Actually I think (e:ajay) prompting the V-Day discussion was interesting because everybody has something interesting to say about V-Day, regardless of whether or not it was good or bad. (e:ryan) piping up about his best and worst prompted me to think to myself, "Self, what are your best and worst V-Days ever?"
In all honesty I can't think of a bad V-Day, because during the times I had a significant other it was always great, and when I wasn't with somebody at the time it was always great. Theres never a good reason to have a bad V-Day, because at the very least you can always go out that night, drink and chase booty. That = a good night for me every time.
I'm not a terribly sentimental person, so I usually end up buying gifts that they'll enjoy - chocolates are a must, expensive lotions, etc. - you get the idea. I want to get things that she'll actually enjoy. Believe it or not, I know a guy that gave his girlfriend a framed picture of himself for a V-Day gift! That to me is hilarious, but I'd never get caught screwing up that badly. Also, and this might upset a few ladies out there - a major, major faux pas is purchasing a girl that isn't your wife or fiancee some jewelry. Gents, don't waste that resource on a girl that isn't a keeper.
I'll be blunt - V-Day for me usually involves three things - 1) a nice dinner, 2) drinks, and 3) screwing. These three simple ingredients yield an excellent V-Day every time. Its like making pasta - seasoned water, pasta, and sauce. Its VERY hard to mess it up.
Now I'm sure you're thinking, "Damn Josh, you're right about that - but isn't that kind of cold and the diametric opposite of sentimental for a day as special as V-Day?" Yeah, you're right, but like I said, I'm not a sentimental person. Plus, I'm not one of those fellas that needs to make up for being a jerk the rest of the year. Despite my prickly demeanor when it comes to politics (with emphasis on the "prick" part) I'm actually a sweetheart year round.
Now, onto some news!
1) Envirofascists - here is another reason for us to stifle and progress with actual, feasible energy sources. New, rare birds! -
2) Ut Oh! NBC anchor perpetuates the stereotype that white people think all black people look alike -
3) Less money for CPB - oh suuuure, its not a liberal bastion. BAHAHAHAHAH *cough* HAHAHAHHAHAHAH -
4) First, video games are supposedly making kids more violent. Now CSI, according to law enforcement, are making criminals better at what they do! -
5) "Global warming" advocates still can't figure out whether they think "global warming" is actually cooling or warming the planet... which is a source of much laughter for me. Anyhow, you'll be curious to see why it is that this scientist thinks an ice age is coming along - I'll give you a hint. Its not because of anything humans are doing! -
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
02/07/2006 10:35 #24601
V-Day, and News02/06/2006 15:07 #24600
Why Republican Talk Radio RulesI'm just saying... you take Janine Garofalo, or whatever crunchy granola, bushy hairpie furry animals the libs have. I'm sticking with Monica Crawley.
I usually thoroughly enjoy being right, but this is one of the times that I am not particularly enjoying being right.
I usually thoroughly enjoy being right, but this is one of the times that I am not particularly enjoying being right.
vincent - 06/07/08 12:31
This is too funny. I was listening to Monica filling in for Laura Ingraham on my drive home last night on WBEN. I guess Ron Dobson filled in for someone else in the morning so they played the Laura Ingraham feed. So out of curiosity I decided to do a Google Image search on her. Your journal was the #1 result!
This is too funny. I was listening to Monica filling in for Laura Ingraham on my drive home last night on WBEN. I guess Ron Dobson filled in for someone else in the morning so they played the Laura Ingraham feed. So out of curiosity I decided to do a Google Image search on her. Your journal was the #1 result!
metalpeter - 02/06/06 19:01
I can't say all the dirty nasty things I would let her do to me. We could fight about Politics and then have angery violant make up sex as we fought. There are a lot of people who think all Muslums are evil, dirty and no good. When protests break out in violance it just enforces that. I wonder if someone Knew this would happen and made sure those cartoons where published. I think you should never censor what you say cause someone may be offendend but strecthing to see how far freedom of speech goes is a bad idea, it only causes shit like this.
I can't say all the dirty nasty things I would let her do to me. We could fight about Politics and then have angery violant make up sex as we fought. There are a lot of people who think all Muslums are evil, dirty and no good. When protests break out in violance it just enforces that. I wonder if someone Knew this would happen and made sure those cartoons where published. I think you should never censor what you say cause someone may be offendend but strecthing to see how far freedom of speech goes is a bad idea, it only causes shit like this.
jason - 02/06/06 15:12
I want to make babies w her.
I want to make babies w her.
02/02/2006 21:03 #24599
Radical SecunazisCategory: politics
I'll bite on this one. The issue is completely being missed, with the exception of a couple enlightened people, myself included.
The big issue isn't the freedom of the press! The minute that the press gets itself into trouble, like it has recently in Europe, the minute that somebody criticizes their ignorant and very poor behavior people start waving the flag of "freedom of expression." You simply cannot incite and enrage 1 billion people and dismiss it as "their problem" because, in your estimation, they are being hypersensitive and are somehow infringing on your ability to say what you want. That = horseshit. Nobody with a brain actually buys that very poor argument.
Here is the point that people are missing - you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you had better not be stupid enough to assume that by acting like an idiot in print journalism that you won't suffer consequences. A perfect example - Newsweekgate this past year. As a journalist, you are free to say what you like - but the foolishness going on in Europe right now is going to lead directly to innocent Europeans getting kidnapped and/or killed... all in the name of their insatiable, unending desire to impune religion. The radical Muslims that are sure to exact some sort of revenge are wrong for acting like they surely will as well... but the sad truth about that is that these moronic European journalists had to have known that this was going to happen before they went ahead and did what they did.
This issue only magnifies and proves as fact that Europe is asleep at the wheel regarding religion and how it relates to the Muslim world. There simply is no justification for actively trying to incite an entire culture like these journalists are doing - hiding behind freedom of expression concerning this issue is tantamount to justifying stupidity. Somebody who doesn't deserve it is going to suffer, and be forced to pay a dear price because of the collective ignorance of European journalism.
The big issue isn't the freedom of the press! The minute that the press gets itself into trouble, like it has recently in Europe, the minute that somebody criticizes their ignorant and very poor behavior people start waving the flag of "freedom of expression." You simply cannot incite and enrage 1 billion people and dismiss it as "their problem" because, in your estimation, they are being hypersensitive and are somehow infringing on your ability to say what you want. That = horseshit. Nobody with a brain actually buys that very poor argument.
Here is the point that people are missing - you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you had better not be stupid enough to assume that by acting like an idiot in print journalism that you won't suffer consequences. A perfect example - Newsweekgate this past year. As a journalist, you are free to say what you like - but the foolishness going on in Europe right now is going to lead directly to innocent Europeans getting kidnapped and/or killed... all in the name of their insatiable, unending desire to impune religion. The radical Muslims that are sure to exact some sort of revenge are wrong for acting like they surely will as well... but the sad truth about that is that these moronic European journalists had to have known that this was going to happen before they went ahead and did what they did.
This issue only magnifies and proves as fact that Europe is asleep at the wheel regarding religion and how it relates to the Muslim world. There simply is no justification for actively trying to incite an entire culture like these journalists are doing - hiding behind freedom of expression concerning this issue is tantamount to justifying stupidity. Somebody who doesn't deserve it is going to suffer, and be forced to pay a dear price because of the collective ignorance of European journalism.
ajay - 02/03/06 11:38
(e:twisted), you have to look at this in context.
I make it a point to read European newspapers just to see what I'm missing. (Usually it's images of scantily-clad wimmen, but that's besides the point). Over the last few months/years, I've noticed a trend about people complaining that their "usual" way of life is being threatened because suddenly now they have to be mindful of Muslim culture (Muslims make up the second-largest religion in Europe), even if these Muslims are a 1000 miles away. I think it all started with Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
Anyways: the newspaper was responding to complaints by a well-known writer that noone would illustrate his controversial book because they were afraid of the repercussions (from the Muslim world). In response to this complaint, the newspaper solicited and published cartoons in a similar theme, to test the truth behind these complaints.
It looks like the author was correct, from the reaction.
(e:twisted), you have to look at this in context.
I make it a point to read European newspapers just to see what I'm missing. (Usually it's images of scantily-clad wimmen, but that's besides the point). Over the last few months/years, I've noticed a trend about people complaining that their "usual" way of life is being threatened because suddenly now they have to be mindful of Muslim culture (Muslims make up the second-largest religion in Europe), even if these Muslims are a 1000 miles away. I think it all started with Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
Anyways: the newspaper was responding to complaints by a well-known writer that noone would illustrate his controversial book because they were afraid of the repercussions (from the Muslim world). In response to this complaint, the newspaper solicited and published cartoons in a similar theme, to test the truth behind these complaints.
It looks like the author was correct, from the reaction.
twisted - 02/03/06 04:18
It was actually :::link::: the publication of 12 cartoons solicited of Mohammed and published expressly for the purpose of "testing the limits of freedom of expression."
To me, that makes a difference.
Yet the "justification" was the reprinting of 12 political cartoons (published at various times) of Christ. I'm sure each of those cartoons had it's share of editorial page complaints. And I support any newspapers right to continue to print them. But to launch a campaign expressly to see how far you can go in the name of "freedom of expression?" I don't think we're looking at a level playing field here. And it pisses me off to see a case built on bullshit like this, and all the baiting and finger pointing. This is such a waste of time for me. I feel really done with this site.
I can't tell you how ironic it is that this issue is what ultimately drove me off the site. Even though I don't consider myself religious and am certainly not a big supporter of Mohammed, I'm willing to endure the fire. Just call me Twisted of Arc.
It was actually :::link::: the publication of 12 cartoons solicited of Mohammed and published expressly for the purpose of "testing the limits of freedom of expression."
To me, that makes a difference.
Yet the "justification" was the reprinting of 12 political cartoons (published at various times) of Christ. I'm sure each of those cartoons had it's share of editorial page complaints. And I support any newspapers right to continue to print them. But to launch a campaign expressly to see how far you can go in the name of "freedom of expression?" I don't think we're looking at a level playing field here. And it pisses me off to see a case built on bullshit like this, and all the baiting and finger pointing. This is such a waste of time for me. I feel really done with this site.
I can't tell you how ironic it is that this issue is what ultimately drove me off the site. Even though I don't consider myself religious and am certainly not a big supporter of Mohammed, I'm willing to endure the fire. Just call me Twisted of Arc.
terry - 02/02/06 23:31
Firt off, the context of this latest snafu was a political cartoon, right? Not a "serious" piece of journalism? Political cartoons are always satirical and often employ tactics like hyperbolization in order to make a point and at the same time appear humorous. It's the way it works. And as far as I've seen just about every type of group is the subject of some pretty scathing cartoons: Catholics, republicans, presidents... Now if I'm getting you right, we shouldn't have these kinds of journalism because it may hurt someone's feelings which may lead to suicide bombings and such.
This seems like you're almost justifying this type of behavior. Like, well if you write something about this type of people it's no surprise they might kill you (and let's make it clear that we're talking about large groups of people and not specific individuals which I feel is quite different). I mean, I've seen/read some things about gay people that I think are totally wrong, sometimes they make me really mad, but I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna get to the point of hurting/killing people because of it. I might write/draw my own response, but no killing. And I don't feel that my opinions should be censored, especially out of fear.
And while I agree that making cartoons like this is not the best way to endear ourselves to the Islamic world, I think there are things we've done recently <cough>Iraq<cough> that have had much more of an impact.
K, 'nuff. latah
Firt off, the context of this latest snafu was a political cartoon, right? Not a "serious" piece of journalism? Political cartoons are always satirical and often employ tactics like hyperbolization in order to make a point and at the same time appear humorous. It's the way it works. And as far as I've seen just about every type of group is the subject of some pretty scathing cartoons: Catholics, republicans, presidents... Now if I'm getting you right, we shouldn't have these kinds of journalism because it may hurt someone's feelings which may lead to suicide bombings and such.
This seems like you're almost justifying this type of behavior. Like, well if you write something about this type of people it's no surprise they might kill you (and let's make it clear that we're talking about large groups of people and not specific individuals which I feel is quite different). I mean, I've seen/read some things about gay people that I think are totally wrong, sometimes they make me really mad, but I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna get to the point of hurting/killing people because of it. I might write/draw my own response, but no killing. And I don't feel that my opinions should be censored, especially out of fear.
And while I agree that making cartoons like this is not the best way to endear ourselves to the Islamic world, I think there are things we've done recently <cough>Iraq<cough> that have had much more of an impact.
K, 'nuff. latah
jenks - 02/02/06 21:14
i agree... Just because it's LEGAL to say anything, does not mean you shouldn't be held accountable for it.
i agree... Just because it's LEGAL to say anything, does not mean you shouldn't be held accountable for it.
jason - 02/02/06 21:05
I read today that an editor of a French paper which published the cartoons got shitcanned.
I read today that an editor of a French paper which published the cartoons got shitcanned.
01/30/2006 19:21 #24597
Why Liberals Will Never Be In PowerCategory: politics
I just love the Washington Post. Republicans are bigots and we can prove it!
Liberal junk science continues to amuse me and all other Americans that lack chemical imbalance. The fact that they are taking this seriously and are trying to admonish people who aren't only bolsters the fact that these people are full of shit.
Liberal junk science continues to amuse me and all other Americans that lack chemical imbalance. The fact that they are taking this seriously and are trying to admonish people who aren't only bolsters the fact that these people are full of shit.
ajay - 01/31/06 01:46
What does this have anything to do with Liberals taking power in Washington?
I mean, Republicans can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be in power; why can't the Liberals do the same?
If smarts were required to gain power, do you think Dubya would be at the top? ;-) :-D
What does this have anything to do with Liberals taking power in Washington?
I mean, Republicans can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be in power; why can't the Liberals do the same?
If smarts were required to gain power, do you think Dubya would be at the top? ;-) :-D
ladycroft - 01/30/06 21:32
“emotions and implicit assumptions often influence why people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefsâ€
Um..isn’t this basic cognitive dissonance?
“emotions and implicit assumptions often influence why people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefsâ€
Um..isn’t this basic cognitive dissonance?
jenks - 01/30/06 20:09
that article is puketastic.
I hate that sensational pop-science crap- just meant to get people all whipped into a tizzy...
that article is puketastic.
I hate that sensational pop-science crap- just meant to get people all whipped into a tizzy...
jason - 01/30/06 19:25
hahaha. and they say at the end, "If you dont agree, well you're just ignorant and stupid! Nananananana!"
hahaha. and they say at the end, "If you dont agree, well you're just ignorant and stupid! Nananananana!"
02/01/2006 20:23 #24598
Lexington, NCCategory: travel
Oh damn... the one time where I really needed that digicam! Today we were in Lexington, NC - the self-styled "barbeque capital of the world." BBQ being the one thing that I'll stop whatever I'm doing to check out, we got a recommendation from one of the locals.... there are 20 BBQ restaurants in an area about the size of oh.... South Buffalo. So we went to a place called Monk's - which actually didn't have a sign and we only knew it was the right place because of two things - 1) our directions, and 2) the 50 freaking cars in the parking lot!
Anyhow, the reason why I needed the cam because this meal was legitimately the LEAST appealing meal, as far as looks go, that I've had in all my travels. The meat was excellent - it was cooked over hickory and coals for 9 hours, with no basting - true Lexington-style BBQ. The problem was that the plate was divided into thirds - meat that was chopped and looked loosely like barf, coleslaw that was red and ugly (but tasty), and beans. The BBQ sauce that Lexington swears by is not very good - its very vinegary and no smoke flavor. Carolina BBQ is strictly about the pork, but to be honest I just like the pulled pork sandwiches with some thick-ass, molasses like BBQ sauce. To me, what I had today was definitely sub-par, and what you'll find in Texas or K.C. is 100x better.
Anyhow, and I know I've said this a thousand times but it can't ever be said enough... the women here are so sweet, you just want to lap them up. Its crazy. If there is any woman that can convince me to marry it would probably be a Southerner.
Anyhow, the reason why I needed the cam because this meal was legitimately the LEAST appealing meal, as far as looks go, that I've had in all my travels. The meat was excellent - it was cooked over hickory and coals for 9 hours, with no basting - true Lexington-style BBQ. The problem was that the plate was divided into thirds - meat that was chopped and looked loosely like barf, coleslaw that was red and ugly (but tasty), and beans. The BBQ sauce that Lexington swears by is not very good - its very vinegary and no smoke flavor. Carolina BBQ is strictly about the pork, but to be honest I just like the pulled pork sandwiches with some thick-ass, molasses like BBQ sauce. To me, what I had today was definitely sub-par, and what you'll find in Texas or K.C. is 100x better.
Anyhow, and I know I've said this a thousand times but it can't ever be said enough... the women here are so sweet, you just want to lap them up. Its crazy. If there is any woman that can convince me to marry it would probably be a Southerner.
jenks - 02/02/06 19:08
oops. My apologies.
Somehow I read that as "Any woman that could convince me to marry it, would have to be a southerner." With "any woman" as the subject, not the object, as you wrote it. Reminds me of that joke- a teacher wrote the sentence "woman without her man is nothing" and asked a class to add punctuation. The men wrote "woman, without her man, is nothing." The women wrote "Woman! Without her, man is nothing."
And i must say, I like the vinegar sauce. On pulled pork. Not a huge ribs fan...
oops. My apologies.
Somehow I read that as "Any woman that could convince me to marry it, would have to be a southerner." With "any woman" as the subject, not the object, as you wrote it. Reminds me of that joke- a teacher wrote the sentence "woman without her man is nothing" and asked a class to add punctuation. The men wrote "woman, without her man, is nothing." The women wrote "Woman! Without her, man is nothing."
And i must say, I like the vinegar sauce. On pulled pork. Not a huge ribs fan...
jason - 02/02/06 01:06
You know how I feel about vinegar-based sauce.
You know how I feel about vinegar-based sauce.
ladycroft - 02/02/06 00:46
If you ever get down to Corpus Christi, TX - check out Howard's BBQ. I used to work there, it's fab!
If you ever get down to Corpus Christi, TX - check out Howard's BBQ. I used to work there, it's fab!
leetee - 02/02/06 00:46
Not that i, as a vegetarian, am a good judge of bbq itself, but i was amazed at the different kinds of sauces out there. Not even talking brands, but regions... the vinegar of the NC bbq isn't too my taste, i prefer the smokey hot tastes of the Texas stuff. Then again, my guess is that it tastes a hell of a lot different with meat.
Not that i, as a vegetarian, am a good judge of bbq itself, but i was amazed at the different kinds of sauces out there. Not even talking brands, but regions... the vinegar of the NC bbq isn't too my taste, i prefer the smokey hot tastes of the Texas stuff. Then again, my guess is that it tastes a hell of a lot different with meat.
jenks - 02/01/06 23:39
"Any woman that can convince me to marry IT"????
lol nice slip there joshy. ;)
"Any woman that can convince me to marry IT"????
lol nice slip there joshy. ;)
damn bro, i wish that i had the ladies like you do. valentines day, mmm...maybe i will have to bloviate in my post about the misguded holiday. hahahahaa...seems like you have the right track lad.
damn! i was going to ask, hahaha :)
so.... ummmm... (mumble)... joshy-
(stutter) what're you, umm, (blush) up to... say, (twirl hair) next tues?
;)