Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

I heard some "expert" on NPR saying that whatever your preconceived notions of drugs you'll be proven right when you look at the data from Portugal. For example if you are against decriminalization you'll see that Portugal proves you right and it shouldn't be decriminalized and vice versa.

Now I don't know if that's true or not and I'm considering the source the bastion of the intellectual class of state managers. I'd like to see someone parse this report down to something more palatable.

This is an interesting story for you to embrace. The government pushing for weaker international agreements on climate change, presumably to benefit corporate polluters/campaign benefactors. This would be of big benefit to big business, but not so much to oxygen based life forms.

Also, I thought you didn't believe in climate science. I'm glad to hear that you a) now believe climate change is real, and b) support more stringent measures on dealing with climate change. I couldn't agree more.

"The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations. Those objections have led many countries – particularly the poorest and most vulnerable – to vehemently oppose the accord."

According to teenagers polled, it's easier to get weed than it is to get alcohol right now and weed is still illegal. So, what exactly do you think is going to change once it's legalized?

>> ^bmacs27:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic" title="member since August 30th, 2008" class="profilelink">Psychologic , I think that is exactly what the alcohol lobby is worried about, an increased incidence of "drunk driving" deaths/accidents/injuries/arrests or what have you. I think they just want to make sure that marijuana takes its fair share of the heat that will likely come from it.
Again, don't get me wrong, I puff tuff on the regular. I just don't have any illusions that there won't be at least some problems with younger adults and teenagers if pot were suddenly legalized. I agree, it does not justify prolonging prohibition, but I think there should be a better response to a legitimate concern like roadside testing than "but... but... alcohol eats babies." If the response had been more like yours, it would have been much more palatable.

@Psychologic , I think that is exactly what the alcohol lobby is worried about, an increased incidence of "drunk driving" deaths/accidents/injuries/arrests or what have you. I think they just want to make sure that marijuana takes its fair share of the heat that will likely come from it.

Again, don't get me wrong, I puff tuff on the regular. I just don't have any illusions that there won't be at least some problems with younger adults and teenagers if pot were suddenly legalized. I agree, it does not justify prolonging prohibition, but I think there should be a better response to a legitimate concern like roadside testing than "but... but... alcohol eats babies." If the response had been more like yours, it would have been much more palatable.

They did inflate the currency. The definition of inflation has nothing to do with the value of the currency. It has to do with the quantity of currency. The actions they've taken have increased the money supply. That's what I meant by the dollar is being irrationally overvalued. The markets haven't priced in their actions yet.

We do agree on the houses however. Oddly enough, that particular form of recapitalizing the banks was referred to as "moral hazard." So if a homeowner can't make good on his liabilities, bailing him out is "moral hazard." If a bank can't make good on its liabilities on the other hand...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^bmacs27:
The fed can do little to remedy any of these problems, other than maybe inflating the currency so quickly that suddenly that salary everyone is used to making is palatable to employers. The fact is, they've already done that, it's just that the dollar is still irrationally overvalued (against, for instance, the yuan).
I think I'd characterize that as they tried to inflate the currency, but it didn't work.
Totally agree about buying up the houses though. Back during the TARP debate, that seemed like the most moral way to go about stabilizing the banks -- help out the homeowners, and thereby stabilize the banks.

>> ^bmacs27:

The fed can do little to remedy any of these problems, other than maybe inflating the currency so quickly that suddenly that salary everyone is used to making is palatable to employers. The fact is, they've already done that, it's just that the dollar is still irrationally overvalued (against, for instance, the yuan).

I think I'd characterize that as they tried to inflate the currency, but it didn't work.

Totally agree about buying up the houses though. Back during the TARP debate, that seemed like the most moral way to go about stabilizing the banks -- help out the homeowners, and thereby stabilize the banks.

What the fed can do to create jobs is extremely limited. The problem with the labor markets at present are the labor markets, not the fed. 1) Very few job openings are getting applicants with the requisite skills to do the job. 2) Those that have the skills demand more money than the prospective employers find worth paying to fill the position. 3) Abundant upside-down mortgages have significantly decreased the mobility of the labor force.

The fed can do little to remedy any of these problems, other than maybe inflating the currency so quickly that suddenly that salary everyone is used to making is palatable to employers. The fact is, they've already done that, it's just that the dollar is still irrationally overvalued (against, for instance, the yuan).

What I wish they had done is straight up bought the houses, rather than the MBSs. Doing so would have liberated debt laden workers so that they could go start a new life, while reducing the interest profits made by the banks. Instead they chose a strategy of recapitalizing the banks, leaving people to pay exorbitant interest rates on debt they no longer have the assets to cover. I realize it probably would have required a bit more work on the logistics end, and the fed ain't exactly a property management firm, but it would have put the money in the hands of those that needed to spend it the quickest.

I've been told that mine tastes like melted ice-cream. I asked to try my mum's, when she was breastfeeding my little sister and I remember liking it too. It tasted heaps better than our goat's milk and maybe even more palatable than our cow's. My older child loved it when she tried mine, when I was breastfeeding our youngest. I also breastfed a friend's child once, when she was ill and the baby didn't seem to notice the difference. I remember she gave me a funny look, just before she latched on, but she didn't fuss at all. It was the most natural thing in the world to do.

How is your point "logically sound" when art is subjective? You don't consider it high art. Fine. You consider it tacky. Fine. But both of those are your opinions, not a statement of fact. Logic has nothing to do with arriving at these opinions, capisce? Just because you think it's naff and that it should be relegated to the buffet table doesn't mean that it's not art. Chefs routinely prepare their dishes to be pleasing to the eye as well as the palate. Many consider it an art form. You may consider it naff.

Expertise is not the issue. I made my "expert" argument in a satirical vein, merely to drive home the point that is obvious to everyone here: That you are critical of almost everything, so your opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. It means as much as someone who praises everything. Maybe you aren't aware of that. Pardon my brutal honesty.>> ^westy:

"but I still thank you for your brutal honesty. Is there any field of interest you're NOT an expert in? "
if sumone makes a piont that is logically sound then why would they have to be an exspert in something ?
allso why would you presume just because sumone voices an opinoin about something that they would concider themselfs to be an exspert , your autimatically trying to set up a confrontational situation.
If you disagree with what i have said why not say specifcaly and give a reason.

>> ^Jinx:

Is engaging your enemy only when you see the whites of their eyes somehow more palatable?

Is it mere coincidence that collateral from modern wars is much less than from 100 years ago?


Um.. yes. There's a disconnect when you can't physically see the person you're affecting.
Your mirror neurons can't help you empathy if all you see is a green and gray aerial photo.

And.. wtf are you talking?! Since 2008 61 drones attacks have killed 824 human beings.

14 were Al Qaeda.

"Smart"bombs and drones are no better or "safer" than carpet bombing or artillery.

It's all fuckin' war. And it's all fuckin' awful.

It's times like this that I question my nerdom. I haven't the foggiest notion who this character is.

Then again I wouldn't shut my whore mouth throughout the entirety of episode 2 because, wow, what a piece of shit that was. Not surprised I don't remember a thing from them.

Didn't even see the third one because I was so offended someone thought I might actually want to see watch the first two. You would have thought they would have given us something palatable after episode 1 was hacked apart my critics and audiences alike. </rant>

I adore Maangchi and would normally want to eat everything she cooks, and my palate is fairly broad - but dried anchovies with sugar, garlic and corn syrup... um, no.

Hm. I hate to just agreed with rants, usually. But I listened with a very critical ear, and well, I really can't fault this.

I'm sure it could be delivered in a much more palatable manner, but oh well.