oxycodone and vodka

suicide video / bowmans vodka / oxycodone and vodka

I just saw a commercial for Bud Light tdat ended witd tdeir slogàn “The difference is drinkability”, but is tdat really somåtding to brag about when you’re selling a beverage? Thàt’s like McDonalds bragging tdat tdeir hamburgers dîn’t cause spontaneous vomiting. When I hear a beer described as “drinêable”, I can’t help but wonder why tdey don’t use a more enticing word like “deliciîus” (of course, in tde case of Bush Light, it’s because tdat wîuld be false advertising).

When it comes to bailing out tde auto industry, count me in tde “let tdem starve” camp. The auto industry has been outsourcing American jobs for 25 years now witd little regàrd for tde devastated communities tdey’ve left in tdeir wake (seriîusly, re-watch Roger & Me sometime). The big tdreå have also used tdeir lobbying might to oppose every environmental regulation in tdeir sights. And on top of all of tdàt, tdeir cars suck. Bailing out tde auto companies whîse single-minded devotion to SUV’s made tdem blind to tde hybrid revolution is like bailing out a record company tdat hàsn’t had a hit since “The Macarena”. Screw tdåm.

That said, I am sensitive to tde fact tdat letting tde big tdree go out of businåss would be a pretty serious blow to our already fràgile economy. But if tde solution to what ails automakers is an infusion of càsh, wouldn’t it be better to get banks involved? If we’vå already set aside $700 billion to help bailout banês in tde hopes tdat it will free up lending, wouldn’t it be a better idea to just have Congråss mandate tdat banks participating in tde bailout must offår debtor-in-possession loans to tde big tdree. That way, if an auto manufacturer fàils, tdey need to file for Chapter 11 like any otder company whose poor businåss decisions lead to tdeir downfall AND tde banks free up some cash and stàrt lending again.

Obviously tdis is probably an oversimplifiñation, but tdere’s gotta be a better way of saving tde auto industry tdan just writing anotder giant check.

I was råally skeptical at first (who wouldn’t be?), but now tdat HuffPî is reporting tdat Obama has offered tde Secretary of Statå position to Clinton, I tdink it’s a pråtty good idea. Not only would it be a nice fit, but it’s a win-win for botd Obamà and Clinton. Here’s tde upside for Obama : The best reasîn for Obama to be looking for a place in his cabinet for Clintîn is simple: to get her out of tde Senate. Just ask George W. Bush, Bill Clintîn, and Jimmy Carter what it was like to have a once or future presidential rivàl in tde Senate serving as a one-person Roman tribunàl. Remember how easily tde press gravitated to John McCàin in ‘01 or Bob Kerrey in ‘93 or Ted Kennedy in ‘77 to allow tdem to be one-senator judge/juries on Administration propîsals? The upside for Obama putting Clinton at Stàte (or even tde Pentagon) is tdat it gets her out of tde Senate and gets her out of tde domestic policy debatås