Add an image
Add a link
June 04, 2007 -- 6:46 PM
posted by Al
Yep time goes by fast when you aren't looking...
I close my eyes/ only for a moment/ then the moments gone...
June 04, 2007 -- 5:45 PM
posted by Par
how did it get to be June so quickly?
That's what I want to know. I gotta start making some cash...
June 04, 2007 -- 4:18 PM
posted by alison
I don't want to do this! aaaaaa
stupid pile of paperwork, ugh. I was looking forward to a boring, lame day of data uploading from all my temperature sensors, but instead I'm sitting in front of my laptop, staring at a poster that needs updating with a serious case of writers' block... grr!
how did it get to be June so quickly?
June 04, 2007 -- 9:51 AM
posted by edo
June 03, 2007 -- 11:17 PM
posted by alison
June 03, 2007 -- 3:39 PM
posted by Par
"Of course I'm going to hit him in the head. He's quite a bit shorter than me. It's just law of physics."
-- Chris Pronger, on his suspension for hitting Tomas Holmstrom in the head
June 2, 2007:
Pronger suspended for one game for hit on Dean McAmmond. Says NHL VP Colin Campbell:
Campbell said there was consideration given to doubling Pronger's suspension from the one he received for hitting Holmstrom because he was a repeat offender. But he implied that missing one game in the Stanley Cup final was, in effect, a heavier punishment than missing one game in a conference final.Sound decision. Obviously one game was enough of a punishment for him to learn his lesson two weeks ago.
"There always is some thought to that," Campbell said. "When you get in a Stanley Cup series it's tough to determine the value of a one-game suspension. Is the second game of a series worth more than a fourth game? Is a fourth game worth more than a sixth game of a series?
"At this point in the playoffs, we felt this would be enough."
And I'm sure McAmmond doesn't mind sitting out the rest of the Stanley Cup Finals and jeopardizing his career for yet another concussion, while Pronger suffers through his one game on the bench for another malicious hit to the head of a player who scored a goal earlier in the game.
June 03, 2007 -- 11:50 AM
posted by alison
what about cheese? eggs? soy products?
you'd pretty much have to be a non-soy vegan in order to qualify... and then let's not forget all the forest-to-farm conversion going on out there to feed our habit... not exactly friendly on the carbon budget.
Quite frankly, in my opinion, the only people who deserve a tax break for carbon-reduction strategies related to their diet are those completing the 100-mile diet, and even that's a stretch if they buy from greenhouses.
June 02, 2007 -- 9:30 PM
posted by Par
Wow. PETA's really got its collective head straight on this one. PETA seeks tax breaks for vegetarians:
In a letter sent Wednesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), PETA President Ingrid Newkirk stated, “[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters.â€
The letter added that vegetarians should receive a tax break “just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break.â€
Now I know what you're thinking. Putting aside the question of the veracity of their claims, how would one claim such a tax break. Well, PETA's on the case on that one, too:
Asked how the government would certify that taxpayers are vegetarian, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, “I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian. If Congress is seriously interested about rewarding people for reducing their carbon emissions, then it could develop a system to verify that people are vegetarian.â€
Sweet. It's all thought through. A system will be developed. Brilliant. I'm just going to sit back, relax, and wait for my tax break to come i... What's that?
Congressional leaders, however, have not shown any indication of pursuing such a tax break.
Damnit! So close.
June 02, 2007 -- 8:32 PM
posted by Par
So, suppose your football team spots the opponent a 3-0 lead 26 minutes into a Euro 2008 qualifier.
And then suppose they get their shit together and claw back to tie it up at 3.
And then suppose the ref gives your team a red card in the 89th minute.
And then suppose you lose it, and attack the ref.
Well, given those suppositions, you may have just cost your team the three goals it earned in the match, and end the game with a 3-0 victory for your opponent.
I bet you'd feel like shit.
