Category: Uncategorized

As Edward is locked in a room right now trying to finish his qualifying exams, I offer up this entry and bandwidth as a prayer to the Big Baby Jesus (aka Ol' Dirty Bastard) watching over us from the next world, to come and grant his good wishes on Ed.
online pharmacy doxycycline best drugstore for you

Observe a moment of silence as you watch Ol' Dirty Bastard crash the Grammy awards:

The more you watch that, the more the Dirt Dog will guide Ed's political science knowledge from beyond the grave. Feel free to watch other things on youtube related to ODB, including him cashing welfare checks on MTV or the classic Got Your Money video.

On a related note, the new Ghostface Killah album, "Fishscale", is even better than the hype.
online pharmacy clomid best drugstore for you

buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription

Seriously, go out and find it. It may even be better than Liquid Swords as the best (non-ODB) solo Wu-Tang effort.
buy diflucan online buy diflucan no prescription

So Seymour Hersch reported in the New Yorker that the Bush team wants to use "mini"-nuclear weapons against underground Iranian targets. People seemed surprised. My question: do they not remember anything?

This newspaper graph is from October 2000

National Institute for Public Policy (pdf), "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" 01/2001 (italics mine):

Hardened facilities are designed to withstand conventional or nuclear weapons effects. Hardened targets built underground and deeply buried facilities are the most difficult to destroy and will influence the required number and characteristics of nuclear weapons. Tunnels and caverns, for example, can be hundreds of feet below the surface and well-protected by soil and rock. Examples of hardened and buried targets include missile silos, launch control centers, concrete aircraft shelters, deeply buried command posts, tunnels for missile storage and assembly, storage bunkers, and underground facilities for weapons research and production. (p. 5)

(that report is fun to read, with the think tank suggesting, pre 9/11, the need to keep the military flush for our upcoming military conflict with the "worse yet, a Sino-Russian alliance". Hersch points out in his article that signers of the above document are currently, among other thigns, the national-security adviser, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for the Bush team.
online pharmacy nolvadex best drugstore for you

buy strattera online buy strattera no prescription

)

That report fed into the Nuclear Posture Review, a Rumsfeld signed confidential report given to Congress in March 2002 (excellent broad overview, with links to accompanying editorials, here):

"Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).
online pharmacy premarin best drugstore for you

buy cytotec online buy cytotec no prescription

" (p. 12-13)

I find it so weird that people are surprised when, after watching the President ask Congress for funding for the research and development of low-level nuclear weapons and the military for plans and rationales to use them against underground WMD bunkers, it gets reported that the Bush team is very interested in the idea of actually using the things they were so interested in against Iran. New Yorker:

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

I know that at least several ginandtacos.com readers must be homeless drunks. It just stands to reason. Luckily, if you are exceptionally drunk, a modern trend seems to indicate that soon you will get free housing.

Stylish urban dwelling which is sure to have some bitchin' parties

A recent project in Seattle will house 75 of the cities hardest core alcoholics. However, you should not make the mistake of thinking that it is easy to gain admittance. Simply drinking a bottle of Mad Dog and passing out on the street does not qualify you for downtown rent-free living. These people have had to seriously make a lifestyle of it. Public record needs to indicate that you have been an alcoholic for at least 15 years, and have failed at treatment at least 6 times.

I know what you are thinking. This is some kind of new fangled alcohol abuse treatment program. Not in the slightest. The residents of this facility are free to drink as much as they want. The only condition is that they have to behave appropriately on the streets and in the building or else face eviction. The reason for this is obvious.

In stark contrast to the opinions of fraternities around the nation, Bill Hobson, the program director said:

"Drinking is not an excuse for behaving badly"

Why did the city of Seattle spend 11.2 million dollars to build a building to house drunks? Well, there is the obvious benefit of them not dying on the streets. The other side of the coin, which I am sure held some weight with the city council, is that this is actually cheaper than dealing with them. Apparently the costs of police and medical attention for these 75 people is far greater than the cost to house them. Basically, it would seem, that Seattle is saying that as long as they keep their boozehoundery confined within the walls of 1811 Eastlake Ave it is fiscally responsible for the city to pay for them to live there. If you are one of these 75 individuals, you can go to sleep at night knowing that you were costing Seattle more money per month to contain your drunkeness than the average cost of rent in that area- good times.

I wonder if my years alternate in quality. 2005 was a great year. Though I'm hoping for a Q2 rally, 2006 has been a rather shitty year so far. After raiding my family's storage closet and the Internet, I decided to get the VCR out of the closet and do a bit of age regression in the past week. Here are the two tapes in question.

Clue II: Murder in Disguise, The VCR Game Did anyone else ever play this in the 80s? My family never really did board game night, but we did play a lot of this game. I remember watching the tape endlessly when I was 5 years old, the same way another kid may watch their favorite Disney movie. I'm glad to see there are some fan sites out there. Sadly the first Clue game in my mom's closet is in Betamax format, but watching Clue II, just as a movie, was every bit as wonderful and lame as I remember it.

A friend of mine had a DVD movie trivia game that we played, where every 4th question or so was based on a movie clip from the disc. Screw that – why doesn't anyone bring this game back? The VCR version was a pain in the ass because to re-watch parts for clues involved an endless amount of rewinding fast-forwarding; a track-skip button would be perfect.

Swindle (1991). I don't know the correct way to go about explaining this, but I will do my best. I don't know about other men, but when I was around age 13 there was a Cinemax adult movie where everything made sense. Both in what was depicted on-screen, and in how a male audience member usually reacts to said movie. For me that movie was Swindle. It may creep some of our family-values crowd (among others) to explain it in this way, but I think of this movie as "my first" movie. Do other people have such "a first" movie in their minds when it comes to cable softcore movies? If not a "first movie" per se, a Cinemax movie they feel some sort of strong allegiance to? (please leave the titles in the comments, anonymously if you must)

I don't know exactly what month or what year I watched the movie Swindle, but I can tell you with a large degree of certainty it was around 1:00am. I believed I saw the movie twice, at which point (hence the ephemeral nature of softcore) it disappeared from the airwaves. I was in a discussion of good versus bad softcore movies the other week and realized on some level I idealized this movie though I didn't remember much about it. I found a cheap, used (*ahem*) VCR copy online, took a deep breath, and ordered it. The deep breath was necessary because I was worried that a lot of the stuff I find sexy, erotic, etc. about women, something that I think of as being essential piece of who I am, would be derived from what was an awful, cheaply-produced throwaway softcore movie. The movie was awful (why did people do those things to their hair in 1991?), but thankfully any correlation was stuff I already remembered and not enough to scare me or make me doubt myself as a person.

This got me thinking about my age group, the ones who grew up with Cable television but not the Internet. Every age group has a knee-jerk reaction against what the kids these days are like (myself more than most, I was a camp counselor once as a summer job), and good arguments can be made against their music, clothes etc. I have to wonder about their access to porn. Not in the Tipper Gore "we must protect the kids!" way, but in a "these kids never had to stay up till 1am to try and catch The Bikini Car Wash Company" way. The Internet gives them a billion bikini-less car washes at their fingertips. They didn't learn the hard way that USA Up All Night was never, ever going to show a naked boob on the air, they didn't have to smuggle an adult magazine the same way a terrorist may try and get plutonium, and they never came up with complicated ways of taping shows on the VCR while leaving no evidence that it took place. All they have to do is type a word into google's image search and everything is right there. Forget Grand Theft Auto – I honestly believe the lack of having to sit and wait till 1am for your naked T&A is what's destroying the character of the kids these days.

I am equally worried that I have such detailed opinions on these matters and that I'm having a hard time turning this into a platform from which to run for office.

I love the Valentine's Day period, if only to see the endless "Let's advise the oafish husband on how to buy diamonds" television commericals, or to hear the pragmatic "women love this stuff, let us at Mega Jewelry Depot help you shovel it to them" talk radio commericals.

It's all seems so useless, when there is only one Valentine's Day event that needs to be observed: White Castle's Valentine's Day Romantic Dinner:

Make your Valentine’s Day STEAMY! Take your Valentine to White Castle on Tuesday, February 14 between 5 p.

online pharmacy buy levaquin online no prescription pharmacy

buy ventolin online drugeriemarket.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/britain/ventolin.html no prescription

m. and 8 p.m and enjoy hostess seating, candlelit dining and your own server. Reservations are required, so check the list below for participating Castles near you!

online pharmacy buy wellbutrin online no prescription pharmacy

And how. Check the link to see if a White Castle near you is participating. My love of all things White Castle has been well documented on this site, and this is my chance to take said love to the next level. God bless us everyone.

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology…Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." – 2006 State of the Union Address

Generations of the future, bear this in mind when you write the histories of these current times: President Bush is great at playing this game of three card monte – first he shows you the Free Market card, and when you aren't paying attention he replaces it with the Crony Capitalism card.

How are we going to fight our addiction to oil? The New York Times reports that our first step will be to give away royalties on $65 billion dollars worth of gas in the next five years. The article traces the exploitation by the Department of the Interior of a plan Clinton put into effect a decade ago to encourage high-risk oil exploration when oil prices were too low to justify the cost. Who knew that overhauling our energy polices overlapped so well with giving pork-lined handouts to campaign contributors?

There are any number of problems with this oil addiction talk and royalties incentive policy, both in the abstract and on the ground. An oil addiction is a problem, but it's only a problem if you use words like "global warming" or even "conservation." It's not a problem because of "unstable parts of the world." Considering that the top two exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada and that the price of oil is set globally (so Saudi Arabia will just sell it's oil to India and China, being no worse off from our boycott), I don't see the global jihad getting worried about SUV hybrids. Also, if the plan "let's fight an oil addiction by drilling for more oil" strikes you as the same thought process of "I'm going to fight my obesity problem by buying bigger pants", there's a good reason for that.

And of course this handout means that the Bush team feels that record global demand and record high prices for a product requires government intervention to provide incentives for supply – that the market doesn't do that itself and the Bush team needs to offer some carrots. And that's just to start. Of course this all assumes that the Bush team is actually trying to build a stable, rational policy agenda here, instead of just raiding whatever offices they can with patronage jobs and looting the coffers for handouts to their former (and presumably future) employers. But that's not what's up, right?

Ever dedicated to the fine art of helping clockwatchers finish out their Friday afternoon, ginandtacos.
https://www.health-advantage.net/wp-content/themes/mts_schema/lang/pot/ivermectin.html

com brings you this week's Friday poll: Which is the better (you are free to determine the grounds of "better") parody video:

Brokeback Squadron

OR

Brokeback to the Future

These parodies writes themselves. Leave your vote, with an optional justification, in the comments section.
buy nolvadex online buy nolvadex no prescription

Wanted to bring the hateration but I can't – Brokeback Moutain is an excellent movie.
buy fildena online buy fildena no prescription

I was concerned about seeing it as I tend to be allergic to movies that make an aesthetic out of flattering the tolerances and cultural superiority of it's perceived audience of art-house regulars and/or Oscar judges. But I didn't get any of that. It's a simple, tragic love story that is one of the more finely crafted movies America has put out in some time.

It reminds me a bit of Vanity Fair referring to the book Lolita as "The only convincing love story of our century.
online pharmacy nolvadex best drugstore for you

" Hundreds of movies are churned out each year cast in the genre of "romance" or "romantic" and yet the best love story I've seen from the US is about two gay ranchers who hook up on fishing trips and, over decades, become paunchy and start to bicker like an old married couple (or more like the two old guys in the Muppet Show balcony if you'd prefer). Sandra Bullock should be ashamed of herself.

I do find it amusing how, even in a movie about gay cowboys, director Ang Lee leaves his mark. At times it feels more like his Sense and Sensibility than the actual honky tonk cattle ranching atmosphere where it's set. Everything from the skylines to the clothing to the landscape is so picturesque that if the acting didn't hold up (which thankfully it does) the whole thing may have dissolved into an modeling shoot or gay camp.

And the modeling shoot aspect of it is funnier when you consider that in the original short story the characters are unabashedly white trash. Consider what is said during the 'climax' of their first time together:

They went at it in silence except for a few sharp intakes of breath and Jack's choked "gun's goin off," then out, down, and asleep.

It would have made for a more interesting movie if the phrase "gun's goin off" was used during the romantic scenes, but sadly it was taken out. Go ahead and believe the hype and see this.
online pharmacy levaquin best drugstore for you

buy elavil online buy elavil no prescription

On the "Intro" to his first album – "Return to the 36 Chambers" – Ol' Dirty Bastard tells an audience about a girl he met for 10 minutes who ends up giving him gonorrhea. The story goes : "Yeah, I love the girl but I had to cut the bitch off / Yeah the bitch died / I killed the bitch / She suffered a long painful death / bitchy ass go bitch had to go.

"

Isn't everything in the presentation? Usually when people commit crimes or do other things they want to cover up their justifications and stipulations go from narrowest to broadest. Another way of repeating Ol' Dirty's story is picturing him telling the cops "Didn't know her anymore / I knew she had died / I killed her / funny, I actually tortured her / I did so with premeditation." Isn't that what we all have come to expect?

Ol' Dirty – also mindful of your civil liberties
God bless him, not so with George Bush's White House. I encourage everyone to flip through the 42-page white paper the Department of Justice released justifying his secret NSA wiretaps. The argument is in the first three pages. What I find amazing is that it goes from the broadest possible argument to the most specific, instead of the other way around. Here's the reasoning, straight from the memo, in the order it is presented (all quotes, my numbering):

1) The NSA activities are supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States.
2) Congress by statute has confirmed and supplemented the President’s recognized authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct such warrantless surveillance to prevent further catastrophic attacks on the homeland.
3) The NSA activities are consistent with the preexisting statutory framework generally applicable to the interception of communications in the United States—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”)…

online pharmacy buy amoxicillin with best prices today in the USA

FISA also contemplates that Congress may authorize such surveillance by a statute other than FISA.
4) the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context.
5) Finally, the NSA activities fully comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

That's the order. To read it backwards we get: 5 – We didn't break the law.

4 – It's not even a real law. 3 – The law doesn't cover this.

2 – We were told we could break the law. 1 – It doesn't matter anyway, no law covers the President here. And that's the order you would expect, no? I'm loving that the initial assumption (as well as the loudest) is that the President can pick and choose laws to follow in these situations, and that the more diplomatic and reasonable assumption that the President was abiding by what he believed to be the *actual* law is thrown in at the end of the paper as an afterthought.

Do check it out. As Andrew Cohen wrote "The first time you read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution." I felt like it was the legalese of a cowboy sheriff of an Old West town, someone who was not under the impression that the government is more than one man shooting bad guys in the town square with frontier justice.

If there's any political philosophy which is based on the ideas of narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and of using the branches of government to check each other, they may not want to back up this cowboy anymore.