Wong & Owens

I think because I don't know anybody who is lukewarm on a topic like this. Whichever side you believe, you believe it pretty strongly, and I can't see how a couple with opposing views on this could survive together. Though you're right--two people on opposite sides of this coin probably don't date the other's type much. Kind of like a rancher dating someone from PETA.

But, what if someone is a die-hard Republican based primarily on the fact that they tend to be more pro-life? Could that person reasonably have a relationship with a Democrat committed to pro-choice?

Stabbing or breaking up with someone over their choice of either Bush or Kerry is rather extreme. Doing it over one's choice of Alan Keyes, however, is perfectly acceptable.

OK, that's more along the lines of what I had read about. No surviving Pontius Pilate blogs, eh?

There is? In what? I never heard this before.

Sorry for butting in here Steff-- Headhunters and PLacement Agencies are pretty much the same thing, except to most people, Headhunter means permanent job, while Placement Agency means temp jobs. Anyhow, the reason for my 2 cents here is to let you know that I work with a LOT of headhunters in many different industries, and what I can tell you is that they're going the way of the dinosaur. With the advent of specialized and general online job boards, most companies don't see any reason to justify the large fees that headhunting firms generally charge. They're still around, but IMHO, I wouldn't waste my time with them-- especially since you are in search of an entry-level position. P.S., I am in marketing, and because I hold no loyalty to my company, I check Monster, Careerbuilder, et al, quite often, and there are a ton of entry level Marketing gigs up there. Get crackin'!

Dean Martin?

Both do affect millions of people, and both have nothing to do with homosexuality in and of itself. The cause of the catholic priest scandal is pedophilia. There are reported cases of girls being abused by priests as well as boys. If you were a pedophile, could you possibly draw up a better job description to facilitate getting your rocks off than catholic priest? It's no coincidence that so many have been caught with their, er, pants down. Maybe some of the priests simply are homosexual, and abused kids because they were easy targets. While ceertainly not acceptable for any reason, maybe if said priest wasn't essentially raised to think that feelings he can't control are punching his ticket to damnation, maybe he wouldn't have gotten screwed up to that degree. As for the AIDS scare, yes, it was more prevalent amongst gays due to their lifestyle, but also due to the lack of education, outlets and support structures offered to the gay community that contributed to that lifestyle. I'm too lazy and tired to go digging for all the theories, but to say that the AIDS scare was spread because people were gay is simply inaccurate. Not alot of lesbian AIDS cases, IIRC.

"Billy, come downstairs, it's 4:00 -- time for your Streisand Appreciation Class"

1,917,772.00

I wasn't hating, I snickered. So, if I understand correctly, is that your reasonning for accepting it as OK-- that the bible contains a passage that explicity says so?

thats a passage from the story of adam and eve, right? (muffled snicker)

Another question I've always had regarding this whole "sacredness of life" concept is-- Why is the life of vegetation and other animal species not as important to the big G? The spread of humanity across the world has eliminated thousands and thousands of species of fauna and flora, why is that OK?

You absolutely should, Wino, and any American who disagrees is completely ignorant of the tenets this country was founded on. "...all men are created equal." To refuse to grant the civil rights enjoyed by straight people to gays, is fundamentally no different than slavery, prohibiting women from voting, etc. Fortunately, as history tells us, the types of people that would support the notion that gays shouldn't be treated equally, or that women shouldn't vote and stay at home dependent on a man, or that black people need to drink out of separate water fountains -- they never win. It may take weeks, months, or years, but they always lose in the end. Just be patient, Wino. Your day will come-- I'd just about guarantee it. In the meantime, work on designating a figurehead for the movement, because trying to view Rosie O'Donnell on the same plain as Martin Luther King, or Sandra Day O'Connor is nauseating.

Ravens Giants Eagles Colts Vikings Chargers Dolphins Buccaneers Chiefs Patriots Packers Seahawks Saints Broncos

Why I ain't procreatin': Group Warns on Consumption of Resources By JONATHAN FOWLER Associated Press Writer Published October 22, 2004, 9:19 AM CDT GENEVA -- Humanity's reliance on fossil fuels, the spread of cities, the destruction of natural habitats for farmland and over-exploitation of the oceans are destroying Earth's ability to sustain life, the environmental group WWF warned in a new report Thursday. The biggest consumers of nonrenewable natural resources are the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Kuwait, Australia and Sweden, who leave the biggest "ecological footprint," the World Wildlife Fund said in its regular Living Planet Report. Humans currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the Earth can produce, the report said. "We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate," said WWF chief Claude Martin, releasing the 40-page study. "We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the Earth's ability to renew them." But Fred Smith, president of the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute and a former official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon and Ford administrations, said he was skeptical. In a telephone interview, Smith said the WWF view is "static" and fails to take into account the benefits many people get from resource use. Use of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil increased by almost 700 percent between 1961 and 2001, the study said. Burning fossil fuels -- in power plants and automobiles, for example -- releases carbon dioxide, which experts say contributes to global warming. The planet is unable to keep pace and absorb the emissions, WWF said. Populations of land, freshwater and marine species fell on average by 40 percent between 1970 and 2000. The report cited urbanization, forest clearance, pollution, overfishing and the introduction by humans of nonnative animals, such as cats and rats, which often drive out indigenous species. "The question is how the world's entire population can live with the resources of one planet," said Jonathan Loh, one of the report's authors. The study, WWF's fifth since 1998, examined the "ecological footprint" of the planet's entire population. Most of a person's footprint is caused by the space needed to absorb the waste from energy consumption, including carbon dioxide. WWF also measured the total area of cities, roads and other infrastructure and the space required to produce food and fiber -- for clothing, for example. "We don't just live on local resources," so the footprint is not confined to the country where consumers live, said Mathis Wackernagel, head of the Global Footprint Network, which includes WWF. For example, Western demand for Asia's palm oil and South America's soybeans has wrecked natural habitats in those regions, so the destruction is considered part of the footprint of importing nations. The same applies to Arab oil consumed in the United States. The findings are similar to those in WWF's 2002 report, which covered the period up to 1999. But the latest study contains more detailed data stretching to 2001. It shows the situation has changed little in most countries and is now more worrying in fast-growing China and India. The world's 6.1 billion people leave a collective footprint of 33.36 billion acres, 5.44 acres per person. To allow the Earth to regenerate, the average should be no more than 4.45 acres, said WWF. The impact of an average North American is double that of a European, but seven times that of the average Asian or African. Residents of the United Arab Emirates, who use air conditioning extensively, leave a 24.46-acre footprint, two-thirds caused by fossil fuel use. The average U.S. resident leaves a 23.47-acre footprint, also largely from fuel. Swedes leave a 17.3-acre footprint, but most is caused by land use and the impact on other countries of its imports of food and clothing. Like its Nordic neighbors, the country has won praise from campaigners for cutting fossil fuel use. The study also warned of increasing pressure on the planet's resources amid spiraling consumption in Asia. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been a frequent critic of what it calls "environmental alarmism" from organizations like WWF. Smith said the footprint idea is wrongheaded. "It's sort of like saying, 'General Motors must be much more wasteful than the local laundromat because General Motors spends more resources.' Yes, but they are producing more product, too," he told the AP. "The real question is not whether the United States is a wealthy place but rather whether it's producing more wealth than it's consuming. Obviously, we are. We're using a lot of the world's resources but we're producing far more of the world's resources." Loh said governments, businesses and consumers should switch to energy-efficient technology, such as solar power. "We can consume energy in a way that's harmful or in a way that's sustainable," he said. "The technologies are available to enable the world's population to live within the capacity of one planet." High oil prices may help focus their minds. "But it's not a question of how much oil is left," he said. "The question we should be asking is how much fossil fuel consumption the Earth can sustain. The Earth has a limited capacity."

Could I get in any kind of trouble for putting a sign on my lawn that reads: A Vote for Keyes is a Sign that You are a Complete Idiot ?

Well, see, Ellen and I have much more in common, thus perhaps why I find her funnier than you do! Margaret Cho is another one I thought of who is usually funny.

You mean Molly Shannon?

Brett Butler was pretty good, and Roseanne was either hilarious, or just plain awful. I think Ellen Degeneres is funny, Jennifer Coolidge is a riot, though not a comedian per se.

See, now I can't figure out how Kathy Griffin makes nickel one from comedy. I don't know if I've ever seen a less-funny comic on t.v.

I'm going with the non-PC answer that I don't find women comedians NEARLY as funny as male comedians. Maybe that's because I'm a guy. I can count on one hand the number of women comedians that have ever made me laugh. Don't have a misogynistic bone in my body, just calling it as I see it.

As I believe Steff said, I don't see anything wrong with bringing him back with a minor-league deal as a long reliever. Especially after his performance last night. But as a starter? No. Unless they bring in a top-flight guy to go along with him. Then I would consider Loaiza as a #5.

No. What the f*** do I care about the daily lives of the progeny of a murderous jagoff?

And the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush. With the most convincing argument I've heard or read, I might add.