Lucky

Glad that you liked the review. I posted it here and at daddys. 18 views here, 13 there. Of course, 29 of the views are me!

In the movie, 50/50, there is a pot smoking scene. Seth Rogen's character got the pot with a medical marijuana permit. His illness? Night blindness!

The landlord is 14 years old?

In the huge auditorium where I saw the movie 50/50, there were 5 people, thus the party of five. I paid the senior rate of $7, but my movie loyalty card got me a free popcorn, which, if you believe the theater, is a $6 value. The movie has five main characters,so it too is a party of five. Cancer movies usually are parties, right? Melodramatic music, a lovable guy dying with his loyal wife at his side, thinking all the way that he can beat this, until he can't. Well, that's not 50/50. For one, the girl is out of it almost right away. After all, we can't have a girl who cheats on a cancer patient, can we? But if you are thinking that this might be your typical cancer movie, think again. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars, and I dare you to find a JGL movie that wasn't good. JGL gets his diagnosis right off the bat. The doctor who informs him of it should get an Oscar, as he nails the uncaring caregiver with gusto. And it's not a very nice cancer, either. Were any other actor playing the role, it might be a challenge, but JGL has that sardonic wit and know-it all smile that carries him. After his diagnosis, he meets his therapist, who is much better than the doc at the TLC, but unfortunately for JGL, he is only her third patient. However she makes up in caring what she lacks in experience. By the end of the movie, you are quite fond of her. So if the girl is out of the way off the bat, we don't leave JGL alone, No, he has Seth Rogen as his best friend and sidekick. I don't often like Rogen's movie roles, but for this one he nailed it. He keeps JGL suitably distracted as they go on well, beaver hunts. Rogen's guy wants to get laid, and he soon figures out how cancer can help in that department. The other two characters in the movie, of the prominent ones, are the mom and dad. Dad doesn't have much to do as he has Alzheimer's and introduces himself to his son. But mom carries a big role. One might stereotype her, but I don't think the movie ever says that she is Jewish. But she could be. Does she seem a little overbearing? Perhaps, unless you understand how it might be to have a husband who can't communicate and a son who won't. (It takes the therapist to come up with that one, not me.) The movie even has a scene with the hospital workers in the background, smoking. How often do we see that in real life? So, being a cancer movie, something must happen, right? Either there is the tearful deathbed scene or the happy "he beats it" ending. I can't help you there, because I want you to see this movie. But trust JGL to make it all worth your while. He is credible throughout. I did wonder how a person who in fact is dealing with cancer in real life might react to this movie, and I decided that it would be just fine. No one mocks the disease or makes it look easy. The fact that one who has cancer must deal with friends and loved ones who don't know what to say, and thus say the stupidest things, is part of the movie. But there is plenty in the movie to make the topic serious while providing some comic relief. The ending may not please the cancer patient, but then again, it just might.

I think this is more likely for her:

But wouldn't leather beat polyester in hot weather? (PS: I tried to go to subwaycrush.net, but the site must be overloaded as the connection took so long that I gave up.)

The Playboy Club became the first show of the season to be canceled on Tuesday. According to the NY Times, the only hour long drama with poorer prospects was Charlie's Angels. From the Times: The first casualty of the new television season, “The Playboy Club,” which was canceled by NBC on Tuesday, was also one of the shows considered least likely to make it this season, according to players in The New York Times TV Ratings Game. And 12.3 percent of the participating readers correctly predicted that show would last only three episodes...Just 26.3 percent of participants in the Ratings Game predicted that “The Playboy Club” would last. The only hour-long drama with poorer prospects, according to Times readers, was “Charlie’s Angels.” Only 5 percent of players had that re-booted ABC drama in their virtual prime-time lineups, compared to 11.8 percent for “The Playboy Club;” fewer than a quarter of players — 24.7 percent — predicted that the Angels will survive at least eight episodes compared with 26.3 percent for the bunnies.

Lurkerspeaks deserves a lot of credit for bringing up the subject and getting folks to open up about it. I doubt he feels too alone, as it seems that MER is attracting more posters than ever.

The NY Times today takes a look at marijuana vaporizers. Are they just a novelty item, or a new way to ingest marijuana without all of the smoke? If you cough and hack after taking a hit, this may be for you...if you can afford one! From the Times: Besides the novelty, advocates say that using vaporizers is healthier than inhaling smoke. “Vaporized marijuana is virtually free of whatever toxic properties come with burning the plant,” said Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. The benefits of vaporization are not limited to health, added Dr. Grinspoon, who said that he owns a high-tech vaporizer called a Volcano, about $525. “Vaporizers use an internal heat source, so you conserve more of your grass,” he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/fashion/vaporizers-put-to-use-with-marijuana.html?scp=1&sq=vaporizer&st=cse Full disclosure: I spent $80 for a vaporizer at a local pipe shop, and it has hardly won me over. I am not a big pot fan anyway, but I do have a medical marijuana permit. I just don't see how the vaporizer beats the real thing. Mine is the one on the left, but it sits unused:

Does it matter how footballer Tom Brady wears his hair? The NY Times today takes a look at the various styles he has worn: More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/fashion/tom-brady-cuts-his-hair-why.html?ref=style

A new website, www.subwaycrush.net, features photos of hot guys on the New York subway. Here's a sample from the Dailynews.com:

Turns out that the fee of which I complain is waived if I book 21 days or more ahead. AAdvantage Ticketing Service Charge Ticketing Service Charge (Waived for AAdvantage Executive Platinum® members) Ticketing Service Charge applies when ticketing via Reservations, American Airlines Travel Center or Airport Ticket Office AAdvantage Award Processing Charges Ticketing less than 21 days prior to departure $75 (Waived for AAdvantage Executive Platinum®, AAdvantage Platinum® and AAdvantage Gold® members using miles from their account)

Of course, alcoholics in recovery might disagree, and the families of those who cannot control their drinking might want to string this professor from the a rope. The rest of you, however, should pay heed.

Anton, are the tickets that you refer to frequent flier award tickets? because that's what I am speaking about. American charges a"redemption fee" for using your miles to get a ticket. I am also speaking of a domestic ticket, here in the US.

Even though we may think we know all of the arguments pro and con, I have not engaged in a debate on this for years, so I was interested to see what others had to say, and perhaps I might now react differently than I did in the past. You never know when an argument is finally going to hit home.

Here is how the $85 breaks down: AAdvantage Award Charge(s) First passenger $75.00 AAdvantage Award Charge(s) Taxes & Fees Additional Taxes and Fees per passenger $10.00 Tax and Award Charge Information Flight Subtotal 25,000 miles + $85.00 Your Trip Cost: 25,000 miles + $85.00 USD

Have you noticed how Obama seems to be doing the same thing, if not more of it, towards terrorists that Bush/Cheney did? So have the Cheneys. From HuffPost: But he (Cheney) also said Obama should take back his criticism of the Bush administration's tactics in the war on terrorism. "The thing I am waiting for is for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago, when they criticized us for quote overreacting to the events of 9/11," Cheney said. "They in effect said we had walked away from our ideals, taking policy contrary to our ideals when we had enhanced interrogation techniques. They have clearly moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified. In this case, it was. They need to go back and reconsider what the president said in Cairo." The former vice president was referencing the speech Obama delivered in Cairo in 2009, in which he said the the trauma of 9/11 caused American to "act contrary to our ideals" and announced that "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States" and ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed. Cheney took issue with Obama's speech on Sunday. "We were never torturing anyone in the first place," he told CNN's Candy Crowley. "He said we walked away from our basic fundamental ideals. That simply wasn't the case. What he said then was inaccurate especially now in light of what they are doing with policy." "He slandered the nation," Liz Cheney added, "and I think he owes an apology to the American people. Those are the policies that kept us safe."

Lookin, thanks for engaging with me on this subject. When I saw those poll results I was surprised and thought it might make for an interesting thread. I, too, have engaged in that conversation with myself, and obviously came out differently. But I am well aware of the arguments against the death penalty, having lived in San Francisco and having friends who disagree- vehemently. I think we covered all of the bases, but if someone has a new argument, I am all ears.

The $85 is specifically called a fee, not a tax.

You don't deserve to make that call? Who does, then? I take it that in your opinion, no one does. But the fact remains that we delegate duties such as this to those who might have the qualifications needed. Police officers are trained to kill, as are soldiers. But what about you? I know that your preference is not to kill a person. You feel that you don't deserve to do so. I am not sure what about the use of the word "deserve" makes sense here. The implication seems to be that someone deserves this but not you. We know that the president deserves to have his finger on the nuclear button because we gave him that right. So what would you do if we scaled down the need? Would you kill under any circumstances? To save your life, or that of a close friend, partner, lover, neighbor, neighbor's child? I think you would, but I cannot speak for you. But if just one exemption is made, then the concession to exemptions being made exists. For me, who I can speak for, the death penalty should be used sparingly, as a last resort, only in the cases of greatest egregiousness, and only when guilt is clear and convincing. It should be used as punishment. The argument that it deters is not solid, although I believe it does when rational minds are involved. But it does punish, and for me, having Gacy and Bonin and their ilk dead is worth it.

The decision is certainly not one to take lightly, and I abhor what has become of the death penalty in many states and countries. But we kill all of the time, except that it is animals and insects and soldiers in other lands. Why killing a clearly guilty and depraved individual requires any special qualifications escapes me. It may not be something you would choose to do, I know. But we make judgments all of the time in our lives, and the choice to be safe from dangerous predators is one we do regularly. This is a choice, and if society does not want it, then it can ban it. Until they do, I keep thinking that we must have some measure of what society thinks are the most abhorrent crimes, and the death penalty is it.

Besides being one of the most obnoxious of TV personalities, Gordon Ramsay has trouble paying his bills. Debt appears to be someone else's responsibility for him. So the main reason to buy his cookware would be to whap some sense into him.

BiBottom Boy is the only one who posted on this thread who tried to back up his statement with facts. If you think she is not guilty, why not explain why you think so?

There seems to be no end to airlines finding fees for us to pay. Checking into a frequent flier ticket this morning, I saw that I would have to pay a fee of $85 for the privilege of using my miles on American Airlines. Delta long ago did away with the lower tier awards, effectively doubling the cost of a frequent flier ticket on that airline. Pundits worry that once United completes its merger with Continental that it too will double the cost of a free ticket. It's even worse when trying to use miles to go to Europe. There they add fees in the hundreds of dollars. American long ago started charging $250 for the privilege of using miles for a business class ticket to South America. All of this might be fair if the airlines were upfront about it. Or if they implemented the fee schedule for miles accrued after the date the fees took effect. But as it is, they promised one thing and then did another once their programs turned out to work against them. Now that computers can calculate just how many seats they will actually fill, there is less need to "give" away unused seats on flights.