godslze

godslze@aol.com

I'd love to hear them j.c.boschen@lse.ac.uk

Cookie Dough Dynamo? It says like, "I know you like to eat cookies... You're a - COOKIE DOUGH DYNA-MO"

that is hilarious!!! :laugh:

Sorry to be the only detractor (at least so far)... Why wouldn't "your" god have just stopped it all then? Why wouldn't he have just caused the 11 terrorists to have car accidents and never pulled it off? Why wouldn't he have had security discover the box cutters? Why did he allow one plane to hit the Pentagon instead of the White House (since the Pentagon has more people I would imagine than the White House) or allow it to hit at all? Why doesn't the other god exist? They are both based on the same principles and basically preach the same general ideas. I'm sorry, but I am still unsure as to whether or not I believe in a god. Situations like these remind me of why I don't think one really exists (for all the reasons I listed above). At the same time, I hope that one does and he takes care of those that did lose their lives.

:laugh: that is pretty funny

I saw the unedited version on Valium and a 40. I just watched the whole thing with my jaw dropping down. When it ended, all my friends and I just sat there for a minute in silence, trying to get our heads together. Definitely one of the most disturbing movies ever. It just builds and builds, you expect it to peak at some point and get better, but it just gets worse and worse. I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it again.

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Star Ledger (yesterday I believe). It basically said that Bin Laden is not just a terrorist, but a revolutionary, too. His goal is to overthrow many of the current Islamic governments in the Middle East, which are corrupt and do not care about either their people or their religion. Unfortunately for him, he does not have the power to this alone. The article theorized that he is using the US as his catalyst for destabilization and (eventually) revolution. By the US invading, he will receive more supporters to fight the Western Infidels and, more importantly, our goal is to eliminate governments that support terrorism, ie the very governments that Bin Laden wants to overthrow. I agree that ground troops might not be the best idea. I do not think that this "war" will be as easy as most people expect it to be. We do not know exactly who we are looking for, nor where to find them. (Kinda reminds me of the Viet Cong during Vietnam) Also, I do not think the American people have the stomach for a long, bloody ground war. There will not be TV broadcasts of bombs falling down chimneys and everything we saw in Desert Storm. In fact, there will be very little visible results or progress. We will not be able to just get to the capital and claim everything is honkey-dorey. There will be a very bloody battle, as we clear out caves and all these places that the terrorist will have bunkered down in. But, I guess it doesn't matter, cause it seems inevitable now.

I think the Bush administration has a very good speechwriter(s). They had him say everything that needed to be said. But as for Bush personally, I still have zero confidence in the man. I'm glad he read it through a couple times so he didn't stumble over any words with more than two syllables. Thank god his daddy picked a good cabinet for him, or else I would be very scared at this time. Anyone else think he always looks really confused when speaking to a large gathering? Maybe he just has some kind of permanent aloof look to him. I don't think he qualifies as very good leader, as he has basically been forbidden to speak off-the-cuff. After his "crusades" and "dead or alive" fumbles, I don't blame them. And them telling Rudy to get off the air because he seemed to be the one leading everyone through this crisis, that says it all for me.

Metallica's "Don't Tread on Me" absolutely perfect song for everything going on right now

I believe that we've never had a president who isn't married. The likelihood a president being elected who had cheated on his wife just doesn't seem to probable.

7 & 7 or Seagram's 7 and Dr. Pepper (my own creation)

Here's my analogy to the whole Israel/Palestine dispute... imagine the UN were to take New Jersey and say, "Sorry United States, this land belongs to the Leni Lenape Indians again. You have to divide New Jersey into two and share it." After all, this land was the Native Americans land not 400 years ago. Would the people of New Jersey be pissed? Hell yes. Now, say the people of New Jersey refuse to recognize this and claim that New Jersey's theirs. While protesting this division, the Leni Lenape suddenly seize the majority of New Jersey while New York and Pennsylvania take the remainder. This is basically what happened to the Palestinians. Palestine was their homeland for 2000+ years, figure since the time of the Romans. The West decided that the Jews had the right to the land since they owned it several millenia previous and it was their religious homeland (although it was also the birthplace of Christianity and Islam). And as for why I used the analogy of New Jersey it's because Israel is no larger than New Jersey.

I almost find it humorous some people saying blow up the Palestinians and their country. That is exactly why this is happening. These people do not have a country. They have not had a country in 80 years. The majority of their people are scattered about in various refugee camps all across the Middle East. Their anger at the US, the White Devil, etc. is because of our support of Israel, whom they view to be an alien nation occupying their home. World War III cannot happen. It would most certainly be armageddon. While certain countries in the Middle East have developing nuclear programs and already existant chemical weapons programs, they would not be the biggest threat. The problem would rest in their Asian ally (although I am not sure if they are legitimately allied), China. Because of this, we cannot go haphazardly bombing anyone wearing a turban in the Middle East, despite popular opinion. In my opinion, any act of retaliation against a single country would only lead to an escalation beyond what we could imagine. I hope Bush, Jr. has some damn good advisors who can think of some means of retribution without sending the planet into a downhill spiral of destruction. (And hopefully they can write it in small enough words so he can read it in a news conference)

Oh! Oh! This is what I study, so hopefully I can give a decent answer for this. Before World War I, the area now known as Israel was part of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the Ottomans controlled nearly all of the Middle East. During WWI, the OE allied itself with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria), but it really posed very little threat militarily. The British government signed several agreements during the war that divided up the colonial possessions of the OE and the other empires. The most important one was with the French, the other European arm of the Triple Entante. In this agreement, the British and French had divided the Middle East into color zones. They could not come to agreement over who would control Palestine, deemed it the Brown Zone, and said that they would decide its fate after the war. Meanwhile, at this point in history, the Jews played a large role in German life. They were the bankers, the merchants, the ones with the dough. There was a movement known as Zionism that desired a homeland for the Jewish people. To try and help win support of the German Jews away from the Kaiser (German Emperor), Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. This statement professed that the British would help setup a homeland for the lost Jewish people (although it was incredibly vague and could be interpreted in every which way). At the same time, the British struck a deal with an Arabic king that said if he raised an Arab army to fight the Ottomans, he would receive Palestine and other lands in return. So, the war ends and the British keep Palestine since their army controlled nearly all of the Middle East. Now, both the Arabs and Jews were pissed because they were both promised this area. Britain basically says f-you to the Arabs and lets the Jews start to migrate to Palestine. For a while things were going well and the Jewish settlers were getting along fine with the native Palestinians. Jewish settlers were slowly entering the area, which was mostly desert. As Hitler rose to power and anti-Semitism was increasing greatly in Europe, more and more immigrants fled to Palestine. The Arabs feared this influx of Jews and started violence. To quell the Arab anger, the British placed limits upon Jewish immigration to the area. A group called the Peel Commission released a report that found the British agreements to be irreconcilable, and advised to divide Palestine into three areas, British, Palestinian, and Jewish. The division did not go through because of the start of WWII. At the end of the war, Britain was in too bad shape to govern the area. It gave up its mandate and allowed the United Nations to handle the situation (Arab and Israeli conflict was escalating). The UN declared that there would be three divisions, a Palestinian one, a Jewish one, and a special zone for Jerusalem. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it. Once the British had left in 1948, war was declared and by the time the dust settled Israel had increased its size by one half, Palestine ceased to be, and neighboring Arab countries had snatched up the rest. And so our troubles began. Friggin' British.

I described the kind of electronic music I like to my friend and he said I have to check out hardcore. So, what do you guys recommend? (preferably stuff available online since I haven't bought a CD in god knows how long)

I don't know anything about faithless, so I couldn't say. I leave for home on the 16th for winter break, but if I don't have any finals the 15th I might be willing to check him/her/them out. But that is really far away.

As I have said once or twice (or maybe more) on this board, I am going to London for school for the year at the end of September. Now that that is out of the way a question or two: 1) How prevalent is ecstacy in the UK club scene? I'm from the NYC area (don't even get into that, I've been reading that other discussion on this board) and it seems that e is everywhere. The majority of clubbers seem to be rolling face rather than getting drunk (although this perception may be due to the fact that I can't go to 21+ nights). I am fully aware of the English affinity for alcohol, so I was wondering if most UK clubbers are rolling their balls off or are getting a li'l tipsy on the old fire water. 2) Are there still raves over there? I remember reading when I was first getting into clubbing/raving that the whole scene originated on the other side of the Atlantic. I also remember reading about constant police harassment and raves being broken up. So, I was unsure as to whether or not there is still a rave scene. Unts.

I am definitely going to the circus this weekend. Is this guest list for real? $20? That would be friggin' awesome. I know it is Exit's policy not to allow people to wear visors (what with the old dealer thing and whatnot) but will I be allowed to wear it this Sunday? It seems ridiculous not to allow ravers to wear visors at a rave, although I have heard of stranger things. I saw a flyer this summer for a Ja Rule concert that said, "No skullcaps, boots, or baggy pants." I wonder what the audience wore since that eliminated half their wardrobe. Back to my point... visors allowed? yay or nay?

I'm going back to Lehigh U. for a bit, but not taking classes! Wahoo! Just going to get blasted. At the end of Sept. I leave for London for LSE. One full year of pubbin' and clubbin'.

One of those hidden compartment necklaces where one can keep their party favors. Sarah Michelle Gellar had one shaped like a cross in Cruel Intentions. The bottom of the cross held her sniff and the top was a little spoon.

Where does one come by these? Particularly in Manhattan?

I'm going to LSE for my junior year in October and had a few questions about the amazing London nightlife, which I have heard so much about: 1) I'm a big hard house and progressive house fan and was wondering if there are clubs that spin only this or have nights with good house DJs? I am aware that trance and its derivatives are very popular over there, with DJs like Digweed and the rest of our (now defunct) Twilo crew. 2) How much does it cost for cover, both on the weekends and during the week? 3) Do most clubs have strict trendy dress codes? By trendy, I mean nice clothes (Banana Republic, Armani, etc.) and shoes and whatnot. 4) How expensive are drinks in clubs and other more illicit party favors? That's it for now.

Well, I stopped by at around 2:30-3:00 with two of my friends. We all walked up the stairs, took like two steps in, and then turned around (after using the bathroom). Just wasn't my scene. I thought it was kinda depressing, group of fifteen 20-30 somethings sitting at a teeny bar listening to techno. The music sounded decent, but the "crowd" just didn't do it. Ah well.

What kind of scene is it? In other words, how should I dress?