, as part of marriage. Therefore there’s no reason to keep giving benefits to people who are not benefiting society.
- Accept what has been true for thousands of years about marriage and ensure that sexual fidelity and child-bearing is an important component of government sanctioned marriage.
I’d go for #2.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s a bit ahistorical. Marriage for a long time could be a political allegiance, an economic arrangement, a mechanism for demonstrating that one’s heirs are in fact one’s progeny, or a relative informality unsanctioned by the state – in roughly descending order of income strata. Sexual fidelity, from an institutional standpoint, is really more an issue for ensuring that you’re not raising children that someone else fathered without knowing it.
An extreme extension of your second option is that married but childless people don’t merit the benefits of marriage.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely disagree. While many a marriage may have additionally provided the benefits you suggest, the fundamental have always been clear.
As for the 2nd thought, what you’re missing is it is the possibility of children being created that deserves the benefits. If it turns out in practice that they can’t have children, well, I feel sorry for them. It’s not having children that is required, it’s that you’re in a sexual union that potentially could result in them.
(plus all laws have loopholes and one just has to accept that)
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m specifically referring to people who are married and deliberately avoiding having children.
And, maybe I got a bit lost in the thread, but we are talking about marriage as a state-sponsored institution as opposed to its meaning as a religious event / state of being, right?
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, state-sponsored marriage.
People who are specifically avoiding children are the perfect example of why state-sponsored marriage is still a good thing.
See my post in the lower thread about how contraception doesn’t always work. The reality is that the avoiding couple may end up with a child whether they intended to have it or not. By encouraging them to join into a marriage even if they aren’t intending to get married ensures that if a child were to result unintentially, the family structure will already be in place for raising that unintended child.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose my skepticism lies in the fact that these days sexual fidelity seems to come up only when its absence is invoked as a basis for divorce. And given the significant divorce rate, the prevalence of single-parent families, and the prevalence of blended families, it seems like state-sanctioned marriage doesn’t really do much to actually enforce social stability, nor is it a prerequisite for successfully raising a child … largely because of the people involved in it. As I like to say at work, our software’s fine except for those stupid users.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d argue exactly the opposite. Back when state marital laws actually had some teeth to them, divorce was far less prevalent as were all the associated things.
No-fault divorce has seen an explosion in the divorce rate.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No-fault divorce democratized divorce. My wife’s grandparents divorced in the late 40s but that’s because they could afford to have her grandmother hire lawyers and establish residence in Nevada.
Really, if you look at all the social issues you mention, it’s clear that it’s the poor who are the problem. We should consider burning them for fuel if they won’t have the decency to behave themselves without overt state coercion ;)
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s a nasty cough you got there. you don’t have swine flu, do you?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I think it was something I ate…
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The purpose of government santioned marriage is to try and limit the number of children who are not raised by their biological parents so that the state doesn’t have to take on that burden.
I highly doubt this. The first marriage codes were written as a result of reconciling religious traditions with the law. State welfare did not exist in the 1700s… It’s not like the framers of the constitution were saying stuff like “well we gotta reduce the amount of baby mommas so they stop suckling the government teat”
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but religious traditions, for the most part, did not arise for arbitrary reasons. Perhaps those reasons have been lost, and perhaps they no longer apply, but governments long didn’t have to legislate these things because organized religion was an effective controller of behaviour. Only when religions began losing their hold on society did penal codes need arise.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eight days after I was born, a small slice of my penile shaft was ritually removed, as per religious doctrine.
shrug.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you’ve since been slightly less susceptible to infection because of it!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but Moses didn’t really know about infection at the time, nor would anyone for the next ~4000 years. Just that now there was an unmistakable mark of a member of the tribe…
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, YHWH did a lot of telling people what not to do back then, not so much telling them why they shouldn’t do those things. Who are you to question His wisdom?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is YHWH a dude all of a sudden?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What indication do you have that He is not?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have loved to see Abraham’s reaction.
God: “Oh, by the way, to be part of the secret club, you have to cut off part of your schlong.”
Abraham: …
God: “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GOTCHA HAHAHAHAHAHA”
Abraham: “HAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU GOT ME”
God: “actually no seriously”
Abraham: …
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
so the moral of the story: Abraham created the elipsis?
by Harsha on Jul 7, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes but it was shortened from ellipsisisis
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and way less likely to be infected with HIV!
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, I don’t think HIV was around at the time of the ancient Israelites…
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not like the framers of the constitution were saying stuff like "well we gotta reduce the amount of baby mommas so they stop suckling the government teat"
Clearly, somebody needs to re-read Poor Richard’s Almanac!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And whenst ye goodman comes to colleckt his weekly welfayre poft, he shall be deniyed left the governing bodie be held in debtednefs to its creditors, in ye long terme.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec’d for re-reading Poor Richard’s Almanac!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure you thought this through…you would seriously want the state intervening into what, exactly, defines a healthy marriage? Should the state break up every marriage that has problems with one member’s drug addiction? Alcoholism? Swearing problems? Bad driving habits? Ten thousand things can be ruinous to a marriage, do you want the state to have jurisdiction over what those things are? I think that’s kind of ridiculous.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear...
I’m not saying that it IS in the legal code today, but I’m arguing that it SHOULD be. it was in there before no-fault divorce and the penalty for infidelity was that you’d get a very poor share of the marital assets.
A number of states never jumped on the no-fault divorce bandwagon and infidelity is still a crime in those states.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I’m probably going to go and open up a whole can of worms with this argument, but I hope not.
My take is that the government’s interest in promoting marriage is primarily an interest of promoting families, and more to the point, in promoting the welfare and proper upbringing of children into well-behaved and successful members of society when they become adults. While some legislators may be interested in the moral implications of infidelity, I would tell such legislators that it’s none of their business.
As such, the costs of infidelity to the government is primarily in terms of children being raised in single-parent households (which are typically less well-off), either due to divorce or to children being borne of mistresses, who often can’t subsequently enter into marriage because their partner is already married. Infidelity within a childless marriage that produces no bastard children really doesn’t harm society in any appreciable way (assuming no subsequent violence or other related crimes, which are already covered). However, when children are involved, there are currently laws covering alimony/child support, which are designed to mitigate the costs of infidelity and the subsequent busted families. Do these laws go far enough? With no personal experience relating to them, I couldn’t say. Still, I would say that these types of laws are the sort that should be enacted, and penalties of any other sort aren’t really appropriate.
On a further note, I would say that the enforcement of anti-infidelity laws, besides being extremely difficult (and hence probably fairly arbitrary), would be far more trouble than they were worth to society.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Up until that last paragraph… exactly.
For the last paragraph, the main way infidelity laws work out in practice is in dividing the marital assets in the case of a divorce. No-fault divorce put an end to that.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t know that I would call that an example of making infidelity illegal. I would, in this case, use Twist’s breach of contract analogy, and say that such practices are the result of a clause in the marriage contract that penalizes the party whose actions make them more at fault for the dissolution of the marriage. No criminal code necessary.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see thinking of that in either terms. But when you’ve got money and the government takes that money from you and gives it to someone else, it’s a significant sanction that is worthy of being called a criminal penalty.
In either case, it is traditionally how infidelity was legally handled.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, ok, it looks like we’re not that far off here.
Still, I suppose the reason I take the view I do is that I would prefer that the government’s role in all this remains as an enforcer of the terms of the contract, and not in determining the terms of the contract, or who can enter into such contracts.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, I just wrote what I’m writing now and lost it… so now I’m re-writing it:
I believe that the family is the fundamental structure on which society is built. Raising children well ensures that society continues strongly. Children are most easily raised when they are raised by their biological parents and when there are not all kinds of “sticky” familial situations to deal with. No half-brothers and step-parents and step-chidred. No weekend visitations or all the other complications that come from split and re-formed families. Just the parents and the kids.
I can give a bunch of religious arguments why this is best, but isn’t it self-evident from a pragmatic perspective? Don’t we have all the statistics to prove this?
And lets be honest. Sex results in children. Yeah, we like to think that contraception always works, but it doesn’t. We like to think that people will be smart and always use contraception when they don’t want children, but they don’t. A million abortions a year proves both points. So we can attempt to cover our eyes and pretend like sex without children is a real possibility, societally speaking, but it clearly is not.
So, society has a vested interested in ensuring that those who have sex do so in the context of live-long sexual unions. That way, whether or not the children who will statistically result (meaning not to every couple, but enough to be societally relevant), were intended, they’ll at least be conceived into a familiar structure that is well formed for their up-bringing.
This is the point of government sanctioned marriage and always has been. It may have been clouded in religious language and have been semi-unconscious, but the underlying practical reasons religion came to this conclusion was fundamentally the realization that sex results in children and children are best raised by their biological parents.
It is my belief that as a society we need to re-realize this reality about marriage and embrace it.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you’re reading this while sitting down.
I’ve just learned that a practice between some lesbian couples who want to have kids: The carrying female will use semen from the brother of her partner and get pregnant via IVF.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i know all about that.
It’s an entirely different discussion, but IVF should be banned as well, even for heterosexual couples.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ken, you have very unique and interesting views. I fear, for all their uniqueness, you are in the minority when it comes to these views. I would never want to stop you from expressing yourself here, especially since you always do it in a respectful manner. I just hope you realize that you are opening quite a can of worms.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he does do a great job of articulating his point of view and presenting his argument in a non-inflammatory way. I’m way more offensive than he. I actually enjoy responsible discussions in this manner even when I don’t necessarily agree on the particular issue. This blog is special in that it typically brings intellectual people together and provides the necessary platform for interesting discussion. Other places (like SF Gate) does not.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its even more special, because everytime we bring intellectual people together to provide the necessary platform for interesting discussion, I ruin it with a well placed 9.11 joke.
We are truly the change we want to see!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the thing is that its mostly just a retelling of my day on September 11 itself, how I found out about the events, interacting with various people in Berkeley (OF ALL PLACES!) , etc etc etc. Its most of a humorous monologue than 10 minutes of “What’s The Deal With Osama Bin Laden” jokes.
Although I dont think its disrespectful, per se, I understand than 9.11 is a very emotionally raw subject. Maybe someday itll be viewed through the lens of cold history, the way I could throw out a Pearl Harbor joke without anybody getting upset. But for right now, better safe than sorry.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying you haven’t ruined the discussion yet.
Also, that isn’t a joke about 9/11 so much as it’s you relating your own experience. Just because there’s supposed humor in it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a joke (unless you end with a punchline).
by Yes We Cannon on Jul 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, as evidenced by people’s reaction earlier today, people are still not ready to hear such things. They react with quick and immediate shaming.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My mistake! I skimmed, so I probably either missed or didn’t recognize that.
by Yes We Cannon on Jul 7, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(faints from reading this while not sitting down)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I agree. I’m glad to see such a respectful conversation, despite the very different points of view.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are all glad to see you comment here more in general.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ow! Stop biting me!!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, sorry, was that you? It’s hard to tell with this swimming pool of BBQ sauce what’s the wings and what’s the people.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THATS WHAT MAKES THE OLYMPIC SIZED SWIMMING POOL FULL OF BBQ SAUCE SO AMAZING!!!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 8th wonder of the world, without question.
No, the 9th, because now that Rick Neuheisel has UCLA football back at the top of the Pantheon of college sports, we must recognize.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the simple answer is because it results in the killing of lots of babies. It takes dozens of eggs and handfuls of embryos to successfully perform IVF to create one born baby. What people forget about “octomom” is that she was just like every other IVF candidate except she won the “lottery” and every one of her implanted eggs stuck (and two split to create two sets of twins)
More theoretically, it is treating human conception as a human play-thing and not respecting the natural process of the creation of life. It’s a pandoras box that will lead to all sorts of very troubling things.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well the simple answer is because it results in the killing of lots of babies.
If that’s your definition of a baby, you probably want to ban masturbation too.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU MONSTER!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, a baby exists after conception, aka an “embryo” as mentioned above.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, a baby exists after being born. “Born baby” is a tautology. Like “dead corpse”.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a discussion that will go South quickly, I predict.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is “dead corpse” not a tautology in the South? Is that where zombies come from?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Life begins at conception.
Just my 2 cents.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Life begins when Cal crushes your spirit for the first time.
In my mind, we could kill rollon right now and it’d A-OK!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My spirit has definitely been crushed by Cal. On a big scale once, on smaller scales many many times. But each time, I just dust myself off and keep on Shinin’. 375 days a week.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the first moment that could happen is just after conception. :)
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if you were having sex with 1 minute to go in the 2007 OSU game!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did I KNOW you were going to go there.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because it was YOU who did that!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assure you the people in section DD would not have been pleased if that were the case.
They were upset enough that I brought an OSU fan to the game.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Firstly, the immature part of my brian (i.e. my brain) chuckled at section DD. Can I get a carp up in this bee-yotch?
Secondly, YOUR SECOND CHILD IS AN OSU FAN?!?!?!!?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
HA! Good thing I’m not a rich donor in GG.
And no, since we have 6 tickets and there’s only 5 of us in the family, occasionally we bring a friend. I have a co-worker who went to OSU (and is a closet Oregon fan).
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He should come out of the closet, because after Proposition 10 passes there will be marraige equality even for people who root for Oregon. Its been a long time coming and theres been a lot of harsh words said on both sides, but I believe itll be time for Oregon fans to be able to marry.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just laughed out loud.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while you’re on the soapbox, what’s your stance/rationale on stem cells. I’m a science nerd and believe in their beneficial biomedical use. My wife and I are thinking of donating the cord blood from our baby-to-be.
If you feel like you’ve gotten far enough along in expressing your opinions and you’d like to refrain, I completely understand.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adult stem cells are not a problem at all. No life is created or destroyed. Embryonic stem cells are the destruction of life just like abortion or IVF.
BTW there has been lots or progress with adult stem cells, far more than embryonic.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for your take! We’re planning on donating to a public blood bank. The private blood banks seem a little silly to me and I don’t trust ’em.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean ambilical cord blood bank, like for your children?
If so, I’d recommend against. Many scientists view that as a scam and that the likelihood that the adult stem cell treatments that make it to market will require having banked that stuff is pretty small.
Plus, things like iPSC (induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) look to make all of that mute anyway.
But if you have the money and don’t mind the idea that it may go to waste, nothing inherently wrong with it. Just likely a waste.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what, scratch that above statement.
I’d hate to be giving you advice that you could conceivably follow that 20 years from now you’d regret if I was wrong. That’s not my place.
I guess just leave it at, I’d look into it pretty thoroughly before making a decision.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, not to worry. I weas just interestd in your opinion.
We’re against saving it for our children. We’ll happily give it away to a public blood bank for someone who could actually use it for leukemia or the like and hope someone else does the same if we were ever in that situation. The private blood banks require a few thousand dollars per year in order to store your cord blood samples. We (like the rest of the medical community) are against that.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously on the cost? I’m pretty sure that my wife banked the cord blood of our kids b/c of a family history of leukemia, and equally sure that it isn’t costing thousands a year. But frankly one check more or less in the hemorrhage that is our annual expenses could go undetected.
by DC Trojan on Jul 8, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Jul 7, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your viewpoint, but since I don’t share your definition of what constitutes “life” and deserves protection, I wholeheartedly disagree with your position. Moreover, I dislike “slippery slope” arguments in general.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess this is as good of a place as any to make an over-arching point:
As I’ve stated before I think laws based on morality are A-OK. The point of discussions like this is to tease out these ideas and as a society as a whole we come to concensus on which moral principles we want to be laws.
So, OK, you don’t have the same view of life as I do, that’s fine. But I think it’s just as important to recognize that if the democratic majority disagrees with you, it’s not a miscarraige of justice anymore than when they disagree with me.
(Not that you were explicitely saying this rags, just kinda feels like there’s some posts dancing around the issue by everyone. Point being, I respect the democratic process to determine what society deems morally worth enforncing and wish to participate in said process by discussin the matter)
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I definitely get that. That’s kinda why I didn’t try and pick apart your argument, and instead merely stated that I disagreed with it, and on what basis I formed my differing opinion. I can try to convince as many people as I can, but if the majority disagrees with me, well, that’s how democratic societies work.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite. The US doesn’t practice pure majority rule – it’s subject to various constitutional limits. In this case (abortion), that would be the 14th Amendment.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, of course. We have wisely set up a number of constitutional restraints on the tyranny of the majority. But in the general case, the argument holds.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don’t agree with you, but I can’t fault your consistency.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was doing the Eagle pose while reading that. Am I still cool in your book?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying that all laws should be based on some utilitarian ideal of what is “good for society”? Should people who have a genetic predisposition towards certain diseases be sterilized?
For that matter, you’re also arguing that children should always be raised by their biological parents. Should we criminalize divorce and abolish protective services?
Either way, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that our laws should force people to behave in certain ways based on what you think is good for society.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Encourage, not force. I think marriage is a way to encourage people to behave certain ways. It’s a voluntary thing. You don’t have to participate. However, once you participate, you should be bound by the rules of marriage including criminal penalties for those who abuse the privileges they were given by the state.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
those who abuse the privileges they were given by the state.
Privileges? I guess you don’t believe in the idea that the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
Either way, it’s troubling that you want to use the power of the state to punish people who disagree with your subjective ideal of what is good or bad for society.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How, when marriage is a voluntary entity can you justify that statement?
If you don’t want the restrictions that go along with the privileges (and by privileges I mean things like tax breaks and the such) don’t get married.
And when a democratic majority believes that these incentives are worth giving, isn’t it hard to argue that they aren’t getting their legitimacy from the consent of the governed?
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why should there be restrictions at all? Besides, I don’t think a democratic majority thinks that marital infidelity is a criminal act.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those people just haven’t found out about their partner’s philandering yet.
/cynicism
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there is a societal split perspective on it.
On the one hand, of course they don’t.
On the other hand, the “he had it coming” mindset with McNair or the desire to get that Republican Governor to resign shows a strong hatred for infidelity that one could easily suggests they view it as criminal. (Why else should an elected official resign if it wasn’t criminal behavior?)
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In regards to the other hand, I think that viewpoint is much more strongly held in America than it is in, say Europe. It’s a reflection of the culture, not necessarily a constant in society.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most reasonable people want Gov. Sanford to resign not necessarily because of his affair, but more because he abandoned his job for a week and lied repeatedly about it.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. You are in a position of power, and you are supposed to be leading the state (not to mention being there for his kids). Infidelity is one thing, not doing your duty as an elected official (especially considering all the sketchy circumstances) is another.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Infidelity is not an impeachable offense. Dereliction of duty is.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 7, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I understand it, the research shows that what children need to thrive is the knowledge that one parent provides them with unconditional love. Being a single parent is an administrative and logistical nightmare and doesn’t increase the chances of children avoiding inappropriate behavior, but it’s not necessarily any worse than two parents one of whom is effectively absentee.
And in any case I think that the past was rather more complex that you are giving it credit for.
by DC Trojan on Jul 7, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To this, I would add that children also do better when provided a sufficient environment to grow up in, as well as ample financial security. It’s pretty easy to see how a two-parent home would be much better at providing this, but that it would not necessarily be a condition for success, and can easily be undermined by neglectful parenting.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree with either of these points. But the fact that an individual single parent family can overcome the difficulties presented to it, does not mean that it was a more difficult position to operate from. Anything we can do to encourage people to stick to the best scenario helps to that end.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the general sentiment of this post, but not necessarily with all the details. Specifically, I’m not sure what biology has to with anything — children will do best when raised by two loving parents who take an ownership in the child’s growth and future. Biology can be a strong inducement for parents to care for their children, but if a man thinks the child is his, why would he be any different as a parent than if the child was actually? And it’s true, some step-parents are less than ideal parents, but if the step-parent shows some love and understanding, and takes a real ownership in raising the children, things can work out fine. The same would apply to adoptive parents (and you wouldn’t be against adoption, especially of orphans, would you Ken?).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I’ve got to go do other things now.
Although I’m saddened by many of the opinions on the subject, I’m very glad to have had the opportunity to make my views known and that the discussion was an honest, open and frank one.
Obviously based on the fact that I probably quadrupled my post count in this one thread, marriage and family are subjects I care very deeply about and was willing to basically blow off work for the afternoon so that I could present my view to everyone and I thank you for the opportunity.
If anyone was intrigued by my, how did Twist put it, “very unique and interesting views”, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me (reg@thecrawfordfamily.net) if you have any questions. Heck, you can even call me on my cell phone: 916-521-2482.
Thanks for the good discussion.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Ken! You are ALWAYS welcome here. At least you blew off work for something of import. I’ll blow off work to write inane jokes on here all day long!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously based on the fact that I probably quadrupled my post count in this one thread, marriage and family are subjects I care very deeply about and was willing to basically blow off work for the afternoon so that I could present my view to everyone and I thank you for the opportunity.
I find it admirable that you restrain yourself to only blowing off afternoons of work to present subjects you care deeply about.
We generally take the opposite approach.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What type of curry/stew would Carl Weathers enjoy eating?
by Avinash on Jul 7, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it matters, as long as its goin’
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Crawford will always have my respect
I usually don’t read long discussions that don’t include pictures of cats or cheerleaders, but I read this one and was fascinated.
Few things I learned:
1) When it comes to family law, Twist isn’t as retarded as one would expect.
2) This forum is an equal playing field to present your arguments.
3) What ulimately matters is not so much semantics, but the logic of your arguments.
I disagree with most of what Ken has said here, but can appreciate his convictions and can’t get myself to fully dismiss his opinions…. if anything, I feel a bit humbled.
What a world this would be, indeed, if the idealism that Ken is advocating were easily achieved and practiced widely.
I disagree with Ken that humans are even capable of the self control that he is advocating – for the greater good – but respect his viewpoint immensely.
The only people that I can’t stand listening to are the people that HATE me if I were to disagree with them. Ken doesn’t fall into that category. THerefore Ken Crawford will always have my respect.
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for you, danzig
…and for you dog lovers…
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Recd for cuteness overload.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who can hate danzig?!?!! WHO ARE THESE MONSTERS!!!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Twist isn’t as retarded as one would expect.
Well, theres a first for everything, aint there?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t hate you, but not because you don’t disagree with me.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do disagree strongly with Ken’s views. But it should be noted that when he asked what other items the government could be using marriage for besides promoting of children, I was moderately stumped.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ken’s views seem to be in line with the Catholic views on these subjects. Are your views influenced by your religion, or just your own personal beliefs?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My views are influenced by Spazzy McGee’s views on BearStage’s personal beliefs about Ragnarok’s religion.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, rollonubears, my opinions are part and parcel of the Catholic Church’s teaching on just about everything. Most of you don’t know this, but I’m a convert to the faith, after being raised agnostic. I’ve found that many of my believes and understandings of reality have changed drastically as I’ve dug deeper into the Catholic Church’s teaching. Everything from marriage, to birth control, to charity, to when it is appropriate to go to war, it amazes me the richness of the wisdom of the Church. It requires looking at the world very differently than most people do, but it’s a very holistic approach and very consistent.
by kencraw on Jul 7, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I’m considering conversion to Latvian Orthodoxy. For the hats.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 8, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoyed reading kencraw’s views in this thread. So much so, it almost made me forgive his recent postings that made us relive the 2007 Oregon State and 2007 Fucla debacles.
Almost. ;-)
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
by Ohio Bear on Jul 7, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't think of a better way to discourage marriage than to make breaking it a crime
Seriously, you need to think this through about five more times, before coming up with a slightly less fascistic suggestion.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 7, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What really offends me
about this article is that the photo makes McNair looks like he’s thizzing but the article makes no mention of the Hyphy Movement!
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to clear this up for people.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reasons why speculation is dangerous
I find both of these scenarios very plausible
#1: McNair was a serial adulterer. He slept around all the time without his wife knowing. This woman he met was involved in other illicit activites, like drug dealing, and was under the influence of serious drugs when she shot McNair
#2: McNair and his wife, while not legally divorced, were separated and in the process of getting a divorce. After that he found a woman. He made a mistake of getting a DUI, but nothing more. The new woman he found had a history of mental illness and had some sort of episode exacerbated by alcohol and shot him.
Those are very different potential stories with the same result. I think defending him without knowledge is just as dangerous as condemning him without knowledge as well.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they are among the best in bed!
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, until then, shouldn’t we really just hold judgement?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
But I think your defense of him is getting pretty close to holding judgment is as speculative as Carp’s condemnation.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess in my mind, even if he was adultrous and a whore, he didn’t have it coming…
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope that nobody thinks he had it coming in the sense that he deserved it.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s extreme…
But “he had it coming” is more in the sense of “I don’t feel sympathy”.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, I understand better now.
I feel sympathy for his wife and kids who have been deprived of a husband/breadwinner and father respectively. I don’t have a hell of a lot of sympathy for McNair personally though.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do.
He’s dead at the age of 36.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s certainly an untimely death and I would prefer that he were still alive. And I have sympathy for all those in McNair’s life who have been affected or hurt by his untimely death. But it’s simply the fact that so much of the circumstances surrounding his untimely death were by his own creation that prevents me from feeling sympathy for him.
by Nashville on Jul 7, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PS, nobody's answer was
“Two girls at the same time”?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Didnt somebody aboe do just that?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Toronto has nabbed coveted Swedish free agent goalie Jonas Gustavsson with a one-year contract on Tuesday. The 24-year-old netminder, nicknamed “The Monster,” was also heavily pursued by Dallas, San Jose and Colorado.
Gustavsson played for Farjestads in the Swedish Elite League last season, registering four shutouts with a league-leading 1.96 goals-against average and a .932 save percentage in 42 games.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You care about hockey? Man, you are versatile!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Say it isn't so...
Brett Farve puts deposit down on Minn condo:
http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10651654
… for Christ sake… PLS GO AWAY!
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No!
This is going to be awesome.
Can you imagine the booing that will be present during the Vikings @ Packers game?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another year of Rodgers being called “Favre-esque”
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sunday, November 1. I can’t wait!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right after Halloween, too!!!! Theres gonna be tons of costumes in the fans at that game.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Costumes in the fans? That sounds… unhealthy?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On July 3, a report came out about Brett Favre being close to purchasing a condominium in the Minneapolis area.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we’re jumping the gun here. I mean, maybe he just loves Minneapolis?
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he just wants a place to stay for the early Cal-Minny game this fall? Right?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope he shows up at the CGB tailgate!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think he could convince Ricky Rubio to play there this season?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now here is someone who deserves it.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some carpish links
How Bad Are Auto Sales? 10 Questions and Answers
The 10 Most Annoying Passengers, As Told by a Flight Attendant
Mary Louise Parker reads to you in bed
Forbes Top-Earning Musicians 2009
Rascall fucking who??
Trust me, just click on this link
Anyone have any actual Cal news?
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Guys only care about smokey eyes?
MIT came out with a new study…
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like eyes.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eyes are the window to the soul.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Eyes are the windows of your face”
Christopher Walken – Googley Eyes Gardner
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love that clip. I don’t normally care for SNL, but that clip was fantastic.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jul 7, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone is a romantic. It is all the Grease watching, isn’t it?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two thoughts:
I’m currently working my way through the third season of Weeds, and while I think it’s losing steam, Mary-Louise Parker keeps me coming back.
Also, now I know what Richie Rich’s house would look like if he actually existed.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know… I just love everything about her.
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the point of storing your jacket in the overhead compartment – I’m sorry, but have hangers then.
Don’t expect someone wearing a suit to put his jacket on the ground.
Also, if someone is trying to put their bag in the compartment and clearly cannot, they run the risk of injury as well, an off-the-job one, which means no compensation. Don’t be a word that rhymes with hunt. There’s far less chance of injury if all you do is provide a little boost.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where the fuck are they going to put hangars on a plane? i suppose if you’re paying thousands of dollars for a business class seat, you should have space for all this, but for the common people in the back, there really does need to be a fair amount of common courtesy amongst the passengers to allow everyone to have enough space to store their stuff.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Jul 7, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve found traveling with a suit bag allows me to carefully lay me suit on top of the umpteen rollerbags so that people can store their bags and my suit doesn’t get destroyed/wrinkled. It’s worked out well. I usually ask if they have a small coat closet (which they do). I also find it amusing that the crew carries on several pieces of oversized luggage and has never offered to check their bags when overhead space is full.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree on the jacket – disagree on the bag. A lot of flight attendants are younger or older women who probably don’t spend as much time as you in the gym. It’s unreasonable to expect them to lift (or help lift) heavy bags.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Want a free tip on taking a jacket on a flight? If storing in the overhead isn’t an option (like on many Southwest flights because of the small compartments), every jackiet has a little ribbon/loop by the tag (behind the neck). You can fit that little loop over the plastic tab that holds your tray table in its upright position. Yes, that means the jacket would then hang in front of you, but at least its hanging and you have a better shot of keeping it wrinkle-free than folding it in your lap or cramming it in the overhead.
Jahvid Best is so awesome, he makes me want to strangle a mountain ox with my bare hands!
by dballisloose on Jul 7, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an excellent idea. You can also do it with your pants.
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jul 7, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. Most of her requests seem reasonable to me.
I like the idea of bribing the attendants with chocolate/candy… that’s a good idea that I plan to use immediately.
As far as passengers touching them and molesting them… I’m not sure this happens as often as she claims. Are people constantly poking and feeling them up? As much as I travel, I have NEVER seen this happen…not once. Of course I’ve wanted to and I’m sure tons of other passengers want to as well, but we don’t actually do it.
She should, of course, be able to do her job without getting felt up… but I somehow don’t believe this happens as often as women claim. Am I off base here?
by danzig on Jul 7, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no and I love hot pants.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are those “Southwest” flight attendants?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jul 7, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flight attendants are not nearly as hot as carp’s fantasies may indicate.
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Warm, moist towel or you’ve never flown Air Singapore.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which Marshawthusiast is named yellow fever again?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can I give you a plastic model Singapore Airlines?
JAI HO!
by Rishi on Jul 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll only accept a warm, moist towel or, failing that, towelette.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jul 7, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Btw, anyone know what percentage of the Big Game tickets are allocated to Cal fans? I thought I heard it was 1/3 but I’d like confirmation.
by CaliforniaBone on Jul 7, 2009 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also
How quickly do they normally sell out?
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quickly. I don’t think anybody can be sure exactly how fast, but if you want Cal section tickets you should act today ASAP
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok I’m having the same problem as Spazzy. Don’t even have the option of buying a Big Game ticket. Weird.
by HolmoePhobe on Jul 7, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could get you an extra?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Big Game ticket scramble originated about two years ago, when Stanford announced it was razing its 85,000-seat stadium and replacing it with one that seats only 50,000.
Stanford is reserving 35,000 Big Game seats for Stanford season ticket holders, students, faculty and fans, and it gave 15,011 to Cal, the same number Stanford gives to all visiting teams.
Source. Old SFGate article, so the exact amounts may have changed. But probably not.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still can’t believe Stanford cut down capacity so much. Talk about admitting that you’re a peewee football program.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jul 7, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s hard not to get emotional watching this final performance at the Michael Jackson memorial.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 7, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ryan Anderson has 18 points at the half, 5-6 shooting, 2-2 from three, 6-6 FT. Sorry for making you cry, YF.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 7, 2009 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs