?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 March 2005 @ 11:36 am
 
Must read: Paul Krugman on the rise of extremism here in America.

Secret Service turns to unorthodox methods to crack the human factor in criminal encryption.

The Wall Street Journal turns on DeLay.

E.J. Dionne Jr. on false assumptions by the right and the left.

SOME NEWS:
* 59 former American diplomats ask the Senate to reject Bolton's nomination to be UN ambassador.
* GOP governors run into trouble with their previous pledges as federal money dries up.
* Now that Bush has been re-elected, Rove turns to policy.
* Jimmy Carter on saving non-proliferation.
* Bush's flip-flopping reflects the rift in his party.
* Is Schwarzenegger gearing up for a partisan battle in California?
* "The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups."
* Howard Kurtz on Bob Scheiffer's new evening news format.
* Howzabout an academic study of... the Smiths.
* The new comedy cabal in Hollywood - Stiller, Ferrell, et al - is changing how things work.

Endless meetings at work drain employees' souls.

"By expanding our indulgent breakfast sandwich menu, Burger King restaurants now offer even more alternatives for our guests who want a convenient and filling breakfast."
 
 
missmeridianmissmeridian on March 29th, 2005 08:51 am (UTC)
see also this
PMMJ: News hatcheetahmaster on March 29th, 2005 08:56 am (UTC)
Oh, magnificent. Scientific American gives up.
Tales from a suburban touristasimplelife on March 29th, 2005 09:19 am (UTC)
O god...
Lala: askanceangela_la_la on March 29th, 2005 09:23 am (UTC)
...premieres on April Fool's Day? What a coincidence.
PMMJ: Moltarcheetahmaster on March 29th, 2005 09:26 am (UTC)
Still funny. And poignant.
Tales from a suburban touristasimplelife on March 29th, 2005 09:34 am (UTC)
A little too close to home either way.
Mrs. Raarjudithiscariot on March 29th, 2005 09:13 am (UTC)
i would totally eat that sandwich.
PMMJ: Memento - the Factscheetahmaster on March 29th, 2005 09:27 am (UTC)
Oh, I'd try it, but I'm dumb that way.
Mrs. Raarjudithiscariot on March 29th, 2005 09:37 am (UTC)
If, say, I got drunk on a school night, and there just happened to be a BK on my way to work (hello, Burtonsville), I would absolutely consume that sandwich to settle my hangover-stomach. And I would enjoy it.

I mean, it would probably be better if the eggs were real eggs, instead of liquid omelet stuff. And if the bacon were extra crispy. And if the sausage were fresh and not oversalted. And if it were served on a jumbo toasted english muffin. But that requires planning and effort and when you've got a hangover and a serious need for grease at 8am on a Tuesday, it sounds like it'll do fabuously in a pinch.

Oh my god, now I want one, like, RIGHT NOW.
Lala: stupid stupid kittenangela_la_la on March 29th, 2005 09:29 am (UTC)
Yeah, I don't get the big fuss. It's no more food than many people order at diners when they go out to breakfast. I guess the controversy is that they put it in a bun so it's easier to eat? I don't get it. Much like the "two cheeseburgers" meal at McDonalds or the "three pieces of chicken" meal at KFC, people won't order it if they don't want a whole lot of food.

I don't deny that fast food can be kinda gross and fattening, but I'm sick of people acting like they have no alternative at all to ordering shit like that.

::goes to get a Whopper::
missmeridianmissmeridian on March 29th, 2005 09:41 am (UTC)
amen!

and i lurve your bitty kitty icon.