In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.
Yet Republicans can't get any love when it comes to the strong economy.
“Voters overwhelmingly don’t approve of the president on the economy,” said Amy Walter, a senior editor at the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm that handicaps political races. “It comes down to the issue of credibility. And so many voters feel so pessimistic about the direction of the country.”
Take the unemployment figures for instance. The rule of thumb I always heard in school was that anytime you have unemployment at 5% or below, the country was doing great. Right now, unemployment is at 4.4%. That is great. Check out this graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for some historical perspective.
As you can see, since WWII, unemployment has been over 5% a lot more than it's been under. Yet you still get comments like this one:
Ann O’Callahan, a 64-year old Irish immigrant in suburban Philadelphia, defines herself as a social conservative. She voted Republican in 2000, but switched to the Democrats in 2004. This year she plans to vote Democratic again, mainly because of the economy. “I am very disturbed by the economic policies of the Bush administration,” she said.
Ms. OÂ’CallahanÂ’s district, PennsylvaniaÂ’s Seventh, is an island of relative affluence. The median income in the area, according to the Census Bureau, topped $63,000 last year, more than a third higher than the national median. According to Economy.comÂ’s analysis, based on county data, unemployment this year in the district should average 3.8 percent, well below the national average.
But, Ms. O’Callahan said, jobs were not enough. “I work with job placement so I see up close how a lot more work is demanded of people, how benefits are disappearing, how hourly rates have been stagnant throughout the Bush administration,” she said. She said that jobs were plentiful, “but paying $8 an hour with no benefits.”
What I think Ms. O'Callahan overlooked is that in any economy there's going to be a bottom of the barrel type job. These days it's probably going to pay $8 an hour without benefits. But when 96.2% of the people in Ms. O'Callahan's district are working, I'd imagine that she's spending most of her time placing people in these bottom of the barrel type jobs. Most people with skills are probably already employed, and making more money.
We need entry level jobs. They're where most people start out. And they're good for students and retired people. Look at what's going on in France where "youths" are burning busses and attacking police because their country won't allow businesses the freedom to offer entry level jobs.
With the Dow over 12,000 and unemployment under 5%, I say the economy is doing great.
1
Predicatably the MSM was much more interested in Foley and their media driven story than the Dow hitting 12,000. If this had been a Dem President, you'd still be reading stories about it.
Here's a prediction: The Foley story will continue to garner media attention until Nov 3 when miraculously it will go away never to be heard of again.
Posted by: blu at October 24, 2006 02:45 PM (42Ozp)
2
MSM turns every bit of good economic news into economic disasters. The only people who think the economy is doing great are those who ignore MSM.
The truth is that never in the history of America has economic conditions been so good.
Posted by: Jake at October 24, 2006 05:01 PM (r/5D/)
3
However, national debt is at an all-time high; this extravagant lifestyle must eventually be paid back. Personal debt in the US is at record levels; there is no longer the ability to run out and shop to buy one's way out of the federal deficit, especially since so many buy foreign goods, which exascerbates the foreign trade deficit. There are many other indicators to look at beyond the hollow GDP.
Posted by: will at October 24, 2006 05:46 PM (h7Ciu)
4
LMAO, there is nothing more reliable than the leftist fucktard. Their acquaintance with truth is never more than a passing one. May God bless Arthur Laffer.
Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2006 08:22 PM (2gORp)
5
The L7 is right about the the national debt, but destroying economic growth, via tax hikes, to eliminate the deficit doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather the Republicans stop acting like Third Way-ers and cut all of the massive spending on bullshit.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2006 08:25 AM (dFOlH)
6
I agree with reagan80: way too much pork still exists.
Posted by: will at October 25, 2006 08:57 AM (h7Ciu)
7
For more depth discussion on the topic, I recommend "Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It" by Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Commerce under Nixon.
Posted by: will at October 25, 2006 09:55 AM (h7Ciu)
8
The spending under Bush (and I'm not talking about the military, which Clinton gutted and needed to be addressed) has been out of control. For me, this is the biggest failure of Bush and the Reps. They have had the majority; they can't blame it on Dems. Luckily, his tax strategy has paid off, so we have tremendous economic growth. Time to address the other half of the equation.
Posted by: blu at October 25, 2006 10:07 AM (j8oa6)
9
Hmmm. Bruce Bartlett probably got the idea for the title of his book from that Peterson guy's.
Blu, the only other major flaw I'd add is that the administration isn't running much of a meritocracy. (Harriet Miers, WTF?)
Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2006 10:33 AM (dFOlH)
10
Didn't Bartlet pass on? What's the book title? I read "The 7 Fat Years", which (I think) was published in the early 90's.
Posted by: blu at October 25, 2006 10:57 AM (j8oa6)
Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2006 11:46 AM (dFOlH)
12
Thanks Reagan80,
I had his name confused with Robert Bartley, who did pass away a couple of years back. (He was the editor of the WSJ - awarded the Pulitzer at one point.) Bartley wrote the "The 7 Fat Years."
Posted by: blu at October 25, 2006 12:30 PM (j8oa6)
13
No problem, Blu. Though, I think I'll shut up now before I start sounding more like Skippy or Roach.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2006 01:05 PM (dFOlH)
MNF Pick, Week VII
Good matchup tonight. Giants vs. Dallas at Dallas. The Cowboys favored by 3, which is pretty even. Most folks are giving the edge to Dallas. But I hate Dallas so I'm rooting for, and betting on the Giants.
Result: Giants dominate 36 to 22. I win. My record is now a mediocre 4 and 3 thus far.
1
Call me crazy, but I though she was better looking in her original state, I absolutely despise the modern over made up, false looking Idea of beauty.
I work in a large store and see dozens of young women everyday. Women of all races and ethnicities.
Those who only put on a little make up and wear nice clothes, neither too revealing nor too modest, always look better to me than those who are trying for the supermodel look, or worse the Christina/Beyonce look.
Everyday I see at least two or three natural beauties who would make most actresses and models look like crap.
Posted by: kyle8 at October 22, 2006 05:56 AM (Walns)
2
She blinded me with SCIENCE!
Heh, I'm for natural beauty... throw those fucking bras away!
Posted by: Casca at October 22, 2006 08:22 AM (2gORp)
3
Well, the bra-less look certainly is beautiful. But, um, I don't wanna walk around with a perpetual boner fer wanting to fuck every woman I pass on the street. There's a reason fer hiding the cookies from those who aren't invited to taste 'em.
1
Peter better watch his six this week; he's liable to end up as a pumpkin pie unless he gets some treats to give out.
Speaking of pumkin pie, guess what happens on November 18th in the Coliseum, Annie my love?
Posted by: shelly at October 21, 2006 05:32 AM (ZGpMS)
2
You mean the day we get to measure where USC stands in the hurly burly of NCAA football? If they don't crush the domers, they're going to look mighty weak, maybe too weak to make it to Phoenix.
The real action on November 18th will be in Columbus, Ohio in Hayes Stadium, inside the Jessie Owens track on the hundred yards of turf where LLLLoyd Carr will get his fifth L from Jim Tressel.
Posted by: Casca at October 21, 2006 09:26 PM (2gORp)
3
Annie, don't mind what Casca says; he's just one of the folks who drank too much of the kool-aid in Columbus as a youth and now thinks that everybody really cares what happens in some podunk town in Ohio.
You and I know that all that matters is that which occurs in California, and then only in the Coliseum or Strawberry Canyon.
Posted by: shelly at October 22, 2006 03:00 AM (ZGpMS)
4
LMAO, spoken like a member of the mainstream sports media! Who the fuck wants to spend a weekend in Columbus, Ohio? Not me, and I have friends there. That's probably what makes Herbstreit different from the rest of the jackasses. He still lives in his hometown.
Posted by: Casca at October 22, 2006 08:25 AM (2gORp)
5
I dunno where this thread or this comic strip is going, but I'm in fer some gas money.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 22, 2006 08:50 PM (0vCok)
1
Yet another frenzied rant by a Faux News dittohead. You could do much better, the Country certainly will...
Posted by: will at October 21, 2006 04:35 AM (h7Ciu)
2
You go, Jimbo!!!
Support our troops; wear red on Fridays!
Posted by: shelly at October 21, 2006 05:37 AM (ZGpMS)
3
Sure, Will, it was vulgar; but, it was also spot on accurate.
What's "Faux" news got to do with it? You still living in your Through the Looking Glass world where Fox is more biased than, say, CNN (with its decision to run propoganda tapes sent by the enemy, and its ongoing policy of propping up Dems at every chance) or the Associated (with terrorists) Press and their fake photography meant to prop up the enemy and its supporters?
BTW, what are you going to say when Nov 3rd comes and the Reps are still running both the House and Senate? I can't wait to listen to the Lefties howl about voter fraud and stolen elections: basically, the same crap they do every election cycle. (As I predicted some weeks, the MSM is already starting to run interference for Dems with stories about how voting machines might not work; and how the lines might be long; and how new laws might discourage voters. Blah, blah, blah....
Posted by: blu at October 24, 2006 12:55 PM (42Ozp)
Worth Seeing Again
Disappointed as I am about the Mets' loss, I still think Endy Chavez's "dobleplay" is the greatest defensive play I've ever seen.
As for the World Series, I was rooting for the Mets because I thought St. Louis rolled over against the Sox. With Pujols in a slump, and Detroit well rested, I'm afraid the Cards might get swept again.
1
Yeah, I went to bed during the stretch thinking if the Mets win it would be because of that play, and if the Cards win it would be because of the pitching. And I'm really wondering where this so-called "Endy Chavez" came from and why he didn't do this kind of stuff when he was with the Nats last season.
Posted by: Victor at October 20, 2006 07:41 PM (l+W8Z)
2
Definitely the greatest catch I've seen in the postseason. I'd have to agree on the sweep thing. The AL is dominant and the Cardinals are in trouble.
Posted by: Shawn at October 21, 2006 11:11 AM (9Shuz)
3
The Cards may not win the whole thing, but at least they're putting up a good fight. GO StL!!!
Posted by: Sarah at October 24, 2006 05:07 AM (7Wklx)
Wednesday is Poetry Day: e. e. cummings
The first poem I really liked was by e.e.cummings. In my senior year of high school, many, many, years ago, the best teacher I ever had used it when he taught us poetry. I bet if the county had approved that poem, more of us would enjoy poetry to this day.
(The teacher, Mr. S, wasn't afraid to bend the rules. One day I'll tell you what he did to the quarterback of the football team.)
Sadly, I can't find that poem. I would have sworn it was called "Thanksgiving" and that the first line was "by virtue of by virtue i" but my gf's copy of e.e.cummings: Complete Poems (1904-1962) doesn't list that line in the index of first lines.
Too bad I can't find it. You'll just have to wait.
Anyway. My gf suggested the following poem, and I agree it should be featured. It's a simple, fun little poem, that looks a lot more complex than it is. In fact, she saw me looking at it, face twisted in thought, and she asked me what I thought.
"It's a fun read," I answered, "but I can't quite figure out what it means."
She may have sighed. "Just read the last line. That's what it's about!" she answered. I think she's right.
I'm very fond of
black bean
soup(O i'm
very
fond of black
bean soup
Yes i'm very fond
of black bean soup)But
i don't disdain
a beef-
steak
Gimme gin&bitters to
open my
eyes(O gimme
gin&
bitters to open
my eyes
Yes gimme gin&bitters
to open my eyes)But
i'll take straight rum as
a night-
cap
Nothing like a blonde for
ruining the
blues(O nothing
like a
blonde for ruining
the blues
Yes nothing like a blonde
for ruining the blues)But
i use redheads for
the tooth
-ache
Parson says a sinner will
perish in the
flames(O parson
says a
sinner will perish
in the flames
Yes parson says a sinner
Will perish in the flames)But
i reckon that's better
than freez-
ing
Everybody's dying to be
someone
else(O every
body's
dying to be some
one else
Yes everybody's dying
to be someone else)But
i'll live my life if
it kills
me
Posted by: red at October 18, 2006 08:57 AM (rNgdr)
3
Once you get notoriety you can get away with anything...I'm a redhead with a toothache today
Posted by: Scof at October 18, 2006 09:39 AM (a3fqn)
4
Does nobody get that cummings was a posing stylist stealing from the substance of others? He stole this from TS Elliot, who stole it from someone else. Fuck it, i should have been a set of ragged claws, scuttling across floors of silent seas.
Posted by: Casca at October 19, 2006 06:09 AM (Y7t14)
5
Stealing? what is the problem, that's inherent in the poem. If you're not stealing you ain't gonna be any good.
Posted by: Scof at October 19, 2006 08:02 AM (a3fqn)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 19, 2006 08:53 PM (Qi/rF)
7
Thanks for the cummings. He sings in the most distinctive voice, alive and in the present without the sentimentality of a capital letter. love the way the poem looks on the page. The Pope should start a ceremony like Ash Wednesday but where the blessing is 'the only emperor is the emperor of ice cream.'
Posted by: michael at October 20, 2006 11:53 AM (5eMjz)
1
OMG. That was so fucking funny. I've never seen it.
Brilliant with the music, the old letters, and the conspiracy-loving, guilt-ridden, self-hating white liberal.
My favorite part was the the "blackstronaut" who wrote the letter home mixing in 19th century prose with 20th century ghetto - "Goddamn space is one cold motherfucker."
Posted by: blu at October 18, 2006 10:57 AM (42Ozp)
Posted by: reagan80 at October 18, 2006 11:27 AM (2A8p9)
3
My oh my what a funny piece. Nailed Mr. Burns soppy style completely. I've sent it to a friend who is Kenny B's cousin.
I didn't quite get the "conspiracy lovin, guilt ridden self-hating white liberal" theme as powerfully as Blu, of course, but that's to be expected. BLu goes to bed each night recounting the conspiracies and guilts harbored by liberals. He has developed SHLG syndrome by proxy.
Posted by: Strawman at October 18, 2006 12:04 PM (tuy00)
4
The letter home from the astronaut is an almost exact parody of the Sullivan Ballou letter, one of Burns' highlights from the Civil War documentary. I actually have the CD soundtrack, which has the reading of Ballou's letter on it, with Ashokan Farewell playing in the background. so I'm pretty familiar with the original, which is why I laughed so hard at the parody.
Posted by: annika at October 18, 2006 03:24 PM (zAOEU)
5
If we had bloggers in those days, the news of these black heroes would not have been suppressed. The MSM was dominated by left-wing racist bigots back then, just as they dominate today.
God bless the bloggers.
Posted by: Jake at October 18, 2006 05:19 PM (r/5D/)
6
LOL.
You caught me, Straw. I hate to admit it, but I was baiting you....and you bit. But, hey, you do it to me sometimes too.
Glad we could agree to enjoy it.
And remember, space is a cold motherfucker.
Posted by: blu at October 18, 2006 08:55 PM (42Ozp)
7
Alway enjoy the moments.
Yes, Blu, space is a cold uncaring place unlike the friendly, caring airy we uprights inhabit. But then again I still have both nuts and have lived in NYC for near 40 years so how bad could it be down here on TF.
BTW did you read the theory that becoming upright was the single most important moment in the evolution of our illustrious species? It reduced gestation to nine months causing premature birth (humans are all premature) and allowed for continuing size development (extra-uterine formation of higher cognitive capacity) of the skull and brain beyond what the pelvic cavity could otherwise pass. The development continued in vivo and in the midst of culture. Very interesting idea and the reason there are no bononbo blackstonauts.
The human brain is a cultural artefact.
TIMOTHY TAYLOR
Archaeologist, University of Bradford; Author, The Buried Soul
Posted by: Strawman at October 19, 2006 10:53 AM (tuy00)
8
Very funny indeed, the spacebus reminded me of the vehicle Mel Brooks came up with for 'Spaceballs'.
Posted by: Mike C. at October 19, 2006 02:40 PM (vFS/o)
9
Made me want to read the story of Ed Dwight all over again. I had only read the Chuck Yeager/Tom Wolfe version; there is another view...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at October 19, 2006 10:56 PM (OdAMx)
10
Perfect-pitch parody of the Ken Burns style. Much funnier than anything on "Saturday Night Live." Well done. Hope it finds a large audience.
Posted by: Joseph McNulty at October 20, 2006 01:10 PM (aK9Vy)
1
Not me! I just visit here for the witty comments...
Posted by: Drake Steel at October 17, 2006 09:15 AM (l8OMm)
2
Annika, What do you think about the elections in Sweden . . . i.e. social democrats kicked out. A new trend? or socialism lite?
Posted by: Sven Sensson at October 17, 2006 10:52 AM (76+ro)
3
These elections certainly bear review, inasmuch as both the major political parties are doing their darndest to expose the failures of their opponents.
P.S. "Google" and "ogle" do not rhyme.
P.P.S. I found out that you cannot put the words deserve and comment next to each other when writing.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at October 17, 2006 12:41 PM (OeJic)
4
No wonder Swedish women are so horny. Anni bears some skin, and Sven wants to talk politics.
Posted by: Casca at October 17, 2006 03:18 PM (2gORp)
5
I keep clicking and clicking... and NO VIDEO DAMMIT!
Click... Click... Click... Click... Click... Click...
DAAAMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTT!!!!!
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 17, 2006 03:48 PM (9+vj+)
6
Too bad, ElMondoHummus. You really should she what Annie can do with a Volvo.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 17, 2006 03:55 PM (NR1+F)
7
At first, I thought the Emperor was talking about the Swedish elections, but I get it now. He would make a good cryptographer for the NSA.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 17, 2006 03:56 PM (dFOlH)
Posted by: William Teach at October 20, 2006 05:21 AM (doAuV)
22TAKE THE TEST!
Even though it's done in interest of science: not work safe. :-(
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 20, 2006 08:06 PM (cOyko)
23
I was in a hurry when I left yesterday; so didn't have time to click but, to paraphrase the no satisfaction, can't get no girl reaction Stones, I am just a click away.
Posted by: michael at October 21, 2006 10:16 AM (FUxEb)
1
He was only trying out some lines for a screenplay...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at October 16, 2006 11:22 PM (m4mKL)
2
Well there's fifty bucks a week that he can kiss goodbye. Football is a thuggish sport, but "the U" takes it to the extreme in the NCAA. That's why it was SO sweet to bring them down in the '03 NC game, lest any have forgotten. My first thought when I saw the footage... half those assholes would be behind bars if it wasn't for football.
Posted by: Casca at October 17, 2006 06:09 AM (Y7t14)
MNF Pick, Week VI
Bears vs. Cardinals in Arizona. Chicago favored by 12½ points. The Bears will win this one, but will they cover?
The answer is yes, unless there's an earthquake, tsunami or alien invasion in Glendale tonight. And even then, they'll probably still win.
Update: Just like I said, a disaster happened and the Bears still won. Actually, there were two disasters: the Cardinals' collapse and the Bears' offense.
1
Ohmigod! I definitely would've taken the over myself, but damn! 9:19pm, just a bit left in the 1st quarter, and the Cards are the ones up 14-0.
Who'da thunk?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 16, 2006 06:24 PM (xHyDY)
2
Grossman is floating the ball all over the place. Figures, Michigan grad.
Posted by: Casca at October 16, 2006 06:42 PM (2gORp)
3
Oh man!... 20-0 Cardinals.
That's messed up.
Now, there's still a whole half to play. And, Arizona's just leaning on luck, they're not going for the jugular. So the Bears can still pull this out.
But damn... I couldn't care less who would've won before the game started, but now! Man, I'm actually pulling for the Cards!
I can't believe I'm saying this, having been a Bears admirer since the '85 Superbowl run. But, my selfish ass wants my Colts to be the only undefeated team, so I'm rootin' fer de Cards.
Yeah, yeah, the Colt's can't stop anyone's run. I know. I man, do I ever know; I was screaming exactly that at the TV during the Titans' game. "Stop the !@#^ing run!!!" But dammit, I'm a fan nonetheless, and just being able to say "Only Undefeated Team", even if just for a week or two, is something I damn well want!
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 16, 2006 07:17 PM (xHyDY)
4
Damn, Cas, you're right. I haven't seem so many floaters since the Titanic sunk.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 16, 2006 08:44 PM (q4uRJ)
5
Ariz (*GACK!*)...
Arizo (*GACK!*)...
Sorry... was trying to say "Arizona", but I choked. Then again, so did they.
Oh well... haven't rooted for the dog in a long time. Was fun while it lasted.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 16, 2006 09:23 PM (iCOwR)
6
Fucking Cardinals, coaching loss. There is no surer formula for losing a lead, than by trying to sit on it. How fucking hard is it to keep doing what has been working. Poor Edge and Leinart, they deserve better.
Posted by: Casca at October 16, 2006 09:33 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: annika at October 16, 2006 09:52 PM (qQD4Q)
8
ha, my DVR stopped recording it right after Arizona deflected that ball and ran it in to make it 30 - 10. i didn't even bother checking the score online, game over! Normally I'll watch 'till the end, but Tony Kornhoser was being really annoying and catty and shit. They should have kept charles barkley in the booth.
Posted by: Scof at October 16, 2006 09:55 PM (gliHF)
9
I am now 5 and 1 in fantasy. Kickin ass. It helps a little since my home team is once again the worst franchise in football. (Texans), well I guess thats debatable since Oakland might actually be worse.
Posted by: kyle8 at October 17, 2006 03:07 AM (BP2CI)
10
Scof, that was my very thought. I was feeling sorry for Charles AND Theisman. Tony has GOT to go. Gawd he sucks.
Texans, Raiders, hmmmmmmm, could be a good game, er car accident. It has that, "couldn't bring myself to look away" element.
Posted by: Casca at October 17, 2006 06:21 AM (Y7t14)
11
Flip side of that game, to me, is Giants Cowboys, both need that win.
Posted by: Scof at October 17, 2006 07:02 AM (a3fqn)
The Annika Action Figure
Wouldn't you know it? Somebody made an Annika action figure!
Introducing Agent Annika, member of an Operative Commando Unit so secret that few even know of its existence. Only known as Sub Five by a very few people. The name Sub Five refers to the clearance level need to access these elite forces. Alone or in large numbers these agents are lethal.
That is cool! She comes in black, white, gray, red and blue outfits. But they need to make a blonde one.
1
It's not enough that your action figure doppleganger looks like The Baroness; you've got to complain about the hair color, too?
Posted by: Leif at October 15, 2006 10:14 AM (lrqIL)
2
How can a gal named Annika not be a blonde?! Argh!!!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 15, 2006 10:55 AM (WPtaG)
3
A true spy would need to be flexible in her appearance, and always ready to adapt. You never know when you might be called upon to do a photo shoot for Vanity Fair.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 15, 2006 11:14 AM (DdRjH)
4
The dark hair is obviously a wig, for undercover work.
(a-henh! I said, "undercover!")
Posted by: Victor at October 15, 2006 11:45 AM (UDlxq)
5
Leif is right. This would make a better Annie figure instead of that Baroness rip-off:
http://tinyurl.com/yheguz
Here's another, more detailed variant:
http://tinyurl.com/yj8msz
Posted by: reagan80 at October 15, 2006 12:02 PM (dFOlH)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 15, 2006 01:21 PM (nNdUy)
7
Sorry, guys, I never figured out how to make clickable links in my posts.
I could do them on most forums though.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 15, 2006 01:35 PM (dFOlH)
8
Use the tags: [a href="url"]link[/a]
But replace the [ and ] with the "less than" "greater than" sharpie html thingies. Can o'cake! Err, I mean, Piece o'corn!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 15, 2006 03:59 PM (nNdUy)
9
You're my hero. I've been wondering how to do that for a couple years now. Thanks very much.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 15, 2006 05:37 PM (dFOlH)
10
I don't know. I think I did Google it a long time ago, but I botched my first couple attempts when I tried to apply that technique at someone's blog. I gave up then because I didn't want to spam threads with my failed links. I just never bothered asking anyone.
(Sorry about all of the I's, but I'm tired.)
Posted by: reagan80 at October 15, 2006 08:58 PM (dFOlH)
11
here's another tip: if you want to use < or > signs without it turning into code, type < or >
Posted by: annika at October 15, 2006 09:03 PM (qQD4Q)
12
I've got my own action figure, too. It's called "Cadet Cameron - Action Poet." According to the commercial, when the make-believe bullets start flying, you pull the string on the doll's back and I - I mean . . . it - produces a haiku:
"Bullets overhead!
Breeze of danger parts my hair!
Crap! I wet myself!"
It's not doing so well, sales-wise, but, hey, I got my own doll!
Posted by: ccwbass at October 15, 2006 09:49 PM (NNUAJ)
13
Mmmmmmmn. Seriously, are blond hairs as delicious drooping as they are submerged and inviting?
Breathe through the ears!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 15, 2006 09:59 PM (F4swI)
14
Thanks, Annika. I'll try to keep that in mind.
Just for in case I screw that up, I'll probably test it out at Jackie Passey's or some other blog I loathe, first.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 15, 2006 10:14 PM (dFOlH)
Posted by: Scof at October 16, 2006 01:17 AM (gliHF)
16
I'm actually sorry to see you flaunting the busty, loose image in your current graphic; Others who take the same approach are relying too heavily on their looks instead of their brainpower to effect change. The result is a form of virtual whoring that preys on the basest instincts, instead of the highest principles and virtues. Not that I put you in that category, but it looks like you are steadily moving in that direction. I realize some here are hooked on some of the more raunchy talk and imagery, but you have to chart your course according to where you want to end up, not necessarily where you are now. I realize this might come off as a sermon, but I see true potential in your analysis and formulations that would far outshine the minor sensationlism of the "others", who have gone as far as they are going to go (and will likely decline with the current national direction).
Posted by: will at October 16, 2006 07:22 AM (h7Ciu)
17
No prob, Scof.
.................................................
Will,
You can save your admonitions until Atlas Juggs-style vlogging is added here. If I want to be a masturbating jackal, I could just go ogle at Live Jasmin.
Though, I'm glad you brought up that banner. I'm wondering who drew that. It looks like Jim Lee's work. A nice visual, nonetheless.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 16, 2006 08:11 AM (dFOlH)
18
Just a hint: I learned much of the HTML I know by clicking View-->Source on the Internet Explorer menu bar (or whatever the hell it's called). It's also on your right-click menu. That displays the HTML coding of the page you're viewing, from which you can learn a lot. But this only works for the simpler stuff. Without some kind of explanation, the more complex stuff looks like something produced by a drunk monkey with a keyboard.
Posted by: Matt at October 16, 2006 01:37 PM (10G2T)
19
LOL reagan...
...and in lieu of annika, I'm taking the Bears by 4
Posted by: scof at October 16, 2006 05:27 PM (gliHF)
20
I was thinking that she looked like a Vargas Girl. Me likey.
Posted by: Casca at October 16, 2006 06:46 PM (2gORp)
21
Thanks for the marketing advice Will. I will think about your admonition regarding raunchy talk and sexual imagery. In the meantime why don't you go suck it.
Posted by: annika at October 16, 2006 10:08 PM (qQD4Q)
22
I haven't given up hope that you will come to your senses. I'm married and get all the sex I could ever want, so I'll politely decline your suggestion. I understand that the upcoming elections are terrifying many staunch conservatives; change is in the wind, and many are undoubtedly bitter about the prospect of becoming tumbleweeds.
Posted by: will at October 17, 2006 05:07 AM (h7Ciu)
23
Um, no, it has nothing to do with election anxiety. This isn't the first time you've aggravated a female conservative blogger with your slightly veiled implications that they're strumpets.
BTW, did you give Ashcroft a bunch of crap when he "burkha'd" a nude statue at the DOJ? I could've sworn that liberals frowned upon such prudishness among conservatives.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 17, 2006 06:32 AM (dFOlH)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 17, 2006 01:16 PM (cOyko)
26
>Um, no, it has nothing to do with election anxiety.
Um, how do you know? Unless this is annika under an assumed name.
> This isn't the first time you've aggravated a female conservative blogger with your slightly veiled implications that they're strumpets.
Odd. Many conservatives love to aggravate liberals, but when an independent aggravates a conservative, it's somehow verboten.
> BTW, did you give Ashcroft a bunch of crap when he "burkha'd" a nude statue at the DOJ? I could've sworn that liberals frowned upon such prudishness among conservatives.
I didn't talk to Ashcroft personally over this matter, but thought it rather silly that he would cover the statue (and an embarrassment to his party). After all, it was a piece of art celebrating the human form, not an erotic come-on.
Posted by: will at October 18, 2006 04:23 PM (h7Ciu)
27
"After all, it was a piece of art celebrating the human form, not an erotic come-on."
And, that banner image isn't art? Interesting.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 18, 2006 04:47 PM (dFOlH)
28
Reread the sentence again, this time without resorting to reductionism.
Posted by: will at October 19, 2006 04:44 PM (h7Ciu)
29
You know, you can buy doll wigs to replace the black hair. In any color, even purple!
So you could buy one, remove the hair and make a blonde Annika!
Posted by: Beth at October 20, 2006 06:13 AM (9FPYz)
Freddy Fender, RIP
I had no idea who Freddy Fender was, but thanks to the magic of YouTube, nobody has to remain ignorant. Ain't YouTube great?
Freddy Fender was a Tex Mex pioneer and a former marine. From Yahoo's obituary, here's some other biographical facts I found interesting:
Freddy Fender, the "Bebop Kid" of the Texas-Mexico border who later turned his twangy tenor into the smash country ballad "Before the Next Teardrop Falls," died Saturday. He was 69.
Over the years, he grappled with drug and alcohol abuse, was treated for diabetes and underwent a kidney transplant.
"Whenever I run into prejudice," he told The Washington Post in 1977, "I smile and feel sorry for them, and I say to myself, `There's one more argument for birth control.'"
In February 1999, Fender was awarded a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame after then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush wrote to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce endorsing him.
He signed with Imperial Records in 1959, renaming himself "Fender" after the brand of his electric guitar, "Freddy" because it sounded good with Fender.
Fender initially recorded "Wasted Days" in 1960. But his career was put on hold shortly after that when he and his bass player ended up spending almost three years in prison in Angola, La., for marijuana possession.
After prison came a few years in New Orleans and a then an everyday life taking college classes, working as a mechanic and playing an occasional local gig.
But his second break came when he was persuaded to record "Before the Next Teardrop Falls" on an independent label in 1974 and it was picked up by a major label. With its success, he won the Academy of Country Music's best new artist award in 1975. He re-released "Wasted Days and Wasted Nights" and it climbed to the top of the charts as well.
Fender's later years were marred by health problems resulting in a kidney transplant from his daughter, Marla Huerta Garcia, in January 2002 and a liver transplant in 2004. Fender was to have lung surgery in early 2006 until surgeons found tumors.
"I feel very comfortable in my life," Fender told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times in August. "I'm one year away from 70 and I've had a good run. I really believe I'm OK. In my mind and in my heart, I feel OK. I cannot complain that I haven't lived long enough, but I'd like to live longer."
Sounds like he was a good guy. Rest in peace, amigo.
1
Freddy was the rare celebrity I actually met. He was friends with the mother of one of my roommates. Sorry to see that he died. He was a real nice guy.
He had a great voice and I saw him perform several times in some of his old haunts in Lake Charles, La.
Houston and Galveston. I especially liked his covers of older country hits. He would either give them a little rock injection or a little Tejano twist.
Posted by: kyle8 at October 15, 2006 07:31 AM (9ZCmp)
2
My grandparents loved Freddy. I concur with Kyle: Great voice.
Posted by: blu at October 15, 2006 06:44 PM (42Ozp)
3
In his mid-70s run, Fender also had hits with "Secret Love" and "You'll Lose a Good Thing."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at October 16, 2006 03:47 PM (OeJic)
655,000 Iraqis Dead?
Is the line between intellectual dishonesty and bald-faced lying a fine line or is it a wide chasm? Whichever it is, The Lancet and those who masturbate over its latest Iraqi war dead estimate have leapt across that line with ease.
A study published in the Lancet this week estimates that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of war since 2003. . . .
. . . The researchers—led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins University—gathered data on more than 12,000 people in clusters of houses around Iraq, and tried to figure out how many people had died both before and after March of 2003. By comparing the pre- and post-invasion mortality rates, they figured out how many deaths could be attributed to the war, and then extrapolated from their sample to the country's entire population. [via Slate.com]
655,000 is roughly the population of Baltimore, Maryland, where Johns Hopkins University is located.
Historian Gwynne Dyer (who wrote the very readable book War, which pretty much made me want to be a history major) is against the Iraq war. He predictably gushed over the Lancet's study:
Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and MIT are not fly-by-night institutions, and people who work there have academic reputations to protect.
The Lancet, founded 182 years ago, is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world.
Must be true then. These people couldn't possibly make a mistake. In fact, I bet the peer review process is waived for all studies coming out of JHU, BU, MIT, or the Lancet.
Riiiiight.
The most disturbing thing is the breakdown of the causes of death.
Over half the deaths -- 56 per cent -- are due to gunshot wounds, but 13 per cent are due to air strikes. No terrorists do air strikes. No Iraqi government forces do air strikes either because they don't have combat aircraft. Air strikes are done by "coalition forces" (i.e. Americans and British) and air strikes in Iraq have killed over 75,000 people since the invasion.
Oscar Wilde once observed that "to lose one parent ... may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
To lose 75,000 Iraqis to air strikes looks like carelessness, too.
Actually, blind acceptance of the Lancet's figures and methodology by a historian such as Dyer looks like carelessness to me.
Now, I didn't do too well in statistics, so I won't pick apart the Lancet's methodology, no matter how suspect it seems to me (it was based on interviews?!). But I do have a history background and the 655,000 number seemed wildly far-fetched to me the instant I saw it. Wildly far-fetched.
I immediately wondered why the study's authors had not considered placing the estimate into historical perspective. That would be a kind of "smell test," which I suspected the study might not pass.
Consider this. In 3½ years, the Lancet figures we have been responsible for 655,000 civilian deaths. (Not casualties, deaths. The term "casualty" includes missing, wounded and POWs.) For comparison, I simply went to two easily available sources: The Oxford Companion to World War II, and the often less reliable Wikipedia.
According to those two sources, Japanese civilian deaths in World War II ranged from 400,000 to 600,000. One generally expects the Wikipedia figure to be at the higher range, and that was true in this case. I also consulted Wings of Judgment, by Ronald Schaffer, a somewhat left leaning historian of the two World Wars. Shaffer gave an estimated range from 330,000 to 900,000 Japanese deaths (p. 14
, which coincidentally is almost exactly the range that the Lancet used for Iraqi civilian deaths (392,979 to 942,636).
Looking at all three sources, the Wikipedia estimate of 600,000 Japanese civilian deaths seems most reasonable. So the obvious question to me is this:
Are we to believe that the United States has killed more Iraqi civilians in the current war than we killed Japanese civilians during World War II?
I have no doubt that there are very many anti-war kooks who would not hesitate to believe that, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Keep in mind that we attacked Japan repeatedly with unguided incendiary bombs in WWII, while we mostly relied on precision guided bombs when bombing Iraq. Also remember that the aerial bombing in Iraq occurred in the first three weeks of the war, and thereafter was only used to support certain offensives like in Fallujah, etc.
Keep in mind that the purpose of strategic bombing in WWII was to kill civilians and that we intentionally targeted Japanese civilians for over a year. In Iraq, we make a great effort to avoid civilian deaths. In fact, Iraqi civilian deaths are counter-productive to the war effort and can be used as a propaganda against us by our enemies, as the Lancet study proves.
Keep in mind that we flattened two Japanese cities in WWII with nuclear weapons, and that those attacks weren't even as deadly as the Tokyo firebomb raid in which three hundred B-29s burned the city to the ground and killed almost 100,000 civilians in one night. We bombed the crap out of Japan so thoroughly that we had pretty much run out of cities to destroy by the end of the war.
It was a lot easier to kill Japanese civilians by firebombing than it is to kill Iraqis today. The Lancet figures that most Iraqis (56%) were killed by gunshots, which is probably the least efficient way of killing mass numbers of people. Remember that Japanese civilians lived in houses made of paper and wood, and that the population density of Iraq is nothing compared to Japan in the 1940s. During the Tokyo raid, escape was near impossible. Shaffer wrote:
The fire storm quickly roasted those who stayed in under-house shelters. Alleys and small gardens filled with flaming debris. Shifting flames blocked exit routes. Abandoning their efforts to check the inferno, firemen tried to channel people across already burned areas, and where there was still water pressure they drenched people so they could pass through the fire. Some inhabitants ducked themselves in firefighting cisterns before moving. . . .
Choking inhabitants crawled across fallen telephone poles and trolley wires. As superheated air burned their lungs and ignited their clothing, some burst into flames, fire sweeping up from the bottoms of trousers or starting in the cloth hoods worn for protection against the sparks. Residents hurried from burning areas with possessions bundled on their backs, unaware that the bundles had ignited. Some women who carried infants this way realized only when they stopped to rest that their babies were on fire.
. . . Thousands submerged themselves in stagnant, foul-smelling canals with their mouths just above the surface, but many died from smoke inhalation, anoxia, or carbon monoxide poisoning, or were submerged by masses of people who tumbled on top of them, or boiled to death when the fire storm heated the water. [p. 134]
That is what it takes to kill 655,000 civilians. Death on that kind of scale is not something that can easily escape notice, yet there have been no such stories coming out of Iraq in the last three years. I'm not trying to minimize the horrible situation in Iraq, but some perspective is definitely in order. And the Lancet's estimate is so insanely exagerrated I can only conclude that the researchers are bald-faced liars.
1
Killing 650,000 out of a population of 26 million would be about 2.5% of the population. That would be something in the neighborhood of communicating Sherman's message of war, i.e. "Don't fuck with us". We haven't done that.
Posted by: Casca at October 14, 2006 05:31 PM (2gORp)
2
Maaaan, your post was so engrossing that I missed Suppan's homerun.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 06:01 PM (7Wklx)
3
I don't believe the air strike figure nor the 655,000 dead figure from the liberation of Iraq. I wonder if they counted morgues and Iraqi statistics kept by authorities put in place after the fall of Saddam. I wonder why they extrapolate to the entire country when the Kurd and some other ereas were not affected much by coalition military action.
I think that you are right when you say that these numbers do not pass the smell test, and your post gives some good reasons why not.
Posted by: Denny at October 14, 2006 06:29 PM (gN92I)
4
This study, like the phony one they put out before, is being roundly discredited. It doesn't pass the smell test because it's BS.
Posted by: blu at October 14, 2006 08:15 PM (42Ozp)
In all seriousness, I saw part one of the Good Morning America interview, and Gibson did not come off well. He seemed self absorbed. He tried to make lame self-effacing jokes but they didn't sound sincere, and he just looked sort of manic. Plus, he referred to his alcoholism in the second person, which someone should have warned him not to do. It makes him sound like he's still in denial. When he didn't want to answer a question he opened his eyes wide and stared at Diane Sawyer, as if to say "don't go there."
Tomorrow, in part two, they're supposed to get into the anti-semitic stuff more. I doubt Gibson will perform any better. He totally copped out when Sawyer asked him why he said what he said. He blamed it on the alcohol, but that doesn't explain how tequila can turn a non-bigot into a bigot.
1
on the other hand, Once at a college party I got so drunk I flipped over a table and started jumping on sofa's yelling "I'm Conan the Barbarian"!
Posted by: kyle8 at October 13, 2006 03:05 AM (74bHD)
2
I support mel, i believe it was a weird mix of alcohol and something, oddly, spiritual. i forgive the dude
Posted by: Scof at October 13, 2006 03:12 AM (nzCS0)
3
I'm pretty much with John Derbyshire on this. I have long believed that we're all bigots, to at least some small degree. I think there's something innate in human beings that fears/dislikes the "other." I think human history bears out this theory quite nicely. And if you look around the world, there's still a hell of a lot of that going on. Happily, most of us -- in this country, at least -- choose to suppress that "something," whatever it is, through reason. Alcohol inhibits reason.
But few of us are willing to admit our innate bigotry, even to ourselves. And we -- hypocrites that we are -- certainly don't accept it in others. So Mel can't come out and say openly that maybe on some level he has a little problem with Jews, but rationally he knows it's crazy and wrong and he puts it out of his mind except -- oops -- maybe sometimes we he gets a little drunk.
Makes it pretty tough to give a satisfactory answer.
Posted by: Matt at October 13, 2006 09:02 AM (10G2T)
4
I think Mel is probably anti-semitic, just because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. And he seems to have such a hard time denying it.
The easiest thing to say would have been, "hey I was angry that I got arrested and I wanted to insult the cop for revenge. I saw that he had a Jewish last name so I started going off on him, just to piss him off. I didn't mean any of that, I was just being an asshole."
Mel almost had it when he said we all say things we don't mean when we're drunk, like we might tell a loved one we hate them or we want to kill them. He was on the right track with that, but them Mel said he didn't know the cop was Jewish. Now that doesn't make any sense to me. If he didn't know the guy was Jewish when he said those things (despite the name badge all cops wear), that excuse doesn't work.
Posted by: annika at October 14, 2006 09:27 AM (qQD4Q)
Conspiracy? Or Just Asking Questions?
So a small plane just happened to crash into a high rise residential building on Manhattan's Upper East Side? That's the story the government and the mainstream media have put forth.
I think it's interesting that there are no pictures of the actual plane. Look at the damage to the building. I think it's exactly the type of damage you'd see if it were hit by a missile, not a plane. I'm just saying, these are questions that need to be asked.
You might say that there's no indication that this was an inside job, but if so, then what was this helicopter doing at the scene moments after the crash? Notice that there are no markings on the helicopter. Why not. Aren't all such craft required to have visible identification markings? (For instance the Enterprise is clearly marked NCC-1701.) And it's beige. Who paints a helicopter beige unless you're trying not to be noticed?
Also note the disproportionate SWAT team response. Almost as if they were trying to keep people away from the scene of the "accident." What are they trying to hide?
And only two dead? It's as if people were warned not to be in the building today. Certain people. I think you know what I mean. It is the Upper East Side, after all.
Like I said. These are interesting and unanswered questions, but don't expect the powers that be to investigate it properly. I just want to get to the truth, that's all.
Update: Cory Lidle?! I had him on my fantasy team a few years back, he did well for me. So the authorities would have us believe that a major league baseball pitcher piloted this plane into a building? I suppose they'll tell us he was distraught over the Yankees recent DCS loss. Come on! If they're going to concoct a cover narrative, at least make it believable.
Open your eyes America! Demand the truth! Ask questions! Why would a Yankee player be piloting an aircraft so close to Shea Stadium? Wouldn't it make more sense to be flying near the Bronx? Has anyone looked into George Steinbrenner's Middle East holdings? What are his ties to Halliburton? Or the Tri-lateral commission or Skull & Bones? Wake up people!
Posted by: kyle8 at October 11, 2006 03:22 PM (QDmPR)
4
Annue,
What is going to come out about this is that the apartment Lidel hit belongs to Alex Rodriguez and this was payback.
Although as i was crossing the 59th street bridge this afternoon i noticed that the coastguard boat, one of those fast pontoon type things with a 50mm cannon mounted on the front, that is always stationed 100 yrds off the UN bulkhead was nowhere to be seen! Very strange.
Posted by: Strawman at October 11, 2006 04:32 PM (tuy00)
5
Incredible,
I was called back from an assignment stirring up some unrest in SA, since this appeared to be something more sinister. Alas, I ordered a good steak at Sparks and enjoyed a Chateau Lascombes '82 in Mr. Lidle's memory. Back to the grind tomorrow, look for some fun times in a certain oil rich country to the south!
X
Posted by: Major X at October 11, 2006 07:54 PM (n/TNS)
6What is going to come out about this is that the apartment Lidel hit belongs to Alex Rodriguez and this was payback.
HA! (Maybe just a touch tasteless, but pretty funny anyway.)
Posted by: Victor at October 12, 2006 04:46 AM (WHtgF)
7
Move along folks, there's nothing to see here. The whole thing was scripted for later broadcast on a new PBS reality TV show next spring 'Death of A City'.
Posted by: Wm H at October 12, 2006 06:35 AM (p90x4)
8ordered a good steak at Sparks and enjoyed a Chateau Lascombes '82 in Mr. Lidle's memory
French wine is for faggots! Drink a Cali, or an Aussie, or (shudder) something Chilean, but avoid that watered down plonk from the continent that they palm off on swishing poseurs.
Posted by: Casca at October 12, 2006 06:39 AM (Y7t14)
9
Casca,
I think the only palm that concerns swishing poseurs maybe yours as it lingers a bit too long on their asses when you do your locker room pat welcoming them to the wine bar you bought outside Santaigo.
Posted by: Strawman at October 12, 2006 11:00 AM (tuy00)
10
ahhaahhahahahaha. YES! these are the questions we need to be asking!
Posted by: Dawn Summers at October 12, 2006 01:12 PM (SOf9N)
11
Okay, the plane hit a building at 524 E. 72nd Street.
7 + 2 = 9
5+2+4 = 11
9/11. This is part of the conspiracy.
And no, I didn't come up with this myself. Some other person on the Screw Loose Change blog did.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at October 12, 2006 02:20 PM (xHyDY)
12
Yes, and ignorant absolutist statements are for idiot Philistines My Dear Mr. Casca. Enjoy your Opus One, your Spottswoode or whatever fruit bomb explosion you call a wine in "your neck of the woods" to use a vernacular with which you must be familiar.
One question my good man. How in the world do you unscrew your bottles with hands that must be horribly blistered from all that dragging on the ground?
Posted by: Major X at October 12, 2006 05:14 PM (n/TNS)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 12, 2006 09:41 PM (SB6dH)
14
Hahaha, you caught him Red! I knew because the faggots down at the wine store are always pushing that watery mushroom runoff as "Great" wine, and they love to throw around "Fruitbomb". Only poseurs could drink such swill and pronounce it drinkable. X & Strawfuck r clearly one and the same.
Posted by: Casca at October 12, 2006 10:23 PM (2gORp)
15
It's weird. After reading the Major's post about a blonde named Annie, I'm wondering why his profile says that he's a female.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 13, 2006 03:22 AM (dFOlH)
Posted by: Casca at October 13, 2006 06:53 AM (Y7t14)
17
I think the only thing that is evident from the Major and my posts is the transparency of the caricature who's name is Casca; A fellow who thinks we care about his taste in wine, or his childish pronouncements about those who like French wine. Clearly a knuckle walking, pontificating old mouth breathing fart of a sgt-major type, too impotent to fight, phallocentric (obviously fixated on fags and guns), constantly carping and sniping from his easy chair, crippled by indogenous depression the result of his profound sadness that a seniors war has not been organized.
RedRover on the other hand is simply a guy who enjoys looking at a swinging dicks. (I'm surprised Casca still makes you wear a rubber Red! Don't he love you?) More importantly Red, and I guess this is a sign of your maturation; congrats on having sex outside the family with a bipedal!
Posted by: strawman at October 13, 2006 10:35 AM (tuy00)
18
"congrats on having sex outside the family with a bipedal!"
At least I keep it within the species AND with animate beings.
How's your Mustafa Shag Doll doing? Little pinpricks tend to pop them things.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 13, 2006 11:00 AM (uhcJE)
19
It's good to see the Yankees FINALLY hitting something in October!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at October 13, 2006 11:00 AM (uhcJE)
Posted by: Strawman at October 13, 2006 11:09 AM (tuy00)
21
BTW, Redboy, on his worst hair day, my little Mustafa makes your little sister look like schwirma that's been left on a Faluja rooftop for ten days.
Posted by: Strawman at October 13, 2006 11:50 AM (tuy00)
22
Hacked!
Hard to believe it could happen to me, given the series of security algorithms I'm running. Got to hand it to those commie bastards though, they can be damn smart when they put their warped little minds to the task. Obviously that cigar smoking bastard south of Florida has nothing better to do with his time now that he's handed over the island to his idiot brother, so he's hacking my profile and having a little fun.
Heads up Fidel! You've had your fun, prepare to meet your doom!
Oh, and for you Mr. Casca, obviously you're suffering from one of the worst cases of psychological projection that I have ever seen. You weren't invited to join in a little party in Haight Ashbury several years ago by some clean cut guys with free acid were you? Cuz, that would definately explain things.
Posted by: Major X at October 13, 2006 04:38 PM (n/TNS)
23
All this tough talk is getting our eyes off the real target: Mexicans.
Posted by: BadMule at October 13, 2006 06:08 PM (+jg2V)
24
Red a little NSFW warning would be helpful on links like that...but ultimately its my fault in that I kept reading the comments even after I saw that straw/major were here....
Posted by: Scof at October 13, 2006 08:10 PM (gliHF)
25
AAAk, just saw the link. Sorry Redneck, I gotta remove it.
For those who didn't get a chance to see it, it's only a graphic representation of a pinwheel spinning.
Posted by: annika at October 14, 2006 09:34 AM (qQD4Q)
26
Without question, this is fully concocted.
Just like on 911, even 'though I didn't make the connection as I was watching the "crash" scenario unfold (due to my emotional attachment to the Yankees etc...), part of me was noticing how absolutely staged so much of it appeared.
With 911, when the towers fell, I knew it looked really wrong (only later understanding the controlled demolition probability).
But of course this is the intention of whoever is orchestrating this...continuously weaving a web of fear, deception and emotionally charged patriotism etc...
As far as Lidle goes, forget about it...I kind of liked him when he came to the Yankees, but looking at him now he was/is clearly an entitled type of dude...not your average joe ballplayer. Their "finding" his passport in the street is the dead giveaway IMO. Passport? Just like Attah's (sp) passport surviving the holocaust of a commercial airliner crashing into and collapsing a hundred story building. Yahh right. And why the F was CL carrying this conveniently found passport? On a private domestic flight to CA? And why does it look as if nothing hit that building structurally...just burned on the exterior? And why were his "wife". "son" and the pregnant wife of the "flight instructor not notified of the crash as they were "boarding a flight to CA" at JFK at the same time as his plane supposedly crashed? Why did his "twin brother" show SO LITTLE emotion or remorse in a television interview shortly after the crash? Why does he even have a "twin brother" and I've heard 3 or 4 more people around him that look remarkably like lidle?
Convenient if he needed to disapear, no?
Why did they quote "his" six year old "son" yesterday as saying something like "my daddy was a skilled pilot, there must have something wrong with his plane"? Quoting his "6 y/o"?? And lastly, why do the "eyewitnesses" interviewed directly after the crash appear to be really bad actors LOL?
Wag the dog, I say...but they can't touch me.
Posted by: mad 1 at October 14, 2006 09:36 AM (S66yt)
27
like i said, Mad1, these are all important questions!
Now, back on earth, I just paid under 2.50 a gal for gas. There's your real conspiracy.
Posted by: annika at October 14, 2006 09:42 AM (qQD4Q)
28
It makes me a little sad to think that Joe Torre etc...are deep in this doo doo ;(
my Yankees !!! arghhhhhhhhhh
Posted by: mad 1 at October 14, 2006 09:57 AM (S66yt)
29
Annie, you should post this at AboveTopSecret. I'm sure you'll get some true believers running with it. I'm already a member, so I could post it for you if you like. Could be fun to see what develops in the thread.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 14, 2006 11:27 AM (p7ueD)
Wednesday is Poetry Day: Richard Harrison
Two weeks ago, I presented baseball poetry. Baseball lends itself to poetry--both are cerebral, complex, and boring to those of lesser intelligence. Notice there's no real good NASCAR poetry out there?
My other favorite sport is hockey. Maybe because it's easy to get tickets, maybe because it's a beautiful game, maybe because the first words my gf ever spoke to me were because of hockey...I like hockey a lot.
Two years ago, I wasn't watching hockey. No one was, because of the lockout. Little did we know that soon, in mid-February, the 2004-05 NHL season would be cancelled. People were Pissed Off.
Canadian poet Richard Harrison has published an entire book of hockey poetry, Hero of the Play, and he was one of those Pissed Off people. Soon after the season was cancelled in 2005, the following poem was published:
NH Elegy
Once, men came home from war,
or from the sides of family graves,
to lace up skates and play for it
as if everything could be remade
in a silver bowl passed hand to hand.
For years it etched the seasons
with their winning names,
and took the touch of triumph
into each triumphant house. It paused
just once – to mourn the dead, and
stayed unmarked to mark their passing.
Today, left idle in the Hall of Fame,
while rich men quarrel to no profit at its base,
untouched upon its plinth it stands.
And all who see it can tell you now
how a fallen thing is one that no one holds.
Of course, the 2006-07 hockey season started last week. The league has expanded from the Original Six teams to thirty teams, the Great Canadian Game...well, there are only 6 teams from cities in the Great White North. There are teams in Phoenix, Florida, Tennesee, and the defending Stanley Cup champions play in North Carolina. They're also winless, but there's a lot of season yet to go.
My beloved Caps have played only two games and they're 1 and 1, which, where they're concerned, is slightly above par for them in October. Yeah, baby...it's hockey season.
1
Baseball is cerebral, while nascar is for rednecks? I'll remember that the next time I see a nascar driver drool redman down the front of his nomex. Gawd you're an idiot.
Posted by: Casca at October 11, 2006 06:18 AM (Y7t14)
2
That's a nice one Victor. what is that iambic tetrameter?
I hope Casca is not making the argument that stock car racing is a more cerebral sport than baseball. George Will might have something to say about that.
Posted by: annika at October 11, 2006 11:15 AM (zAOEU)
3
Read your United 93 comments on the internet. Good stuff. Also the baseball poetry, good work. Field of Dreams should be mandatory viewing as well.
Posted by: Larry Provost at October 11, 2006 12:26 PM (+64dF)
4
I think Casca is proving my point for me, annie.
As for the meter, the number of beats per line jumps...to me, anyway. Lines 5,6, & 7, for example, have 4, 3, then 2 beats.
Posted by: Victor at October 11, 2006 12:39 PM (WHtgF)
5
If I was capable of thought, I'd consider your opinion. Racing machines of all sorts are highly technical. Those who think that it's all about watching cars go in circles are mistaken.
Posted by: Casca at October 11, 2006 03:02 PM (2gORp)
6
god bless hockey...i'm in san fran this week, tried to catch a sharks game but sold out...oh well, i'll catch the stars back in texas.
Posted by: Scof at October 12, 2006 10:44 AM (nzCS0)
Fantasy Musical Team-Ups That'll Never Happen
Picture this: Barbra Streisand reprising her most famous role as Dolly Levi, and introducing George W. Bush as Horace Vandergelder! That's brilliant casting, and it would be box office gold. Gold I tell ya!
Alas, I'm afraid it would never happen. I don't think the president could handle the vocal parts.
I chose the above picture as a reminder of what a nuclear bomb can do. That was a young boy, maybe twelve or thirteen, who was incinerated by "Little Boy" at Hiroshima.
I think it's highly irresponsible for various pundits, mostly on the right, but some on the left, to suggest that we must respond to North Korea's saber rattling with a military attack. It's irresponsible because now that Kim Jong-il has a nuclear arsenal (assuming the tests weren't faked) we can certainly expect that he will use it if attacked.
Two things are clear to me: We must use every effort to avoid war with North Korea, while at the same time we must use whatever means necessary to disarm Kim Jong-il. The little boy in the picture is the reason I believe this.
While I think diplomacy is usually a complete boondoggle, there are options that can be and should be employed before we go charging in with guns blazing where a madman controls nuclear weapons.
The North Korean situation is similar to the Iranian one, but not identical. And as you know, I don't support military action in Iran, yet. Regime change without an invasion is the least ugly of all the options in both theaters. It's probably an easier task against the Iranians, but in neither case do I see any concrete signs that the Bush Administration is doing anything to encourage internal opposition movements. As I've said before, I think that's a big mistake.
In regards to North Korea, it seems to me that we have an advantage that is not available to us against Iran. World opinion, and especially regional opinion, seems pretty united against North Korea. I think the reason China and Russia are willing to play along against Kim Jong-il is that the balance of power equation they are employing in Central Asia does not apply to the Korean Peninsula.
In other words, China and Russia have a strong interest in promoting Iran as a rival to U.S. power in the Middle East. It's the latest incarnation of the "Great Game." But the Asian powers have now realized that promoting North Korea as a balance to American Power in the Far East is a fool's game.
The goal of balance of power politics is to maintain regional stability, and a nuclear armed DPRK upsets the status quo — not a good thing for China and Russia. They know that if Japan wanted to, they could easily build their own nuclear arsenal, and each warhead would probably fit in the palm of your hand, work perfectly every time, and get great gas mileage to boot.
So if China and Russia can be persuaded to go along with a strong sanctions regime, combined with a "quarantine" of North Korea, I think that would be a great start. They might be willing to do so.
The next few months will be a major test for Condoleezza Rice. I think her tenure as Secretary of State has been pretty lackluster, but I'm much more impressed with John Bolton. If the State Department can get its act together, maybe they can forge an alliance among the regional powers. I'd like to see Australia join in too. I'm hopeful that a united front could successfully change North Korea's behavior.
Normally, I'm not a fan of sanctions. But this might be one of those rare situations where sanctions have some effect, mainly because of the unanimity of world opinion against North Korea. It reminds me of South Africa. Sanctions arguably helped end apartheid, and while that analogy only goes so far, it is interesting to note that South Africa is the only country to have developed nuclear weapons and then given them up voluntarily.
I favor an internal revolution as the best way to solve the Iranian crisis, but I don't see that idea working in North Korea. I have not heard of any opposition groups in that closed society. I think Kim Jong-il's regime is so repressive that they'd make Tian'anmen Square look like a company picnic.
I believe the best way to defuse the situation is to get China to use its influence against Kim Jong-il himself. China is the only party that can apply pressure against the dictator to get him to step down. We'll probably have to live with a nuclear armed North Korea, but if Kim Jong-il can be replaced with a moderate who won't threaten the whole region, everybody will be able to breathe a lot easier.
The North Korean dictator's latest flagrant defiance of the Security Council should offer enough cover for the Chinese to make Kim Jong-il an offer he can't refuse. China can offer Kim asylum, and they have the power to influence the selection of his successor. North Korea can then remain communist, but perhaps reform themselves along the lines of modern China. Sanctions might even eventually be lifted. Getting rid of Kim Jong-il is the key, and as I see it, China is our best hope to accomplish that end.
More: Fans of Kevin Kim know that he teaches something or other in South Korea (English I think). Here's his inimitable commentary on the scuttlebutt over there.
One student surprised me with her take on Kim Jong Il. "I sort of liked him until today," she said, "But now I hate him." I kept a poker face, but my guts were writhing and my testicles kept popping in and out of my body like turtle heads. My asshole started shrieking ultrasonically; little edible dogs screamed in response and then exploded outside our building (NB: I've decided to name any future canine pet "Yummy"). Liked Kim Jong Il?
By the way, Kevin tends to doubt that Kim Jong-il really has nukes yet. Some Koreans aren't above lying about important stuff. Look at how long Sun lied to Jin about knowing English.
1
I'm not sure China can pull that off. If they could, they would have stopped the testing before it happened. As it is, they were given a twenty minute heads-up before the test occurred. Not something you do to a trusted partner.
Secondly, you overlook how the North Koreans can retaliate against the Chinese. They can basically unleash a human wave of refugees on both China and South at any minute. And neither is prepared for something that would make the Cuban fiasco of '78 look like nothing. Castro sent 10,000 to Miami - Kim can send millions.
Third, putting the Koreas firmly in the Chinese column would leave nothing in the way of Chinese hedgemony in Asia but Taiwan. And I think we all know where that leads. Actually, we don't, because President Carter's abrogation of the mutual defense treaty is still unsettled as a matter of law.
Fourth, Chinese hedgemony does nothing to stop what I believe Kim's REAL motivation in the testing was - forcing a nuclear Japan. If that happens, and I think that's inevitable now, all of Asia unites against the Japanese (who they all already detest) and North Korea becomes forgotten by everyone who isn't the United States.
Feel better?
Posted by: skippystalin at October 09, 2006 11:17 PM (IanE0)
2
Annika - I disagree that Kim has an "arsenal" - right now he has one or two at most (remember that we had no more after Nagasaki for quite some time)and Kim currently has no way to deploy them. It is time to stop him now before he learns how to attach one to a missile (no trivial task). That is why military action should be swift and soon.
Posted by: John at October 10, 2006 05:14 AM (ct7Ey)
3
Thanks for injecting some sanity into the hysteria John. Anni, most of what you've articulated is the status quo. In the Rumsfeld formulation, you don't know, what you don't know.
China doesn't want a nuclear Japan, that's their motivation to act. The Chinese have always had the ability to step on Kim. The solution to this problem will be a Chinese solution.
Kim is a meglomaniac in the Blowfeld mold, probably from watching too many 007 movies. I doubt that he's capable of thinking strategically.
Posted by: Casca at October 10, 2006 06:51 AM (Y7t14)
4
Irina,
I think it is a bit late to be whinning about the inexorable march of invention, need and human dysfunction.
It could be argued that nuclear weapons are the single most important factor responsible for damping any major conflict over the last 50 years. That is not to say the world has been free from war just that the level could have been far worse.
If Iran had a deliverable nuke 5 years ago it might have stopped our criminal invasion of Iraq.
If it were not for the promise of Soviet protection of Cuba, we would have invaded and toppled Castro in the 60's. The Cuban's then could have had McDonalds, mineral extractors, gambling, and massive tourist trade instead of universities, doctors, low infant mortality, world class sports teams, universal medical care, affordable housing and literacy.
So, nu-q-ler (to use our dim witted leaders pronunciation) devices can be a force for good.
Now, Blu, bust a gut telling me about Castro's repressive political strangle hold on the good peeps of Cuba. About how he, like the govt. of US people can haul people off to prison and hold in the dark without charges indefinitely, Or how a noted author and radio personality was told the other day in Texas, not to talk politics while flogging his book, "'cause this is Bush's church." The shirts in America are turning brown, Blu, and you are still pounding the table about Castro. Get over it and get a grip on what's happening here. Why do you continue to be complacent about the sale of your liberties for a pound of false security?
Posted by: strawman at October 10, 2006 07:56 AM (tuy00)
5
I'm not entirely sure that irina isn't a bot. But assuming she isn't:
Strangely enough, in all my years studying history at Berkeley, I didn't caught the main idea that the world is built as a spiral. I want my money back.
Also, I think even Strawman would agree that sometimes non-innocent people suffer in war. The nazis for instance, got what they deserved ultimately.
Posted by: annika at October 10, 2006 08:49 AM (zAOEU)
6
Annika,
I caught that spiral idea once but unhooked it and threw it back.
Yes, non-innocents do suffer and die in war and no war is fought where innocents are not killed as well. And I do know that our forces more than any other try to avoid civilian casualities. As much as I hated the idea that we were attacking Iraq, I watched the opening night(s) and was bouyed by the apparent precision with which we were destroying military infastructure and avoiding the city at large. At that point I hoped that the military would fold and disperse, Saddam would flee and we would succeed in a regime change without terrible destruction and loss of life. But what did I know about the internal issues of Iraq? Nothing. the tragedy is, of course, that Rumnuts knew about as much as I did.
Yes, for the most part the Nazis did get what they deserved (though the Soviet forces did it better), except the ones we (the Soviets as well) thought would do us some good either in our rocketry and fission programs. We also harbored nazis that we thought would be helpful in our upcoming struggle with the Soviets. Talk about moral relativism. Do you know the Tom Lehrer song about Werner von Braun?
Posted by: Strawman at October 10, 2006 09:35 AM (tuy00)
7
Straw,
I see that you have finally come to accept the Bush doctrine of preemption.
Well, at least you are learning.
Keep it up, Grasshopper.
Posted by: blu at October 10, 2006 10:29 AM (hXbaB)
8
I'll compliment Straw's response to Annie. Despite his first post, I actually confused him for a rational liberal for a second there.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 10, 2006 03:32 PM (dFOlH)
9
Thanks for the shout-out, as always, A.
By the way, if you don't subscribe to STRATFOR and would like to see the latest from them re: the NK issue, please give me an email and I'll forward you the issues that were forwarded to me.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 10, 2006 10:20 PM (TDwc6)
10
Ah, I forgot to mention: my position isn't that I doubt NK has nukes; I simply doubt that what exploded was in fact a nuke. (And was there or wasn't there a second nuke test?)
Thanks,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 10, 2006 10:22 PM (TDwc6)
11
I generally agree with your recap of the situation; you have a well-developed sense of power struggles for someone so (relatively) young.
I would simply note a couple of discussion points;
1. "I think diplomacy is usually a complete boondoggle"
There are many flavors of diplomacy, including overt or covert 'gunboat' diplomacy. There are communications with the nation at question directly (perhaps not in this case), there are communications with heads of state in a)close allies, 2)other friendly allies, 3)passively or loosely aligned nations (e.g. Pakistan), 4) the rest of the nations, and then there is diplomacy as is conducted through public information sources. Expect each of the above messages to be different. Building a coalition is a diplomatic process. I believe I understand what you meant, though that term is normally too broad for brushstroke generalization, IMHO.
2. Kim may have no desire for asylum, regardless of what the Chinese offer (or admonish). Remember that he has been fed a steady diet of propaganda since he was young; he has no sense of reality or how to negotiate beyond threats of destruction in one form or another. He has no power base among his people, and must continually plot despotic ways to wield authority over them. Would make a great dissertation subject for an advanced psych post-grad.
Posted by: will at October 12, 2006 11:38 AM (h7Ciu)
12
Calling for a military attack dosen't make one happen, it makes the threat a little more credible so diplomacy can work.
Posted by: Dave at October 19, 2006 09:34 AM (ebGbi)
, which coincidentally is almost exactly the range that the Lancet used for Iraqi civilian deaths (392,979 to 942,636). 
