Barbie is not a good role model, but neither is a hula hoop or a toy truck or a sandbox. Toys are not role models; people are role models, and children who are raised around proper, living, breathing, human role models will grow up to know the difference between reality and fantasy.

Little girls have been playing Pretty Pretty Princess since time immemorial, and nobody finds that the least bit disturbing: "I'm the Pretty Pretty Princess and I live in a great big castle, and my daddy is the King of Everything, and all the boys want to kiss me but I'm going to marry Prince Charming, the most handsome prince in all the land, and we're going to ride away on his big white horse and live happily ever after." In today's terms, that translates to: "My father is a high ranking official, we own everything, I get whatever I want, I live in the biggest house, I'm smokin' hot, and I marry a hot dude with a ton of money and a kickin' car, then we're happy forever." All you have to do is add: "Also, I have tits out to there, an ass that won't quit, and legs that reach to Kingdom Come," and you have Barbie.

Don't blame Barbie for the fact that women want to be attractive, and don't blame Barbie for the fact men like smokin' hot bods. Mattel doesn't force women to emulate a deformed female-esque chunk of injection molding. Mattel only filled a noticeable void with a marketable toy by playing off of preexisting neuroses. Barbie doesn't create body image issues; body image issues created Barbie. Perhaps if people acted as strong enough role models instead of blaming toys for the woes of the world, Barbie would never have had to happen.

Melanoma.

@Krista17
I have to disagree on one point, and that is: "Atheists do not try to convert others."

Perhaps you meant to say, "Not all atheists try to convert others," and that would be fair, but it has been my experience that a vast majority of atheists are more vocal and more interested in conversion than your most adamant Baptist preacher. Bill Maher comes to mind as one of the most publicly available Atheistic Preachers, but there are many more in our every-day lives. You've met 'em. You know 'em.

Granted, an atheist conversion does not involve a specific ritual or symbolic cleansing, but those who holler the loudest about their atheism are only trying to gather more to their way of thinking, for whatever reason. Perhaps they believe they are doing good in the name of science or providing a kindness to those with questions - there is no telling when it comes to the motives of an individual - but anybody who criticizes or questions the religious beliefs of another person out loud is proselytizing, whether it be for another religion or for a lack of religion. It's all about getting the most team members on your side, otherwise there is little point in saying anything at all.

"But, no! I'm not proselytizing! I'm telling the truth! The *real* truth!" That's exactly what every religion has said throughout history.

My biggest beef with atheists, of which I am one, is that while almost every organized religion has laws and codes and rules about proselytizing, atheists have no such rules of engagement. Evangelists, by the very nature of their beliefs *must* recruit. Mormons *must* recruit. Scientologists *must* recruit. The bylaws of their clubs make it very clear; their books say so. Atheists have no such organization or codification. Atheists make a personal choice to interfere with the beliefs of those around them by trying to “shatter the illusion.”

Atheists are the least excusable in their effort to proselytize. After all, according to an atheist, we’ll all be space dust in a billion years. So why cause trouble now?

Because there’s nothing good on TV.

Why can't it be both?

Why can't it be both?

It is a wholley unrealistic representation of excellence and awe. What do you think of the tenth place Speed Skater? Would you eat the cereal he endorses? Hell no. He's a failure. He's only the tenth greatest Speed Skater on the planet. He's an asshole.

The Olympics celebrates sponsorship potential and random 'winner of the moment' popularity. Subject Olympiads to a chess-style ladder system throughout the course of their careers, and we would probably experience some very different (and boring) results.

Google doesn't owe China anything. It is a business unto itself and can do or not do as it sees fit. If, in fact, the maneuver is a clever marketing ploy (which I believe it is), the it is in the best interests of Google to do so, not to mention the fact that Google has been receiving more than a little flak for abiding and China's censorship and tyranny so long and so easily.

And let's not dismiss the possibility of all possible worlds in which a clever marketing ploy also aligns with the morals of the company. Imagine if implementation in China was only phase one, knowing full well that they'd pull out with a sour grimace later on.

It contains neither bacon nor mayonnaise.

egorz13:
I comprehend your anthropological standpoint. A light analogy might be this: I will never be in the NBA. I am not structured in such a way that would allow me to optimize the game of basketball and I will never be anything but a hinderance to the progress of any team I'm on.  I'm free to play all the basketball I want, all day every day, but I will never be sanctioned by the NBA and I shouldn't expect to be. They don't owe me anything. 

I think what everyone is *hearing* you say, to belabor an analogy, is that I shouldn't even be allowed to buy tickets to an NBA game because I cannot maximize the goals of the players. You state that same-sex couples cannot help in the act of procreation; I ask, what can it hurt? There are gay people out there in the world right now who are married to each other in the eyes of our American government, and I cannot perceive any interruption in heterosexual procreation. 

You state that same-sex couples should not receive the same benefits because they do not provide the same benefits, and I can get behind that. I don't like the concept but I can't deny the math. But what benefits are we talking about here? Meager tax breaks? Who cares? If the benefits gained through marriage were worth a damn, I'd be married right now, to an equally opportunistic individual, male or female, so I could reap the reward, and I wouldn't be the only one. 

People get married as a symbol of commitment, a symbol that expresses itself to the couple, to their society and to the god of their choosing. The benefits are a pale side effect. Marriage, in our society, is a big freakin' deal. Many Americans spend their lives and careers building up to it, and not because they're angling for that juicy tax break. To deny homosexuals that social symbol is no different than saying they are forbidden from seeking high-paying jobs or adopting a child or joining a hoity-toity country club. 

Why did society generate special privileges and status for married heterosexuals? Because the seeds of social norm were planted back in grim and ignorant days; days when all forms of discrimination and bigotry were written into law as a matter of course.

Today, society doesn't dictate the best course of action for society. Today, white-haired politicians cling tenaciously to bygone atrocities in an effort to maintain a stranglehold on the root of their power and to promote their agenda and beliefs. Well, who elected to put them in power, you ask? Admittedly, society. But it's not as though society has the best and brightest to choose from. Society may only choose from a small, corrupt pool of professional politicians.

So, adjust marriage if you must; two different types of couples, two different types of rules. Fine. But don't deny homosexuals the institution and sacrament of marriage in the name of protecting society, because whatever damage society may have to withstand as a result of same-sex marriage pales in comparison to the damage done to society through the act of discrimination.

The argument that "athiests are making as far-flung an argument that God does not exist as theists do in asserting that God does exist," does not hold water. If that argument held true, then those who deny the existence of leprechauns or the tooth fairy or a The Flying Spaghetti Monster have no leg to stand on. The claim that one must prove the non-existence of non-existence is impossible. The onus of proof of existence lies with the believer.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." ~ Mark Twain

allonzo1:
People are not crudding your arguments in an effort to sabotage Sarah Palin; people are crudding your arguments because the things you say are asinine and semi-coherent. You are not the messenger. You are the author of this claptrap. Don't blame political agenda on your pisspoor ability to form sentences or maintain a grip on reality.

People refuse to argue with you any further because it's obvious that you're only trying to invoke heartache; a crotchety old troll looking for attention. Because that's what bored old Conservatives do... they try to make the world a more terrible place for everybody else.

People might have the right to sell themselves into slavery if owning a slave was legal. As it stands, would-be slaves have no buyers. Nonetheless, the suggestion that 'the opposite of liberty is slavery' is like saying 'the opposite of enjoying cake is somebody else enjoying cake'.

People have all manner of methods to give up their liberty. Chain yourself up in your basement. Become a monk. Break a law. Move to a country run by an oppressive regime. Offer yourself up to human trafficking. Take a meandering stroll in Brazil.

As technology advances, 3D viewing may become more feasible and comfortable, allowing more common users to experience it in more common places. I also think that it lends itself nicely to the black-and-white-to-color comparison in that color triggers emotional responses, as does perceived distances. Of course, distance has always been a part of film making, so the question is: does 3D depth increase or enhance that emotional trigger in any way?

I have no doubt that I've helped you prove that Liberals do not like Sarah Palin and that they fear her. Notably, nowhere in your most recent missive do you formulate an argument for her intellect.

So all you have to do is tweak your original topic a little, and I don't think anybody could dispute you: "Admit it, Liberals. Sarah Palin is a dipshit. You don't like her, and you are just afraid of her."

Lastly, in an effort to point out Sarah Palin's intellectual capacity, you referred to her as "a smart women."

"At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."

Unfortunately, there is no end to the scope of terrorism or terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, who has been accused of arranging the death of 3,000 Americans, will find a violent death the instant he wanders between the cross hairs of any American military or alert American civilian. Slobodan Milošević, responsible for the death of 300,000 foreigners, was allowed a trial that persisted until he died of a heart attack.

My point is, terrorism is subjective. Generally, it's relegated to killing in the name of... whatever. As long as there is an unscheduled explosion, we can call it terrorism. Some might argue that the death of civilians constitutes terrorism, but try having that argument with anybody on Death Row. Government's monopoly on violence aside, non-terrorist civilian murder happens all the time; crimes of passion, organized crime, global genocide, serial killers, car accidents, what have you. None of these are pursued as acts of terrorism.

Should the United States deal with terrorism differently than we do any other form of murder or mass murder? I don't see why. Is there a particular action "terrorists" make that precludes them from the same rights we fight to protect for other murderers? The "terrorist" known as Timothy McVeigh was dead inside of six years. Charles Mason is still alive.

I don't know that the United States needs to wrap their heads around terrorism so much as crime in general, which is probably the most heady undertaking mankind has to face.

Even *if* your argument was logical or compelling, it still fails to address exactly how or why Liberals fear her. Here's why: Sarah Palin is a lying douchebag moron. She flipped her popularity in beauty pageants and sports journalism into a meager political career, then she hit the lottery when John McCain tried to pull the rug out from underneath voters by choosing the hottest running mate he could find.

I fear that women will admire her or find a role model in her because she is an underhanded sneak who will do or say anything that she has to to further her own motives. But I doubt that will ever happen because she can barely stammer English.

I fear that she will parlay her Jerry-Springer-esque popularity into a position of power that may negatively influence how free Americans are allowed to live their lives due to her very specific and narrow views on religion, family, health care and sexuality. But I doubt that will ever happen because she has "gone rogue."

I fear that she *does* have a very real influence on public opinion when she spouts nonsensical clauses such as "death panel," and that she can inspire panic and hatred in those with a limited capacity for logic, reason and clear thought. And that has already happened.

As for her intelligence, opinion and conjecture are irrelevant. She might have an IQ of 175 for all I know. I sincerely doubt it, but who knows? And who cares? Ted Kaczynski has an IQ of 167. He's a Harvard graduate with a PhD in mathematics. He was the youngest professor ever hired at Berkeley. Rather accomplished, no? He's also the Unabomber.

To assert that Sarah Palin should be admired due to some supposed intelligence (a dubious assumption, at best) is to ignore her record of deceit and double-talk. Intelligence is admirable, but only in the distinct presence of morals that align with your own. Otherwise, all you have is an evil genius.

Lastly, in an effort to espouse the intelligence of Sarah Palin, you spelled her name wrong.

From what I know of the man, he is not afraid to say precisely what he believes and has yet to be caught in a waffle, a flip-flop or a gaffe (unless you count the hunting incident and the DC Madam, but those weren't really political maneuvers). His words are concrete and there is no doubt as to where he stands. Whether or not you agree with the things he says, there is something to admire in an old politician who doesn't dance around trying to look good.

Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom. A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality.

Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down. To do this, they must cut costs at every turn and make tough decisions. Many doctors are already prevented from give patients certain tests or performing certain operations despite what the doctor believes is truly necessary. Legalizing assisted suicide would likely invite another set of procedures as to when life-sustaining measures should be undertaken. We shouldn't give the insurance companies any more power over human life.

Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. Most people who pay regular premiums on health care have noticed a major increase in costs over the last decade. Some workers around the country are going on strike simply to protest the increase in health care costs. We regularly debate how to provide cheaper prescription drugs, care for the uninsured, and fight the skyrocketing costs. Anything we can do to reduce that burden helps. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? You also have to consider the drag on a dying patient's estate. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate. It's totally unreasonable to pour this kind of money into patients that just want to end their suffering.

Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down. To do this, they must cut costs at every turn and make tough decisions. Many doctors are already prevented from give patients certain tests or performing certain operations despite what the doctor believes is truly necessary. Legalizing assisted suicide would likely invite another set of procedures as to when life-sustaining measures should be undertaken. We shouldn't give the insurance companies any more power over human life.

Tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved. Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough?

I have never been so immersed in such rich, deep, intricate and realistic computer effects. The story blows goats, but if you're into CGI, you may find some enjoyment there.

Call it "Dances With Wolves 2: Electric Boogaloo" and call it a day.

More than a few of the scenes exhibited the playfully intricate dialogue that Tarantino fans have come to love, though I wouldn't say that the dialogue was enough to carry the wonky story arc.

The film has met some criticism from Jewish press. In Tablet, Liel Liebowitz criticizes the film as lacking moral depth. He argues that the power of film lies in its ability to impart knowledge and subtle understanding, but Inglourious Basterds serves more as an "alternative to reality, a magical and Manichean world where we needn’t worry about the complexities of morality, where violence solves everything, and where the Third Reich is always just a film reel and a lit match away from cartoonish defeat".

British critic Peter Bradshaw stated he was "struck... by how exasperatingly awful and transcendentally disappointing it is". Author and critic Daniel Mendelsohn was disturbed by the portrayal of Jewish-American soldiers mimicking German atrocities done to European Jews, stating, "In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino indulges this taste for vengeful violence by—well, by turning Jews into Nazis".

Critic James Berardinelli gave the film his first 4/4 star review of 2009, stating, "With Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino has made his best movie since Pulp Fiction," and that it was "one hell of an enjoyable ride." Roger Ebert also gave the film a four-star review, writing that "Quentin Tarantino’s 'Inglourious Basterds' is a big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others and demonstrate once again that he’s the real thing, a director of quixotic delights." Anne Thompson of Variety praised the film, but opined that it was not a masterpiece, claiming, "Inglourious Basterds is great fun to watch, but the movie isn't entirely engaging... You don't jump into the world of the film in a participatory way; you watch it from a distance, appreciating the references and the masterful mise-en-scene. This is a film that will benefit from a second viewing".

It was as though somebody said, "I bet Quentin Tarantino could make the most God-awful movie of the year and still rake in millions of dollars." Which he did; but he hedged his bets by making the whole movie about murdering Nazis.

It was ten scant months between shooting the first scene and the theatrical release, and you can tell.

Air travel is already safe, against terrorists and otherwise. If anything, we should be more concerned with pilot and mechanic screening than passenger screening.

The odds of being on a plane with a terrorist indicent? 1 in 10.4 million.
The odds of being on a plane that crashes through pilot or mechanical error? 1 in 1.13 million.
The odds of being struck by lightning? 1 in 0.5 million.

Since Intelligent Design appears to be all about proof-through-the-lack-of-unverifiability, I am all for Intelligent Design. In fact, not only is there no proof against Intelligent Design, there is no proof against the fact that The Designer is a gigantic, celestial version of me, Jason Katzwinkel, with incredible black leathery wings, red laser-beam eyes, and lions for hands (The Celestial Me is part Voltron, which is rad). The Celestial Me built existence in His workshop on the corner of Space and Time, right behind the 32nd dimension, well beyond the scope of any human detection or interpretation. The only evidence of The Celestial Me is everything that ever was, is or will be. You can tell because it's all exactly as The Celestial Me likes it. A hell of a coincidence, ain't it? By the way, allonzo1; you're welcome for carbon. That's The Celestial Me's favorite, too.

And I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. Russell's teapot is still occasionally referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

In an article entitled "Is There a God?", commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

The idea of Intelligent Design was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent Design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Thinly veiled evangelism delivered in an underhanded attempt to trick free-thinking individuals into swallowing a religion that they've already rejected.

See also: Scientology

When religious, traditional, or cultural expressions are handled with a "zero tolerance" approach, even in the name of equality, everybody loses. Too many times have I seen genuine enthusiasm and joy squelched through the use of "Happy [insert generic temporal celebration here]!"

Rather than the "zero tolerance" approach, everybody would be better served through an "all inclusive" approach. There is so much focus on including everybody, that we're excluding everybody.

Merry Today.

Citing "insurmountable coincidence" as evidence for one god or another has been an ongoing argument for hundreds and hundreds of years. Early Christians thanked their benevolent God for making pigs so plentiful, which was great because pigs are what humans happen to eat the most of. They failed to recognize their backward logic in that they ate so many pigs *because* they happened to be so plentiful.

While any layman can write off molecular structure as cosmically improbable, that isn't necessarily the case. Granted, the intricacies of existence may defy the odds, but to claim - definitively and without question - that atomic harmony is a coincidence is to profess to understand the odds of creation's various aspects. For all we know, the system of the universe may not only be probable, but a foregone conclusion, because there are so many as yet undiscovered elements of the universe that it is folly to make any definitive assertions.

Anybody with a fluent understanding of quantum particles *must* understand that until the moment of quantifiable unveiling, the likelihood of Intelligent Design is 100% equal to the likelihood of cosmic coincidence, and to postulate otherwise is not only counter-intuitive, but unproductive.

There is no evidence to support the notion that the creation of the universe is a one-time deal.

The argument that creation and all of its elements are too complex to have happened on accident fails to take into consideration that "complexity" is a subjective term. Sure, it's complex to the likes of us humans and our squishy, moist, biological central nervous systems, but existence need not adhere to the boundaries of human intellect or imagination. Just because existence baffles us, it doesn't mean that mind-bogglingly complex patterns cannot emerge from the natural, unguided, unintelligent chaos of the universe.

The complexity of existence is not a testament to the complexity of existence; it is a testament to the simplicity of man.

The benefits and detriments of peeing while sitting down vary drastically based upon whether or not there is a toilet underneath the pee-er.

Average or below-average citizens may be mistaken for experts in the field, leading consumers to alter thier opinions based on the agenda of an uneducated individual.

As science advances, two effects will become evident: how humans can change the world and how humans have changed the world. The potential of humans' effect grows day by day, and an agency that is responible for monitoring the detriments of advancement may be important to the survival of the planet. Worst case scenario of a global watch dog? Minor annoyance. Worst case scenario of a lack of a global watch dog? Global catastrophe.

Hyperbolic? Yes. Beyond consideration? No.

Diaper spelled backwards is Repaid, which every parent should consider when complaining about unwieldy baby poop. Somebody handled your unsavory byproduct for quite a while; time to pay your dues.

Dispoable diapers eliminate the problems of biohazardous storage and elimination that cloth diapers present.

There is something that is certainly compelling about the unscripted reactions of non-actors that draws people in, and the genuinely unexpected actions and reactions of willing or unwitting participants have provided entertainment to people since before Reality TV or regular TV. There is value in the medium, whether or not current broadcasters maximize the potential artfully.

If "Reality TV" suffers from anything, it is inaccurate labeling. It would be better described as "Lightly Scripted, Highly Edited, Cheap Thrills TV" because the relationship between reality and those types of television shows is tenuous at best. Now the detractors of this particular brand of programming have that torch to run with: "Which reality are YOU talking about?!?!" Nobody complained about professional wresting or American Gladiators when they came out, because they were never billed as reality.

A delightful gateway to the written works of Jean Shepherd, upon which the screenplay of this movie is based.

Terrible, herky-jerky, sloppy design and layout.

Though Weezer has a considerable selection of songs that are quite enjoyable, one song generally sounds like the next.

For me, Weezer spans a range between "I love it" and "I don't care." Never have I heard a Weezer song to which I reacted negatively. I'd be hard pressed to think of an occasion in which I've intentionally skipped a Weezer song. And with the considerable library that the band has, that is significant.

The person that is chosen for The Nobel Peace Prize is the right person by default. They can't have gotten it wrong because, regardless of who agrees, the prize is awarded based upon the opinion of a committee. And whenever such prizes are awarded, there will be detractors claiming that the opinion is wrong.

I agree with CompliantSoul that this award, like many others, is the product of a bygone era; a system from back in the day when it was okay to issue awards as a prize for being the most compliant and most like what the committee in question considers normal. Perhaps The Nobel Peace Prize is obsolete, and it is well within the right of the obsolete committee to express their obsolete opinions and select their obsolete recipient.

If the prize really was important, we'd all be scrutinizing the winner of The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, too. But we're not. We don't care. Because the question isn't really about how the general public feels about the prize; it's about how they feel about Obama.

Rule 34 of Chicken McNuggets.

Rule 34 of the pink-haired Esurance cartoon lady.

You're doing it wrong!

None of the things y'all are chattering about are categories.

By categories, I mean the... uh... categories under which topics go. For example:
Consumer Goids > Electronics
Lifestyle > Parenting
Science & Technology > Photography

There is a dropdown menu under +add a topic. Is it sufficient?

It is a very quick and simple live collaboration tool with memory and history. Imagine an editable chatroom with the saveability of a Word document.

For the time being, Google Wave acts as little more than another inbox that I have to check. If there were some kind of notification system that came to *me* when a new comment or wave popped up, it might be another story, but as it stands, I simply have to remember to wonder if anybody has posted anything to me or for me in Google Wave. And with so few people on Google Wave, the answer is usually disappointing.

Ditka.

And Ditka is an army of one.

It depends on whether or not you are a purist. If modern-day storytellers are allowed to change the rules as they see fit, then the point is moot; the scariest monster is the one that is most scarily written at the time. "Sure, vampires might have some wicked barbed tentacles, but zombies are thirty feet tall and shoot chainsaws out of their nipples."

However, if judging by standard timeless folklore, zombies have little to offer. They're creepy and annoying, but easily avoided and dispatched. Vampires, on the other hand... they's gonna gitcha!

To automatically assume that the term "slut" is derogatory is failure to explore the word to its full potential. A slut is commonly defined as a woman who has a bunch of sex with a bunch of dudes all the time. As a dude, I am pro-slut all the way. I, personally, have no moral preconceptions as to how much sex a person ought or oughtn't have. I strive to have as much sex as I can as often as I can, and I invite everybody to enjoy the same freedom. Slut Pride not only promotes equality, but increases my odds of success.

What is the male version of the term slut? Stud.

Go sluts!

I agree that the production of offspring is fundamental to the well-being of society, but reproduction is certainly not the end of the line. Marriage isn't about mechanically ejecting offspring and then chucking them into the woods to fend for themselves. In fact, the creation of the offspring is only one phase of MANY in the development of a productive member of society. One might argue that procreation is the easiest part of the whole process.

While same-sex partners cannot procreate, they are more than capable of creating an environment and culture in which to develop a happy, healthy, productive member of society. The only thing missing from the equation is the offspring itself. If only there were children in the world looking for capable and loving caretakers, then same-sex partners would be worthy of the same benefits granted to those who are able to "roll their own." Unfortunately for The Gays, every momma wants her baby and nobody ever dies.

This is an argument against the technical nature of this very topic.

The subtitle "Is 30,000 more troops and 18 more months enough to fix the country?" is a loaded question. No single number or action is capable of "fixing the country," whatever the hell that means. This topic is skewed from the very beginning by the personal politics of the original poster.

If you have to fight the war, you may as well fight the war while on drugs.

Seatbelt laws help raise awareness as to the extreme benefits of using and severe effects of not using seatbelts, and the laws can save valuable lives, even if only as a side effect of not wanting to get a ticket.

By playing "A Christmas Story" twenty-four hours a day, people can catch it whenever their holiday schedule allows, assuming they don't already have the DVD. And what's the alternative? Airing the hours-long strings of The Office, Seinfeld and George Lopez commercials, as usual?

It's easy to preach nuclear non-proliferation while perched atop the most god-awful heap of nukes the world has ever seen.

"What, these old thing? These are just leftovers from the Cold War. They're still pointed at Russia, and Russia's dismantled for God's sake. It's not even fair to call them nuclear armaments, really. They're more like museum artifacts. Now... quit building nukes."

It's nice to be The World Police and all, but if we truly expect the world to buy us a Coke, we need to level the playing field through outrageous nuclear disarmament, which is never going to happen.

So, really... who are we to say, "America can, but Iran can't. Go democracy!"?

LOLspeak is thinly-veiled illiteracy for halfwits who have been launched into a universe where communication is almost exclusively executed in writing, a medium in which they sputter and flounder but cannot be bothered to either improve or withstand criticism.

im in ur argumintz, renderin ur pointz invalid lol

I've always found Stephen King novels to be thin as a whole, but I've always found a great deal of satisfaction in each individual sentence or idea. For instance, it's easy to dismiss "It" as a book about a scary clown, but the true purpose of the book is not walk away with applicable knowledge of how to defeat scary clowns. It's about a connection with the desires and fears of the characters, as is the case with all of his books, and the effect is executed with elegance. Each character says and does very rich and interesting things... within the construct of fighting a scary clown.

Not updated regularly. Sporadic.

Home schoolers are receiving athletic scholarships. Both the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) recognize the legitimacy of home school diplomas and transcripts, making them eligible for athletic scholarships in colleges throughout the country.

Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia, critics of voluntary euthanasia are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families.

Lasting more than an hour, the Ninth was an exceptionally long symphony for its time. Like much of Beethoven's later music, his Ninth Symphony is demanding for all the performers, including the choir and soloists.

Some researchers have explored the benefits of enabling virtual communities to self-organize and introduce incentives as a resource sharing and cooperation, arguing that what is missing from today's peer-to-peer systems should be seen both as a goal and a means for self-organized virtual communities to be built and fostered. Ongoing research efforts for designing effective incentive mechanisms in P2P systems, based on principles from game theory are beginning to take on a more psychological and information-processing direction.

Modern hashing, chunk verification and different encryption methods have made most networks resistant to almost any type of attack, even when major parts of the respective network have been replaced by faked or nonfunctional hosts.

As with most network systems, unsecure and unsigned codes may allow remote access to files on a victim's computer or even compromise the entire network. When anti-P2P companies managed to introduce faked chunks into downloads, files were unusable afterwards or even contained malicious code.

"Usually, drugs have to pass exacting testing by the Food and Drug Administration before they go on the market. There's a good reason for this: we don't want people spending money on products that might be ineffective or actually harmful. In California and elsewhere, however, snake oil -- sorry, "medical marijuana" -- got on the market via a different route: popular referendum. The pot for sale in dispensaries is subject to none of the purity controls that actual pharmaceutical drugs must meet. Indeed, the new DOJ policy essentially recognizes a gray market for pot, leaving these supposedly seriously ill people at the mercy of their dealers -- I mean caregivers -- with respect to quality and efficacy."

The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.

The people from high school that I have desired to maintain contact with, I have maintained contact with, however tenuous. High school reunions become less and less relevant in the age of social media.

The Large Hadron Collider is expected to provide experimental evidence as to the Higgs boson's existence or non-existence. The Higgs boson particle is one quantum component of the theoretical Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero; i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value. The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle which has mass, including the Higgs boson itself. In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry, which scientists often refer to as the Higgs mechanism. This is the simplest mechanism capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories. In essence, this field is analogous to a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise massless fundamental particles which travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass which form, for example, the components of atoms.

Faith was not responsible for the plane crashes of September 11th, 2001; radical fanaticism was responsible for the plane crashes of September 11th, 2001. To suggest that global atheism would abolish radical fanaticism is to turn a blind eye to human nature. It's easy to blame religion for all of the bad things in the world (and there are plenty of instances in which it's true), but if maniacal destruction didn't happen in the name of religion, it would happen in the name of love, or money, or nation, or family, or good ol' fashioned vengeance. And, if you ask me, the plane crashes of September 11th, 2001 were about all of the above, with a little religion thrown in for good measure.

It's a great way to keep friends and family in the loop of the small details in your life. It allows people a way in which to express the small things in their day-to-day without hundreds of intrusive or seemingly-vain phone calls or e-mails. Somehow, a mass e-mail to all your friends and relatives that you just found fifty dollars on the sidewalk seems incredibly self-involved. But as a Facebook status update, people will be right there with you.

Facebook has definitely reinforced and reconnected old friendships; friendships that may have otherwise never been rekindled. Facebook has been directly responsible for numerous lunches and dinners with people I haven't been in contact with for fifteen or twenty years.

Whether or not there is a God or a god or a supreme being or a flying spaghetti monster, there is something to be said for a system of self-delusion that allows one to allay the fears of inevitable oblivion. I know many people who take comfort in the general theory of God, gods, higher beings, ghosts, afterlives and the such. Whether or not they believe with any intensity, it's nice for them to be able to say, "Maybe after I die, I get candy."

I often times wish that I had never abandoned my faith. Or that it had never abandoned me. Or whatever. True nothingness is as scary as Hell (literally) and the very idea of it bucks against every natural impulse of self-preservation. My parents believe that they will move on to a better place; I believe that I will be forever deactivated. Who's better off?

Even if it could generate a black hole and instantly annihilate us all, don't worry. According to physicists, the Large Hadron Collider creates particles that go back in time and shut down the Large Hadron Collider to prevent it from creating the particles that go back in time and shut down the Large Hadron Collider. That's why it'll never work.

"A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."

Her primary claim to fame is having little to no clothes on.

Also, she sings.

A great way to spruce up that boring, ol' watermelon.

If marijuana had been rendered illegal in an effort to protect people from themselves, all McDonald's fast food outlets would be speakeasies.

An idea could be credded out of sheer popularity, rather than clear and concise rationale.

Generally, ads for Microsoft seems like the fevered dreams of a recovering heroin addict. They rarely make sense; they rarely adhere to a singular, coherent theme; they often think of themselves as outlandishly clever; and they often leave the viewer waiting for a message or a punchline that never arrives.

Though you might have a perfectly solid, air-tight argument based solely on fact and backed up with three sources of reliable reference, anybody who simply doesn't cotton to the idea - or who doesn't like the look of your stupid, fat face - can crud it.

A natural process of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Although most colleges are open to admitting homeschooled students, some still prefer those with a public or private-school education. If your child has his heart set on a certain school, you may need to adjust your plans to meet their admission requirements.

Homeschoolers have the freedom to progress quickly in the subjects at which they excel, while spending more time on the subjects that are a challenge for them. They are not tied to the timetable of the classroom.

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), which represents the leading manufacturers of baby bottles in the United States, stands by the scientific research indicating that plastic baby bottles are safe.

Sound and respected scientific research has consistently shown there is no danger to consumers when products are used as intended. Trace levels of bisphenol A (BPA) from consumer products are well below any level that could cause harm to adults or to our children. Other scientific studies have shown that BPA has NO effect on the reproductive system, NO effect on the developmental system, and NO cancer-causing effects. Recent reports indicating otherwise are both sensational and biased, and they have not received any validation from the scientific community.

Polycarbonate plastic is used for a reason: It's useful. Hard, shatterproof, lightweight and clear, it's in a huge range of products from water bottles and food storage containers, to lenses in eyeglasses and car headlights, CDs and DVDs, and even bulletproof glass. "Whether you realize it or not, you use it in your life every day," says Steven Hentges, head of the polycarbonate group at the industry lobby organization American Chemistry Council.

Researchers tested 19 baby bottles purchased in nine U.S. states and Canada. Bottle brands included Avent, Dr. Brown, Evenflo, Disney, Gerber and Playtex. When the bottles were heated to 175 degrees F (80 degrees C), every one of them leached bisphenol A at about 5 to 7 parts per billion. The report also suggested that because of the chemical makeup of bisphenol A, it may leach more in fatty or acidic liquids, such as milk or apple juice, than in water.

"I bought an iMac for my son (for school) along with the extended Applecare warranty. A month ago, it quit working. My son took it to the authorized Mac service center. The "tech" informed him it would be ready in 48-72 hours. Five days go by and he's heard nothing, so I called. They informed me that his computer can't be worked on because it's contaminated.

"When I asked for an explanation, she said he's a smoker and it's contaminated with cigarette smoke which they consider a bio-hazard! I checked my Applecare warranty and it says nothing about not honoring warranties if the owner is a smoker. The Applecare representative said they defer to the technician and my son's computer cannot be fixed at any Apple Service Center due to being listed a bio-hazard.

"This computer cost approx. $3,000, with the extended warranty. I'm all for destroying cigarettes and putting big tobacco out of business (yes, I'm a reformed smoker), but to label a computer a biohazard because one is a smoker is going a bit too far in regulating who can have the warranty they purchased honored. Shouldn't there be some disclaimer stating that they won't honor warranties from smokers?"

The series was the first prime-time animated series aimed at adults.

Calacanis' Five Point Argument Against Apple

1. Apple is destroying MP3 player innovation through anti-competitive practices. I'm not convinced this is true, but the iPod is rapidly becoming a monoculture in the MP3 space, and monocultures aren't healthy. If there were a stronger competitor to Apple here, consumers would likely reap the benefits of the competition.

2. Monopolistic practices in telecommunications. I agree with him that tying the iPhone to a single carrier is a retrograde move, and not very smart perhaps (AT&T is few people's favorite company), but it's not monopolistic. Still, I look forward to the day that we have some choice here, too.

3. Draconian App Store policies that are, frankly, insulting. No argument here. Understanding the App Store approval and rejection process requires a Kremlinology degree and the decisions seem to go against Apple's ethos. This is one of the major procedural issues facing the company these days.

4. Being a horrible hypocrite by banning other browsers on the iPhone. Agreed here, too. Though there is some elegance gained by locking its platforms down, Apple should be promoting - and users should be demanding - freedom to use what apps we want as a higher value than elegance.

5. Blocking the Google Voice Application on the iPhone. Another agree. It's not right for a platform maker to block its competitors and offer only its applications.

Originally, the company stood in opposition to staid competitors like IBM more or less by default, thanks to the influence of its founders; Steve Jobs often walked around the office barefoot even after Apple was a Fortune 500 company. By the time of the "1984" TV ad, this trait had become a key way the company attempts differentiated itself from its competitors.

As the company has grown and been led by a series of chief executives, each with his own idea of what Apple should be, some of its original character has arguably been lost, but Apple still has a reputation for fostering individuality and excellence that reliably draws talented people into its employ, especially after Jobs' return.

"Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret"
"Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing"
"Then Again, Maybe I Won't"

Her allegedly ambiguous treatment of moral issues made her at one time a regular target of school library censors and the religious right. Her books are still often challenged in school libraries; in fact, Forever was the second most challenged book of 2005, according to the American Library Association.

Daily nasal saline irrigation may encourage sinus infections. Long-term use of a neti pot to clear stuffy noses and blocked nasal passages may actually encourage more sinus problems rather than keep them away. A new study shows people who used nasal saline irrigation for a year and then discontinued use the following year had 62% fewer cases of sinusitis in the year that they didn't use the device.

"Dick wad" is so 1986.

Sarah Palin may be burdened with the cross of a double-standard. She may be crucified by a media circus that hates her simply for being her. She may be unfairly categorized as a moron for her gaffes. She may very well have to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Not one of these things alters the possibility of Sarah Palin being a lying douchebag moron.

Also, Sarah Palin is a lying douchebag moron.

When criticizing former GOP nominee John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

Two bottles of Evian every day for a year: $726.35.
A year's worth of Brita pitchers and Nalgene bottles: $30.99

"I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009

By early November 2009, Palin’s Going Rogue book was the number one seller on Amazon.com and other leading booksellers. Before its release, the Associated Press obtained a copy of the 432-page book, fact-checked it, and found it interesting but with several inaccuracies. The AP's review reported, "Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer's dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition." In response to the AP review, Palin said on her Facebook page, "...as is expected, the AP and a number of subsequent media outlets are erroneously reporting the contents of the book. Keep your powder dry, read the book, and enjoy it!" A former senior McCain campaign official reviewed book excerpts about Palin accusing the campaign of keeping her away from the news media, and the official said, "Apparently the excerpts from the book are a continuation of a well-established and documented pattern where she (Palin) makes representations that are exaggerations or fiction."

A blast from the past for anybody from Chicago. Much of the material will have you saying, "OH YEAH! I REMEMBER THAT! WOW!"

Richard Heene appeared before a Larimer County District Court judge first, pleading guilty to a felony count of falsely influencing the sheriff who led the rescue effort during the 50-mile balloon chase that captivated a global television audience Oct. 15.

Mayumi Heene pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of knowingly filing a false report with emergency services. Prosecutors said she had a lower level of culpability and cooperated with authorities, telling investigators the balloon launch was a publicity stunt two weeks in the making.

Living in high-density areas where people and pollution are your constant neighbors and always within elbow's reach, the germs and dirt they bring into your life need to be cleaned out or you risk getting a cold or irritating your delicate sinus lining.

The neti pot used with a saline solution has been shown to be an effective treatment for hay fever, sinusitis, and other nasal conditions.

"President Obama isn't doing anything! And he's changing everything!" ~ conservatives

Some locations can be very, very skeezy.

Not the healthiest if all possible choices.

Sometimes this flavor is very strong and some consumers find it disagreeable.

It is "kidney friendly" and suitable for those with CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease) as it is very low in potassium.

Recent studies show that the protein found in goat cheese is higher than in cows, and is actually very similar to that of human breast milk.

A great way to break a tie or choose a "short straw" with no materials or preparation. However, some people don't know how to Rock, Paper, Scissor properly, which drives me insane.

There are actual "World Rock Paper Scissors Society sanctioned tournaments," which is asinine.

It's as funny as hell.

Though it is strictly a satirical venue, people use the show as a means to develop opinions about the news of the day.

An obvious leftist bent, which sometimes seems pander to the audience that naturally gravitates to the show. A more balanced take, if possible, may add to the show's ability to change people's minds to the most logical view.

An electronic cigarette contains a taste of tobacco but none of the harmful substances found in normal cigarettes allowing smokers cravings to be satisfied without inhaling the many dangerous toxins.

Glass baby bottles retain heat very easily and can be kept warm longer than their plastic counterparts.

If you misplace a glass baby bottle around the house and it has milk in it, it will not retain the rotten milk smell like plastic baby bottles.

The glass bottles are very easy to clean and are very dish washer safe.

Glass is environmentally friendly and it can be recycled.

Some plastic baby bottles can be recycled through your local recycling centers or curbside pickup. Check for the raised identification number on the bottom of each bottle. Most bottles will either have a number 4, 7, or no number at all.

If your bottle has a number 4 or 7 there is a a good chance you will not be able to recycle it in the traditional manner. Contact your local recycling centers to see if they accept plastics with a PIC (Plastic Identification Code) 4 or PIC 7. If they do, great! Your work stops here, just drop off your supply of bottles with those numbers.

It's delicious!

Water vapor is less harmful than tobacco cigarette smoke.

Reduces the amount of money spent on tobacco cigarettes over time.

Helps people to quit smoking actual cigarettes.