Head Nurse Tasty Pattye Savannah

IN TODAY'S HEADLINES...

george sessi acogny the cheating husband reveal song


Foot Ball Bust Riddim - Stiletto Crush


Neyo Mz Mardi - In Love With A Stripper


via Head Nurse Pattye Savannah's imeem.

ON CRAIGSLIST TODAY

2008 BIANCHI PISTA 59cm. INSTANT COOL POINTS** GET GIRLS** ADD INCHES - $500 (palo alto)

Reply to: sale-uuwkp-1077783732@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-03-16, 12:48PM PDT


Pow! Look at this bike! It's a fixed gear bicycle (2 wheels)! It goes forward when you pedal! It's a 2008 Bianchi Pista track bike, 59cm green - in fantastic condition LOOK AT THE PICTURE. It has chopped Nitto flat bars with white Oury grips on the front part of the bike to make navigating rough and tough suburban streets a breeze. It has a Surly 17t cog to get you a shit ton of skid patches. It has tires on it that wont explode on you (this ain't no Ford explorer).

To tell the truth I have to sell this because the amount of attention I get from chicks while I'm riding this is getting annoying - Like, I know riding this bike makes me look cool, and that my skinny jeans don't leave much to the imagination in regards to the balls and ass area, but women are always running me off the road and calling me an "Asshole biker piece of shit" which is cute an all, I mean me and my ex-girlfriend used to yell at each other like that all the time - I'd be all, I love you and she'd be all, "You're a loser who rides a bike because you don't have a car and I can see how tiny your oily little dick is in those skinny jeans and it's pathetic" type of thing you know? I miss her....

SO, this bike is $500. And if you don't have the full $500 dollars I'm willing to let you make up the difference for the following goods: A decent digital camera, a good backpacking type backpack, solid gold AK-47, your (or your moms/wifes) junk gold, a nice steak dinner, letting me kick you in the balls, flat screen TVs, PSWii60 video game console, gainful employment, a cool laptop, a years supply of arm and hammer deodorant, a winning lotto ticket, baby tiger, teach me how to moonwalk, a bike of greater value OR other cool stuff.

Here's info on the bike:
Fork: Bianchi
Handlebar: Nitto
Stem: Bianchi aluminum
Headset: Cane Creek Threadless
Crankset: TruVativ Elita, 48 teeth
Rear cog: Surly 17t
Tires: 700 x 23c Continental Sport 1000
Rims: Alex

The bike hasn't been crashed or tricked in, just rubber to pavement, few paint scratches but the bike looks good. Drop me a line and take a look and pay me for it and then ride away.



via this guy.

DUCT TAPE BIKE

Why the fuck would you do this to your bike. honestly.

AWWW, FRESHJIVE.

I'm mad that I think it's so cute to see little kids bein hella bad; knowin damn well they're gona grow up not know how to act, messin shit up for everyone else. Atleast they'll look good while they do it though, right?
Mass crack-degradation at its finest.

FLATLINERZ - T&A

Straight outta Fairfield, the Flatliners get it crackin. Watch out for them.

.....also watch out for me, I'm in the video. haha.


THA FLATLINERZ TNA MUSIC VIDEO from ANTHONY JACKSON on Vimeo.

Okay so today is me just re-posting other people's blogs that I myself have enjoyed & would like to further share with you in hopes that you bask in the same gloriousness that I did in times past.
Being a UC Davis (woop woop) student and a will-be AAU student (WOOP WOOP) I've aquired quite the taste for bicycles, trees, and other quiet joys, which is something I never thought would happen.

Enough self actualization, here's the wax:

"The fixed-gear's renaissance supposedly stems from West Indian immigrants in New York working as cycle couriers in the Eighties. They had used them at home because they were cheap and easy to maintain, and continued using them in the US. Their light frames and speed made them perfect for work. It's popularity spread throughout the courier community, finally crossing to the UK and other countries(The Observer, Sunday March 9 2008).


Take a look at this short film of 4.43 minutes of bike porn

Macaframa SF Track Bike Promo


"

via BNN.

EXILE'S FUNKY WORM CHOP

Another day, another Exile MPC vid. This time he chops up The Ohio Players song "The Funky Worm." I'll stop posting them as soon as they get wack (read: never).

via okp.


Exile's raw, but I've always been a fan of originals. Without change, however, we'll never grow.

so beautiful

Seen this on my girl Ebony's online magazine called Hustlehard. I encourage yall to go check her out. Anyways I really appreciated the way they put this video together, from the fuzzy shots to the three minutes of silent movie-esque lead in. And though I'm a fan of vibrancy in color, the absence of it in this vid was especially pleasing. Hope you enjoy.

DEAR JOHN WITHERSPOON

"That bitch look like 9/11 a day later.. she look like 9/12. A tragedy."

HELLZ BELLZ spring 09 collection

The theme is "culture clash," because primal patterns are a brand new idea that nobody else has thought of.
If hellz didn't cost as much as all of my schoolbooks for an entire quarter and/or i valued impressing others with the latest urbancult fashions over that of intellect, I'd so buy the whole thing. All jokes aside though, it's damn wet. Props.

JUSTICES SEEM TO BE LEANING IN FAVOR OF PROP. 8

So, for one, I hope that people will stop being selfish bigots and realize that proposition 8 is about fairness, not malice.

"I want to be able to wipe away my sister's tears with a copy of the constitution that doesnt take away her right to say i do."
-Alvin Lau

---

and now, for some news from cityhall:




Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, March 5, 2009

(03-05) 15:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready today to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"

George wrote the majority opinion in the court's 4-3 ruling in May striking down California's ban on same-sex marriages - which voters, in turn, reversed in November by approving Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Another member of last year's majority, Justice Joyce Kennard, said the challenge to the Prop. 8's legality brought by advocates of same-sex marriage involved "a completely different issue" from the court's ruling that the marriage laws violated gays' and lesbians' rights to be treated equally and wed the partner of their choice.

"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right, to amend the Constitution," Kennard said. Speaking to a lawyer representing same-sex couples, she said that if advocates of same-sex marriage want to overturn the voters' decision, "you have the right to go to the people and present an initiative."

There were some indications of divisions among the justices on the validity of Prop. 8 during the hearing, which lasted more than three hours at the court's San Francisco headquarters. But on a separate issue, all seven appeared to agree that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California before Prop. 8 passed would remain legally wed.

"When the highest court of the state declares that same-sex couples have the right to marry ... how can one deny the validity of those marriages?" asked Justice Marvin Baxter, who dissented from the May ruling throwing out the opposite-sex-only marriage law.

Relying on that ruling, thousands of gays and lesbians "upended their lives, changed their property responsibilities with their spouses," said Justice Ming Chin, another dissenter from that decision. "Is it really fair to throw that out?"

If the justices' questions were any indication, the court will allow Prop. 8 to ban same-sex marriages as of Nov. 5, the day after it passed with 52 percent of the vote. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The initiative, sponsored by conservative religious groups, amended the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That was the language of a previous statute, approved by 61 percent of the voters in 2000, that the court struck down last year as a violation of the state Constitution.

Prop. 8 was challenged by two groups of same-sex couples - some married, some hoping to marry - and by a group of local governments led by the city of San Francisco. They argued that the measure, though drafted as an amendment to the Constitution, violated that document's core principle of equality and exceeded the voters' initiative powers.

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all," said Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney.

Opponents argued that Prop. 8 was not merely a constitutional amendment, which can be circulated as an initiative for voter approval, but was a revision of the Constitution, which requires approval from either two-thirds of the Legislature or delegates to a new state constitutional convention to reach the ballot.

Pressed to define the difference between an amendment and revision, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, lawyer for one group of same-sex couples, said, "A majority can't take away a fundamental right only from members of a group historically subject to discrimination."

But George said voters had done just that in previous ballot measures that restricted school busing for integration and banned affirmative action based on race or sex in government programs.

Kennard said the right to life is at least as fundamental as the right to marry and noted that the court, after declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, had upheld an initiative passed later that year to overturn its ruling.

Minter countered that the death penalty didn't single out any particular group for different treatment. Justice Carlos Moreno, whose questioning suggested that he might vote to overturn Prop. 8, said the death penalty case "didn't deal with the elimination of constitutional personal rights."

Kenneth Starr, lawyer for Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the ballot measure, argued that Californians have a virtually unlimited power to amend their Constitution.

"Rights are in the power of the people," said Starr, the law dean at Pepperdine University and formerly the special prosecutor in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

He said past rulings have classified initiatives as constitutional revisions only if they would cause a "far-reaching change in the basic structure of government," like a 1990 ballot measure that would have eliminated California judges' authority to define constitutional protections for criminal defendants.

But Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights. "This is new to us," she said.

Starr also argued that Prop. 8 was a modest measure that left the rights of same-sex couples undisturbed under California's domestic-partner laws and other statutes banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."

Several justices seemed to agree. Kennard said the voters arguably "took away the label of marriage, but ... left intact most of what this court declared," including unprecedented constitutional protections for gays and lesbians.

But Minter said excluding same-sex couples from marriage goes beyond labels, and "puts those couples in a second-class status."

Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant in Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, also urged the court to overturn Prop. 8, saying the equality and individual liberty at the heart of last year's ruling were "inalienable rights" that should not be subject to a majority vote.

The court seemed unconvinced. Justice Carol Corrigan said Krueger appeared to be arguing that the people have a right to amend the Constitution "unless they do it in a way that this court doesn't like."

The lead case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

via SF GATE.

FOR REAL?

MERK is the man




got me hongry.

[WELCOME]