AFriendlyFace

Oh no!!! Damn! I thought he was the cutest one! *sigh* I guess Danny's going to have to carry "the flag" by himself

Levitt and Phillippe are indeed both excellent actors and both are very cute (Phillippe especially). However, I would hate to watch this movie! Based on the plot summary it's the perfect example of the type of movies I can't stand. This style and pretty much anything - besides Stranger than Fiction - with Will Ferrell are exactly the kind of movies I avoid like the plague (though to be fair Adam Sandler and Vince Vaughn manage to make egregiously awful movies quite consistently as well ).

"Low" by Flo Rida This is such a fun song!

So I went out tonight with a few friends and I was on the dance floor dancing when I noticed this guy leering at me. So I just kinda pretended not to notice and went on about my business. Well the next thing I know he comes up to me and grabs me and he's like, "You're really hot". So I just say "Thanks" and try to pull away, well then he says bold as can be, "Look, I'll pay you whatever". EUGHHH!! I was so shocked I just kinda stood there. Fortunately one of my friends grabbed my arm and pulled me away and pretended to be my boyfriend. I just can't believe someone would do that! Totally freaked me out. In other news the most amazingly lucky mistake happened to me while I was there. We were outside and a couple of the others were smoking when this guy recognizes me and comes up to talk to me. Well, I actually mistook him for one of my friends' old exes whom I'd briefly met a couple of nights ago. SO, I introduced him to everyone as Adam. Fastforward about 5 minutes later and I realize that he is in fact the roommate of a different friend whom I'd only met a couple of times (but should have remembered ). Now here's the kicker: his name is Adam too! So I completely thought I was talking to a different guy and by a massive lucky coincidence I was calling him and introducing him by the right name so he never even realized!! So that's how my evening went, and now I'm going to take off this outfit - which evidently makes me look like a hustler - grab a shower, and head to bed. Take care all.

Happy Birthday, Nick! You continue to be an inspiration and a wonderful friend! I hope this birthday is as great as you deserve! -Kevin

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday, Dude! I hope it's a great one!

Congrats, Mike!! I'm really proud of you!!

Things do seem to be getting better though Also, while I'm a bigger "feminist" than most of the women I know, I'd also like to point out that women have quite a few social freedoms that men do not For me nothing short of complete gender equality and an abandoning of all gender stereotypes and expectations will satisfy me. ...I don't expect to be satisfied anytime soon Things do seem to be getting better though -Kevin

Happy Birthday to them I'm celebrating being off work tomorrow

Happy Anniversary, CJ Sorry to hear that, Rose

Well said guys! I completely agree. Particularly about not making blanket statements and treating every case as though it were identical to the last one! IMO, the best thing the media could do to solve this and many other problems would be to butt out. Report it, keep us updated, but don't bash us over the head with 24/7 coverage of every detail

Despite the fact that I actually did agree with most of the rest of that post, I have to say that I find this concept disgusting and unappealing...unfortunately I agree that that is how the legal system is set up. Mercy and rehabilitation should always out weigh simple, spiteful punishment and justice in my opinion. Without this focus, and without keeping forgiveness front and center, I really can't think much of society. -Kevin

You're right! I think that does cut to the heart of the issue pretty well. Personally I think the whole virginity till you meet "The One" thing is pretty sweet and romantic. I don't think it's all that practical though, and it may even be detrimental. I've known quite a few people who rushed into a "serious relationship" because they wanted to start having sex...then they realized it was a really bad fit for them (the relationship that is ) Personally, I'm pretty conflicted about whether or not I'd want my boyfriend to be a virgin or not. I've been with one before. Actually, I think it made everything sex related a great deal more complicated. I suppose if it had worked out it woulda been kinda cool to think "gee, I'm the only one he's ever been with"...but is that really so important in the first place? I've decided that virginity for virginity's sake (however you decide to define "virginity) is more or less irrelevant to me when it comes to mate selection. I think what it boils down to is really three things: 1) Is the guy "clean", "safe", and "healthy". Having STDs isn't going to do a great deal to boost your points with the new boyfriend. I'm not trying to be harsh or judgmental. Treat them if you can, be honest about 'em, and always safe sex. That said I really don't care to pick something up from the new boyfriend. 2) Is the guy a "slut". If he sleeps with everything that walks you really might have reason to believe he'll have trouble being faithful, or that he'll get bored with being with just one person. If he's simply been serially monogamous or had a few hook-ups in his single days I see less of a problem. I guess the big factor here, for me, is whether or not he's able to be faithful when he is in a relationship. 3) Does the guy have too much baggage? This is really very similar to part two. If the guy has had quite a lot of sex, he may also have had quite a few relationships. He may also be carrying around a lot baggage from these relationships. If he is baggage free I don't care what number boyfriend I am numerically, as long as I'm "Number One" in terms of his current priorities. So yeah, those would be the things that might concern me sexually about a new boyfriend. Apart from a slight "oh cool!" moment or maybe a "Awww how sweet", I don't think it would matter to me very much if I were the first person he did X, Y, and Z with. Indeed, sometimes a little experience isn't such a bad thing Just my thoughts, Take care all and have an awesome day! Kevin

Hmmm, I really don't think the characterization is completely fair or accurate. I'm sure I'm exaggerating what you're saying, but it sounds to me as though you assume the typical American is regularly having shoot-outs with "out laws". I would be very surprised if the average criminal is significantly deterred out of fear that his victim will also have a firearm. He/she is probably deterred from fear that another criminal or the police will shoot him/her, but I doubt greatly that he/she fears this very much from a typical citizen. So I don't think guns work as much of a deterrent here. As far as actual, physical defense, personally I think (and I haven't done research or seen statistics this is just my intuition) having a gun while getting robbed makes you more likely to get killed or hurt. They escalate the situation and sort of force the criminal into a corner where he/she has to shoot you. Most robberies are non-violent and most criminals aren't out to physically hurt someone just for the sake of doing it. "Forcing their hand" so to speak by upping the stakes with additional weapons seems like a bad idea to me. I have a friend who carries a gun (but I only have one friend who carries a gun out of quite a few friends) and I'd certainly feel much safer being robbed when he isn't around. Anyway, as I keep saying, I think it's better to do something than to do nothing, and bottom line I sincerely believe very strong restriction (as well as efforts to remove current firearms from circulation) will do a lot more good than harm. Oh it certainly is! The notion that prisons serve any practical function besides physically separating the offender from the public for a period of time is most definitely incorrect and naive. Indeed, as you indicated most ex-cons simply emerge more pissed off at the world and significantly more knowledgeable about the ways of the crime world. This is true, but really I'm at a loss with what to do with the kid. What would you suggest? I really don't give much for his chances of redemption (well perhaps in the religious sense, but not in the practical, societal sense). If he does "change" he'll then always be tortured by the demons of what he did. Either way it seems to me like he's destined to live a rather miserable, depressing life. I certainly do think he's too unstable and dangerous to be set free. I might favour psychiatric treatment and oversight for him, but as I said I'm not too sanguine about the chances of his ultimate "recovery". That just leaves locking him up or executing him. I'm against the death penalty so that's out as an option for me. That really only leaves locking him up, and as we both agree that's a pretty cruddy solution too. He isn't going "change", if he ever gets out (and I'm conflicted on whether or not I think he should) he'll just be bitter, angry, and traumatized. Life imprisonment or eventual release, I don't think he stands much of a chance of ever being happy and enjoying his own life, or being productive and giving back to others. So where does that leave him? I am against suicide and additional death, but I certainly can understand the sentiment of "it's ashame he didn't kill himself at the end and spare us and himself a lot more trouble". Believe me, if I could "fix" him and make him be a "good" and "happy" person I would, and I'm the forgiving sort, so I wouldn't pointlessly punish him either, but frankly - in this case - I just don't see that as a very likely or viable possibility. It's very sad, -Kevin

Well damn! There's goes my suggestion that you pop out of a heart shaped cake topless! That's my thought. It's perfectly fine, in fact admirable I would think to "treat yourself", but you should treat yourself because you feel good about who you are and as a way of affirming that you don't need anyone. One year I took myself on a wonderful V-day date. I dressed up and went to a fancy restaurant, then I spent a couple of hours shopping, then I went to a movie, then I had some wine and took a bubble bath and listened to some soothing music...it was great! And the whole point was that I didn't need anyone else to do those things! In fact I relished doing them alone in full sight of all the couples (okay, I took the bubble bath privately but that's the not the point!) Anyway, you don't need someone else to make you happy. It's great to share your happiness with someone else, but don't rely on someone else for your happiness Take care all, Kevin

Always a pleasure, Graeme! I'd been eagerly waiting for your (and Jamie's) input. LOL, didn't hurt that I agreed with virtually everything you said Yes, strongly restricting guns to only citizens who actually need them would satisfy me. The vast majority of Americans who own guns most certainly do not need them in my opinion. This is pretty much what I was eluding to when I mentioned that today's gun control laws don't effect today's gun related incidents; they effect tomorrow's. I completely agree with your assessment that the problem is that there are already too many guns in circulation for new laws to be particularly effective at first. I still maintain that trying is better than nothing though, and as someone who actually lives here I feel like I have a vested interest in pushing this agenda. My solution to reducing the number of guns already in circulation would be for the government (or perhaps a wealthy private interest group) to make generous enough offers for guns (and also have a "no questions asked" policy) that the majority of citizens would sell them, thus removing them from circulation. In any case you're completely right: regulating is only one half of the solution, the other half needs to come in the form of active reduction. We're even then because: You have to be careful with your historical analysis, because the societies in question are very different to the societies of today. After all, the vast majority of Australians don't own guns, but I see no sign that anyone is going to try to take over the country. I agree that there are nations today where your statement would very true, because the citizens don't trust the way their country governmental structures are set up. I don't see that as being true for many other nations, though. I'll also repeat what I said above: The USA already has gun control in place, and has for decades. If you don't believe in gun control, why aren't you lobbying against the existing ban on many types of guns? That's pretty much the exact same point I wanted make (although with my inferior knowledge of the country, I wasn't going to rely so heavily on Australia as an example to make it ). -Kevin

I do agree with this. I'm a little conflicted on this point. Psychologically and physiologically speaking there's a great deal of evidence that indicates the average person's brain doesn't completely mature until their early twenties. Until then people (on average) are very much more likely to be impulsive and not think out the consequences than someone 30 or so. In that regard 18 may be too young to use as a benchmark. However, cognitively speaking they mostly are developed. So it's sorta a catch 22. You have adult thought processes, but "kid" emotions. Well that would be ridiculous! You and Menzo are two the niftiest folks around I do completely agree with this! 18 is a totally arbitrary number and I remember being 14 too. IMO, people underestimate kids way too much. In my experience they're not as naive and irrational as people seem to think. I also agree that regardless of your age (well at least certainly once you are a teenage) the individual themselves is responsible for their actions and their life. The circumstance and other factors are just circumstance and other factors, it doesn't give them a free ticket IMO. Look at Menzo or James Savik for example (two individuals whom I profoundly respect BTW), they've indicated in their forum posts that they had a pretty rough ride at a few points and they didn't kill themselves or anyone else. They grew up to be strong adults who make intelligent posts in serious discussion threads The "it's not my fault, my parents didn't love me/society mistreated me/I grew up poor/whatever" argument just doesn't wash with me. I'm endlessly sympathetic to the people that had to endure these circumstances, and I will keep this in mind when shaping my perception of them, but first and foremost I do hold each individual accountable for his or her own actions and happiness. You can suck lemons or you can make lemonade -Kevin

Ya know, I've been thinking and I think it would be really awesome if I could adopt a gay kid someday. I mean we've all heard stories about kids who get thrown out or run away. I'd really like to look after one, and I think I would be pretty good at soothing some of that inner-turmoil that's bound to be going on after something like that. Plus if you're going to adopt why not adopt "family"? That said, I probably would still want to adopt a baby or younger child too. Of course hopefully by the time I'd be ready to adopt there wouldn't be anymore homeless gay kids out there, because society woulda gotten over all that. I think you guys would make excellent parents No way is that stupid, Ieshwar! That's very sensible! LOL, you don't have to ask me twice! I certainly don't think that was off-topic at all, Krista. Oh my gosh though! That sounds like a really good program, but you're right: there's no way I could keep the child for several months or a year and then give him/her up, especially to a parent who had previously had problems that warranted removing the child! Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having a second chance, and I think it is a good program, but emotionally I know I couldn't do it. As for having kids to see what they'd look like, actually I was really thinking it would be cool to adopt children of another race. I know children can often face added adversity from this, but I think in the long-run it's a really positive thing for society to see inter-racial families (even better if they're GLBT too!), and I think it's really great for the kids to grow up in a diverse, and accepting background. It seems like it sorta gives them a good headstart when it comes to learning about things like tolerance and acceptance. I used to joke that if I were a girl I'd probably go out and get myself knocked up just so I could have a kid...only I'm not sure I am joking...I think I'd have really been tempted to do that. Anyway, I know where you're coming from, and whatever arrangement you work out is fine, just please be upfront with the woman okay? She doesn't deserve to discover that the man she's in love with and had a baby with was purposely deceiving and using her. Dude, I think you'd be an amazing dad! -Kevin

That doesn't make it "historically inaccurate", that just means that in that instance the kids didn't grab the guns from their parents home. As far as I know the vast majority of shootings have been done by kids who got the weapons from family or friends. Also, even here, I suspect stronger gun control would have helped keep those guns off the streets in the first place. It stands to reason that if very few people had guns in the first place there would be very few guns available to be bought illegally. Today's guns laws, or any passed in the near future, have nothing to do with today's gun prevalence, for that we have to look a few years back when those guns were first being circulated. In any case I don't know where those particular guns came from or what their history was, but I'm not talking simply about this one case of school shootings, nor am I even only talking about school shootings at all, I'm talk about all violent, gun related crimes. I don't see how, regardless of human intent, or the origin of the guns in question, one can argue that reducing the availability of these guns won't reduce gun related incidents. There's a very simple trickle down effect. Also, I'm certainly not arguing that that will solve all our gun related problems and prevent another school shooting from happening. It would be very very foolish to think that. I'm simply arguing fewer overall guns = fewer overall incidents, regardless of any other factor. Actually, this is a good example for my point. Prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption, lots of people broke the law and did it anyway, and it was very difficult to enforce, but it still did reduce overall alcohol consumption. Here's another very relevant personal example. Last night I wanted to make margaritas. There's a very close grocery story in my neighbourhood so I wanted to go there for supplies as well as regular groceries. The problem is, which I knew full well prior to going there, in Texas they don't see Tequila or any hard liquor in grocery stores or gas stations, you have to go to a liquor store. There IS a liquor store less than 2 miles away. I still decided to just buy wine instead whether than going out of my way to go to the liquor store. I certainly could have done it, it wouldn't have been that big a deal, but it just wasn't as convenient so I didn't. In Louisiana I could buy almost any type of liquor at almost any time of store or gas station. Louisiana is even known for having quite a few "drive through" options. It was very convenient. I could also buy anything I wanted right up to 2am. Here in Texas the liquor stores are required to close at 9pm, and the grocery stores quite selling beer and wine at 12am. Since moving here there have been quite a few instances besides the one I mentioned above in which I wanted something but didn't feel like going to a specific store, or it was too late to buy it. Of course it would be easy to get around these problems by just going to the liquor store earlier, but it's inconvenient and that has resulted in me consuming less alcohol. I imagine if we were still living under prohibition I would still drink, but chances are I'd do it significantly less than I do now. But it undoubtedly keeps them out of the hands of many, and would keep them out of the hands of more (but still not all) if they were illegal altogether. People don't tend to keep illegal things around long-term, nor do they general procure them far in advance of when they might want to use them. Look at drugs. Most drug users don't buy the month's stash in the same way they buy the cereal they'll be consuming. They tend to buy it on an as needed basis, and not just keep a lot of it around "in case they later want some later". In the same way I think people are less likely to buy contraband guns simply because they may want to use them later. Oh some will, just fewer. Sure if you're dead set on going on a homicidal rage you'll get your guns and you'll go, but you'll be less likely to be able to do it "impulsively". Where gun control really comes in isn't with gangs and premeditated murders (although I still think it has a slight effect here as well). Where it really comes in is preventing everyday, "heat of the moment" "I'm really pissed and look here's a gun" kinda instances. It also keeps little Billy from blowing his head off (or shooting his sister) when he finds Daddy's gun in the closet. Sure one can argue that's the father's fault, but the point remains if the gun is less likely to be there (which it is if it's illegal), it's less likely to happen. I'm very much for parental involvement and good parenting, but I think you'd be surprised how easily something like this can happen even to "everyday" parents. And just because you aren't going to win parent of the year doesn't mean you deserve a child who kills people, and it certainly doesn't mean you deserve people making your pain worse by blaming you. This is very comparable to blaming parents whose kids kill themselves, which is - thankfully - much less fashionable. Yes, there are usually signs, and if you're very diligent, and lucky, you can spot them, but they're also surprisingly easy to miss in some cases, and a great deal depends on the personality and temperament of the individual kid. For some kids anger and depression are easy to spot; for some they aren't. -Kevin

Sorry - Buck Cherry

Edit: cross-posted Actually, I do agree with this post. As Pete and I both mentioned in prior posts, there's nothing wrong with the military and police using force when necessary. Also, I strongly agree with you that the outcome is determined in how the force is applied. I've also always thought it was incredibly stupid, to go around trying to simultaneously destroy and build up our enemies. I am a pacifist and almost always oppose war (indeed WWII is the last war/conflict in which the US has been involved that I don't considered a mistake), but for goodness sake, if we're going to fight a war let's do it right! Get in, blast them, and get out. -Kevin

Oh my, I have so many thoughts on this! First off: I almost completely agree with every word Pete said in both his posts. I'm very much in favour of gun control. I agree that there's very little reason why anyone beyond the military and the police should have a gun. I'm pretty ambivalent about hunting...I mean for one thing I'm a vegetarian and while animal rights is only a very small part of that decision it does play it to it slightly. I don't categorically oppose hunting by any means though. My solution would be to significantly regulate when and where people can hunt, and to allow them to "rent" the guns for the duration of their hunting excursion and then return them. I also think shooting ranges are fun, and could be handled in similar fashion. Personally, I don't care for the way the media handles and handles AND HANDLES tragedies when they occur. I agree that they should report them, but they don't need to beat us over the head with them. After a tragedy occurs details and constant coverage are almost impossible to avoid (I agree that these additional details and coverage should be out there if you're looking for them, but they shouldn't swamp you!). This has a very unfortunate effect on me. After awhile I just get so frustrated and annoyed with hearing about it all the time that any mention of the event usually triggers a knee-jerk "I don't want to hear about it or talk about it anymore" response. This is sad because the victims of these tragedies do deserve our sympathy. What they don't deserve is having everyone up in their private lives and having the media broadcast the tragedy in a 24-7 loop, such that neither they nor anyone else for that matter, has any chance of moving on with their lives. It is for this reason (among a few others) that I do not watch television anymore. I mostly would agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of kids and teens completely...but then I would mostly make this statement with regards to 90% of the rest of humanity (if not more). It would be nice if kids were the only ones who were too irresponsible to handle a gun. The truth is they are certainly not. Indeed there are quite a few sensible, sane 15 year olds in whose hands I'd rather see a gun than wacky, unstable 30 year olds. I'm certainly not saying 15 year olds should use guns, but I think simply stating "No minors should have access to guns, and all (for the most part) adults should" is a ridiculous and dangerous over simplification. Exactly! Everyone always argues that "the crazy people will still get access to the guns anyway", but that argument is comparable to saying "There's no reason to restrict access to weapons of mass destruction. If people want to destroy huge world populations they will anyway". Yes, of course those kids could have used other weapons, but other weapons would have been easier to get away from/avoid, they would have been easier to stop, and they simply would not have been able to kill as many people quickly. They may have wanted to and intended to, but that doesn't mean they could have actualized their plans. Yes, right now there would still be tons of blackmarket firearms out there, but only time and efforts to clean that up will make that problem go away, and using this as an excuse not to get started and give it a try is pretty lazy and irresponsible IMO. Also, the vast majority of "upstanding" American citizens don't buy things on the black market. That means that in all likelihood these kids' upper-middle class, white parents wouldn't have had illegal guns sitting around the house. I'm not saying they couldn't have figure out some way to get the guns, but it would have been a lot more difficult and time consuming, and there would have been a much greater likelihood that they'd have been caught in the process. I don't use illegal drugs. If I wanted to I'm sure I could get a hold of them. However, it would be a lot more dangerous, difficult, and legally risky than if I decided right now "Gee, I think I'll take a hit" and walked over to my bedside table. That is very interesting! However, I would not posit quite the same theory. I would think that the main reason this group is the one that perpetrates the killings is because 1) they have higher expectations for how great their life should be as white males, and 2) they have less experience in over-coming adversity, and lack many of the most important resources and skills. I suppose the other stuff plays into significantly too though. No offense, but that seems like a bit of a silly perception. Statistically you're very unlikely to die from (or be involved in) any kind of major violent event. It is by no means inevitable; in fact it's unlikely. Take care everyone and have a great day! -Kevin

Oh wow! I had completely missed this guy on that page. He's way cuter in my opinion, and definitely just as gay. Actually, based on his video I think I like him much better than Danny. He seems sweeter and more genuine. He would have benefited from a little bit of eye make up though. Nothing extreme, and hopefully not even noticeable, but his very light eyelashes made him look a little bit washed out under the camera lighting. Apart from that though, I thought he was adorable and sweet.

I had to check and make sure it wasn't Robbie posting this. LOL, did you really mean another car, or did you perhaps mean cat? Hmm, well I won't argue this point either way, but I do think that regardless of how good or bad one's relationship is with one's parents the very word "Parents" or "mom" or "dad" conjures up a particular individual(s). Whereas if you split up with someone romantically and you hear the word "boyfriend", "husband", "Spouse", "significant other" or whatever, you don't think of that person as filling that role.