MakemineVanilla

When I opened my parcel I thought I had been given a vest, which was very disappointing, but then I found some writing which transformed it into a t shirt, which of course makes it a much better gift than a vest. (Obviously a British vest not an American vest) The question now is whether, if I wear it as a vest, is it actually a vest or a t shirt. Are things named after their function or their aspirational status? All I know is that it definitely was a disappointment. I've got a lot of vests.

So what hurt the most? The broken CD, the end of the relationship, or your regret at whatever you did which torpedoed the relationship? The cd of course. I was back with her 2 days later, the cd has gone forever Two days is an amazingly short time to go from high drama to forgiveness. These things tend to start a repeating pattern in a relationship.

So what hurt the most? The broken CD, the end of the relationship, or your regret at whatever you did which torpedoed the relationship? The cd of course. I was back with her 2 days later, the cd has gone forever But the CD was just a rip from an analogue recording made in 1970, so didn't have any authentic value - your woman just got ripped-off, is all. And, it is still all out there:

So what hurt the most? The broken CD, the end of the relationship, or your regret at whatever you did which torpedoed the relationship?

Meh!

There was me thinking I was too old for you. That puts quite a different light on it. Oh, and my wife's maiden name was... Bending. True story. I really hope you hyphenated when you conjugated.

Merry Christmas to one and all. VT has to be congratulated for being so nice and being so free from histrionics and vituperation unlike other sites. So let the hedonism begin....

Two bananas and half a protein bar.

I retired from subway because I was ordering 3-4 a week. Tasty tasty shit, mind. I do like those little pickled chilli peppers - they definitely get the job done.

The whole cold war thing was a beauty contest between the two systems: both sides made claims for themselves to support their own ideology. So Western capitalism claimed that it was a system which was a free paradise which allowed individual geniuses to invent and innovate, while the Soviets were bogged down and stifled by bureaucracy. The claims that the likes of Edison, Ford, Gates and Jobs, did it all on their own are generally exaggerate for the purposes of our ideology but the Soviets recognised the utility of the claim for their own system. So it was easy to see why the gun they had formed a committee to develop and manufacture might be named after the chairman of that committee rather than just the AK47. Every system needs its heroes. On the subject of Soviet heroes, the chap who usually separates proper socialists from theoretical ones (me) is Stakhanov. Heroes always serve a purpose.

Seems like an odd conspiracy theory. It's an amazingly simple design, it's basically a hollow metal rectangle with a spring stuffed down one side. I heard it from a Soviet historian on Radio 4 a few years ago.

The story which I heard was that the AK47 was designed by a committee and that it was a political decision to name it after Kalashnikov because they wanted to give the impression that it was the result of individual creativity in emulation of the West, and as a piece of PR for the soviet system.

Distinctive and distinguished to say the least. His commentary of Ann Packers' famous win always gives me a throat-wobble. I always liked his famously emphatic "One-nil" too, when he did the footie.

It's A Wonderful Life The Bishop's Wife The Shop Around The Corner Casablanca The Treasure of Sierra Madre African Queen The Third Man Some Like It Hot Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You My Lad (Jonathan Miller's BBC production of M.R. James' ghost story)

I read it in Polly T's column in the Guardian. I believed the stat until you said that. She never provided a source, so doubt away.

The trouble is that presenting average figures for such as wages, gdp and houses is a massive distortion. Such is the inequality that the billionaires who live in central London earn so much that it is easy to forget that Tower Hamlets etc is very poor. Stratford was virtually a favella living within a short distance from the City, with minimum wage service workers (cleaners etc) living on the crumbs: the government's only solution was to hold the Olympics so they could clear it away in the hope no one noticed how their system fails to benefit everyone. The same goes for the growth figures: just because there was more wealth created it doesn't mean that everyone but the few got to share it.

I read it in Polly T's column in the Guardian.

If people IN WORK are starving, then it is clear that the well meant minimum wage has, as I suggested here at the time, has become THE wage. A shame that something so well intended can be so damaging. But then perhaps it wasn't thought through very well. I don't think you can blame the minimum wage; what you have to take into account is the inflation for food staples, fuel and housing, which has impoverished low-earners in particular. Wages just haven't matched food price inflation. Food has gone up by 144% since 2003. Average wages have only gone up by around 40% since 1999. House prices have gone up by 166% since 1999, which will reflect in rent prices. Since food and rent represent the biggest proportion of poorer people's budget it can be seen that they have disproportionately suffered. What this sort of analysis shows is that the working poor and the unemployed have been getting poorer for over a decade. It shows that those on benefits have already faced annual cuts to their standard of living and that the present cuts are gratuitous - inspired by the false assumptions of a resentful public, which is not discouraged by too much information. The minimum wage has only slightly offset this decline but it would have been worse without it.

Edit - I like this video better!

This girl makes me emotional:

"I've only got 17 months left... until Ed Miliband takes my job" "You look fine. We'll ring you a taxi." And Under our new proposals you'll have to either sell your home or a Kidney for private transplant to fund the profits of government contracted health care suppliers who will in all likelihood provide a poorer service, but trust us, it's for the best! The facts: The USA spends 18% of its gdp on health care but 50 million Americans are not covered. The UK spends 9% of its gdp on healthcare and everyone is covered (including half of Europe according to some). Questions: Why do Tories think moving towards a more American-type system (market-driven private provision) is a better, more efficient system? And why do Tory voters agree with them?

This reminds me of how I did my damnedest to put weight on until I was 40 and ever since I have been doing my damnedest to get it back off again. Ain't life a bitch!

Someone got me thinking about coal country on another thread, which means Pennsylvania, which means Pittsburgh, which means steel, which means Duquesne, which means Bob: