>> ^shagen454:

I don't really have anything against Taco Bell, I used to eat there as a kid on the East Coast - there were no other "Mexican" food options. But, if you live in the vicinity of real Taquerias you have no excuse to eat this fake, small-portioned, overpriced shit. I've tried "mexican" food all over CA but I still need to try the famed San Diego burrito. Definitely, though, if all you've ever eaten is "mexican" food from Burrito Max or the Bell - you've gotta try the real deal. After I left a small city on the East Coast a mexican restaraunt moved in and yuppified this type of food. I'll admit it was good - but there is nothing like getting an excellent $4 veggie burrito with free chips and salsa.


I believe you're talking about the California Burrito, at least that's what it's called here in San Diego. Indeed it is quite delicious, and probably the item I get most at taco joints here. I've probably had taco bell about 5 times in the last few years. Partly because it's about the fastest meal I can get near my work (leave my desk, eat at TB, and be back at my desk in under 30 minutes), and partly because I have friends that pressure me into it. "You have to try the new _______ at taco bell!" Those items always suck though.

My favorite items at TB are: classic taco, double decker taco, crunch wrap supreme.

So you just don't buy it, based on your personal experience, right? You're generalizing trends based just on what you've seen and what you've experienced in your own home. This is a logical fallacy based on converse accident. You even say in your second statement, "First of all, maybe my house is different..." So right there you're admitting that your situation may be the exception rather than the rule. And it most certainly is.

First of all, the gender wage gap exists:

1. Women’s Earnings Fall; U.S. Census Bureau Finds Rising Gender Wage Gap
2. Statistics Canada: Average earnings by sex and work pattern
3. Statistics Norway: Gender Gap
4. Swedish National Mediation Office: Report examines gender pay gap

And there are more studies where those came from.

Secondly, in most cases (but certainly not all), women do more child rearing and housekeeping in two-income households. (I know this isn't the '50s. I never said it was, nor even came close to implying it. If it were the '50s then most households would be single-income.)

1. Time Crunch for Female Scientists: They Do More Housework Than Men
2. Working women do more chores than men
3. Women Do More Housework, Men Less Upon Marriage
4. Single women 'do less housework'
5. Married women unite! Husbands do less housework

And so on.

Equality has not been reached yet for most women in most careers and in most households. The video above tells a small part of this story, in an incisive manner. Though some may suggest that it is, it is not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out racism. To live in denial of the facts does not help solve the problem.
>> ^Sagemind:

I was hoping not to get into the whole gender argument but I have to chime in.
First of all, maybe my home is different but...
Yes, I find this comparison way off.
When my kids were babies, I took just as much care of them as my wife and sometimes more so.
I was the one who got up in the night with them, even when my wife was on maturity leave.
I changed the diapers most of the time.
I was working low paying jobs while my wife made a good union wage.
At one point, It was I who had to quit my job to be home with them while my wife worked.
I do almost all of the cooking.
Until my current job, my wife's income almost doubled mine
I could go on and on but the point is, many of my friends are the same. The 50s roles of mom and dad don't exist any more. Life has become a two income home for most of us and many cases, we work extra jobs on the side just to make ends meet. (3.5 income home). In most homes I know, the dads are very active in raising the children and keeping the house clean etc.
I understand this "Men with higher incomes world exists, I've just never seen it. I see many wives and woman in general out there in the work force making the same wage as the men. I know of many men out there that can't get a decent job that pays above poverty level and many more women out there with good union paying jobs. Yes, I've seen some women out there that don't work and stay with the children - out of choice - My wife hates working (as do we all), and would rather be at home full-time with the kids.
Life just doesn't work that way - we have to pay bills in a world where 2, 3 and four income households are becoming the norm. If in some fantastic world, I managed to double my wage and bring home enough money so my wife could quit working and be at home full time, wouldn't that skew the statistics? I would be that man who made more money than the woman, and she would be that woman who (choosing not to work) made less money.
But it doesn't matter, I don't live in a world where a single income can pay for a family of four.
We both work, We both volunteer, We both look after the kids and we both look after domestic chores. We both have the capability to make the full paycheck. I'd say we both have the same privileges of status.
Out of the fist ten friends that come to mind, the wife make more money (or equal amounts) in seven of those families.
In one, the wife doesn't work due to depression and stays home with the kids.
One works part time - and stays home with the kids by choice
And one just makes less money because of the choice of job she chooses.
So, for the average family, I just don't buy it. Maybe it used to be true but in today's world, if one spouse makes less money, it's because they made a choice at some point to either take a lower paying job or didn't train for better.
While there are many excuses, we are way past the days where we can blame domestic life as an excuse to hold women back. Just as there are many excuses as to why some men are the same.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.

http://videosift.com/video/Making-Sense-Small-Businesses-Battle-the-Credit-Crunch

Wow! Thank you for the quality and the doublepromote!

PBS News Hour channel has some good videos on it.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
*quality *doublepromote

economy video:
http://videosift.com/video/Making-Sense-Small-Businesses-Battle-the-Credit-Crunch

people really keep a tally in their head?
man..let that shit go...
if i offer to buy you lunch or whatever it is due to a few factors:
1.i have the extra cash
2.i like spending my extra cash on friends.
3.i really have no affection for money other than its ability to buy me things.
a.this is why i rarely have cash,maybe if i cared more i would have more but i dont..so screw it.
4.when i spend this extra cash on you it makes me happy and there is no invisible balance sheet in my head tallying who did what for whom.so while YOU may have the tally sheet in your head crunching the numbers i have already forgotten about any frivolous purchase on made for you with my extra cash.
5.could i borrow some cash?seems i am a bit short....

*doublepromote crunch.

upvote for the Irish accent.

seriously though, Crunch Berries come from Sugar Trees, right ?

For a more practicable test, go to YouTube and watch random videos with your eyes closed, while writing down what skin color you think the speaker is most likely to have. Then watch those videos again with your eyes open and write down whether you guessed the skin color of the speaker correctly. Crunch some numbers, and voila, you'll have a metric for the accuracy of your ability to determine the skin color of a speaker from his voice.

>> ^joedirt:
LOL.. posted a day later and it has more votes..
http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Seal-doing-sit-ups


Seal? And your old link is broken.

Mirror just in case: http://actinglikeanimals.com/2010/03/16/funny-animal-photos-walrus-getting-in-shape/

It's not just whether the material is recyclable or not, but the quantity of the material:
1) Most containers are not recycled.
2) Most goods made with recycled plastic Must contain some quantity of New plastic, because the material degrades during the process. Ever wonder why when you buy something made from recycled plastic it says, "made from XX% recycled material"?
3) It takes a lot of energy to recycle. Both in processing the material and in transport.

Now, the fact the us Yanks aren't using UHT milk, that really pisses me off! Milk doesn't have to go bad people! At least not on the time frame it would take to go through a liter of it. Running to the #@(*Y$(* grocery store at 4:36 AM because you don't feel like pouring lumpy milk on your Cinnamon Toast Crunch.. that just sucks. Not to mention the environmental harm that comes from energy wasted through refrigeration, and the ridiculous overproduction of milk due to spoilage.

If that's not an arguement to wear one's seat belt, nothing else is. That 'Crunch' you ear, would have been his body falling on his neck and killing him.

Unfortunately, with wrecks, people are disoriented, stun, and in shock. They get out, walk around, and generally can not do anything useful. They walk in to traffic, mill about, can not be coherent on a phone with the 9/11 operator.

If your a motorists and you see this happen, get the person to sit down, out of harms way. check for any physical injuries (something metal sticking in them). Call the police or paramedics.

Cars can be fixed and replaced easily, people....its a harder process.

I can't stand the overblown sense of equivalency I see everywhere. One thing does not mean another.

I hate it when people subscribe exclusively (in a given domain) to pretty much any ism. Call it non-adherism. People who run around self-identifying as "atheist" are allowing semantics and the gaps in perception to work against their purported goal to subvert religious thinking. Better to ignore religion completely and act like you've been asked if you believe in Santa Claus when it comes up. Snort, say "of course not" and move on with your life. Don't say "No, I'm an atheist." Because true though it may be, to a christian mind, you have just said "no, I'm one of them" because at root they have a tribal mentality. Try to exist as an individual and not present yourself as one of a throng. If more people did this we could shave a couple generations on the ETA of rational predominance.

I can't stand these fucking T-shirt wearing atheists who make not believing in god as much a part of their identity as the idiots who do believe in god. They don't even get the fucking concept. These disciples of nothing, who act like we're in some club together because neither of us believes in god, have less of my respect than people who go to church every weekend. Hey I'll bet I have not believing in the Easter Bunny in common with lots of people, that doesn't mean we're allies. It doesn't make us smart or moral either. We're mostly fucking idiots just like every other "group"*.

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you believe in evolution.

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you believe that things started with a big bang.

And the big bang theory doesn't state that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. It states that in all likelihood the current state of the universe developed after a big bang. I like the idea of big-crunch-big-bang cycles, seems quite elgant to me.

*if you group people by what they don't believe. Which is fucking stupid.

I just have to respond, since until recently I was a Starbucks barista (OK, so it got really stressful, and my boss left, and I just wasn't going to stay after that...)

But if you like hot chocolate, and have a sweet tooth, please try SB's signature hot chocolate, especially the one formerly known and 'salted caramel signature hot chocolate'. I don't really like their regular HC. It is too chocolaty and not sweet enough for me. The signature hot chocolate is 'European style' - which I don't get, but oh well.. It is a lot sweeter and creamier (a base that is made every day).

ANYWAY, what used to be the 'salted caramel signature hot chocolate' - which I am now calling SCHC has the signature hot chocolate PLUS toffee nut syrup (which I LOVE! So good on top of vanilla ice cream) and thry put caramel drizzle on top of the whipped cream. It used to have a sea salt topping but not any more. Sea salt topping sounds disgusting (maybe), but it was a mixture of hawaian smoked sea salt and cane sugar (or something like that) and it brought out the sweetness of the caramel. It was like having 'caramel pretzel Crunch' from Sheridan's Frozen Custard! (The only Sheridan's here closed But it was a micture of vanilla custard, which is super soft ice cream, pretzels and caramel, all mixed together.

Okies.. Just wanted to mention the caramel signature hot chocolate.. It costs a bit more than a regular hot chocolate, but it is soooo much better. You can also have that with espresso.. Ask for espresso truffle, and say you want the caramel version.. make sure they put Toffee nut syrup in it!

Aaaalrighty. Time to go do some more crunches and push-ups.