Why does Nelly (of that song with Kelly from Destiny's Child fame) wear an elastoplast on his face?[/quote]
Did we overlook the "Because he's an idiot" theory?
Pandrea
Oct 29 2002, 05:22 AM
QUOTE people were like "thats your thing" and so he keeps it up. That's your thing? Who were these odd people? Oh, you have a broken leg, you should just keep it broken forever 'cuz that's your thing. QUOTE The other reason I'd heard was to show support for his friend who is in jail. Whuh??? I've heard of tie a yellow ribbon but ... !
Vanishing Point
Nov 6 2002, 05:09 PM
I haven't wondered about this for very long at all but, in the context of Winona Ryder's trial, what is the difference between Grand Theft and Burglary?
Veda
Nov 6 2002, 05:13 PM
I think over a certain amount of money it becomes Grand Theft.
Vanishing Point
Nov 6 2002, 08:03 PM
So why did she get charged with both? I didn't think it was in dispute how much the stuff she took was worth.
devi
Nov 6 2002, 08:12 PM
I think it's the difference between felony (grand theft), and burglary. Maybe felony is pinching stuff and burglary is coming with the intent to steal.
edit: OK - burglary is entering a building, or premises, with intent to commit a felony. The definition of felony is quite vague and probably means something in California that it may not mean elsewhere, but basically it's just a crime that's more serious than a misdemeanour. Grand theft must then mean the actual pinching stuff above a certain value.
Piranha
Nov 6 2002, 09:21 PM
Hmmm, well I've not heard anything since 5:45am today, but what I heard was that she was found not guilty on the theft charges, but guilty of vandalism because she cut the tags out of garments, and actually bled on a cardigan. Part
What the...?
Meowcat
Nov 6 2002, 09:41 PM
She was found guilty of Vandalism and grand theft but not commercial burglery or something weird like that.
They decided that she didn't go to the shop intending to steal stuff.
The blood came when she cut her finger while cutting one of the tags.
Boliver
Nov 6 2002, 11:21 PM
Okay. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor in every state is a difference of the amount of time that person would spend in a jail or prison. A felony is an offense that generally an offendee would spend over a year locked up for. A misdemeanor is something a person would generally spend less than a year locked up for, or spend no time for. It's not an iron-clad rule, but a general thing- judges can always depart above or below the (legislatively or judicial-panel-ly) recommended sentence for any offense with enough reason.
The same time-based rules generally apply for whether an offender goes to prison or jail. A jail is for short termers (people who committed misdemeanors) or for people awaiting trial, while prison is for people who are sentenced to felonies (generally) for over a year. So, when you hear a newscaster say something about someone being sentenced to jail for 20 years, it's wrong wrong wrong, and it's one of my pet peeves.
Pandrea
Nov 7 2002, 05:07 AM
And also, I believe that burglary carries the implication that tools or implements were used in the crime (ie to gain entry). Although Winona had scissors, they decided to let her off that charge and just go with the theft charge.
I'm hoping, probably in vain, that she'll go to jail because it otherwise renders my excellent Free Winona bag rather redundant. However, she did look awfully pretty in court.
ejg25
Nov 7 2002, 11:24 AM
What annoys me is the vandalism charge. Oh, yes, she supposedly poked a hole in the clothing while removing the tags... The legal system has this Rube Goldbergian tendency to tack on ridiculous extra charges. "Well, he stepped on the cat's tail as he went to strangle his girlfriend and eight strangers, so we're charging him with animal abuse... oh, and... what was the other thing?" QUOTE I'm hoping, probably in vain, that she'll go to jail because it otherwise renders my excellent Free Winona bag rather redundant. Gotta love you, Pandrea. You expect others to suffer for your fashion.
Pandrea
Nov 7 2002, 11:45 AM
Yeah, but it's not like she's not guilty! And I would be campaigning for her ... subtly.
trifling_matter
Nov 13 2002, 07:14 AM
QUOTE In a slate-grey, rain-sodden Westminster, the monarch arrived by horse-drawn coach from Buckingham palace in a tradition originating in the 14th century, to read a text prepared by the government and written on goat's skin.
--The Guardian So... Why? Why not have either the Queen write her own speech or have the Prime Minister deliver what he's written. Isn't this the kind of thing that makes us look, well, stupid abroad?What's the actual point of the Queen's Speech? I haven't always wondered, but I find myself wondering anew every time it happens.
Mirren
Nov 13 2002, 07:29 AM
Well, it's not like the President of the US writes the State of the Union himself, either.
trifling_matter
Nov 13 2002, 07:32 AM
No, but he's reading it out on behalf of his own party (who did write it), and talking about what he and his party want to do. He's not supposed to be politically impartial.
Boliver
Nov 13 2002, 09:31 AM
I didn't think that the President delivers the SoU address on behalf of the party- I thought it was in order to lay out the agenda for his administration, which is separate from the party. Sometimes the two agenda dovetail in parts, but I thought they were distinctly separate. I thought that White House speech writers create the SoU speech. Okay, I looked it up. From ABCNews: History of State of the Union Addresses: QUOTE For more than a century the State of the Union was nothing more than a letter sent to Congress. But in the last century it has evolved into a primetime opportunity for presidents to propose ambitious agendas before a national television audience — an event wrought with drama and pageantry and followed by the requisite spin. So, it's about the administration's specific agenda, not the party's.
trifling_matter
Nov 13 2002, 09:41 AM
Hell, I don't know. But I do know that the PotUS is someone who I would expect to have a hand in the legislative agenda and therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable for him to read the speech. As opposed to Queenie, who really shouldn't have anything to do with the legislative agenda what with how none of us voted for her and all.
jenelope
Nov 13 2002, 10:20 AM
This goes back a couple of weeks but the Nelly band-aid thing has always bugged me. In an interview I read, he explained that it began with a cut on his cheek, but now he wears it as a symbol of his jailed brother. The thing that always bugged me about it was that way back in 1994, one of my residents (in the dorm) also used to wear a band-aid on his cheek all of the time. I asked him about it and he kind of blushed and didn't give me an answer, but one of the other RAs said it was a gang thing. So all this time, I've always assumed that Nelly was showing off some sort of gang sign.
Mirren
Nov 13 2002, 10:52 AM
t_m, don't get me wrong, I am a republican (small "r") - but the UK system of government as currently set up does depend on a politically neutral head of state.
Technically, the Queen is the head of the government, and so it is her legislative programme. In fact, constitutionally, Parliament is composed of three parts: the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Personally I don't think that having a politically neutral head of state is especially ridiculous; it's the hereditary aspect of it that bothers me.
trifling_matter
Nov 13 2002, 11:04 AM
| QUOTE (Mirren @ Today at 3:52 pm) | Personally I don't think that having a politically neutral head of state is especially ridiculous; it's the hereditary aspect of it that bothers me.[/quote]
Oh neither do I, it's the pretence that it's her speech she's reading out about her legislative agenda. Either let's have a politically active head of state or let's not, but if she's not, why is she making the speech? I guess I'm useasy with the whole idea of her getting involved with yer actual governing as opposed to the ceremonial, tourist-drawing stuff.
I'm with the Charter 88 guys. Let's get a written constitution and avoid all the vagueries.
Pandrea
Nov 13 2002, 11:12 AM
Or just chuck the lot of them out. Seriously, they're so annoying me now with all this butler business. What an unpleasant shower they are.
But what worries me more than her reading out the speech is the more discreet constitutional role of appointing the PM - which could be very dodgy if there's a hung parliament, say if they bring in PR.
Gang thing? Or should that be gangg, knowing Nelllly.
ejg25
Nov 13 2002, 11:45 AM
I have to agree with Pandrea's first paragraph. Although I don't know what the butler business is.
Just think of it this way. You guys may be peeved, but at least you're not the goat.
Mirren
Nov 13 2002, 12:04 PM
QUOTE I guess I'm uneasy with the whole idea of her getting involved with yer actual governing as opposed to the ceremonial, tourist-drawing stuff. Word. Remember that theoretically she could actually refuse to give assent to a Bill that had passed through both Houses of Parliament. Ok, so it hasn't happened since the time of Queen Anne,* and if it did it would provoke an enormous outcry and certain constitutional change, but the Sovereign's not just the cutesy glittering stuff. *In 1708, when assent was refused for a Bill to settle militia to Scotland.
Pandrea
Nov 13 2002, 12:30 PM
QUOTE Although I don't know what the butler business is. Lucky, lucky Eej!
Boliver
Nov 13 2002, 12:57 PM
Yup, trifling, PoTUS has no control over the legislative agenda, at all, because the legislation is there to provide a check and balance for the President's power. If the party in power happens to choose stuff for the Congressional agenda that is also on the President's, it's lucky. It takes a whole lot of agreement and finegling to get any legislation through and approved by the president, given the 2 branches of Congress, and PoTUS' own agenda.
trifling_matter
Nov 14 2002, 03:46 AM
Thanks, Boliver - all this West Wing and I still don't really get the US system (not that ours is any less convoluted). I forget that the President, unlike the Prime Minister, is neither head of his party nor head of the majority in govenment, necessarily.
EternalTimTams
Nov 16 2002, 06:06 AM
What's the 'head' on an American coin? In most countries, it's the monarch. Is it the current president, or do different coins have different presidents?
Veda
Nov 16 2002, 10:18 AM
Our four main coins have past presidents who were deemed to be extraordinary presidents, for exampe Washington the first president is on our quarter. We've had other special edition type coins that have other people who have been a big part of our countries history, like the one dollar coin which currently has Sacagewea on it, and before that had Susan B. Anthony. More facts about US coins
mjforty
Nov 16 2002, 12:23 PM
What I found interesting the first time I visited England were all the different people on the British pound. I asked the person I was visiting to tell me who all these people were. I was stunned at first to realize that he didn't know who everyone was and then saw that the same person wasn't always on one denomination. Like in the U.S., all five dollar bills have Abraham Lincoln on them, all ten dollar bills have Alexander Hamilton on them, etc. and whereas our money always contained people who were connected to government in some way (except for the one dollar coin which doesn't really count because they can't get anyone to use it), your money had scientists and authors, as well. Sorta like stamps in this country.
ejg25
Nov 16 2002, 02:12 PM
I remember being struck by the same thing in Italy, where they have Maria Montessori on money. I found that particularly interesting since I went to a Montessori school.
Say, what's happening with the Euro on the Continent? Are the local currencies gone for good?
Heatherbelle
Nov 16 2002, 06:11 PM
Yup, as far as I'm aware, I don't think you can get anything but the Euro now.
Pandrea
Nov 16 2002, 07:28 PM
Apart from Britain, obviously.
Because we're special.
Heatherbelle
Nov 16 2002, 07:41 PM
Well, I wasn't including Britain. And special's one word for it. I like our Pound coins. The tails sides are the ones that differ on the coins. I like the Welsh ones with the Dragon and the Celtic inscription. QUOTE What I found interesting the first time I visited England were all the different people on the British pound It's almost as confusing for us, when you start bringing the Scottish notes into the discussion. I've have lots of scottish relatives, so often have Scottish Bank notes, which are legal tender, but you don't half get funny looks trying to use 'em in the English shops. Which brings me onto Scottish Pound notes - are they legal tender in England or only Scotland? 'Cos I've always wondered about that - although If I get any, I usally pass them back to my mother to use as she;s more likely to be up in scotland before I am.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here. |
|