Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

Also it says in iTunes that how much "media" can I sync into it and it says 7,4gb but it should be 8,0gb.

That .6 GB is the amount of space that the operating system takes up. You're rarely going to get usage of the entirety of the storage space it says is available on the box. The freezing when you sync with your PC seems more likely an issue with your PC than with the iPod.

If you just got your Nano 6 months ago and are having problems I would suggest taking it in or sending it off for repair, because it's still under warranty. Whenever I've had issues with my iPods the Apple Store has just replaced them.

That said, I think buying an iPod touch would be frivolous, especially for someone who's 13, has no money and has a Nano that's under warranty.

I agree with Gnorb.

I think she'll do fine, because she'll likely have some kind of cribsheet where she can organize her talking points.

Yes, she's kind of dense (as someone with a journalism degree who couldn't name any newspapers she reads) but part of the reason she tanked her first few interviews, I believe, was because she was asked questions she didn't anticipate about topics she hadn't been briefed on. It's pretty clear by the buzzwords she uses and the way she recites things that her knowledge beyond the scope of Alaska has been fed to her by the campaign.

As for Biden, I agree that he's got a big catch-22, but I also think this bullshit double-standard isn't doing us ladies any favors. I think if you want to be regarded as someone who can "hang with the boys," you have to withstand the treatment they give each other. When I go out with my guy friends and we do shots, they don't say "We'll have Jager, but give Jen a lemondrop because she's a girl." Hell no! Gimme the hard stuff!

Unfortunately if he was debating someone like, say, Hillary, I'm not so sure we'd be hearing this bully meme. I think he should say up front, "look, I'm not going to speak any differently than I would if it were Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or whoEVER at that podium – to act otherwise would be disrespectful to Gov. Palin, because I believe in equality." Or something along those lines.

This election has been a polarizing one. I've been surprised by things I've learned about a lot of people. Who knew my high-school boyfriend, the well-read and compassionate punk-rocker, would be so afraid of people whom they *heard* might be Muslims? Or that my own cousin voted for a candidate based on her anatomy?
These issues are personal to many of us and when things get personal, feelings inevitably get hurt.

Let's remember, we can agree to disagree without being hateful. We owe it to one another to discuss our differences respectfully; otherwise we won't get anything done.

Your Mom is ready to bring the pain.

So when do we start? I'm getting antsy.

My cousin's boyfriend is participating in a COLLEGE fantasy league this year. I for one think he's certifiably nuts.

If I remember all this correctly (it's been 8 years):

The strike sheet is the list of judges, and the debaters are permitted to disallow certain ones to judge them, for whatever reason (usually bias or reputation).

One team (the affirmative) struck one judge because he was an alum of the other team's school, and the neg team struck the black woman because she had voted them down, as in, ruled against them in a prior debate.

AFF team apparently tried to make it a race war in their opening statements, and then in cross examination continued the argument because the neg team didn't address it. Chaos ensued.

I did LD debate in high school, and that was a lot tamer, but I'd heard stories about CX debates that got really heated. Never anything like this, though. Kinda wish I had witnessed something like this or I may have stuck with it in college. HA!

Basketball and gymnastics for me.

Sure. But I would never, ever, ever, ever use my blog as a grandstand to complain about my job. I've many times been surprised to find out who reads it.

Interestingly enough...
I just went on a bank/Starbucks run. As I was waiting for the light to change this car full of black girls, probably about my age, pulled up next to me.
One of the girls yelled "Ay you white bitch with the Starbucks! F*ck you!"
After I turned around and gave her the WTF? look (which was met with a snarl) I wondered what the hell I did to deserve that. Be white? Drink Starbucks? And how did she know I was a bitch? And then I wondered if I'd been wearing a jersey and Dunks (trust me I'd rather) instead of a dress, would she have said the same thing? It was so transparently racist – it really took me aback. Being a minority here has definitely given me some perspective.

I don't usually take mine consecutively, instead opting to take 3- or 4-day weekends spread throughout the year. That way I don't get burned out on work and I don't get restless on vacation. But you bet every single day gets used including the sick days, personal days and floating holidays!

That's the bitch of being a franchise player: once a player's identity and a team's become so intertwined, it's hard to separate or move on without some feelings getting hurt.

I hate the way people are vilifying the Packers. I like and respect Brett Favre but he's been stringing them along for a few years now with the will he/won't he. He isn't getting any younger either. I'm not saying Aaron Rodgers is Steve Young but he was good at Cal and a first-round draft pick. Although the Packers had been pretty irrelevant since Lombardi left Mike Holmgren groomed Favre into a great quarterback and in turn, the Packers into a successful team. So I can see why fans would want him to stick around.

BUT the team needs to think about the future and not rest all its hopes on a 38-year-old quarterback.

PS Sending Favre to Tampa would be dumb. But at least he and Jeff Garcia could play bridge and eat at Piccadilly together.

I see it for what it is, a riff on the desperate absurdity of the attacks that have been launched thus far, since it's become clear to some prominent Republicans (coughcough Karl Rove) that discussing the issues will only shed more light on the fact that Obama's positions are more consistent with voters' than McCain's. ie: Let's draw attention to the fact that Obama's dad was a Muslim (as is 35% of the Kenyan population) so nobody notices that John McCain keeps talking about Russia recently reducing oil supplies in a country that ceased to exist 15 years ago.

I actually kind of enjoyed counting the various smears in the photo especially having heard them ad nauseum for the past year or so. I thought it was clever how Michelle was portrayed as a member of the Black Panther Party. I think if anyone sees this cover and thinks "So it's true! The New Yorker confirms!" he/she either a) is too stupid to comprehend satire or b) has never actually read the magazine (or, for that matter, a book with no pictures).

Like estarla I am convinced that the people who refuse to vote for Obama based on these demerits — despite the scads of evidence to the contrary — present these reasons because they sound so much less racist than "I don't like black people" or "He has a foreigner's name." Because it seems to me that while people are ashamed to be called racist, they're not yet ashamed to act racist or make racist judgments

By a study that came out a few months ago. I think it's posted somewhere here, in fact.

Edit: Quick link from Freakonomics.

Rich people are happier.
Rich people are often more likely to be conservative.

What is that, the commutative property? If a=b and b=c than a=c?

WIkipedia seems to agree.

fuscom: I get what you're saying. My comment on the Ramones logo was more in response to RightOn's comment:

The seal of the President of the United States is in any form reserved for one person... the President.

I'm just ambivalent about it. Is it more or less tasteless than for Bush to wear the seal on his socks (and with CROCS, no less)? I don't know. It just frightens me that there are people out there who make such hay out of things like these (not saying anyone here is, by the by).

Yes, the logo is ever so sacred. Gabba gabba hey!

... The Republican National Committee didn't pass up a chance to gig Obama over the logo. “Unfortunately for Barack Obama, props won’t seal the deal with the American people," RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said in a statement. "Obama will be judged on his record not oversized, make-believe presidential logos.”

Although the "judged on his record" bit is almost laughable, at least the RNC sees this for what it is: a transparent attempt to appear presidential. Frankly I don't see how this is more blasphemous than the transgressions the current administration has made against human rights and the Constitution. That, to me, is what's worth getting worked up over.

Gnorb, here is Obama's statement on FISA, if you haven't seen it, via kos.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

And of course ego has no place in politics (riiiiight).

I think it was more the pressure from people calling on him, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to end the primaries with their endorsements that kept him quiet.

Endorsing sooner would have raised the question of whether the nominee was chosen by the people, or by party bigwigs. And I suspect that Hillary would have cried foul and alleged that Gore only endorsed Obama because of the (rumored) bad blood between him and the Clintons.

Last year was a dress rehearsal for me. I'm ready to bring it now ;)

Having to watch MTP for AP Government not only gave me huge respect and admiration for Russert and his deference to the principles of journalism, it inspired me to work toward a career in political journalism. Weird how just as I'm getting back on that path (starting my poli-sci coursework in August) he passes.

There is no one on any network dedicated to fairness in journalism and politics and pursuit of the truth as he was. That he was taken so young (and at work, no less) is so tragic. Watching the returns on Election Day just won't be the same.

She oughta eat that $11 million. She has been behind since January, and it's been mathematically impossible for her to overtake Obama since at least April. The onus on that should be on her for spending her personal money frivolously, not on the Obama campaign and its supporters. Accountability, folks.

I went to her website this morning and sent her a little "message of support" like she asked. ;-)

Wild prediction: After she fails to get the official nomination at the convention, she runs as an independent, and chooses Joe Lieberman as her VP.

I hope she's not that stupid but nothing surprises me with those two anymore.

No way no way no way, especially after that speech she made last night. The gall.

This is what it looks like (thanks reddit!)

I'm satisfied with the decision in Florida. Regarding Michigan, though, I'm feeling slightly ambivalent about the whole thing.

I read that the Obama proposal to divide the "half-delegates" in half, when it came up in the private discussions, would have been accepted by a two-vote margin but they offered to give HRC that slight advantage in order to get a bigger majority. I understand the magnanimity, and I know there is no mathematical way for her to obtain the nomination, but it frustrates me that all these concessions have to be made to placate this woman who has chosen to play fast and loose with the rules.

As for Harold Ickes' little tirade about "hijacking four delegates" and "reserving the right to take this to the credentials committee," I wanted to reach through the television and punch him in the cokehole. Four delegates? Really dude? In a completely illegitimate contest? That's like a football team trying to have their preseason victories count toward their regular season record because they need a few more wins to get over .500.

I think the only way to seat Michigan and Florida at the convention is to apportion to each candidate half the available delegates (whether they be seated fully or at half-strength). That way the results of the primaries won't be legitimized, but the states will have delegates. Fully seating the delegations (especially with regard to the results of the contests) would just show the rest of the states that they won't be penalized for breaking the rules, and that's a slippery slope.

Since Super Tuesday we see a clip per week of some average Joe saying "Man, the primaries haven't mattered in this neck o' the woods since 1972" or "We haven't had a presidential candidate come through these parts since RFK" because of scheduling. It's been an economic boon for a lot of places so the temptation to push primaries forward has to be there. I think to avoid debacles like this year's and to make it so Iowa and New Hampshire don't choose the nominee nearly ever election, the primary schedule needs to be rotated.