bunnies and bears

I never know what to think when composing a landscape shot. Here are some thoughts.

a heartwarming story about a lost bear

just don't use the gummy bears you showed me

that 24 trailer was the hit of the superbowl

cosmo defends woody allen, surprisingly

they should give these lists out to high schoolers so they know all that they can be

his terminology is suspect but the article was interesting

did you hear the one about scientist who wanted to be a stand-up comedian?

are they all successes or does he just get bored?

i also enjoy that this is part of a series where psychiatrists analyze other tv show characters

.<==bunny demonstrates stop drop and roll

 <==the polar vortex

responses!
1. what? that incident is all the school's fault. i mean, the fact that the parents hadn't paid was the parents' fault but the problem was the handling. let's embarrass the kids for wanting food. Let's waste food that could just as well be given to the kids.
2. my work pants are made of scuba fabric and they are the best. maybe get those pants in black though? i'm also glad you don't have $100+ sweatpants. yet.
3. disgusting is right. but hey, the poor get to stay in their food desert! (are the poor-advocates just hoping that some grungy supermarket will move into town instead?)
4. yeah, never followed that story. i thought it was about anthony wiener.
5. that was what the al sharpton monologue was referencing.
6. maybe it's just a smaller crater than we had thought.
9. maybe jamie casino is the sole reason the law industry is a small crater.
r2r

1. i hadn't heard the podcast before posting it and yes the first part was quite vapid and not very economis-y. or it was using economics in the most hurtful way to people - the opportunity cost of dating this loser is not dating my dream guy!
2. i would actually like to see an article about all the "let's go after the rich!" laws actually hurting the poor (mostly because the comments to that article are all "the rich control congress and make laws that help themselves to the detriment of the poor" which is probably true but the poor are also voting for these laws). for instance, i saw one that wanted to "stop the subsidization of second mortgages on boats for the superrich" by requiring that anyone taking this deduction show that their boat could actually be a residence - have a bathroom and all that. so it seems that it's taking a deduction away from the rich but actually is only letting those with yachts keep their deductions and those with normal houseboats (which tend not to have bathrooms) aren't now allowed to deduct. so now we are only subsidizing superrich yachts and not middle class houseboats. phew! income inequality solved!