April 14, 2006
Dating Tips For Pirates
I love this. It's hilarious. Unless you're with Sammy Davis Jr. or Peter Falk, I'm not sure this is the best idea. Might freak your man out if he happens to peek.
| Kissing by Paige |
Ok, You want to kiss him but dont know what he wants to do? Well, while you are kissing, keep one eye slightly open. If his eyes are wide open-RUN!! Its obvious he is shocked and dosent want to be kissed.
If he puts his tounge in your mouth, again keep one eye slightly open. Just go alone with it if he does end up tounge wrestling with you.
And heres another tip. While you are kissing, and while you have your eye open, if he has his eyes closed and looks like hes really enjoying it, it means he could do that ALL DAY. And when you start to pull back, he will too.
|
| Current Rating: 3.9 From 4502 votes. |
| Read more dating tips and post your own! |
Posted by: annika at
11:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 3 kb.
Make A Me
| How to make a annika |
Ingredients:
5 parts jealousy
5 parts crazyiness
3 parts joy |
Method: Add to a cocktail shaker and mix vigorously. Top it off with a sprinkle of curiosity and enjoy! |
Via the sexy Law Fairy.
[N.B. Go-quiz's code fucks up your template unless you add a </div> tag at the very end.]
Posted by: annika at
10:58 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How to make a Casca0302
Ingredients:
5 parts jealousy
3 parts humour
1 part leadership
Method:Combine in a tall glass half filled with crushed ice. Add wisdom to taste! Do not overindulge!
Posted by: Casca at April 14, 2006 08:33 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: will at April 16, 2006 01:23 AM (h7Ciu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 3
Posted by: annika at
06:45 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
At least that one was funny. Maybe I've had enough to drink.
Posted by: Casca at April 13, 2006 06:56 PM (2gORp)
2
Annie, I say this with all love and affection: there are plenty of decaffeinated brands on the market that taste just as good as the real thing.
God help me, though: I actually laughed.
Posted by: physics geek at April 14, 2006 07:50 AM (Xvrs7)
3
Annie:
Those of us that have lived the law school experience understand the depths of your despair; the others just endulge you.
Just one more year after June. Think of it...
Posted by: shelly at April 14, 2006 09:45 AM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
Ever wish you could dress up your favorite stars? What would you do if you were the stylist for celebrities like Johnnie Depp, Amanda Bynes, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Bo Bice, or Nicole Richie, just to pick a few names at random from
this awesome site.
Playing with this stuff is like being a little girl again. But I also get to snark at celebrities, which is always adult time fun.
Charlize with red hair and Pat Benatar lipstick/eye shadow? I just click a few boxes and there she is. And she looks awful. Maria Sharapova as a goth? Horrible.
Want to watch manic Angelina on the catwalk? Look in the games section. You can change her clothes instantly as she marches to an unheard soundtrack.
Craziest thing though. Even with access to Jessica Simpson's wardrobe, I still can't find a damn thing to wear.
Posted by: annika at
10:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Amanda Bynes, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Bo Bice? You have a very loose definition of "celebrity" it seems.
Now, Mandy Moore, on the other hand. . .
Posted by: JD at April 13, 2006 07:05 AM (xD5ND)
2
I can't believe how fun this is...maybe I should seek professional help.
Posted by: Mark W at April 13, 2006 06:27 PM (Uwaa6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin: Episode Two

Because the hardest part about introducing a new fictional character is that it takes time for the audience to get to know and love him.
Posted by: annika at
05:41 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Which is really hard when you consider that most folks want something that's either funny or interesting.
Posted by: Casca at April 12, 2006 08:21 PM (2gORp)
2
Man, I could feel the anger.
That was intense.
Phew.
I totally need a joint now.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 12, 2006 09:52 PM (954g7)
3
I'm confused. Is this one of those fancy New Yorker cartoons?!?!
Posted by: JD at April 13, 2006 12:57 PM (xD5ND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
You may remember the great KISS haiku contest of 2005. The
winner of that contest was Cameron who used to have a blog called Way Off Base. Now he's blogging with his brother at
Woody's Woundup.
Anyways, I once called Cameron "the Mark Russell of the Blogosphere." Of course nobody knows who Mark Russell is, so it's not much of a compliment, if it ever was one. But Cameron is still writing poetry, and I loved his latest one so much that I chose it for this week's selection.
On the Morning of A Day Off, A Little Wind and Rain
An old, missed friend wakes me up, politely
Tapping my window with soft fingers,
Whispering the new stories she has learned.
And IÂ’m all ears, warm under my blanket,
Sitting up with my back against the cool wall,
Listening, trying to find a rhythm
In her words, perpetually relieved
To never discern any noticeable pattern.
It would ruin the instance if I did;
Like hearing a drumbeat put to an aria.
ThereÂ’s no sorrow, no worsted gray buttoned up
Over the colorful promise of her mysteries.
Beneath my closed eyes, her words become
An intimate canvas primed and waiting for
Some improvised brush of . . .
Life, she taps on my window. Laughter. Love.
Each flurry of words brings me
Closer to new than I have been in years.
My windowÂ’s open; she enters on the breeze.
Such a scent she brings, clean and real,
The scent wild things know after the snows melt,
And with her comes the lush green certainty
Of something taking root in me,
Like a seed pushed into readied earth by
Some wise old farmer in the North Forty,
And I imagine that when my friend and I
Meet again in the spring, in a rambling conversation
About wild sprouts and raucous blooms,
IÂ’ll be glad then that I donÂ’t now close my window
Just to avoid her random, friendly kisses.
It doesnÂ’t rain enough in Southern California.
Cameron writes an occasional sonnet too, and for his latest effort he was rewarded by by being published in the
Moorpark Review Creative Arts Journal. This one is real nice. Click on the link to "So we are all of us abandoned Lears"
at this page.
Posted by: annika at
06:37 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thank you, Annika! I got your poetry link, so I look forward to returning the favor pretty dang soon!
Posted by: Cameron Wood at April 12, 2006 12:55 AM (cSPWI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 11, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin: Episode One
Posted by: annika at
11:13 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Matt at April 12, 2006 12:57 PM (10G2T)
2
A lawyer joke? Oh, I get it! They misspelled "Easter" and put down "estate" instead. Brilliant!
Posted by: reagan80 at April 12, 2006 01:12 PM (WQytM)
3
There's nothing to get. Periodically I get the urge to post something completely lame and absurd. Now I have found a great site that will enable me to do that with frightening regularity and ease.
http://www.stripcreator.com/
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2006 05:38 PM (fxTDF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Scam I Fell For... Fuck!
I fell for a new bum scam today, but it's a good one.
I pulled into a gas station and before I even shut off the engine there appeared next to me a rough looking biker dude on a beat up old v-twin. The engine was clearly smoking. He was unshaven and filthy. He's saying something, so I reluctantly shut off the radio and roll down the window partway. I'm thinking, maybe I should just leave, but I was running on fumes. Plus he'd probably follow me anyway. And damn if I wasn't the only person at the gas station too. Rotten luck.
So I see what he says. He's mumbling something about a gasket. Seems his engine is fucked up somehow and he wants like fifty bucks to go get a gasket. Keep in mind it's about 6:00 pm and all mechanics are closed.
So I give him my standard answer.
"Why don't you call a friend and ask him to come get you?"
That always throws a bum. Very few of them expect that question, this asshole included. But he countered by sticking to the script.
"I just need some help to get a $20 gasket."
Oh, now it's $20! Interesting. But the engine is obviously in trouble. Smoke is coming out from all over.
"I don't see why you don't call a friend or a family member. That's what I'd do," I say again.
"I just need a $20 gasket. I'll take whatever you can spare. C'mon help me out. I know a guy down the street who can put the gasket in for me."
"Dude, I ain't givin' you no fifty bucks. Just park the bike and call a family member to come pick you up."
Now, for just a split second, I sense annoyance flash across his face. Then it's gone, but not without leaving a profound effect on my strategy.
[Insert the part where I curse California and it's stupid CCW laws.]
He responds, "Nobody's gonna come all the way from Riverside to pick me up."
I'm wondering how he made it to Sacramento from Riverside on that smoking hulk, while I discreetly remove two dollars from my wallet.
"Here's two bucks. But I don't know how that's gonna get you anywhere."
Without a word of thanks, he takes the money from my outstretched arm and tears off down the road on the broken bike, which seems to accelerate just fine.
The moral of the story is this: You may catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but a menacing look can get you two bucks.
Posted by: annika at
06:29 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'm so glad that you were armed and unharmed.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 11, 2006 08:59 PM (K9tdw)
2
I bet the Easter Bunny wouldn't have settled for just giving you a menacing look.
Posted by: Cameron Wood at April 12, 2006 01:09 AM (cSPWI)
3
That happened to me in an Office Max...only it was some bum wanting to make a phone call. I gave him a quarter (big spender) and the dude bought a pack of smokes!
Posted by: GroovyVic at April 12, 2006 02:18 AM (UtIo/)
4
Almost the same thing happened to me when I was your age--the guy scored three bucks. That was twenty years ago...they never look at me now even though I drive a much nicer car. Age has its privileges.
Posted by: Mark W at April 12, 2006 05:18 AM (aklAt)
5
I never get hustled anymore, unless you count the tattooed heroin addicts who sit on the sidewalk in front of Horton Plaza. Whenever they open their mouths, I exploit the opening to launch into a What-the-fuck-are-you-doing-with-your-life lecture. The risk reward ratio quickly tilts against them.
As for the "in your face" intimidator, keep this one in your pocket. "Oh my brother loves bikes, he'll help you, let me call him, btw he's a cop."
An even better idea might be not to talk to speedfreaks on motorcycles. Your mistake was engaging on his terms. Listen to mom. Don't talk to strangers.
Posted by: Casca at April 12, 2006 05:36 AM (y9m6I)
6
You are right Casca. But the beauty of that bum's scheme was that he got me as soon as I pulled up to the pump, so I had no choice but to respond to him. And since he was on a motorcycle, I was afraid to just drive away because he might follow me.
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2006 07:10 AM (zAOEU)
7
Annika, I'm hardly the optimistic type, but look at it this way: You saved $48!
Posted by: Mark at April 12, 2006 01:37 PM (KHxhX)
8
annika, your biggest mistake was letting your gas tank get that freakin' low. Call me neurotic, but in the cold, damp, east, it's the rarest of a rare day when my tank is below half a tank. Especially in winter, keeping your tank full helps ensure you don't get ice in the fuel line.
Obviously you don't have that problem in warm, sunny, rainy California...but had you not been on fumes you could've just taken off for another gas station, or if the guy *had* started following you, to a police or fire station.
Posted by: Victor at April 13, 2006 04:12 AM (L3qPK)
9
Karate lessons? Because attitude goes a long way.
Posted by: MarkD at April 15, 2006 05:06 AM (X9njN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
California Poll Numbers
In California, Bush surpasses Carter...
Only 32 percent of registered voters approve of the job Bush is doing, while 62 percent disapprove, according to the statewide Field Poll released Tuesday.
. . .
Carter had a 66 percent disapproval and 33 percent approval rating in July 1980.
...while Congress ties Nixon.
Californians' views on the legislative branch were even more negative with 66 percent disapproving of the job Congress is doing and just 24 percent approving.
Nixon hit 24% in August 1974, just before he resigned.
Anybody wanna go for Fillmore?
Posted by: annika at
06:22 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You need a red state vacation. Hit Padre Island for spring break, and you'll feel better.
Polls are subjective snapshots. I'd say 33% is about the right count for people in this state who don't have their heads up their collective asses.
Posted by: Casca at April 11, 2006 10:17 AM (y9m6I)
2
The difference is that Carter had the support of MSM. If he did not have the support of MSM, his approval numbers would have been 5%.
With all the Bush bashing that MSM has done, it is a miracle that his approval numbers are at 32%.
Posted by: Jake at April 11, 2006 11:35 AM (XOf7A)
3
The Field Poll slants leftward, so I suspect the number is not quite that low - but still in the high 30's. This is a very Blue state with the Independents leaning Democrat as well. He is receiving a 32% disaproval rating from Reps, which shouldn't be a surprise considering his weak handling of the immigration issue and high gas prices. He better get a handle on immigration. This is the one issue that will kill Reps in '06. It's all about voter turnout and if Reps turn into the Democrat Lite Party and don't insist on real border security, the base will stay home. The idea that somebody as stupid as Nancy Pelosi could be Speaker of the House should make anybody with a three-digit IQ sick. Seriously, she is only slightly less stupid than Barbara Boxer. So, I'm hoping Bush and the Reps will develop a backbone and insist on real immigration reform.
Posted by: Blu at April 11, 2006 11:57 AM (j8oa6)
4
I'd be in the 62% category because he isn't conservative enough for me. So if anybody's thinking that number portends victory for the party of Howard Dean, they need to ask a few more questions...
I'm way into the 66% category on Congress. Corrupt, utterly, hopelessly corrupt. The few honest ones are ineffective.
Too bad there isn't a "None of the above,and they are hereby permanently ineligible for public office" line on the ballot. How many of those do you suppose would get a majority?
Posted by: MarkD at April 11, 2006 12:04 PM (oQofX)
5
Either Ralph Nader or the Libertarians or someone wanted to put "None of the above" on ballots.
After watching a lot of English Premier League matches, I think I have the answer - losers must be relegated to a lower classification. Bush, McCain, and Kennedy can all be Sunderland.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 11, 2006 02:21 PM (bGyIu)
6
Im with mark on this one, I really thnk Bush is a big F up, but I am not likely to vote for any Dem.
Although, It is barely possible.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 11, 2006 03:05 PM (Bl8It)
7
“immigration. This is the one issue that will kill Reps in '06."
Hey Blu,
Are you serious? You don't suppose the fact that the country is finally realizing the W is about as straight as a piece of Iraq rebar is not going to hurt in 06?
The charade is collapsing. The general incompetence, the intense deceit, the secrecy when it suits them, the political manipulation of the government, the overall sense of dishonesty, the overblown pandering to fear, and not the least of it being that George can't define a word without using the same word as a synonym. The man is an idiot. And you have the gall the badmouth Pelosi or Boxer? They can both stand before the press and link multiple sentences into thoughts that answer questions with syntax that agrees in tense and number; something W cannot do. He is incoherent, churlish, childish and weak.
The party is going into the midÂ’s with nothing to run on except stagnant wages, a continuing swap of high paying for low paying jobs, incredible debt, an oil lobbyist running Interior, some other hack (lawyer) at the office of interior changing the meaning of scientific papers to conform to the boneheaded pseudoscience that passes for policy in the WH, Abramoff spilling his guts, and the bug man indicted and disgraced.
A slow but steady erosion has been (and by erosion I mean when things erode they get eroded) taking place. The republican bus has hit the telephone pole of the American publicÂ’s limit on bullshit and the air bags didnÂ’t deploy
Posted by: strawman at April 11, 2006 03:07 PM (o/gnC)
8
Strawman, I don't know what country you are talking about-you must be referring to France:
Because in this country, we have nothing but good news:
Iraq is now safer than the streets of Detroit or Washington DC
Unemployment is at an all time low
Employment is at an all time high
Al Qaida is decimated and on the run
No terrorist incidents in the US for 3.5 years
Federal Tax revenues at an all time high
Stock market is at an all time high
Number of high paying jobs is at an all time high
Interest rates are at an historical low
Inflation is at an historical low
Only 1 administration official is under indictment compared to 61 Clinton administration officials under indictment
The 40 Democrat Senators who took bribes from Abramoff have been identified
The Interior Department is now using real scientific research rather than the hysterical blatherings of the left.
The majority of the large countries have adopted the G8 Bush Doctrine on the Environment.
Posted by: Jake at April 11, 2006 04:44 PM (XOf7A)
9
Strawman and I disagree on so much. But maybe there's some common ground if I say that we both wish we had a president with the gift of clear articulatation.
Posted by: annika at April 11, 2006 06:03 PM (fxTDF)
10
Straw,
I stand by what I wrote. The Reps can only lose the House if the base stays home. The political reality is that incumbents have a nearly overwhelming advantage in their gerrymandered districts. You are just plain wrong on the economy. You are simply repeating Paul Begala's talking points. This is economy is producing wealth at all levels and the jobs that are being produced are not minimum wage. (See this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0411/p01s02-usec.html)If you want to argue that Bush is inarticualte, I don't think you will get a lot of argument. Anyway, the best you can hope for is that the Reps fuck up immigration. If that happens, your side has a shot at the House. Taking over the Senate will require an even bigger Rep meltdown. I don't think that will happen...but you never know with the spineless bunch running the Senate and a seemingly politically tone deaf WH.
Posted by: Blu at April 12, 2006 07:23 AM (j8oa6)
11
I would have figured he had like 2% approval in California.
Posted by: Mark at April 12, 2006 01:39 PM (KHxhX)
12
Jake, for future reference, liberals are not interested in that "truth", "logic" and "evidence" stuff. Slogans, unchecked emotions, and cardboard signs from Kinko's will do just fine.
Posted by: Mark at April 12, 2006 01:42 PM (KHxhX)
13
Oh, Mark you baaing sheep,
The irony of your remarks is profound. We are ruled by the most deceitful, truth adverse, bunch of Stalinists this country has ever endured. Men and women who "assassinate" enemies, march our young men and women off to die for reasons yet to be told, suspend habeas corpus, impose religious doctrine on our grade school children, intentionally and through abject ignorance bungle the language in ways Orwell could never have imagined and you accuse liberals as having issues with the truth? You sir are no better than a common cultist.
Posted by: strawman at April 13, 2006 06:18 AM (o/gnC)
14
Straw,
Calm down, dude! And please be accurate with your insults.
Stalin ordered the murder of millions upon millions of his own people. Putting enemy combatants into prison rather than executing them on the spot is not, in my opinion, Stalinist. If this administration was, as you put it, Stalinist, they'd hunt you down and put a bullet in your brain. As it is, you and all those that share your point of view are allowed to vent ad nauseum. If you are speaking philosophically, then, sorry buddy, but it is your party that most closely resembles Stalinists.
Posted by: Blu at April 13, 2006 09:22 AM (j8oa6)
15
I just ignore insults. It's how children argue.
The best part in that tirade was "for reasons yet to be told." I guess you have been comatose for the last 4 years, eh strawman?
Posted by: Mark at April 13, 2006 10:10 AM (A4zYZ)
16
"For reasons yet to be told." Yes, Bush has taken over the editorial offices of the MSM and forced them to print only stories favorable to his administration.
OK, try this: "Because the MSM is so patriotic, and would never release any classified information that would harm our country during a time of war."
Sorry, I just can't come up with any way your hyperbole can be rationalized.
Posted by: MarkD at April 15, 2006 05:11 AM (X9njN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
This is uproarious.
The Easter Bunny kicks ass.
Thanks to Zendo Deb for finding that.
Posted by: annika at
06:40 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ouch, that's almost as bad as Roger's pic of me.
As for the Easter Bunny, who knew. I have a newly discovered respect for the wimpy little fucker. I'll bet the bear doesn't ask him if shit sticks to HIS fur.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2006 08:50 PM (2gORp)
2
I see a bad moon rising in Sacre-tomato.
Posted by: d-rod at April 10, 2006 09:39 PM (C11Ce)
3
Looks like the Easter Bunny is rampaging in NYC. I'm gonna watch my back!!
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 11, 2006 09:11 PM (KjUHH)
4
HAHAHAHA. Giant rabbits rock.
Posted by: JD at April 12, 2006 01:10 PM (xD5ND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 08, 2006
Draft Day Questions
1. How does Al Davis fuck this one up?
2. Who gets Bush?
3. Will Green Bay take a QB or stick with their vacillating, over-the-hill hall-of-famer?
4. How will Al Davis fuck this one up?
5. Where and when does Leinart go?
6. If Houston or the Titans take Young, will he deliver for them?
7. Can anything help the Raiders. Or the Niners for that matter?
8. Can Viera handle both Today and Millionaire?
Posted by: annika at
11:59 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
WTFO!? Will the Buckeyes set a record with first round and total draft picks from on school!!! Bet on it!
Posted by: Casca at April 08, 2006 12:44 PM (2gORp)
2
I think Young will be a star - eventually. He will be overwhelmed for a long time - years, and will be awful during this period.
I'm additionally impressed with Young's leadership qualities. I would want him for my franchise. I would be willing to suffer through the early days. Even when he is awful, he should be fun to watch. Vince Young will always sell tickets.
Sometimes scouts and franchises overthink. Dan Marino was passed by something like 22 teams, and was the 6th QB taken in his draft. Mike Singletary was passed by the entire league in the first round, b/c he was "too short."
Posted by: gcotharn at April 08, 2006 04:36 PM (wg3L2)
3
Oh yeah - Al Davis:
Blinding glare from white sweat suit cause Raiders flunky to draft Lance Young: QB/WR, Univ. of Texas, with Raiders' first round pick. Lance has a 3.95 GPA, and a 4.95 40 time. He will go on to an outstanding career in the Raiders front office.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 08, 2006 04:42 PM (wg3L2)
4
Heh now, Al knows his market. California has a lot of criminals, and as long as there are prison gangs, the Raiders will have fans.
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2006 06:44 AM (2gORp)
5
J-E-T-S
Jets, Jets, Jets
Posted by: Jane at April 09, 2006 07:43 AM (y6n8O)
6
To answer your questions:
1. he shows up
2. Texans
3. They already have a young QB (the guy from Cal, I believe) - look for the Packers to go defense
4. see #1
5. probably to the Titans
6. they won't - Texans need a guy like Bush and Leinart already knows the Titans offense. But if they do, don't expect him to do much at QB and figure that there will be talk of moving him to WR or RB.
7. the Raiders might actually be alright this year. The 49ers need every team in the league to lose their starting QB and RB to injury to have a chance just to make the playoffs.
8. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: KG at April 09, 2006 09:13 AM (SZsz5)
7
Of course, Aaron Rodgers, how stupid of me to forget!
Posted by: annika at April 09, 2006 12:39 PM (fxTDF)
8
Jane, if you're going to talk all nasty like that, please do it topless, and send pictures.
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2006 03:39 PM (2gORp)
9
Vince Young was effective because his size made him a real threat to run on broken pass plays and options.
In the Pro's, he will just not be able to do that; they are all as big, or bigger than Vince.
Vince is not a remarkable passer. If I'm drafting, he is far down the list. Bush should and will go first, Leinart maybe third or fourth. There are a couple of DE's from somewhere that could go 2nd, but it is too early in the morning for me to remember which ones.
Young will be lucky to be drafted in the first round.
SC has a bumper crop, Bush, Leinart, Bing and Justice all can go in first round. Betcha USC goes stronger than OSU. Any takers?
Posted by: shelly at April 10, 2006 05:41 AM (BJYNn)
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2006 08:19 AM (y9m6I)
11
Texans will take Bush. Any other year I would be upset with passing a once in a decade talent like Vince Young, especially since he is the hometown boy. But Reggie Bush might be an even bigger once in a decade like talent.
In addition, Two other players in this draft have that kind of potential at their position,
A J Hawk and T-brikassschwaww(whatever) Ferguson.
The depth of this draft is hard to believe, nevertheless, Alice Davis will probably screw it up and you KNOW that the Saints will certainly screw it up.
Why? well, because they are the Saints.
Posted by: kyle n at April 10, 2006 03:06 PM (7TdC2)
12
PS> Shelly, Vince's passing rating was in the high '80's. Also, he has all the intanglibles. Leadership, decision making, ect.
Actually I think Leinhart is the one who will have a little trouble adjusting to the NFL. He doesnt have the natural ability his predecessor Carson Palmer had. He might have trouble adjusting to the speed of the game.
When you have a great O line, a pretty damm good defense, and backs like White and Bush to help you, it tends to make you look like a great QB.
Now he might BE great, but he might also struggle a lot if he goes to a crappy team, (jets)
Posted by: kyle8 at April 10, 2006 03:14 PM (7TdC2)
13
I concur with Kyle on intangibles. Vince's running could be compared with Randal Cunningham, Steve Young, and Michael Vick. Plus, Vince has leadership qualities, and never say die competitiveness. In this regard, he reminds me a bit of Roger Staubach. I love Reggie Bush. But I hate to see the Texans pass a unique hometown talent.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 10, 2006 04:38 PM (PR0L+)
14
The problem with Vince Young is that Texas ran almost every play from the shotgun - it's a much easier offense for a QB because he can see all of the defense, he doesn't have to worry about a 3, 5, or 7 step drop and he can run out of it. No one runs the shotgun in the NFL as much as Texas did. And as far as running QBs go, they don't tend to win in the NFL - of the three you listed, gcotharn, they have a total of one SuperBowl title. Running on a busted play is one thing, running because your first read isn't open is another.
Leinhart's best fit will be Tennessee, where he already knows the offense. He'll struggle because all rookies struggle, but I think his game is better suited to the NFL than Youngs.
And when it comes to intangibles, I'm thinking that every single guy taken in the first round have 'em. They wouldn't be at this level without them.
Posted by: KG at April 10, 2006 06:06 PM (SZsz5)
15
I think KG is spot on about running QBs. I'd take a great passer over a "running QB" anyday.
Posted by: annika at April 10, 2006 06:08 PM (fxTDF)
16
Here's something I've wondered about:
if Vince Young declared himself a RB, and you were the Texans, would you draft Young or Bush with the first pick?
Vince has now won consecutive Rose Bowls, and, best I remember, has yet to be tackled inside the Pasadena city limits.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 10, 2006 06:32 PM (PR0L+)
17
That's because he was playing NO-D Pac 10 teams. He got his ass tackled in Columbus, and I have the video to prove it.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2006 08:52 PM (2gORp)
18
in that case, gcotharn, it becomes a tougher call, especially with the success that Pittsburg has had in converting QBs. Young may well be the best athlete in the draft, but you really don't have to be a great athlete to be an NFL QB.
Posted by: KG at April 10, 2006 09:01 PM (SZsz5)
19
SC drafts higher than OSU.
Stakes are one Annika Coffee Cup, but then, you probably never earned one.
Posted by: shelly at April 11, 2006 01:07 PM (BJYNn)
20
Let me get this straight, since I'm dealing with lawyers and their ilk. What exactly do you mean by "drafts higher"?
A coffee mug? Puhleez, at first I thought I'd send you a buckeye, since you've probably never seen one, and you could send me a box of them there trojans. Let's make the stakes something more manly, and worthy of the argument.
Posted by: Casca at April 11, 2006 02:19 PM (2gORp)
21
OK, how about 10 points for each first round pick, 9 for second round, etc. Whoever gets the most points after 10 rounds wins.
I don't want any used Buckeyes. How about Cuban cigars or nude pictures of Annie?
Posted by: shelly at April 11, 2006 03:17 PM (BJYNn)
22
Lol, you guys are funny. The season's over and you're still fighting.
I got buckeye once. A little ointment cleared it right up!
Posted by: annika at April 11, 2006 05:59 PM (fxTDF)
23
That'll teach you to use trojans, mwahahaha.
I like your scoring system.
"Naked pics of Annie"? How naked?
Posted by: Casca at April 12, 2006 06:46 AM (y9m6I)
24
as far as which QB will have a tougher time in the pros, i'd bet they both wash out as QB, young because his size won't matter any more, Leinart because he's obviously been scared to even go pro. they're gonna eat his lunch.
Posted by: JD at April 12, 2006 01:14 PM (xD5ND)
25
Hey Annie:
Wanna get in the contest? You can have the Golden Bears.
Posted by: shelly at April 12, 2006 01:41 PM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 07, 2006
Long-Ass Battle Of The Movie Assassins Update
In June, last year, I started this whole running sidebar poll about movie assassins and who would kill whom if they had to. I'm calling the latest poll, which was the closest competition so far. You decided that Jason Bourne is more kick-ass than Leon from
The Professional by a vote of 53% to 47%. It was neck and neck for quite a while.
Who knew there were so many Leon fans out there? And I thought The Professional was a heartwarming tale about some French dude and his kid. Maybe I should see it again.
Anyways, Jason Bourne advances and the bracket looks like this:

The next matchup is between Nikita of La Femme Nikita and Beatrix Kiddo of Kill Bill Parts 1 and 2. The question, as always, is this: "If Nikita and Beatrix Kiddo were each given orders to kill each other, who would win?"
So what are you waiting for? Scroll down and vote!
Previous updates in this, the blogging equivalent of a massive public works project,* can be found here, and here.
_______________
* Nobody's sure if it's worth the effort, but we've gone too far to call off the damn thing now.
Posted by: annika at
05:36 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I was going to say that this was stupid, until I read the fine print. In the interest of foolish consistency, I say the Nakita bitch kicks ass.
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2006 06:56 PM (2gORp)
2
I put in my vote for Beatrix.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at April 08, 2006 07:27 AM (hkopM)
3
Nikita. The original, French, Nikita. or Peta. not Fonda from the American movie re-make.
Posted by: MarkD at April 08, 2006 07:56 AM (X9njN)
4
Fonda (Maggie) lost in the first round.
Posted by: annika at April 08, 2006 08:31 AM (fxTDF)
Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at April 10, 2006 09:18 AM (B5UVm)
6
Beatrix.
Hmmm, the polls are currently tied at 11-11. It was 6-6 when I voted.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 10, 2006 02:03 PM (K9tdw)
7
PS> Shelly, Vince's passing rating was in the high '80's. Also, he has all the intanglibles. Leadership, decision making, ect.
Actually I think Leinhart is the one who will have a little trouble adjusting to the NFL. He doesnt have the natural ability his predecessor Carson Palmer had. He might have trouble adjusting to the speed of the game.
When you have a great O line, a pretty damm good defense, and backs like White and Bush to help you, it tends to make you look like a great QB.
Now he might BE great, but he might also struggle a lot if he goes to a crappy team, (jets)
Posted by: kyle8 at April 10, 2006 03:12 PM (7TdC2)
Posted by: kyle8 at April 10, 2006 03:13 PM (7TdC2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Well Do Ya... Punk?
VDH has been boring for a while now, but today he published a
must-read piece at NRO, dealing with the subject of nuclear brinksmanship and "craziness" as a foreign policy tool.
One of my favorite history professors at Cal believed that the Vietnam War could be explained by the theory of "craziness" as a geopolitical device. In other words, our foreign policy led us to demonstrate to our allies and our enemies the extreme lengths we would go to promote our interests around the world. "Why else," he asked, "would we send so many boys to fight and die for a piece of land that had absolutely no strategic value to us?"
Looking beyond the obvious liberal slant to his question, I think my professor recognized a truth of realpolitik. A little unpredictability in foreign policy is a good thing. Recent American administrations have proven this fact. Nobody could have expected presidents Ford through Clinton to do what George W. Bush is doing right now in Iraq. They would not have been willing to withstand the political price of a hugely unpopular war. And one result of that perceived unwillingness is the war we are now in.
So if American power can be wielded by a president, despite intense opposition at home and abroad, for a project with such an uncertain outcome... what won't we do?
Bush's "crazy" foreign policy has breathed new life into JFK's pledge, made forty-five years ago:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Iranian president Ahmadinejad knows the value of apparent "craziness" too. (Although, in his case, it may not be an act.) Professor Hanson points out the method to Ahmadinejad's madness:
The Islamic world lost their Middle Eastern nuclear deterrent with the collapse of the Soviet Union . . . . But with a nuclear Islamic Iran, the mullahs can claim that a new coalition against Israel would not be humiliated — or at least not annihilated when it lost — since the Iranians could always, Soviet-like, threaten to go nuclear. There are surely enough madmen in Arab capitals who imagine that, at last, the combined armies of the Middle East could defeat Israel, with the guarantee that a failed gambit could recede safely back under an Islamic nuclear umbrella.
Lastly, Iran can threaten Israel and U.S. bases at will, in hopes of getting the same sort of attention and blackmail subsidies it will shortly obtain from the Europeans, who likewise are in missile range. All failed states want attention — who, after all, would be talking about North Korea if it didn’t have nukes? So, in terms of national self-interest, it is a wise move on the theocracy’s part to acquire nuclear weapons, especially when there is no India on the border to play a deterrent role to an Iran in the place of Pakistan.
And of course the Iranians have devised a very crafty plan to achieve this end, based on the failed but workable strategy Saddam Hussein employed to "play" the U.N. and Europe.
First, they conduct military exercises, showing off novel weapons systems with purportedly exotic capabilities, while threatening to unleash terror against global commerce and the United States. It may be a pathetic and circus-like exercise born of desperation, but the point of such military antics is to show the West there will be some real costs to taking out Iranian nuclear installations.
Second, Iranians simultaneously send out their Westernized diplomats to the U.N. and the international media to sound sober, judicious, and aggrieved — pleading that a victimized Iran only wants peaceful nuclear energy and has been unfairly demonized by an imperialistic United States. The well-spoken professionals usually lay out all sorts of protocols and talking-points, all of which they will eventually subvert — except the vacuous ones which lead nowhere, but nevertheless appeal to useful Western idiots of the stripe that say “Israel has a bomb, so let’s be fair.”
Third, they talk, talk, talk — with the Europeans, Chinese, Russians, Hugo Chavez, anyone and everyone, and as long as possible — in order to draw out the peace-process and buy time in the manner of the Japanese militarists of the late 1930s, who were still jawing about reconciliation on December 7, 1941, in Washington.
During this tripartite approach, the Iranians take three steps forward, then one back, and end up well on their way to acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite all the passive-aggressive noisemaking, they push insidiously onward with development, then pause when they have gone too far, allow some negotiations, then are right back at it. And we know why: nuclear acquisition for Iran is a win-win proposition.
Any other American administration would be content to worry, and twiddle its thumbs, and talk tough, and worry some more, and ultimately do nothing. Any other American president might be ignored, as "all talk and no action." And even though the best solution to the Iranian problem might actually be one that requires "all talk and no action," the perception that we might just be "crazy" enough to resort to action is worth a hell of a lot of talk.
So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer.
In other words, "do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?"
Posted by: annika at
09:55 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 975 words, total size 6 kb.
1
This is an excellent point. I sold cars for 7 years, and was in more than 1500 sales negotiations. Craziness is a good tool. You must not let yourself become predictable. The opposite party must believe you are crazy enough to be unreasonable. It is best, sometimes, to openly spit on a reasonable proposal, just to make a point. It will help you in the long run.
PS: I've used the same principle in parenting - with success! A 14 year old is a crazed, unreasonable being anyway. I needed every extra advantage I could muster. Being a little crazy and unpredictable was helpful. Plus - it gave my child some stories to tell!
Posted by: gcotharn at April 07, 2006 10:17 AM (wg3L2)
2
VDH steps it up. Again. He's done it too many times to doubt him, but every time he comes out with something like this I can't help but be awed.
Posted by: Trevor at April 07, 2006 02:35 PM (GtBBB)
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2006 04:12 PM (2gORp)
4
More sloppy intellectual effort from VDH . If he would actually spend some time in the Middle East and talk to folks from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Jordan,etc; then he'd realize the religious, ethnic and a geopolitical reasons why many of the Arab (Iran is not Arab) states fear a nuclear (and too powerful) Iran.
What's so mad about a country surveying its security environment and calculating the US wants to topple its leadership, perhaps by force? Iran knows it cannot win a conventional fight, but it can have an effective deterrent against the US with nuclear forces and perhaps an ability to threaten/block the shipping lines. It's called balance of power realism.
Posted by: Col Steve at April 07, 2006 05:09 PM (lA9QD)
5
As usual, the Col. is spot on.
Posted by: Blu at April 07, 2006 05:29 PM (3TVci)
6
No one is saying the Iranians are crazy to want to have the bomb. That's quite sane, from their point of view. Like VDH says, its a win-win for them. What's crazy is that they might use it for no particularly good reason. And that's exactly what they want us to think, too.
Posted by: annika at April 07, 2006 05:33 PM (fxTDF)
7
I think JFK would turn over in his grave if he heard your allusion to GWB's incursion into Iraq. Again, there was no threat to the US or its allies (no WMD, etc).
Being a little crazy doesn't buy one much besides bankrupting civilization as we know it in this case.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" often ends with the wrong answer, as it did in this case.
I will admit, however, that we should not be hamstrung when the time for action presents itself. Knowing when that occurs, however, separates the trigger-happy from the true leaders.
Posted by: will at April 07, 2006 05:55 PM (h7Ciu)
8
Hmmmmm, the world's chief state sponsor of terror just wants to maintain the "balance of power"? Steveo, you spent too much time hanging with the MAD crowd.
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2006 07:03 PM (2gORp)
9
Will: and I suppose Cuba
was a threat to the U.S. in '61?
Posted by: annika at April 07, 2006 07:24 PM (fxTDF)
10
Cuba was a Soviet nuclear missle launchpad right into the US, a 'clear and present danger' that was undeniable. Iraq had nothing but forged documents, distorted intelligence 'analysis' and unreliable 'witnesses' to describe its 'threat'. In the former, diplomacy and statesmanship (applying brinkmanship) solved the matter without war; in the latter, W made a mistake that continues to incur political, economic, and diplomatic damage. Wanting to be a war president for domestic policy shielding undoubtably was cooked up by Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld with help from Wolfowitz, Tennant, and, sadly, Powell.
Posted by: will at April 08, 2006 01:44 AM (h7Ciu)
11
Will: that's great you believe our folks are dying because of some wag-the-dog scenario, keep on supportin' the troops so well.
"Shoot first, ask questions later"
What foolishness about the Iraq war. The UN asked questions for over a decade -- the reason it took that long is because Iraq did not comply. Damn man, how come you people keep forgetting this basic fact?
"we should not be hamstrung when the time for action presents itself. Knowing when that occurs, however, separates the trigger-happy from the true leaders."
Right, an example of true leadership being the Democrat's alternative to the Iraq war which was...well I guess just letting the corruption of the Oil-for-food program continue while US planes kept a constant presence over 2/3 of Iraq's air space...hey where's the exit strategy to that?!? I guess knowing when to force compliance separates the true leaders from the incontinent.
The Cuban-crisis analogy mainly demonstrates how the change in threat requires a change in strategy. That was a bold move by a military superpower and it was not an attack. 9/11 and the related attacks are not from a military superpower but from a vaugely united collection of fundamentalist muslims who thrive on similar terror tactics. These groups cannot operate without State sponsors. States with ties to terrorist groups, who have been in non-compliance with the world's demand to disarm and disclose for over a decade, and who have a recent history of hating America, are main targets if we are looking to change a world status-quo which produced 9/11 and the related attacks upon us and our allies.
Posted by: Scof at April 08, 2006 03:53 AM (SZtZg)
12
It seems Steve has forgotten that Iran has been at war with us for almost 30 years now, starting with the Embassy fiasco under that feckless fool Carter. Reagan, to his discredit, did nothing to effectively respond to the Beirut barracks bombing. I could bore you all with other overt acts of Iranian aggression up to the present.
We owe these guys a massive hurt and would be insane to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. I don't care whether Iran's reasoning for wanting nukes makes sense or not. We need to make it clear that it is national suicide for them to acquire nuclear weapons. Of course, once GWB is out of office, the next president will fold.
Posted by: MarkD at April 08, 2006 08:08 AM (X9njN)
13
Ha ha, Will. You fell right into my carefully laid trap! I said "in '61." The Cuban Missile Crisis was in '62. I was talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which we planned and supported an attack on a sovereign foreign power that was not a threat, for the purpose of regime change. One of the reasons Cuba became an actual threat a year later
was the Bay of Pigs.
I realize that you could easily use that argument to say that the Iraq War begat Iran's nuclear ambitions, but as Scof and Mark D point out, Iraq and Iran had been a threat for decades.
Still, my main point is that JFK's foreign policy proves he would have supported the Iraq War. I'm sure Teddy would deny that if asked, and I think Robert (as his political philosophy later evolved) would have been against the Iraq War too. But if JFK were president in 2003, he would have gone in, I'm sure. Of course we'll never know.
Posted by: annika at April 08, 2006 08:46 AM (fxTDF)
14
Oh, a couple of other side points I just thought of.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK employed "brinksmanship," but was fully prepared to go hot if necessary. Luckily it didn't become necessary, because both sides knew that (as
Dr. Spengler once said) "it would be bad."
Also, whereas JFK was unsuccessful in toppling Castro, GWB
was successful in getting rid of Hussein. We still got problems over there, but one thing we don't have is an Iraqi government that is our enemy (at least not at this moment) and we DO have an Iraqi base of operations on the border of Iraq. Which is something that most pundits seem to overlook. That is a huge asset because if we hadn't gotten rid of Saddam, and we'd still needed to get tough with Iran, we would have had a harder time without a friendly Iraq as a launching point. Think of all the problems we had with bases and flyover rights in the past.
Posted by: annika at April 08, 2006 09:04 AM (fxTDF)
15
Scof and Annika are right on about this. The disdain from the left is laughable considering the Administration has simply enforced rules laid down by the Big House. (U.N.) And who can forget how much time we gave Sudumb to comply? Let us not forget the politicos from both sides of the aisle who endorsed the war, correctly.
As a former isolationist,I think the bigger picture is liberty itself and actually enjoy the 'imperialist' label used to describe so many Republican presidents. If imperialism is helping people defeat communism, dictators and invaders without aquiring new territory or property, than it's an accurate term.
Clearly Iran must be dealt with. Again we will garner little support from our 'Euro Friends' and will likely be mostly alone again. But there appears to be a vast untapped pro U.S. citizenry in Iran unlike anything that side of the United Arab Emirates. Is it possible that Tehran's student generation is now democracy maker instead of hostage taker? (*I know, awful poetry*)
A country possesing nukes is not inherently bad but a bad country having them is.
Posted by: Mike C. at April 08, 2006 11:24 AM (Ffvoi)
16
John Kerry really got to me the other day, to the point my face flushed and I wanted to pummel him unconscious, when he said the following on Chris Matthews:
"We will be stronger against Iran if we're out of Iraq. We will be stronger with respect to what Putin is doing in Russia today if we regain our moral authority in the region."
Just before that statement, Kerry said Bush should announce we will not have permanent military bases in Iraq. This is pure Jimmy Carter crap: give stuff away without gaining anything in return - in hopes of gaining "good will". Makes me want to puke. And then punch Kerry. (It is also the anti-Annika method of negotiation, btw)
Posted by: gcotharn at April 08, 2006 11:56 AM (wg3L2)
17
That's hilarious. Just goes to show you that being skipper of a riverboat doesn't make one an expert on military strategy, as Kerry supporters would have had us believe.
Posted by: annika at April 08, 2006 12:27 PM (6PTvy)
18
Nobody could have expected presidents Ford through Clinton to do what George W. Bush is doing right now in Iraq. They would not have been willing to withstand the political price of a hugely unpopular war. And one result of that perceived unwillingness is the war we are now in.
That is a highly misleading reading of recent history, Annika. As I remember the polling, support for the war for the year before and the year after the invasion was close to 70%. Even during the campaign, it was polling in the low sixties. It was only when it became apparent that the occupation and pacification policies (though perhaps not the war itself) were fundamentally wrongheaded and going nowhere did support ebb. In short, this is NOT an unpopular war, the Bush administration MADE it unpopular. Shocking political mismanagement for someone whose political skills I have a great respect for.
You do make a good point in suggesting that presidents Ford through Clinton would not have done Iraq, at least not in the manner that Bush 43 has. Even Reagan, the most revolutionary of modern presidents would not have placed the United States in such an intractable position.
Before continuing, I should state why the current policy is intractable. Toppling Saddam was comparatively easy. Instituting a democracy in an ethic cauldron is almost impossible. It certainly didn't work in Yugoslavia. Nor is "democracy" in the US strategic interest, regional stability is.
Even President Bush has stated that Iraq wasn't a strategic threat, Saddam Hussein was. His removal was necessary, but an ethically driven civil war that is certain to spread and involve Syria, Iran and Turkey is an even greater threat to the American national interests. And it is becoming clearer every day that this is where "democracy" in Iraq is heading.
Had Reagan made the same determinations that Bush has, yes, he probably would have invaded and toppled Saddam. But I doubt that he would started the ball rolling to the Yugoslavia-style dissolution of the country. More likely, he would have allowed a military takeover of the country and supported that junta as happened in El Salvador. This would have preserved regional stability and almost certainly have even been better for the Iraqi people than either Saddam or civil war would have been.
Neither the Ba'ath Party or the Iraqi military made decades worth of strategic miscalculations, Saddam Hussein did. Nor were these miscalculations part of Ba'athist ideology, as they were with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Either could have governed in the absence of Saddam.
Even if it were possible or wise for a lasting democracy to be imposed on Iraq, the United States did not use the resources necessary to do so. 130,000 troops clearly weren't enough to pacify a nation of 25 million and revolutionize a historical system of government. All that has done is invite anarchy.
I'd go further on this, but I have to go to work now.
Posted by: skipptstalin at April 08, 2006 05:51 PM (ohSFF)
19
The Kurds won't secede without Kirkuk's oil resources. Even if they had control over those resources, they'd still have to export their goods overseas. And, last time I checked, Kurdistan is landlocked by hostile Arabs, Persians, and Turks. We won't support their separatist movement with "no-fly-zone" air support again. Therefore, it is in the Kurds' interest, especially economically, to remain part of the state of Iraq.
If the Sunni Arabs want a civil war, then I won't miss them when the Shia and Kurdish majority shows them which side has more guns.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 08, 2006 08:20 PM (K9tdw)
20
Reagan,
It was also in Slovkia's interest to remain in Czechleslovakia and Crotia's to remain in Yugolslavia. Guess what? They didn't. Quebec will unltimately leave Canada too, although that's suicide.
If the last 20 years have taught us anything, it should be that nationalism trumps common sense each and every time.
Posted by: skipptstalin at April 09, 2006 09:25 AM (ohSFF)
21
Don't forget that regime change in Iraq became an official tenet of US foreign policy during the Clinton administration. But since Clinton's entire presidency was nothing more than Bubba holding the chair down with his fat ass for eight years, it took someone like Bush to actually pull the trigger on Iraq.
Someone above said 'Iraq had no WMD'. That's the genius of hindsight, so cheaply and easily claimed. Riddle me this- just what was it that gassed all those Iranian soldiers and Kurds in the 80s?
This Iraq/WMD story is not over.
As for the element of 'craziness' in foreign policy, the US has demostrated it can drop the Big One- twice, if necessary- if it comes to that.
Posted by: Barry at April 09, 2006 11:53 PM (kKjaJ)
22
>Ha ha, Will. You fell right into my carefully laid trap! I said "in '61." The Cuban Missile Crisis was in '62. I was talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which we planned and supported an attack on a sovereign foreign power that was not a threat, for the purpose of regime change.
No trap, dear Annika. US troops did not invade Cuba, which is a crucial distinction. And Kennedy withdrew air support, which resulted in the slaughter of the invading forces.
> One of the reasons Cuba became an actual threat a year later was the Bay of Pigs.
So our support of an invading army resulted in a greater threat? You are making my case for me. What was the threat of Iraq to the US in 2003? No WMD, no support of anti-American terrorists, no missile delivery system capable of reaching the US by a long shot. However, since the war started, the rate of terrorist incidents has skyrocketed, though some are relieved that Iraqi citizens are being killed, not US citizens. What will happen to Iraq now, will it be a more stable society?
And what kind of threat is Cuba to us now? If nothing else, they will outlast us after Peak Oil wreaks havoc on the American economy and lifestyle.
> I realize that you could easily use that argument to say that the Iraq War begat Iran's nuclear ambitions, but as Scof and Mark D point out, Iraq and Iran had been a threat for decades.
Iran and Iraq have been little if any threat.
Again, from a carefully examined military standpoint, what was the threat to the US? Iran is stronger now after OIF, if anything, as they are helping to steer the ship in Iraqi politics, and know that the US could not invade their soil, as we are far too overextended as it is. So I cannot embrace the scenarios proffered by Mssrs Scof and Mark D.
> Still, my main point is that JFK's foreign policy proves he would have supported the Iraq War.
I see nothing in your analysis that would lead me to believe that JFK would commit US troops to such non-existent threat. I sincerely doubt that JFK would have steered the intelligence to invent a threat of ‘mass-death’, etc.
> In the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK employed "brinksmanship," but was fully prepared to go hot if necessary. Luckily it didn't become necessary, because both sides knew that (as Dr. Spengler once said) "it would be bad."
We concur on this point.
> Also, whereas JFK was unsuccessful in toppling Castro, GWB was successful in getting rid of Hussein. We still got problems over there, but one thing we don't have is an Iraqi government that is our enemy (at least not at this moment) and we DO have an Iraqi base of operations on the border of Iraq. Which is something that most pundits seem to overlook.
That base is causing us more problems than it is solving. DonÂ’t expect such a base to last indefinitely.
> That is a huge asset because if we hadn't gotten rid of Saddam, and we'd still needed to get tough with Iran, we would have had a harder time without a friendly Iraq as a launching point. Think of all the problems we had with bases and flyover rights in the past.
That depends on the type of offensive under consideration. A land offensive against Iran wouldnÂ’t work now, even with the base you are referring to. DonÂ’t forget about carriers and Diego Garcia. Do you think that Iraq would allow an offensive against Iran from their airfields?? Any meager sense of fragile stability would be lost.
From Scof:
> that's great you believe our folks are dying because of some wag-the-dog scenario, keep on supportin' the troops so well.
This tired argument has no legs under it whatsoever. Supporting the troops is one thing; I have full faith in the men and women of our armed forces. It's the leadership in and around the White House that is incompetent and misleading. I reject any suggestion that uncovering the truth is somehow unpatriotic. Indeed, I view attempted coverups, political malfeasance, and blind allegiance as unpatriotic and ultimately debilitating to my country. Try watching something other than Faux News for 100% of your propaganda feed.
> [Terrorist] groups cannot operate without State sponsors. States with ties to terrorist groups, who have been in non-compliance with the world's demand to disarm and disclose for over a decade, and who have a recent history of hating America, are main targets if we are looking to change a world status-quo which produced 9/11 and the related attacks upon us and our allies.
If you are implying that Iraq was a sponsor of anti-US terrorism, then you must have gone into a closet after March 2003. Even Bush has derided this argument.
Posted by: will at April 10, 2006 05:07 AM (GzvlQ)
23
Reagan,
If the United States supports democracy in Iraq, why would it not support the right of self-determiniation for the Kurds? As I remember it, a good deal of the administration's rationale for the war (after the WMD case fell through) was Saddam's - and by extension, the Sunni's - barbarism toward the Kurds. Given that, shouldn't a democratic referendum in independence be something that the Bush administration supports? And if not, why?
As to the texture of a civil war, I wouldn't run around betting on a Sunni bloodbath. Even before the rise of Saddam, the Iraqi military class at the strategic and officer corps level was almost exclusively Sunni for decades. If Donald Rumsfeld was right about anything, he showed that numbers really don't mean much when it comes to killing a bunch of folks. A force that is light in numbers and heavy in know-how can be highly effective. And let's not for a moment forget that are already more Sunni insurgents than there are American forces in country.
On the other hand, you might actually be suggesting that the United States arm and support the Sunnis and Kurds in the event of civil war. This would, of course, make you an active participant since you already happen to be there. And it wouldn't go a long way in making friends in the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab world, which you sort of need to battle al-Qaeda. Remember them? Furthermore, does President Bush really want to be in a tacit alliance with Iran in the matter of Iraq? Wouldn't that belie isolating Iran in its nuclear ambitions?
Posted by: skippystalin at April 10, 2006 08:27 AM (ohSFF)
24
I don't know, Skippy.
I'm open to the possibility of partitioning Iraq. I wish the Kurds well since they haven't given us any direct problems.
After the global "Mohammed cartoon intifada" and the Paris riots, I'm starting to wonder if the Islamic world (and perhaps Europe too) is even worth saving. I'm getting closer to mutating into a paleo-con as the fate of this Wilsonian endeavor is looking bleaker every day.
If we can't co-exist with these people, then we must initiate a Jacksonian "scorched earth" policy on the Muslim world. Whenever the Islamists nuke a major American city in the future, I hope we have a president that has the balls to wage a counter-genocide against these roaches.
It's sad that Canada might not be whole in the near future, but the next generation of Americans will probably have to worry about dealing with the secession of the Republic of Aztlan someday.
Shit. I'm feeling so emo now......
Posted by: reagan80 at April 10, 2006 02:00 PM (K9tdw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2006
NPM At Sheila's
Sheila is doing National Poetry Month the right way, at
The Sheila Variations. Go over there and just keep scrolling. She's posted a few from some of my favorites: O'Hara, Bishop, Dickinson, and Oliver, along with some fantastic poetry that I hadn't been introduced to yet.
Posted by: annika at
09:29 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
1
annika--
If you haven't read Louis MacNeice's poetry, I recommend this post of the Baron's, his third post of a series of occasional pieces on LM.
It evokes so well the mood of the late thirties, which seems to be much like the one we're living now:
Wrecking the House
Also recommend Al Stewart's CD "Between the Wars." Amazing how he can turn history into music.
Posted by: dymphna at April 09, 2006 04:38 PM (6uBJw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
Need A Good Laugh?
Watch Soledad O'Brien go twelve rounds with Cynthia McKinney. The fight was a draw.
I totally love Soledad O'Brien now.
Update: Rep. McKinney's Patton moment.
Posted by: annika at
07:54 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can't believe I missed that! Yes...I am a Soledad fan now as well...good stuff.
Posted by: Nicole at April 05, 2006 08:29 PM (Sa9Kb)
2
Its quite apparent McKinney takes her constituents for fools. Trot out everything but what you did...what a nice lesson from a supposed leader.
Posted by: Scof at April 05, 2006 09:20 PM (SZtZg)
3
Yeah but do we need to hear Soledad repeatedly saying, "with all due respect"? I doubt she would have done that for Gingrich, DeLay, Hastert, Lott.
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 05, 2006 09:27 PM (KjUHH)
4
To my ear, it seemed that Soledad had
no respect for her, and kept saying that almost as an inside joke between her and the audience, which McKinney's ego prevented her from noticing.
Posted by: annika at April 05, 2006 09:40 PM (fxTDF)
5
"With all due respect" is a windup for a punch in the chops. Nobody respects Cynthia "Crazy Eyes" McKinney. She is the product of rotten burough politics. I haven't seen eyes like that since the runaway bride. If I could chose my enemies, she'd be congressbiatch for life.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2006 10:10 PM (2gORp)
6
It hurts me to watch her. She reminds me too much of my own congresscreep Sheila Jackson Lee.
Posted by: kyleN at April 06, 2006 02:14 AM (Xru3F)
7
Ohhhh Kyle I envy you. If SJL was my rep, I'd organize a group to be at her every public appearance distributing
The Wit & Wisdom of Texas' Favorite Dumb Biatch. You can't hire people to play the clownish fools that Democrat office holders act out everyday.
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2006 05:21 AM (y9m6I)
8
Wow, I've always had a bit of a crush on Ms. O'Brien and now it's official. This charade was proof that the wacked out left can even miff the messengers on occassion. Recently it's become somewhat embarrassing to live in the same town that the runaway bride is from and where the 37 year old teach bopped the 14 year old boy. And, ofcourse, I do alot of work in Ms. McKinney's district as well. I know she's crazy but what's up with all those voters?
Posted by: Mike C. at April 06, 2006 12:18 PM (y6n8O)
9
This CNN reporter, S. O'Brien did, in her interview with the congressswoman, what BBC reporters have always done; make them answer the fucking question as it was asked not as they wish it was asked. American politicians get a free ride ALL the time from nearly all reporters. The pol's are never made uncomfortabel and always feel that they can slip the questions and give their dopey, transparent prontifications that skirt the point without the press pushing them.
However, I wonder how many of you who seem to be lauding SO's performance would be doing so if it were Condiliar RIce sitting opposite her and she was having her feet nailed to the floor over things like the word "historical" when tring to down play the Aug 6 memo, "Gee, Dr. Rice in what way does historical devalue importance of the intel presented in that document? Isn't today's intel tomorrows history? SO what the fuck are you talking about? You still did nothing in response to an imminent threat, right? So could you please just answer the question, did the administration do ANYTHING proactive in the face of this threat? With all due respect Dr. Rice a simple yes or no is all that is required" " And on this "failue of Imagination" thing about flying planes into buildings, isn't it true that there are many historical citations for this scenario including one received by your office last month?" " and Dr. Rice, when you said the 75mm al. tubes found in Iraq had no other purpose to be on earth except incorporation into a centrafuge but in fact was ther not a memo on your desk describing these tubes as casings for self propelled artillary?" "With all due respect Dr. Riceball a simple yes or no will suffice."
And on and on. Lets not even get into W who we treat like the damaged kid in the second grade who isn't expected to remember his name. But, of course, he does not just forget, he lies. He was told before Katrina hit the levee's might fail and three days later he lied to America and said no one could imagine that they would fail. I say its time to impeach him for dereliction of duty and general malfeaseance. Or do we not impeach presidents when their actions result in loss of life but only when its about sex? Oh, and Scooter just named his ass as the origin of the leak. Cute
Anni you said a while ago you hated Bulworth. I thought it a terribly flawed movie but loved the scene when Warren confronts the reporter with the concept of the conflict of interests they both face as they sit for an interview; they both work for the same boss so how can a meaningful dialogue take place. His candidacy is predicated on raising money from the same corporate interests that pay the reporter's salary. So how provocative can she be and still have a job in the morning. Same is true for whitehouse correspondents who demand the truth and real answers at press conferences. Push to hard and you loose your seat in the briefing room.
WE live in a society where you, those licking SO's feet, are awed when they see a simple and what should be common place ocurrance of the press doing it's job. Quite a commentary on our free press.
Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2006 08:00 AM (0ZdtC)
10
Very true about the BBC, Strawman. They will not allow a dodge. That, and "question time" are a system that ensures all PMs be very well spoken. Good thing Bush wasn't born English.
Posted by: annika at April 07, 2006 08:58 AM (zAOEU)
11
Yep, she made a mistake in poking the officer, then associating it with racism. She made the right choice to apologize, especially in front of Congress.
I thought it was hilarious, however, that Delay found the moral high ground to deride her over such a trivial matter. The ultimate in hypocrisy...
Posted by: will at April 07, 2006 09:12 AM (h7Ciu)
12
Annika,
How true. Had he been a Brit he would have had no future in politics, unless, of copurse, he asked Dr. Peobody & Sherman to plunk him down in ancient Athens so he could take a sabbatical with demosthenes. But short of that happening he would have been laughed off of any soap box.
I love "question time" although it does fuel my hostilities toward the congress and our countries complete lack of appreciation of intelectual acuity and celerity of speech. Talking fast is a sign of fast thinking.
Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2006 09:15 AM (0ZdtC)
13
Straw - you raise some fair points, but you have mischaracterized what Scooter stated. He's not talking about the Valerie Plame leak.
Nonetheless, it's beginning to seem like no President in the past 40 years can make it through a second term without imploding.
Posted by: Col Steve at April 07, 2006 04:18 PM (lA9QD)
14
"Good thing Bush wasn't born English."
Of course, neither was Tony Blair. So there goes that excuse. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at April 07, 2006 08:36 PM (CYpG7)
15
ColSteve,
I don't know that its second term misteps or it k=just takes that long for the bulk of the deceived to shrug off their humiliation and get to a clear vision of the duplicity. I saw this man for what he was in ten minutes and have always been astounded by the willingness of the american populace to allow party loyality to constrict their view of reality.
I think you are correct about the leak: It does appear to be the release and subsequant de-classification (to erase the law breaking) of the bullshit intel on the non-existant uranium program that was given early to Judith (the shill) MIller.
Posted by: strawman at April 08, 2006 10:53 AM (0ZdtC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oddsmakers Give Bucky The Boot
From the
LA Times:
Online odds makers, are ignoring country rocker Bucky Covington's safely above the top three finish on last week's "American Idol" show and selecting the singer as most likely to see his journey end in tonight's results show. And chanteuse Katherine McPhee, who shocked audiences when she earned the second lowest vote total last week, is nonetheless deemed safe by the gamblers wagering on the show.
Pinnacle Sports, which offers a separate betting line on "Who will be eliminated" lists Covington as the most likely to go at 3.58 to 1 odds, closely followed by heartthrob Ace Smith [sic], who earned last week's third lowest vote tally. Katherine McPhee remains highly favored to win among Pinnacle bettors, trailing favorite Chris Daughtry.
I concur.
Update: Wild ending. I can reveal it now, since I have no Hawaiian readers, and I'm not sure Kevin watches AI in Korea.
The stunned silence after Mandisa's name was called is something I've never heard on AI before. While this field may not contain the best performers in Idol history, the talent is very evenly matched. So it's really hard to predict who's going next. I think Mandisa went because lots of people assumed she would last 'til the end, and therefore voted for someone else. Plus, she really didn't do that good last night, as Country is not her best genre.
Let me also revise and extend my remarks about Kelly, which I made after the top 24 were picked. I was wrong. I think she may have a shot at the prize, and last night she showed some serious game.
Bucky dodged a bullet, though.
Posted by: annika at
07:03 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Mandisa? Oh, sweet God in heaven, not Mandisa!
Holy mackeral. I'm stunned...really. I was at the hockey game last night and missed the results show. Wow.
Posted by: Victor at April 06, 2006 01:55 AM (l+W8Z)
2
Annie,
I don't have a TV, and my computer's too old and slow for me to watch streaming video.
By the way,
this is for you, because I know how much you love Britney.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 06, 2006 04:53 AM (1PcL3)
3
I forgot, Korea is across the International Date Line, so Kevin got the results on Tuesday!
Posted by: annika at April 06, 2006 06:10 AM (fxTDF)
4
Yes; you guys recently "sprung forward," so Seoul is now only 13 hours ahead of DC instead of 14.
I should have added that I have absolutely no interest in American Idol and have become, alas, totally clueless about what trends dominate American TV these days. Strangely, I don't miss TV.
Except maybe for South Park.
Ludditically yours,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 06, 2006 07:50 AM (1PcL3)
5
sorry to see mandiva go, i liked her spunk
Posted by: Jane at April 07, 2006 09:34 PM (wZLWV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Scientists Find Weird Fish Fossil Way The Fuck Up In Canada
A bunch of
scientists found a weird fish fossil that looks like it might be a transitional species between fish and lizard. Or frog. Or whatever. Between fish and something that crawls or slithers on the land.
When I flew to Europe our plane went over the Hudson Bay. I was amazed at how barren it looked down there. But these scientists were working much farther north than that. In fact, the article says they all carried guns just in case a hungry polar bear came by.
Interestingly, when this fish/lizard was alive, it lived near the equator in the mud of a now non-existent continent called Laurentia. Yeah, 400 million years ago. You gotta love plate tectonics.
Posted by: annika at
01:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A transitional species between fish and lizard? That would explain
this.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 06, 2006 04:41 AM (/fbjZ)
Posted by: annika at April 06, 2006 06:22 AM (fxTDF)
3
Are you the type to be offended about anything that conflicts with creationist doctrine? Unlikely, but I had to ask.
Posted by: will at April 07, 2006 08:49 AM (h7Ciu)
4
That angle didn't even occur to me, Will. I guess as a right wing blogger, that's an obvious question, but I really was just interested in the science of the story.
Personally I don't have any problems with evolution. I read Dawkins and it didn't corrupt my mind. I thought he made some interesting points.
Posted by: annika at April 07, 2006 02:30 PM (6Phr2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Vogon Poetry
In honor of April Fool's day, lets do something different.

Ever wonder what Vogon poetry really sounds like? Check out Rosie O'Donnell's blog. Here's a particularly bad selection from yesterday:
Journalism
so katie mcphee is linda ederish
yo yo dog
youuuu look sssssexyhottt grrreat job
i hate country music
does kenny rogers think
he looks better this way
alien from planet hollywood
almost didnt recognize him
i will reload the art movie
with a non i tune tune
I TUNES SUCK
i am 1/2 way thru
craig fergusons novel
i triple love it
confederacy of dunces
meets geek love
in a dave eggers universe
buy it
a lot of press
gma tomorrow
and i am done
odd
going in and out
of celebville
with an ez pass
there is much i miss
everything barbra
touring again
thank god
i live in a paralell universe
1 where noone spells write
ross the intern
jays colin
colin was 10
yr one
belted ethel merman
had me at hello
he now works for
R FAMILY VACATIONS
everytime i see his simle
i remember the magic
ryan seacrest just said
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
to simon cowell
5 am
hair and make up
i am getting too old for this
CNN
there is a scary kid
talking to larry king
about internet porn
journalism in america
the ask ro
is highly addictive
On second thought, that is much worse than Vogon poetry. Rosie must be one of the Azgoths of Kria. Where does she get her inspiration? She must have composed that piece while shitting out a particularly large chunk of constipatii, i think. Gawdawful.
Thanks to Victor, for the suggestion.
Posted by: annika at
07:09 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Why, that's almost as bad as... Jules Verne.
Posted by: Hugo at April 05, 2006 07:56 AM (TGpyr)
2
A celebrity of whom no one cares
is writing 'poetry' about
what she thinks when sitting
on her ass
watching American Idol
If she calls it poetry
then I am fucking Emily Dickinson
personally,
I am more amused
with the fact that
Simon Cowell told Ryan Seacrest
"lose the beard."
Gawd I hate Rosie.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at April 05, 2006 08:21 AM (Wz2Gp)
3
"Gawd I hate Rosie"
A phrase so oft repeated
It's become cliché
Posted by: annika at April 05, 2006 08:40 AM (zAOEU)
4
I have to agree with you; it sounds like the result of a bottle of laxative after eating a book of haiku...
Posted by: BobG at April 05, 2006 09:57 AM (qbnTd)
5
I think I speak for everyone when I say:
Happy 11th birthday, Rosie! It's too bad you won't learn to read and write properly in the public schools; hopefully you'll go to college to make up for it. If you do that, you could even learn to write poetry!
Ryan Seacrest can grow a beard? Is he taking illegal hormones?
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 05, 2006 11:43 AM (XUsiG)
6
Amy, I'd rather be fucking you than Emily Dickenson.
Nobody is or will be fucking Rosie, no wonder she's deranged.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2006 01:50 PM (2gORp)
7
Okay maybe I completely misunderstood Simon's statement, but was he *not* trying to out Seacrest on live TV?
"lose the beard" = "lose the disguise" = "you don't
have to date women"
??? No?
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at April 05, 2006 02:32 PM (Wz2Gp)
8
Nevermind, let's just all agree I need to get my hearing checked.
I totally misheard last night - I thought I heard Simon say, "IÂ’m not the one trying to
date someone out of Desperate Housewives," and coupled with "lose the beard" ....Gah.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at April 05, 2006 02:41 PM (Wz2Gp)
9
I like your interpretation, Amy.
I think Ryan gets the better of those exchanges with Simon about 60% of the time.
Posted by: annika at April 05, 2006 05:00 PM (fxTDF)
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2006 05:24 AM (y9m6I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 04, 2006
Kiki Gets Over
Congratulations to Kiki Couric for
moving over to CBS, where she will occupy the celebrated anchor position once held by "the most trusted man in America." As the newest member of the CBS News team, she adds her name to a list that includes some of the greatest names in journalism history. Names like Kuralt, Mudd, Murrow and Sevareid.
And now "Kiki."
Sickening, ain't it?
Posted by: annika at
10:59 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh I don't know, I think that she will have exactly the same level of confidence from me as I had in Cronkite and Rather. After all, you cannot get any smaller than zero.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 05, 2006 04:51 AM (dNzK0)
2
Sure you can Kyle. It's measured by those who turn and walk the other way when they see her in the street.
The selection of toxic twat kiki (how do you think her husband got that nut rot anyway?) is a reflection of our culture. She appeals to the oatmeal and prune crowd who can't afford cable and watch the networks. Do you know who sponsors the evening network news? It's all denture treatments, roid creams, and dick stiffening drugs.
Love the rhyming epigram. Tell me you don't wear a skull, EVER. Great lips though, did you get coll........... zzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2006 05:33 AM (y9m6I)
3
Ok... seriously? Most 'trusted' name in news comes up with Dan *fake documents* Rather????? WTF? At least get a good source... damn.
Posted by: Trisa at June 10, 2006 02:56 PM (Rhuwm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Batting Instruction
Greg has some excellent and extensive hitting advice over at
The End Zone.
Throughout my life, I believed I was an excellent hitter in tough situations. I believed my teams were lucky to have me at bat in those situations. I often believed, of everyone on the team, I had the best chance of succeeding against tough pitching in tough situations. I would often be really wanting to win, and I would think "Thank God I'm coming up - my coming to bat really gives us a good chance to win this game," or "My coming to bat is bad luck for those other guys - they are screwed," or "Those other guys have no idea how much trouble they are in with me coming to bat. I'm the last person they want up there - even if they don't know it." Was that true? It doesn't matter if it was true or not! The important thing is to believe it - to have confidence. My father used to say "If you think you cannot, you cannot." He was right about that.
I wish I'd had a coach like him when I was nine. I might have done more than one embarrasing year in Little League.
Posted by: annika at
05:34 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
1
U have other skilz killer.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2006 05:35 AM (y9m6I)
2
Yea! I would've loved to coach your 9 year old self. But I'm happy with how you've turned out - without my input. Someday I might need your legal services. Those other guys will have no idea how much trouble they are in when you walk into court!
Posted by: gcotharn at April 05, 2006 03:53 PM (wg3L2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
136kb generated in CPU 0.2755, elapsed 0.3391 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.2392 seconds, 337 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.