tooner

whats that supposed to be.....just links to a youtube page, no video.

leftover baked ravioli....the missus can cook....i'm gonna be a fat bastard before long.

.....enjoy your day.

agreed, i think the ideology is there but it needs someone to lead with solutions to the problems that have been identified. saw a quote from some anarchist philosophy major i know about the problem that getting such a leader creates its own problems..... "As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to ...a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it." -Deleuze while i can see the point that is being made here, i don't think i support an anarchistic state model. Protest isn't anarchic is it? It's democracy in action. The people demanding representation from elected leaders more interested in selling their idesology to the highest bidder with corporate personhood. peaceful protest is democracy in action for sure, and lends credence and weight to the protesters arguments. once (if) protests turn violent the state(s) will clamp down, problem i see is the coming winter, it will make the protesters nervous and may inject a hint of mayhem. unfortunately this plays into the hands of the state b/c they will just squash the protest.

finally feeling like myself today, friday was a gong-show, had some people over for a mexican night which included far too many marguritas and subsequent shots of tequila. the men went on babysitting duty (watching snoboard/skiing videos) after dinner while the girls went to the local to watch the karaoke finals. the mrs was passed out on the couch when i stumbled home, spent all of yesterday with the shades drawn and a strict diet of juice/water/doobies.....right as rain now.

agreed, i think the ideology is there but it needs someone to lead with solutions to the problems that have been identified. saw a quote from some anarchist philosophy major i know about the problem that getting such a leader creates its own problems..... "As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to ...a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it." -Deleuze while i can see the point that is being made here, i don't think i support an anarchistic state model.

i don't know about that, there are some good arguments ( and poor ones depending on who is being interviewed) being made for the need for reform to the way banks do business and how lobby groups get their interests taken care of by bribing/coercing elected officials. problem is that this type of thing has been happening for ....well forever and i don't see a solution (one that is tenable to the 99% at least) coming from placards and slogans.

friday....i've lost the will to work....this is filling in nicely. ty

i guess but i've heard exactly the opposite as well.....i.e. the only way it works is if they have a clear and consise agenda with attainable goals, otherwise they just seem like a bunch of random hippies. i also saw an ed op piece that talked about it really only being the 30% not the 99% ( in canada anyway) as the poor have actually had a larger increase to their income in the past decade or so than the middle class have.

fair enough, but if they don't come with one who will? the elected leaders won't because they have a vested interest in keeping an even keel, the type of change the 99 are talking about would invoke chaos to the struggling world economy. don't get me wrong i think there needs to be change in the way we look at how the world is being run, but i don't see this movement as a viable means of having it change.

Just read HF's post in another thread, and got to wondering what the general concensus was about the various occupy movement that are popping up every where. i am of two minds on this, while i would agree that the current financial climate is fucked in large part due to the shenanigans of the 1%, i don't necessarily side with the 99%, especially since there doesn't seem to be any realistic road map forward coming from the 99% camp. anyway...what are your thoughts/opinions?

This wouldnt surprise me yet at the same time, completely freaks me out. rumour has it they're the same guy

http://www.escapistm...Physics-Is-Safe so as it turns out, maybe not so thick.

first full season in BC living the ski-bum life, turned 27 (went heli-skiing to celebrate).

issued my first document with my P.Eng. stamp.......nerdy i know but it marks the end of a very long process fro me......

if you aren't taking the piss..... i'll answer LM, but you first....

fucking brilliant! last flaming hoop finally jumped through, got my P.Eng. designation. now to ask for a raise....

....the winter i lived in vermont a housemate of mine told me a variation of the one about the cop on LSD.... hippy gets pulled over in his VW bus, cop puts him in the back of the cruiser and searches the van, after some time the cop comes back to the car and presents the hippy with the question "what do we have here?" and produces a mason jar full of a clear liquid. the cop proceeds to spin the lid off the jar and takes a swig...a puzzled look comes across his face, and he takes another swig....still not sure what it is, but comes out with, just as i suspected......MOONSHINE!, I'm taking you in. hops in the cruiser and proceeds to drive to the police station, gets 15 min down the road and is trippin ballz so bad he hops out of the car which continues on at a low speed into a tree, this unlocks all the doors and the hippy gets out makes his way back to his van and he gets away. i knew then (obviously) the guy was full of shit, but he swore up and down that it really happened, friend of a friend bullshit....

i'm finding the deterioration of my body to be more of a 'getting older' shock than the age of my friends kids...my best mate back home has kids in high school now...... .

ya but was she a young mum herself? age is all in yer head catmag.

Read up on the show. Totally different legal system to ours he was arrested in the US and tried in the US.....

from the wiki page on John Delorean, it would suggest that entrapment isn't legal in america. Arrest and trialIn the summer of 1982, DeLorean received a phone call from James Hoffman, a former drug smuggler turned FBI informant. DeLorean met with Hoffman on July 11, 1982, to discuss an investment opportunity to help save his company. Over the course of the next three months, Hoffman slowly explained his intricate plan involving cocaine smugglers, a bank for laundering money, and the specifics of how much money DeLorean would be required to front to procure the deal. DeLorean went along with these discussions, planning to trade DMC stock for the seed money for any deal that would benefit the company, but leaving the drug-smuggler investors with stock in a company completely controlled by the British government. On October 19, before going to meet the investors to consummate the deal, DeLorean wrote a letter to his attorney and sealed it, with instructions to open it only if he did not return. The letter explained the situation he was in and his fear for his family's safety if he tried to back out of the deal. On October 19, 1982, DeLorean was charged with trafficking in cocaine by the U.S. government. DeLorean successfully defended himself with a procedural defense, despite video evidence of him referring to a suitcase full of cocaine as "good as gold" -- arguing that the FBI had enticed a convicted narcotics smuggler to get him to supply the money to buy the cocaine. His attorney stated in Time (March 19, 1984), "This [was] a fictitious crime. Without the government, there would be no crime." The DeLorean defense team did not call any witnesses. DeLorean was found not guilty because of entrapment on August 16, 1984.[14]

is it?

king of new york.....christopher walkin at his best IMO