AdamSmith

He fills those Calvins pretty nicely in the shots above.

http://m.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/killer-heels-brooklyn-museum-article-1.1926910

An entire wiki of sick jokes! http://www.sickipedia.org

Interesting content tidbits: http://www.queerty.com/fun-facts-about-male-prostitution-through-the-ages-20140910

Outed!

Details!

TT: You need to go, I know. What advice have you given Cooper about girls? JR: Don't trust them. They're very needy. Smack her below the collarbone, it won't show up in court.

JR: I think the mother [Kris Kardashian] is the smartest woman in world: She took the entire family, and now the next generation, and made them celebrities for doing nothing. I think that's brilliant. I want to sit at her feet and take notes. I begged Melissa to do a sex tape. I said, "I'll even hold the lube." Melissa is such a princess. She said, "What will the thread count of the sheets be?"

Another nice account of the funeral: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/08/inside-joan-rivers-funeral-laughs-tears-howard-stern-hugh-jackman-and-new-york-new-york-on-bagpipes.html Interview with Joan by the same reporter, this past July: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/03/joan-rivers-i-had-the-gun-on-my-lap.html

http://news.distractify.com/culture/views-of-famous-events/?v=1

angry clown When a man goes down on a girl close to her period then looks at the mirror or girl only discover blood around his mouth looking like an angry clown. Chick one says to chick two " my boyfriend went down on me last night I must of got my period because he came up looking like an angry clown! " http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=angry%20clown

NSFS -- Not Safe For Suckrates! I write and perform poetry about my small penis because men like me shouldn't be ashamed http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-write-and-perform-poetry-about-my-small-penis-because-men-like-me-shouldnt-be-ashamed-9719264.html

Former World Leaders Call For Legal, Regulated Drugs

The Dangerous Myth That Climate Change Is Reversible by Joe Romm Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm Updated: March 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm thinkprogress.org The CMO (Chief Misinformation Officer) of the climate ignorati, Joe Nocera, has a new piece, “A Real Carbon Solution.” The biggest of its many errors comes in this line: A reduction of carbon emissions from Chinese power plants would do far more to help reverse climate change than — dare I say it? — blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Memo to Nocera: As a NOAA-led paper explained 4 years ago, climate change is “largely irreversible for 1000 years.” This notion that we can reverse climate change by cutting emissions is one of the most commonly held myths — and one of the most dangerous, as explained in this 2007 MIT study, “Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter.” The fact is that, as RealClimate has explained, we would need “an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued further cuts over time” merely to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 – and that would still leave us with a radiative imbalance that would lead to “an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming over the 21st Century.” And that assumes no major carbon cycle feedbacks kick in, which seems highly unlikely. We’d have to drop total global emissions to zero now and for the rest of the century just to lower concentrations enough to stop temperatures from rising. Again, even in this implausible scenario, we still aren’t talking about reversing climate change, just stopping it — or, more technically, stopping the temperature rise. The great ice sheets might well continue to disintegrate, albeit slowly. This doesn’t mean climate change is unstoppable — only that we are stuck with whatever climate change we cause before we get desperate and go all WWII on emissions. That’s why delay is so dangerous and immoral. For instance, if we don’t act quickly, we are likely to be stuck with permanent Dust Bowls in the Southwest and around the globe. I’ll discuss the irreversibility myth further below the jump. First, though, Nocera’s piece has many other pieces of misinformation. He leaves people with the impression that coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a practical, affordable means of reducing emissions from existing power plants that will be available soon. In fact, most demonstration projects around the world have been shut down, the technology Nocera focuses on would not work on the vast majority of existing coal plants, and CCS is going to be incredibly expensive compared to other low-carbon technologies — see Harvard stunner: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 (20 cents per kWh)! And that’s in the unlikely event it proves to be practical, permanent, and verifiable (see “Feasibility, Permanence and Safety Issues Remain Unresolved”). Heck, the guy who debated me on The Economist‘s website conceded things are going very slowly, writing “The idea is that CCS then becomes a commercial reality and begins to make deep cuts in emissions during the 2030s.” And he’s a CCS advocate!! Of course, we simply don’t have until the 2030s to wait for deep cuts in emissions. No wonder people who misunderstand the irreversible nature of climate change, like Nocera, tend to be far more complacent about emissions reductions than those who understand climate science. The point of Nocera’s piece seems to be to mock Bill McKibben for opposing the idea of using captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery (EOR): “his answer suggests that his crusade has blinded him to the real problem.” It is Nocera who has been blinded. He explains in the piece: Using carbon emissions to recover previously ungettable oil has the potential to unlock vast untapped American reserves. Last year, ExxonMobil reported that enhanced oil recovery would allow it to extend the life of a single oil field in West Texas by 20 years. McKibben’s effort to stop the Keystone XL pipeline is based on the fact that we have to leave the vast majority of carbon in the ground. Sure, it wouldn’t matter if you built one coal CCS plant and used that for EOR. But we need a staggering amount of CCS, as Vaclav Smil explained in “Energy at the Crossroads“: “Sequestering a mere 1/10 of today’s global CO2 emissions (less than 3 Gt CO2) would thus call for putting in place an industry that would have to force underground every year the volume of compressed gas larger than or (with higher compression) equal to the volume of crude oil extracted globally by [the] petroleum industry whose infrastructures and capacities have been put in place over a century of development. Needless to say, such a technical feat could not be accomplished within a single generation.” D’oh! What precisely would be the point of “sequestering” all that CO2 to extract previously “ungettable oil” whose emissions, when burned, would just about equal the CO2 that you supposedly sequestered? Remember, we have to get total global emissions of CO2 to near zero just to stop temperatures from continuing their inexorable march toward humanity’s self-destruction. And yes, this ain’t easy. But it is impossible if we don’t start slashing emissions soon and stop opening up vast new sources of carbon. For those who are confused on this point, I recommend reading the entire MIT study, whose lead author is John Sterman. Here is the abstract: Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate’s response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults–graduate students at MIT–showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change. It’s also worth reading RealClimate’s piece “Climate change commitments,” based on a Nature Geoscience letter by Mathews and Weaver (sub. reqd.), which has this figure: Again, zero emissions merely stops climate change, and obviously, thanks to fossil-fuel funded Tea Party politicians along with the deniers and the ignorati, we won’t be going to zero anytime soon. Finally, I recommend RealClimate’s 2009 post, “Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable“: But you have to remember that the climate changes so far, both observed and committed to, are minor compared with the business-as-usual forecast for the end of the century. It’s further emissions we need to worry about. Climate change is like a ratchet, which we wind up by releasing CO2. Once we turn the crank, there’s no easy turning back to the natural climate. But we can still decide to stop turning the crank, and the sooner the better. Indeed, we are only committed to about 2°C total warming so far, which is a probably manageable — and even more probably, if we did keep CO2 concentrations from peaking below 450 ppm, the small amount of CO2 we are likely to be able to remove from the atmosphere this century could well take us below the danger zone. But if we don’t reverse emissions trends soon, we will at least double and probably triple that temperature rise, most likely negating any practical strategy to undo the impacts for hundreds of years. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/17/1731591/the-dangerous-myth-that-climate-change-is-reversible/

Ninth Circuit destroys arguments for banning same-sex marriage 09/08/14 07:37 AM —Updated 09/08/14 09:32 PM By Emma Margolin It was a rough day for marriage equality opponents Monday, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed prepared to say for the second time that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to wed. During oral arguments in challenges to two existing same-sex marriage bans – Idaho’s and Nevada’s – and one now-defunct ban – Hawaii’s – a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court appeared highly skeptical of any justification for excluding gay and lesbian couples from the institution of marriage. Defending bans in both Idaho and Nevada, Monte Stewart of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage sounded shaky as time after time the judges chipped away at his opaque arguments and left him flailing in logical inconsistencies. At the core of the traditional man-woman institution of marriage, argued Stewart, is a message that strengthens a child’s “bonding right” with his or her biological parents. Widening that institution to include same-sex couples, he continued, “weakens the social expectation of the child’s bonding right,” and sends the “social message that fathers are not a valuable part of child rearing.” “Father-child bonding has always been a bigger problem,” said Stewart, in comparison with mother-child bonding. “It is Idaho’s sensible prediction that over time, the men socialized by that new and different marriage institution will weaken in their commitment to abide by the child’s bonding norm.” “Has that happened in Massachusetts?” asked Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a President Clinton appointee, referring to the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. “My understanding is no.” “What strikes me,” she continued, “is that the train has left the station.” Berzon later accused Stewart of using gay people as “scapegoats” in order to “send some vague message.” Judge Ronald M. Gould, another Clinton appointee who for a while stayed silent, eventually questioned the very term “bonding right,” which Stewart seemed to have invented. “Where does the phrase ‘bonding right’ get its derivation?” asked Gould. “I don’t think it’s in the constitutional Bill of Rights.” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, a President Carter appointee responsible for some of the most groundbreaking rulings in favor of gay rights, took Stewart’s argument one step further, where again it faltered. “What about divorce – does Idaho prohibit divorce because it sends a bad message?” said Reinhardt. “Why don’t you then pass a law banning divorce in Idaho, which may have more of an effect than this [ban?]” To this, Stewart responded: “They may.” Stewart did not go so far as to say that gay and lesbian people make inferior parents, an argument which, as University of Richmond’s Carl Tobias puts it, has been “obliterated” in federal court. “People look foolish if they make it,” said Tobias to msnbc. However, Stewart did stress that there are no “crystal balls,” and that the full effects same-sex marriage may have on child-rearing remain unknown. Monday’s proceedings marked the sixth such federal appeals hearing since a landmark Supreme Court decision gutted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year and cleared the way for the U.S. government to begin recognizing same-sex nuptials. Yet while the DOMA ruling will likely go down in history as having set off an unprecedented wave of legal victories over bans across the country, it was not the one expected to fundamentally alter the course of the marriage equality movement. That distinction was in fact widely predicted to go to a challenge against California’s same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, which carried the potential to legalize same-sex marriage at the national level, but ended up being dismissed by the high court on procedural grounds. Before that happened, however, the 9th Circuit court found Prop 8 unconstitutional, writing in 2012 that the ban “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.” The ruling was ultimately vacated in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, returning marriage equality to the nation’s most populous state through a lower court’s order. But its significance lives on. Indeed, without having the guide of Justice Kennedy’s sweeping language in the DOMA ruling (or for that matter, Justice Scalia’s cautionary dissent), the 9th Circuit’s Prop 8 decision managed to predate the informal writing competition that has taken over the federal judiciary, as more and more judges recognize their potential roles in making history. The 9th Circuit has now returned to the same issue, though in a profoundly changed legal landscape. Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia currently allow gay and lesbian couples to wed – more than a twofold increase since the appeals court ruled against Prop 8 in 2012 – and nearly 40 judges in state and federal courtrooms across the country have struck down same-sex marriage bans. Only one federal judge has ruled against marriage equality since the DOMA ruling, and three appeals courts have sided with gay and lesbian couples in five different cases. Another post-DOMA difference was the 2014 case, Smithkline Beecham Corp, DBA GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, which dealt with whether attorneys could exclude potential jurors solely based on their sexual orientation. Writing for the majority, Judge Reinhardt ruled in January that they cannot; sexual orientation is no longer grounds for peremptory strikes – a significant win for LGBT equality in and of itself. Yet the decision also carried implications far beyond the jury selection process. In his ruling, Reinhardt called for “heightened scrutiny” in discrimination cases involving sexual orientation, a higher standard of judicial review than has typically been applied. With heightened scrutiny, defendants (such as state officials arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage bans) would have to show how a law that treats gay and lesbian people differently serves an important or compelling state interest, not just a legitimate one. Heightened scrutiny essentially shifts the burden of proof off of the plaintiffs, and makes laws that discriminate against same-sex couples more difficult to defend. It didn’t take long for the move to shake up marriage equality cases within the 9th Circuit. Three weeks after the Smithkline ruling, both the Nevada governor and attorney general’s office announced they would not be defending the state’s same-sex marriage ban. “Based on that new standard, we don’t have an argument; the state loses,” said Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto to ABC affiliate KOLO. Both Stewart and Tara Borelli – a senior attorney for Lambda Legal who argued on behalf of the Nevada plaintiffs Monday – agreed that the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage had standing to intervene at the appellate level in defense of Nevada’s ban, because the plaintiffs had lost in the pre-DOMA district court ruling. However, Borelli stated that if the plaintiffs prevailed in the 9th Circuit court, the coalition would not have standing to request review from the Supreme Court. The justices are not required to hear any of the marriage equality cases now marching toward them at lightning speed. Yet given the momentum the movement has generated, as well as the growing chorus of voices calling for a national resolution, many believe the high court will agree to hear at least one of the appeals before it and settle the matter once and for all – an opportunity the justices turned down with the Prop 8 case. To that end, Judge Reinhardt offered up his prediction during Monday’s hearing. “I think you’re going to have an opportunity to find out what Justice Kennedy really thinks,” he said, referring to the justice’s DOMA opinion affirming both states rights, and the basic dignity of gays and lesbians – two concepts seemingly at odds when it comes to same-sex marriage bans. As thrilling as nationwide marriage equality would be, however, Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich, the lead plaintiff couple in Nevada’s suit, have their sights set on a smaller-scale victory. “I know it sounds very simple and basic, but one of the things I’m most looking forward to is having matching rings for the first time in 42 years,” said Sevcik, 76, to msnbc. The two had stopped for lunch in Placerville, California, en route to San Francisco for Monday’s hearing. “It’s really hard to plan a wedding when you don’t know when it’s going to be, but we’re making a list of people we would like to invite and have our vows written out,” said Baranovich, 78. “We’re all ready to go. We just need a date.” http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/post-doma-9th-circuit-weigh-gay-marriage-idaho-nevada-hawaii

(Click image if the gif doesn't auto-run.)