bmags

Mine was kind of a joke, but after two semesters of intense work in 4450 and 4460, I don't weep for the poor ad majors having to develop some pretty pictures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/science/...amp;ref=science How insane would that have been to seen this (at the time) gigantic building in the middle of nowhere shooting lightning bolts into the sky. Tesla has so many amazing stories.

The bad: Geithner The banks Daschle Not giving enough to public transportation in stimulus Vets not getting vet insurance if can be on spouses The good: GITMO stem cell torture Cuba relaxation Keeping Gates/defense spending reform Clinton as SOS Foreign Trip/getting IMF money Can speak coherently Stimulus package It's easy to just read the good, but the stem cell/torture/Gitmo lineup was personally a really big deal. Soooo I give them the ole elementary school 'S'

I gave my capstone presentation on this today. Kicked ass, too.

agree with consensus. The one thing that bothers me isn't businesses acting out of self-interest, it just bothers me morally some of the countries they go to and their track records with human rights. Not enough for me to villify them for leaving, but just an, it's f***ed to give those countries business.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) They may have been investigating Pablo Escobar on a tip that he was running kilos of cocaine out of Bromley Hall, but all they ended up with after a year and gosh knows how much $$$$, was two dozen college kids and 180 grams of pot. If you can't label Operation Thunder Strike a piddling drizzle after that, when and how does law enforcement ever get held accountable for how they spend our tax (and in this case tuition) dollars? Do they get a total pass based on noble intentions? Great point

Okay, how bout this one, folks: For a long time, the bill or rights ONLY applied to federal laws. Meaning, the FEDERAL gov't couldn't take away freedom of the press, etc., it was up to INDIVIDUAL states to uphold those same laws. The view that the Bill of rights was a guarantee to CITIZENS of the U.S. did not come around for quite some time. What a liberal interpretation.

hahaha nice moddage

QUOTE (almagest @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Maybe? I don't remember hearing that, but I wouldn't be surprised. Ah, I remember, I used to have a music web site and I wrote about it. That's why I was surprised to see what you said. They dissolved for quite a while! I saw them at intonation in 2007. I miss intonation.

Hey, historical question: In team of rivals, Salmon Chase left to be a SC justice, but later they had him running for president again. Did he step down after a few years to run?

what the hell? Do you think that health care reform will come from the bench?

nvm

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events: 1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office. 2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive. You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes. Oh, I'm well aware, but I hardly think Harriet Miers is one of two reasons why not. It's much more to do with number one. But I'd still say a former governor and legislator or respected legal mind could be on SCOTUS and operate as, if not more, efficiently as a judge. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/polit...=rss&src=ig I think it's pretty clear from Obama's previous statements that he won't be seeking a Scalia-type in the liberal form. He had that interview where he was skeptical of the SCOTUS decisions being effective in social movements, specifically citing the civil rights era, and before that the Civil War.

I disagree it should be a judge. More people than judges are capable of understanding the constitutionality of our laws and the rights guaranteed by that document.

QUOTE (almagest @ May 3, 2009 -> 12:45 AM) Yeah, one of their band members died right around the time they finished recording their first album, in 2004. They released another in 2006, and have been silent since, so I'm not surprised. The show is at the Empty Bottle on Friday, May 15 (whoops, wrong about the next week part) at the Empty Bottle. Tickets only $8. I feel like I heard they were breaking up more than a year ago.

I blame my poor title. It should've been like DRUNK BOOZE BOOBS

2008 was a more relatable, everyman Griffey.

Anything dealing with private parts saw some ridiculously interesting opinions from Stewart. That's my main problem with Thomas and Alito, yeah, they are the most boneheaded, and I disagree with them on every decision, but at least Scalia has these fantastic dissenting opinions and opinions in general, Thomas and Alito are just boring. Thomas might be illiterate for all I know. SO here's a debate question, dudes and ladies: It's come up before, do you think this next supreme court justice should be a judge? And if not, since we are more familiar with non-judicial nominees, who would be your pick?

Ugh, Alito and Thomas. Haven't been a fan of SCOTUS since the 90s. I'm a Potter Stewart man, myself.

I feel safer.

Me thinks Swisher's sudden hit spree has now caused a re-assessment of his time in Chicago with rose-tinted glasses. He was awful.

haha, bless you, Tmar

That's a funny story, but keep in mind this guy is about as serious a candidate as the minnesota person running as a vampire.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 09:39 PM) Who are you kidding. You just like artists with skinny jeans. The music is irrelevant. pretty stupid post.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 10:24 PM) I agree. Some of my favorite singers can't "sing", and generally speaking, my favorite guitarists keep it simple and aren't flashy. However, a bad drummer can RUIN a band. For me, that's the key to a rock band - the guy doesn't have to be Neil Peart, but he has to be solid. Ultimately, for me it's always about the songs - much more than it is about the individuals playing them. I'll get behind this 100%. Good point on drummer.