He's union.
"Remember the mailbox sketch that shocked a nation?"
"The mailbox was Haldeman!"
"The mailbox was Haldeman!"
I know! Let's have some perspective people. I'm sure when you're crash landing in the Hudson river and trying to deplane from a sinking vessel, it's easier to do so without getting tangled up in your ear buds.
Actually, a stock is priced for its IPO based upon the price that initial investors have indicated they will pay during the road show. Ibanks aren't going to give the final price unless they have their book sold, and if they are dropping the green shoe (the extra 5m shares), the are definitely oversold at this point.
This guy is already on Medicaid. Even in countries with univeral health, you don't necessarily get a million dollar surgery that may not work.
1. I was hoping it was Bobby Flay's baby :(
Me? In love with a pig? Wait 'til I tell the guys in marketing.
It isn't a real divorce party without a table full of the wedding gifts with a little sign urging guests to take back what they gave to the couple.
You're conflating two very different concepts. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has nothing to do with the veracity of victim testimony. Let me break it down for you.
Eyewitness testimony in your first paragraph is about picking out the bad guy from a lineup. This is true. People aren't so great at it. Here's some science to prove that.
[scienceblogs.com]
This case, however, did not have 'eyewitness' testimony in your sense of the word. There was no "fingering" the perp in a lineup. There was no dispute whether the defendant was the person in her apartment (in fact, he admitted he was!) The only issue is whether he raped her while he was in her apartment. The law does not require corroborating evidence (that's the law!!). If you believe a victim's story, the law allows you to convict. End of story. These jurors are clearly looking for corrobarting evidence when they don't need to.
Eyewitness testimony in your first paragraph is about picking out the bad guy from a lineup. This is true. People aren't so great at it. Here's some science to prove that.
[scienceblogs.com]
This case, however, did not have 'eyewitness' testimony in your sense of the word. There was no "fingering" the perp in a lineup. There was no dispute whether the defendant was the person in her apartment (in fact, he admitted he was!) The only issue is whether he raped her while he was in her apartment. The law does not require corroborating evidence (that's the law!!). If you believe a victim's story, the law allows you to convict. End of story. These jurors are clearly looking for corrobarting evidence when they don't need to.
This is such bullshit. I served on a jury in Manhattan in January for a rape trial. There was ZERO DNA or other "CSI" type of evidence. We convicted the motherfucker solely on the testimony of the victim.
The judge gave very clear instructions that if you believed the testimony of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt you could convict. This angers me beyond words.
The judge gave very clear instructions that if you believed the testimony of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt you could convict. This angers me beyond words.
I agree that this is tragic but it's in no way "unforeseen". Didn't he read Into Thin Air?
She got the full experience - complete with yurts on the mongolia steps and fermented horses' milk.
My sister used to date a Kyrgyz guy and she went once to Kyrgyzstan to meet his family. When they got to his parents house, she ran out to the back yard and started cooing over a cute white lamb tied to a stick. He came out and said "don't fall in love with it".
Anyhoo, she's now got a gruesome 50 picture slide show of the men of the family slaughtering and butchering the lamb.
Anyhoo, she's now got a gruesome 50 picture slide show of the men of the family slaughtering and butchering the lamb.
@meenalives: Be honest. If after your dinner you still feel like things are vague between you, say something like: "I really enjoyed our dinner tonight and would love to continue to get to know you better." It sounds a bit wooden but you can find a way to convey the sentiment that makes it crystal clear how you feel.
@Dave J.: Right. Doesn't his quote indicate he wasn't very experienced sexually? Wouldn't you expect a guy who has been around the block a few times to have seen a variety of shrubbery?
I wish I could help all the short guys out there feel good about themselves. The first thing I would do is change the obligatory 5'10" claims on Match.com to 5'7", 5'6" or 5'5" as applicable.
@keyboardcat: I threw up on the 6 train because I was too poor for a cab. I don't think my fellow train passengers were amused.
No offense to Kelly McGillis and her bride, but arrgh, can the NYT please stop featuring couples that started an affair while one/both are married to someone else? This is a newspaper that won't list the mother of the bride as Dr. So-and-So if she only has a PhD in psychology.
Wouldn't it be better to heckle him? Throw popcorn? Talk loudly during the speech?
@biggeek: It costs around $100 per month for an unlimited metro card (i.e. swipe as many times as you can during a month). A pay-as-you go subway ride is $2.25.
The kicker on the unlimited metro card is you can only swipe it ever 18 minutes (I thought it was 16 but go figure). But the really poor among us wait for that time to expire so they can bum a ride of of someone else, thus, saving $2.25.
The kicker on the unlimited metro card is you can only swipe it ever 18 minutes (I thought it was 16 but go figure). But the really poor among us wait for that time to expire so they can bum a ride of of someone else, thus, saving $2.25.
