April 19, 2006
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
Is there any subject that can't be examined by a poet? Here we have biology, in a Shakespearian sonnet by English poet John Masefield (1878–1967):
What am I, Life?
What am I, Life? A thing of watery halt
Held in cohesion by unresting cells,
Which work they know not why, which never halt,
Myself unwitting where their Master dwells
I do not bid them, yet they toil, they spin
A world which uses me as I use them;
Nor do I know which end or which begin
Nor which to praise, which pamper, which condemn.
So, like a marvel in a marvel set,
I answer to the vast, as wave by wave
The sea of air goes over, dry or wet,
Or the full moon comes swimming from her cave,
Or the great sun comes forth: this myriad I
Tingles, not knowing how, yet wondering why.
Poet suggested by Casca.
Posted by: annika at
11:16 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
so how does a marine know about masefield? nice poem.
Posted by: Scof at April 19, 2006 11:33 AM (S5uvk)
2
Trained killers have souls, also.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 04:43 PM (BJYNn)
3
What kind of fool has never heard of the warrior/poet?
I can't let this occasion pass without giving Masefield his due. He went to sea in the age of sail; was an accomplished poet & scholar when he went to the trenches in 1915 at forty; in 1930 became the Poet Laureat a post he held for the next 37 years until his death.
Leave it to Annika to find some Masefield that I've never seen. My favorite Masefield could be
Sea Fever, but it isn't, it's
The Passing Strange.
Only a beauty, only a power,
Sad in the fruit, but bright in the flower,
Endlessly erring for it's hour.
Posted by: Casca at April 19, 2006 07:28 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 18, 2006
New Slogans For The Democratic Party
I just got a spam e-mail from Tom Vilsack, Democratic governor of Iowa, and I presume a future presidential candidate. Don't ask me how I got on his mailing list, I have no earthly idea.
But apparently his PAC has been running a contest for the best ten word slogan to represent the Democratic Party. The contest is now down to the final ten slogans submitted by ten "activists."*
Funny thing about the finalists. Four of them aren't even ten words long. Typical Democrats. Always thinking the rules don't apply to them.
Anyways, I think it's unfair that we conservatives weren't allowed to get in on this contest. Do you all have any ideas for ten word slogans that encapsulize the Democratic Party?
I'll start it off:
"Democrats - because national security makes my head hurt too much."
_______________
* I love that word. To me it's a euphemism for jobless looney.
[cross-posted at The Cotillion]
Posted by: annika at
07:38 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How about:
The Democratic Party: Out of touch with reality since 1932.
Posted by: Go 4 TLI at April 18, 2006 08:48 PM (TmKwU)
2
How about a bastardization of a great Monty Python (aka Cleverness Incarnate) quote:
We will cut down the mightiest Shrub WIIIIITH.... red herrings!
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 18, 2006 09:22 PM (954g7)
3
Actually, Vilsack is the governor of Iowa. The governor of Ohio is a Republican, Robert Taft XXII, although most Ohio Republicans are trying to forget that right now. Amazing how Canadians know that kinda stuff, huh?
And as far as your slogan goes, I wouldn't exactly be running on the president's national security priorities right now. Unless of course that slogan is, "The GOP, so sure that we'll win the War on Terror that we'll give the enemy seven of our ports as a handicap."
The Dubai ports deal really hurt message delivery on national security. Yes, the Democrats are fucking pathetic, but do you really want to give them that kind of a mulligan?
Posted by: skippystalin at April 18, 2006 09:22 PM (ohSFF)
4
Iowa, Ohio, what's the diff?
Posted by: annika at April 18, 2006 09:25 PM (fxTDF)
5
"Up With Democrats! Other Six Words Were Taxed Off Slogan"
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 18, 2006 10:32 PM (KjUHH)
6
"Vote Democrat, because nothing but special interest groups matter anymore!"
Posted by: Mike C. at April 19, 2006 03:32 AM (wZLWV)
7
I just read their list. I see that nothing has changed. They are the perfect enemy. They have no bench, and politics is about personality, no message so nothing to stir the American heartland, and no hope of winning, which will bring me peace in my dottage.
The diff between Iowa and Ohio? 13 Electoral votes my dear.
Posted by: Casca at April 19, 2006 06:11 AM (y9m6I)
8
Democrats: Let's lose the war and get the majority back.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 08:18 AM (BJYNn)
9
Democrats: Let's lose the war and get the majority back.
Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2006 08:21 AM (BJYNn)
10
Democrats: Lying commie bastards and proud of it.
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 08:56 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: BobG at April 19, 2006 09:11 AM (Tqd7E)
12
Democrats: Proudly serving trial lawyers, union thugs, unqualified minorities, & sexual perverts!
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 09:19 AM (AgDbn)
13
"Iowa, Ohio, what's the diff?"
Heeeey! There's plenty of diff! One farms corn, the other farms co....
... wait a minute...
Okay! One's in the midwest, the other's...
Crap...
IGotIt! Pick something so totally arbitrary and so incredibly random that there no way in
hell it can match! I pick: The last syllable of their state university's mascots! GOTIT! One's a Buckeye, the other's a Hawk...
Goddammit....
I give up. What the hell
is the diff?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 19, 2006 09:39 AM (xHyDY)
14
Oh, wait, yeah. Slogan, 10 words or less:
"Anyone but Bush. Because we'd rather hate than make sense."
It may not be fair to a bunch of moderate, sane Democrats, but it sure as hell sums up the Kos wing of the party.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 19, 2006 09:44 AM (xHyDY)
15
Annie's post says Iowa. Where's the talk of Ohio coming from?
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 10:59 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: annika at April 19, 2006 11:04 AM (zAOEU)
17
That's the kind of prompt editing that separates you from the competition....
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 11:08 AM (AgDbn)
18
Yes, and I hit "publish" so many times, the RSS feeders must hate me.
Posted by: annika at April 19, 2006 11:28 AM (zAOEU)
19
The Democratic Party, Racial divisivness, and Class warfare since the 1830's.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 19, 2006 03:00 PM (38Hue)
20
Slogan: Vote Democrat, becuase it worked so well on
West Wing. [I'd add something about writing the story, but 10 words and all]
Oh, and the difference between Iowa and Ohio is that Ohio is just big enough to have pro sports teams in two cities while Iowa gets a triple-A team.
Posted by: KG at April 19, 2006 07:07 PM (SZsz5)
21
Actually, national security is making the Republicans' head hurt.
Free yourself from slogan slavery: Become an Independent
Posted by: will at April 20, 2006 08:16 AM (GzvlQ)
22
Some of the slogans were better than others. I laughed at the outright lies ("The Democratic Party: People are our only 'Special Interest.'"?), but at least some of them are capable of telling a story (the one I liked the best was "A Strong Nation and Economy through Fairness, Reason, and Community."; it sums up all the "It takes a village" stuff).
Despite all of the Republican problems in coming up with a cohesive story (Harry Reid didn't invent the felons clause), the Democrats are even more incompetent.
It might be more challenging for each party to come up with one word, not ten. For Democrats, perhaps they'd choose "Community." Republicans could choose "Freedom," Constitution Party "American." Too late to think of what the Greens and Socialist Workers would come up with. The Libertarians would say "We don't need no stinking one word limit! We'll say whatever we want, and take as long as we want to say it! So there! The Constitution did not impose any limits on our freedom of speech...."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 20, 2006 10:25 PM (eY1H8)
23
Hey i'm still thinking of em,
"The Democratic Party: Where
no message is a good message!"
Posted by: annika at April 21, 2006 09:21 AM (fxTDF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bavarian Dingle Loaf?!
I must confess that I've never heard of Bavarian Dingle Loaf. But apparently it's like catnip to a kitten. Or a sex-kitten. The
Weekly World News confirms this fact:
HEY, GUYS! You can bed more babes than you can shake a stick at by feeding them a medley of three "sex foods" that drive women wild with desire: Raw oysters, foot-long weenies, and the Old World favorite, "Bavarian dingle loaf!"
I can't eat raw oysters. I got really sick off them about ten years ago, so I won't eat them anymore. I've never noticed any aphrodisiacal properties to the Dodger Dog (although they seem to have worked for Steve Garvey). But the Bavarian Dingle Loaf has me intrigued.
"Nothing is 100 percent, of course. But in nine cases out of 10, women who eat these foods are going to come on strong. And they aren't going to care what you look like or how much money you have.
Riiiiight.
"Bavarian dingle loaf is the icing on your cake. You can buy all the ingredients to make it from scratch. Or you can just do what I do: Buy a can of biscuit dough and knead it all together into a big ball.
"Then roll it out by hand into the shape of manly privates. You can even throw in family jewels on one end if you like."
Bill K., of Franklin, Tenn., says he tried the wonder foods on his female supervisor at work, "a real witch who hated my guts."
"I took oysters and the dingle bread to work, and gave them to her for lunch," he recalls. "The next thing you know we're in the stockroom doing it like Chihuahuas in heat.
"I even got a raise out of it!"
Lol, maybe he put too much yeast in the dingle bread.
Seriously though. I don't know how scientific this research is. But I'd be willing to bet if you showed up at work with a penis shaped pastry for your female boss, you'd probably be cleaning out your desk before lunch.
Update: In case your interested: Penis shaped cake pans. Or if you really curious, and you're not at work, here are examples of some finished products within that genre.
Posted by: annika at
06:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.
1
They forgot to mention the main ingredient in Dingle Loaf. Inside the loaf you must put a diamond bracelet.
Posted by: Jake at April 18, 2006 07:12 PM (XOf7A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 11
Posted by: annika at
07:18 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They just keep getting better. Now you have to keep this up, otherwise where else will we get our fix!
Posted by: OS at April 18, 2006 11:10 PM (5d6Ic)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 17, 2006
More Iran Stuff
Mark Steyn's
City Magazine essay [via
Hugh Hewitt] is my second must read recommendation for today.
Find it here and read the whole dang thing.
Key passages [all emphases mine]:
If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But IranÂ’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what theyÂ’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.
. . .
In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact disintegrating before his eyes, poor beleaguered Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block: “I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”
Today many people in the West don’t take that any more seriously than Gorbachev did. But it’s pretty much come to pass. As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour.
. . .
With the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a British subject, Tehran extended its contempt for sovereignty to claiming jurisdiction over the nationals of foreign states, passing sentence on them, and conscripting citizens of other countries to carry it out. Iran’s supreme leader instructed Muslims around the world to serve as executioners of the Islamic Republic—and they did, killing not Rushdie himself but his Japanese translator, and stabbing the Italian translator, and shooting the Italian publisher, and killing three dozen persons with no connection to the book when a mob burned down a hotel because of the presence of the novelist’s Turkish translator.
IranÂ’s de facto head of state offered a multimillion-dollar bounty for a whack job on an obscure English novelist. And, as with the embassy siege, he got away with it.
. . .
[I]n the 17 years between the Rushdie fatwa and the cartoon jihad, what was supposedly a freakish one-off collision between Islam and the modern world has become routine. We now think it perfectly normal for Muslims to demand the tenets of their religion be applied to society at large: the government of Sweden, for example, has been zealously closing down websites that republish those Danish cartoons. As Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said, “It is in our revolution’s interest, and an essential principle, that when we speak of Islamic objectives, we address all the Muslims of the world.” Or as a female Muslim demonstrator in Toronto put it: “We won’t stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.”
And this, which had me nodding my head at the irony so obvious, I hadn't noticed it until now:
Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: CanÂ’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get Â’em, and then no one will use them. And if IranÂ’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device thatÂ’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.
Fine as this column was, you'll see me getting off the boat when Steyn concludes, somewhat ominously:
[W]e face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.
That time is coming, but I think we still have other options at present. So if Steyn is urging a military strike now (as he seems to be), I would disagree.
I think our main focus (while we still have the luxury of time) should be on fomenting internal opposition to the regime -- even what you might call internal strife. Take the mullahs minds off the outside world. Make them fear for their own survival. Promote a viable alternative to religious fascism, then give the people of Iran a gentle shove in that direction.
Sure, the days are gone when a Kermit Roosevelt could overthrow Mossadegh with about five guys, a pickup truck and 100 grand in "walking around money." But we can do it, with a little more of the same applied skullduggery, 21st Century style. The New York Times would have to be kept out of the loop, and I'm not sure that's possible when there's a whistleblower around every pentagon corner who thinks he's a hero with a book deal on the way.
Really though, as Steyn's article makes clear, there shouldn't be any debate about the stakes in this newest incarnation of the Great Game. And somebody needs to get on it.
Posted by: annika at
08:55 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1051 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Good posting, Annika.
I think that it's important that the mullahs, as well as the People, understand that the real danger to themselves is not Western society so much as it's Islamic threats to/of Western society. Iran's leader is a madman on a mission, and hopefully the young reformists AND the Islamists will soon realize that they are enemies with a common enemy and, for a time, unite much as Roosecelt and Churchill held their nose and allied with Stalin for a few years.
After that, we can deal with the progress of their society without the cloud of holocaust hanging.
It's amazing to watch the MSM refusing to see what's coming.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 17, 2006 11:48 PM (ZlOPi)
2
Now, let me play the white devil's advocate. If we take precipitous action against Iran, many things can happen, and they all seem bad.
1) We destabilise Iraq and undo all we have been trying to accomplish,( perhaps this problem will decline in time, but right now things are very shaky there
2) If there is any movement among Iranians to liberalize, we wil squash that
3) If we try to do it on the cheap and just use air power we will certainly fail. Then we open ourselves up to nuclear (or at least dirty bomb) retaliation as soon as they can do it.
4) If we topple the regime, (the only sure way to deal with the problem) we will be completely on our own with more than half of the country against the action, and all of our allies against it. The cost and problems will be at least like Iraq X 2.
So, I am sorry Mr. Steyn, and Mr. Hewit, I just dont see it happening. We WILL have to think of another way to deal with this situation.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 02:31 AM (74XnA)
3
I'm so sorry, kyle8, because bad things are going to happen. You can pretend bad things aren't going to happen. You can dislike the fact that bad things are going to happen. We can fight them now, or we can fight them later. Unless, of course, you plan to pray toward Mecca five times a day... You know, that "submit or die" business.
Now, before they have nukes, is better. Their president has made his intentions perfectly clear. I take him at his word.
Posted by: markD at April 18, 2006 08:13 AM (oQofX)
4
Remember all those really good reasons folks had for not confronting Hitler early......bad idea then and an even worse one now.
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 08:43 AM (j8oa6)
5
Read this last week and it depressed me something fierce (also got me my first wee blog troll... YIPEE!). I think part of Steyn's essay is that a) an ugly painful decision needs to be made and that b) putting that decision off now (like Carter did) only makes the subsequent choices that much harder and uglier.
Right now we can decide between more "debate" and sanctions and a nuclear strike. If we keep putting the decision off until Iran actually gets nuclear bombs that can be strapped onto (working) missiles, that decision becomes tougher.
Posted by: JD at April 18, 2006 09:39 AM (xD5ND)
6
Kyle8 acting on something usually involves changing, or "destabilizing", it. I'm curious why people keep using this dumb excuse, the current situation of Iran going after nukes isn't a "stable" situation, so how can acting to change it be "destabilizing"? And since when is "destabilizing" always a bad thing? And how can we destabilize Iraq if it is already very shaky?
...But we shouldn't attack or anything because part of this country doesn't comprehend the situation thanks to lax Media coverage (witness for example the cover story on Time a week or two ago -- Be afraid, Very afraid! of what? Not Fundamentalist Muslims Assholes with a bomb. No its global warming!)
Posted by: Scof at April 18, 2006 11:41 AM (a3fqn)
7
The comparison with hitler and germany is tedious at best. Iran is not Germany, and this is not 1938.
To speak of this as inevitable is also a bit much.
Nothing is inevitable and we have not explored all options. Furthermore, there is time to act, and the longer we can safely put it off the better for the situation in Iraq,
Oh and BTW yes! I think the situation in Iraq is terribly important. The only way we can really justify our going in there in the first place was to change a destabilizing regime and to place a free government in place so it could be an example to the rest of the region. That could all be in danger, and yes that is a major consideration.
Most of the arguments I have heard revolve around fear, Fear that as soon as the Iranians have a bomb they will nuke us or Israel. I don't believ that will happen for one minute. The have a silly man up there as the mouthpeice of the mullahs who talks a big talk. But that is because the regime is shaky and is sabre rattling for its own domestic market. If they were so gung ho and ready to die, they would not have made peace with the hated Sadam after they had began to win that war.
For that matter they would have attacked us when we invaded Iraq. They are evil but not stupid.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 12:02 PM (Oj7r7)
8
look, the comparisons to Hitler are a bit overblown, and not a real argument.
Now i admitted we might HAVE to attack them, but it should be at the last possible safe moment. the more time we have the more options might appear, also, the more we stabilise Iraq.
and yes! That is an important thing! The main reason I could justify going into iraq in the first place was to try to create a stable, free government that would be an example to the region, that could all be in danger. And that is not anything to sneeze at.
There is also the almost casual assumption that the Iranians will use their nuke if they get one.
I dont think so. They talk a good talk but they have not acted like the zealots they like to appear to be, The did nothing to us when we invaded Iraq, and they even made peace with the hated Saddam after they began to get the upper hand in that war. And they are not run by just one man, so in some ways they scare me less than N. Korea who is run by one crazy man.
Now I don't want them to have a bomb but we have to be realistic. it wont always be possible to stop every regime we dont like in getting nukes.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 18, 2006 12:17 PM (Oj7r7)
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 01:01 PM (AgDbn)
10
or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
Yes, Kyle, I know comparisons are never perfect; but, it is always good to learn from mistakes. Another thing to consider: you reason like a rational thinking, Western person. Try putting yourself into the head(s) of non-Western, religious fanatics, who think you and yours are sub-human pieces of garbage.
By the way, I think your position is reasonable. I'm just a bit more worried about an Iranian threat than you. History will dictate which one of us is "correct."
p.s. a link to the true architect of the current Iranian "problem" (and the larger middle-eastern mess)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
I don't care how many fucking houses he builds for the poor; he is/was a disaster for this country.
Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2006 01:14 PM (AgDbn)
11
Kyle,
"The main reason I could justify going into iraq in the first place was to try to create a stable, free government that would be an example to the region, that could all be in danger. And that is not anything to sneeze at."
No argument from me there.
"There is also the almost casual assumption that the Iranians will use their nuke if they get one."
We all hope that if they get one, they won't use it. But it's criminal negligence at best, and suicide at worst, to plan public policy on that hope. Even if it turns out to be true. Without a crystal ball to inform us otherwise, we
have to assume that an enemy with a terrible weapon would be willing to use it against us or our allies. And the "rhetoric" currently coming out of Iran should lead any reasonable person to lean towards the assumption that they will do as they say. Just for the sake of being on the safe side.
So sure, believe whatever you want to believe about Iran's intentions. That's cool. But I want leaders over here who are preparing under the assumption that our enemy will strike us, rather than assuming that they won't. That's the only way we will do what needs to be done.
And IMHO what needs to be done is to find a way to defuse the situation
without attacking Iran, while we still have the chance to do that. Because if we wait too long, or blow it, we won't have any choice and we
will have to attack them. (Either that or just pretend that Iran with a bomb won't be a problem, which is just crazy talk.)
Posted by: annika at April 18, 2006 02:22 PM (zAOEU)
12
Annika,
A small personal aside, if I may, since the Rushdi fatwa was mentioned in the article.
While eating lunch with my office manager during that period, (an American women of Jamaican heritage who I knew was a follower of Islam), I asked her if she happened to be standing next to a gunman about to shoot Salman and his kids, would she do anything to help them. SHe politely answered she would do nothing that was against the wishes of the leaders of her faith.
As to the question of what to do about Iran.
Firstly, it is going to be years until they have enough enriched material to make a bomb. They have made a bit of 3-5% (Low enriched Uranium). A far cry from the 2.2 kilos of nearly 90% enrichment needed for a bomb. The ability to weaponize their highly enriched uranium (HEU) once it is produced to the point where a missle can deliver it is, some estimate is more than 8 years away. A lot can happen in that amount of time.
Those who toss out Chamberlain are being simplistic readers of history to suit their displeasure with the situation of Iran having some sort of a nulcear capability that might become a threat. There is a long row to hoe before the situation gets out of hand(a threat we could not control) and I for one, do not think our country will attack and will not use a nuke to decommission their capability.There are still many diplomatic routes to travel. DO you think the Russians would be thrilled with Iran having a weapon?
DOes anyone think, despite how crazy this MF'er is that he rules a country as big and complex as Iran, there are no sane people in various places around him? And that faced with the prospect of their country and all their brothers and sisters being turned into a sheet of glass they will allow a nuke to be lobbed at Israel? It takes the cooperation of a lot a people to attempt a nuclear missle strike or even the shipping container scenario. Call me naive (you have called me far worse) but i don't think this is such a big deal.
Posted by: strawman at April 18, 2006 06:55 PM (o/gnC)
13
Blu is right, there is something decidedly unwestern about someone strapping on a bomb and visiting an Israeli Mall for the last time. Some of these folks are different.
I have also had conversations with those of the Muslim faith, on this soil, and heard no tangible regret about 911 but considerable contempt for our president and our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Enjoy the American way of life, prosper under capitalism, and hold in highest regard the United States that makes it all possible? Not anymore. I'm sure, and sure hoping, this is not the common setiment. I do admit my name isn't Gallop or Zogby.
Strawman makes a good point about Iran using the thing when it's ready. It would certainly be their end, but I would have considered taking U.S. citizens hostage crazy too- before it happened there.
Posted by: Mike C. at April 18, 2006 08:05 PM (y6n8O)
14
Odysseus dispells some myths about the "overthrow" of a "democratically-elected" Mossadegh gov't in Iran.......
http://tinyurl.com/m9dqs
Posted by: reagan80 at April 19, 2006 03:51 AM (K9tdw)
15
Straw,
Like Kyle, you proffer a very reasonable, sane western worldview vis a vis Iran. I hope you are right. If you are not, we've got HUGE problems. I think better safe than sorry....especially when dealing with Islamofascists. And I think my Chamberlaind reference is apropos when considering whether we are under-estimating or burying our heads in the sand with respect to the evil with which we are dealing.
You don't get two chances to get this right....
Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2006 09:26 AM (AgDbn)
16
Lost in this debate, was this brilliant bit of analysis and witty writing:
"The NYT would have to be kept out of the loop and I'm not sure that's possible..."
and this is the best part
"....when there's a whistleblower around every pentagon corner who thinks he's a hero with a book deal on the way."
So, true. I wonder how many greedy, spineless lefties are willing to throw their country under the bus for a few bucks and their "15 minutes?"
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 10:09 AM (AgDbn)
Posted by: Shelly at June 27, 2006 11:42 AM (V029I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Phishing: It's Not Just From Africa Anymore
I just got a spam e-mail with a new twist. I'm sure you have all gotten those poorly written e-mails from Ojibwe Mumbojibwe of Nigeria, asking for your assistance in an "urgent matter." Well now they've gotten wiser. Here's the twist:
Good day,
My name is Sgt. John Crews Loius, I am an American soldier, I serve in the Military of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, as you know we have being attacked by insurgents everyday and car bombs. We where lucky to move funds belonging to Saddam Hussein?s family hopping it was a bomb in the box, later we find out it was a fiscal cash .
The total amount is US$25,000,000 Twenty Five Million United State dollars in cash, mostly 100 dollar bills which is still in our co sturdy at the military base camp, now we find it as a Big Risk on us if our commandant nor the Iraqis People get to find out about this box of money because we are not allowed to have any money in our position for that We are seeking for a trustworthy foreign business partner who can help us in receiving this box of money
so that He/She may invest it for us and keep our share for banking. This is our plan of sharing my partner and I will take 55%, you take the other 45%.
No stress attached, for we have made all necessary arrangement for shipping it out of Iraq, Iraq is a war zone. We planed on using diplomatic courier service for shipping the money out in one large silver box declaring it as family valuables using diplomatic immunity.
Losers. They couldn't even spell the name right. Whoever is doing this really needs to brush up on English grammar and spelling if they're going to try this approach. It makes sense if you're posing as Ojibwe, but not if you're trying to sound like an American.
Posted by: annika at
06:30 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I wonder if he's related to Tom Crews or Robert Loius Stevenson.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 17, 2006 06:54 PM (XUsiG)
2
I think that maybe I will write them back and offer to correct the spelling and grammar of their letter in exchance for a cut of the profits. *smile*
Posted by: Vonski at April 17, 2006 09:44 PM (3dEKJ)
3
I will start with my own comment as proof of my high-quality work. Exchance=exchange... see how good I am?! Imagine the wonders I could do for your business.
Posted by: Vonski at April 17, 2006 09:45 PM (3dEKJ)
4
How could you pass up an opportunity for some cold hard FISCAL cash. I've never seen it myself, but I hear fiscal cash is 70% gooder than the ordinary kind.
Posted by: JD at April 18, 2006 09:41 AM (xD5ND)
5
Yeah,
that variety of 419 fraud -- the stuff purporting to be from a "US soldier" -- has been popping up for quite a while now, pretty much since the end of the war. Heck, there's even
Afghanistan versions of it.
The scary thing is, I
have seen real examples of writing that makes this writer's english skills seem close to perfect. An old college roomate of mine hailing from the Arab Emirates had to teach a remedial English writing class as part of his English-as-a-Second-Language program. Oh. My.
GOD! Some of these freshmen's papers were
soooooo bad... you wonder how they got into college to begin with (well, it
was a state college... all you need to get in is an SAT score and a pulse, and I don't think they check for the pulse...). When a foreign guy who started learning English at age 17 is busting out laughing at how poor the language skills are of these
native speaking students... well... that pretty much illustrates how bad it was.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 18, 2006 01:59 PM (xHyDY)
6
The people who fall for these types of emails aren't going to worry about grammar, and aren't going to wonder how a sergeant gets access to a diplomatic pouch.
My favorite 419 story is
one in which the "victim" turned the tables on the solicitor.
Mike told me how he baited...Prince Joe Eboh.
"I'm sure he's not a prince at all," Mike says. "He contacted me with a standard 419 [so-called after a section of Nigeria's legal code]....
"I tried to turn it round by saying I worked for a church and we couldn't do any business with people who are not of our faith."
Mike sent a response in the name of Father Hector Barnett of the Church of the Painted Breast....
"Now I knew the guy would write back and say: 'Well, can I join your faith?' and indeed he did," says Mike....
So he wrote:
Dear Joe,
Our ministry was founded in 1774 by a wonderful lady by the name of Betsy Carrington. She spent many of her first preaching years in Kenya, spreading the holy gospel amongst the local people there. She was the first person male or female to promote Christian texts and beliefs to the Masai warrior tribe.
The most famous account is when as a test she had to remove the top part of her clothes and paint the top half of her body and breast with the red Masai war-paint as a gesture of faith and belief to them so that they would accept her and trust her. She was almost immediately accepted by them and was one of the most trusted westerners known at that time.
As a qualification to enter the Holy Church of The Order of The Red Breast, all followers must go through the initiation procedure that Miss Carrington made so famous. I have attached a photograph of four of our young inductees going through the procedure.
Please use this picture to enable you to make the same marking on yourself. I have also attached a small picture showing the design in more detail. I look forward to welcoming you into our membership my brother.
Father Hector Barnett Financial Development - Holy Church of The Order of The Red Breast.
And the Prince sent back a picture with a 9 over his nipple.
And the story gets better. Here's the original
BBC article, including pictures of topless men.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 20, 2006 10:41 PM (eY1H8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is This True?
Wretchard posted a story [from I do not know where], which is simply horrifying.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. ... After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate ... Khomeini sent Iranian children ... to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. ... Such scenes would henceforth be avoided ... Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."
These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 ... And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency. ... He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power" ... A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.
Is this true?
Clash of civilizations my eye. If that actually happened, those are the acts of barbarians -- worse than barbarians -- and not anything near civilized men.
Posted by: annika at
10:23 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Regardless if this story is true, the Islamic world is barbaric. There are plenty of other well documented events to support this view. Even the comments by Hamas associated to the Passover Tel Aviv bombing are yet another illustration of a truly uncivilized people. Unfortunately, this makes the work in Iraq even more difficult. I must admit that prior to this war I never could have imagined the total depravity of Islam as a religion and as a cultural force. I still believe there are good people in the Islamic world, but they are a distinct minority and will have to do literally heroic work in order to change things internally. And, finally, this is why the current struggle with Iran is so very scary.
Posted by: Blu at April 17, 2006 10:53 AM (j8oa6)
2
There is no doubt that Iran substituted people for machines in the Iraqi war. That is why over a million Iranian's were killed in that war.
Life is very, very cheap in Iran. That is why Israel will cease to exist once Iran has the bomb.
Posted by: Jake at April 17, 2006 10:55 AM (XOf7A)
3
He got it from a Matthias Kuntzel article in The New Republic.....
http://tinyurl.com/zb2pa
Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2006 10:55 AM (K9tdw)
4
The stories of the Basiji are true. I don't remember the year, mid-'80s, Time ran several stories about the Iran/Iraq War, in at least one of them was a section about moms knitting socks with Quranic slogans on them for their boy soldiers, many as young as 10. This has been documented by Amnesty International and the INRC. The current outrage over child soldiers in Africa will fade away just as it did over the Basiji, and Pol Pot's child soldiers in the '70s. And Mao's child soldiers in the '30s and '40s. It is a pattern that repeats all thru recorded history, and I am sure before it.
Posted by: 2Hotel9 at April 18, 2006 03:01 PM (RfREf)
5
An acquaintance of mine from the Naval Academy is the son of Iranian immigrants. During the Iran-Iraq War his parents returned to Iran to visit family. (Since he's about my age, he must've been between roughly ten and eighteen,. I have the impression that he was closer to ten.) They left him behind. They knew full well what was happening to children his age in Iran, and were afraid that if they took him along he'd be drafted. So yeah, it's true. (See also
this, and
this.)
Posted by: Matt at April 20, 2006 06:57 AM (10G2T)
6
perhaps we could get the liberals on board with us against Iran, if we tell them that Iran violated child labor laws.
Posted by: annika at April 20, 2006 07:14 AM (fxTDF)
7
Annika,
If you could document that Nike or SeanJohn was going to open a plant in Iran I might buy some surplus desert camos wittle a m-16 from some scrap laying around the shop and enlist!
Boy, what simple shit passes for humor around here! Liberals would like Iran to nuke Israel but would fight for labor laws? You are scary sometimes. Cheap shots are the ammo of those that still think guns win wars.
Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2006 01:49 PM (o/gnC)
8
Annika can easily defend herself, so I'll leave that to her.
But two things:
1.Guns do win wars. Always have; always will.
2. Annika's comment illustrates in a comical way misplaced liberal priorities.
But, you're a smart guy, Straw, so I suspect you already figured that.....
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 03:46 PM (AgDbn)
9
Yup, Blu,
Guns are really winning the "war" in Iraq. But, hey, your a smart guy Blu, you already knew that.
I think what's comical is the disingenuous reading of your "opponents" position and the smug repetition of criticisms that you know are not true. But that is the Rove-Chaney-Bush mantra. Tell the public what their opponents didnÂ’t say, then tell the public why they are wrong. When speaking to a public as dumb and uniformed as ours, its no wonder 75% thought Saddam sponsored the 911 attack in league with OBL
Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2006 04:36 PM (o/gnC)
10
And if you read any Stephen Hayes and have been keeping an eye on the documents coming out of Iraq, you'd know that there is more and more proof that Iraq collaborated with I.Q. You also know that S.H. wanted people to think he WMD.
By the way, how long did it take to win WWII? How long did it take for Washington et al to defeat the British? How long did it take the Union to beat the confederacy? Talk about " disingenuous reading of your 'opponents' position and the smug repetition of criticisms that you know are not true." Guns win wars; they don't always determinie the length of them. They are a necessary though not always sufficient variable in winning.
Straw, I really do think you smart. Your posts prove it. But your side has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy issue of the past century (e.g. communism and the USSR.) And you guys are wrong on Iraq and the middle east generally.
Posted by: Blu at April 20, 2006 07:10 PM (QKxxC)
11
Really nice interesting site. thank you for it)
Posted by: hair styles at June 11, 2006 07:00 AM (3zUBD)
12
The story about Iran forcibly sending children over minefields with plastic keys is false.
What is interesting though, is how this story has spread, without anyone apparently questioning it.
-Jahan
Posted by: Jahan at June 12, 2006 11:34 AM (Aes76)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Recommended Reading
E.M.
proves again why she is a daily must read.
Daily, mind you.
Posted by: annika at
09:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 10

Just be patient with me. I'm sure this PPTSP obsession is just a phase I'm going through. Or maybe it's my true calling. Who knows?
Posted by: annika at
07:16 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Are you SURE you have the right prescription from the doctor...?
Posted by: BobG at April 17, 2006 02:45 PM (uAmt1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Updike
I just read an interesting article about John Updike. I've never read him. Are there any Updike fans out there? Should I give him a try?
Correction: Actually, when I was in undergrad, I tried to read Memories Of The Ford Administration, but it was pretty boring, so I never finished it. But I'm wondering if the Rabbit books are better.
Posted by: annika at
12:09 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil you have placed us on the bad side of our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.
And I am gay.
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 17, 2006 03:42 AM (h/YSB)
2
Well gawd damn, isn't it nice to have a true man and prophet of God stop by and drop the word. Drink the koolaid Dean.
Posted by: Casca at April 17, 2006 06:47 AM (y9m6I)
3
I have read the Rabbit books, and I found them very depressing. Every character in those stories is a loser who screws up their life. It makes me wonder about Updike's sanity-he certainly can't be a happy man.
I recommend the books to people who think their lives are crap. It will remind you that there are a lot of people with worse lives.
Posted by: Jake at April 17, 2006 09:55 AM (XOf7A)
4
if you think Updike is depressin you ought to read anything by Henrik Ibsen. That will make you want to cut your throat.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 17, 2006 03:53 PM (jVAwk)
5
My dad loves Updike - and especially loves the Rabbit books. He keeps telling me to give them a try - so they are on my perpetual "To Read Someday" list!
I've read a lot of Updike's short stories - and the only novel of his I read was Witches of Eastwick, which is kind of a riot. Lots of fun. He's a fine writer.
Posted by: red at April 18, 2006 08:49 AM (rNgdr)
6
Anni I would say it was the subject, not the author. Anything written about the Ford Admin would naturally be stonestiff boring as hell. It was bad enough living through it, I damn well ain't a gonna read nothing about it!
Posted by: 2Hotel9 at April 18, 2006 03:09 PM (RfREf)
7
Dean Berry's incisive comments on Updike eclipse anything I might say on the subject; but be that as it may ("and I'm not sure that it is," as Steve Allen would add). . . . Updike's Ford Administration book, 2Hotel9, isn't really about the Ford Administration (except perhaps in some subtle satirical way that went over my head); but what life was like in that era, as remembered by a college professor looking back at it. Gore Vidal's derisive statement that mainstream fiction is mostly about adulterous academics certainly could be applied to this book; except that about half of it is a historical novel about James Buchanan, whose biography the professor has been working on. The novel shifts back and forth between Buchanan's story and the professor's marital troubles and sexual escapades. On paper it is the kind of contemporary fiction I would ordinarily avoid, but Updike's prose style drew me in and held me; the Buchanan parts were more interesting than I would have expected; and I liked the various comments about life in early Seventies. I often quote one of the professor's observations, when he and a woman who is trying to seduce him (successfully, it turns out) are alone in her hotel room together. I don't recall the exact wording, but it's something along the lines of: "During the Ford Administration, a man and a woman alone together in a room where they wouldn't be disturbed felt almost a moral obligation to shtup." (Come to think of it, the word "shtup" may be something else in the original.) The sentence really drove home to me why I miss that much-despised era.
Posted by: Bilwick at April 20, 2006 09:48 AM (AktpP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 9
Happy Easter everybody! Here's your Sunday comic.

[Not that you asked for a Sunday comic. But seriously, if I hadn't forced myself to finish my taxes and other errands yesterday I would have posted like twenty of these.]
Posted by: annika at
06:16 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I always feel foolish if I order a light drink and then get whipped cream on top. Kinda defeats the purpose, KWIM?
I freakin' hate taxes.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 16, 2006 10:43 AM (954g7)
2
Now, Now, whipped cream can be your friend. It all depends upon what bodily part you put it on.
ANNIKA! do you see yourself ever visiting Houston for any reason? If so, My wife and I would gladly show you around or cook you a mahvelous southern meal. Same goes for you CASCA, you have all the makings of a southern "good ol boy" you like booze, football, and America.
Shelly, I don't know, you got too much USC in ya, Oh well, guess I could overlook that.
Strawdog, I could probably expand your mind, but your head might asplode if you ever had a new idea.
Posted by: kyle8 at April 16, 2006 11:17 AM (AmZu9)
3
These cartoons crack me.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 16, 2006 03:03 PM (E2Xjn)
4
This one is funnier 'n cat piss.
Posted by: Victor at April 16, 2006 05:10 PM (l+W8Z)
5
Firstly, thank you for your kind offer kyle, but it seems that some very bad things can happen to you when you meet people on the internet. I just saw a government sponsored PSA about people on the internet who want to meet you in the flesh. I don't want to finish my days chained naked in a basement in Texas with a ballgag in my mouth.
Secondly, heh, I'm the word coiner around here. Well, perhaps it was an accident, but I believe that you meant "assplode".
Thirdly, this cartoon shit STILL isn't funny.
Posted by: Casca at April 16, 2006 06:33 PM (2gORp)
6
Actually, casca, neither you nor kyle made up "asplode." That honor goes to Strong Bad. I would post the link, but mu.nu will not let me. Check out the video games section.
And, annika, I think the comics are freakin' hilarious. Keep 'em coming!
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 16, 2006 08:05 PM (954g7)
7
Wrong again LF. I hope you're not this shoddy when charging your clients at an obscene rate. Kyle's use of "asplode" is the Texican equivalent of those who speak the King's English saying "explode", whereas "assplode" is what happens when straw opens his mouth. It is something akin to the diarrheal erruption one experiences when one has an extreme case of food poisoning.
Posted by: Casca at April 16, 2006 09:46 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 15, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin Update
Addictive, ain't it?
Posted by: annika at
12:14 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annika, I've made a few of these myself, but when I right to click to save my "art", there's no "save as" feature.
Wtf? What to do?
Posted by: Mark at April 15, 2006 12:38 PM (Vg0tt)
2
if you're using stripcreator, you have to open an account to save it. Otherwise do a screen print and save that file to your photo editor.
Posted by: annika at April 15, 2006 12:46 PM (fxTDF)
3
Yes, I just checked under the FAQ section and found it.
THANK YOU!
Posted by: Mark at April 15, 2006 12:50 PM (Vg0tt)
4
MS Paint doesn't want to cut images which are bigger than the screen. How do you reduce size, etc? Microsoft. *Sigh*
Posted by: M at April 15, 2006 01:14 PM (Vg0tt)
5
MS Paint? That's like the stone ages, Mark. I thought everybody had photoshop. Need any windows 3.0 tips? How about Wordperfect 5.1, i can help you with that maybe. Did you try loading it onto your 5¼ inch floppy? i'm a little rusty on my DOS commands, are you getting a correct C: prompt?
; )
Posted by: annika at April 15, 2006 01:38 PM (fxTDF)
Posted by: Mark at April 15, 2006 02:48 PM (7ukDp)
7
I love it when my girl gets harsh, lmao.
Posted by: Casca at April 15, 2006 05:32 PM (2gORp)
8
Casca,
I'm a Mac-head, so Annie was speaking a foreign language as far as I was concerned.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 15, 2006 11:48 PM (1PcL3)
9
GIMP is a good image manipulation program, free at gimp.org
Posted by: will at April 16, 2006 05:46 PM (h7Ciu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 7
What can I say? I'm a slave to my art.
Posted by: annika at
06:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
April 14, 2006
"Be Worried, Be Very Worried"
I'm taking a break from doing my taxes, so I can bash the mainstream media yet again. I'm just in that kind of mood.
Here it is, April 14, 2006, and it looks like we're on the verge of a second Holocaust. The Iranian madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the scariest shit today that's probably been said since the Wannsee Conference.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
. . .
He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."
"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."
You may remember that in October, Ahmadinejad said that Israel
should be wiped off the map. He's now replaced "should" with "will."
That should make everybody worried.
On this day after Passover, this Good Friday, this Easter weekend, I think we all should take some time out to pray very hard. Pray for Israel. Pray for ourselves. And pray for civilization. Because there is a madman out there who wants to finish the job Hitler started.
And I don't want to hear about how it's all rhetoric, and we shouldn't worry because the Iranians would be foolish to attack Israel. Just listen to the man, and then try to tell me he doesn't want to be known as the guy that killed all the Jews.
This is also the week we found out that they've successfully enriched uranium, by the way.
And yet... and yet! Time magazine tells us we should be worrying about global warming. Even though scientists don't even agree whether it exists. Talk about sexed-up intelligence reports! Talk about fake threats! Those guys need to pull their heads out of their asses and smell their own shit.
Ahmadinejad has been going crazy since at least October of last year, and do you know how many cover stories Time has done about Iran?
Zero.
In fact, Time has not done a cover story even remotely dealing with Iran since 1991, when the title piece was called: "Ollie North Tells His Story: Reagan Knew Everything."
Just out of curiosity, do you know how many times global warming has made the cover of Time since 1987? If you guessed nine (twice in '87, once in '88, twice in '92, and then again in 2001, 2002, 2005 and most recently this month), you were right.
This is not surprising. Time is after all the news organization who brought us "the whistleblowers" as persons of the year. But I think it's "time" they actually started paying attention to what's really important, and putting it on their cover.
Or not. Either way, I won't be buying that rag.
Posted by: annika at
07:29 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Nine cover stories on global warming? I guessed twenty one.
Seriously, who DOES buy Time Magazine? Or Newsweek and US News for that matter. Not only do they not have any credibility but they are anachronisms.
I'm surprised those dinosaurs are still gasping for air.
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 14, 2006 09:28 PM (KjUHH)
2
re: Iran
I've been reading rumors of a coming October Surprise that President Bush has up his sleeve.
I don't think we can wait.
Posted by: Cameron at April 14, 2006 10:41 PM (yvK17)
3
Fortunately more and more are discovering that they don't need to rely on rags like Time. Elites often cite the increased diversity in media as the cause of an ever deepening divide between the political aisles but I think talk radio, cable T.V. and the internet have given us what we knew was possible all along: An opposing veiw.
Unfortunately there are still tons 'o voters that really don't take an interest at all, and someday they may outnumber the rest of us.
Posted by: Mike C. at April 15, 2006 03:35 AM (y6n8O)
4
They already do outnumber the rest of us, but when the wolf is at the door, they can focus for short periods.
Once upon a time, way back in high school, I'd read all of the news mags every week. I slaked off over time until my military years when I found them wanting, and rejected them altogether. There always were opposing views, National Review for one was started to be the lone anti-communist voice in a very dark time.
But this is the natural progression of all things. Like the oak, 100 years growing, 100 years in strength, 100 years in decline. Whittaker Chambers edited The World section of Time during WWII, and in 1947 Joe Kennedy bought a place for JFK on the cover of time from Henry Luce for $75,000, and that was real money then.
Now the old media is in the hands of the poseurs who climb bureaucracies, not a group of original thinkers. Life is good. Were I to choose an enemy, he'd be foolish and blind. Have another drink Ted.
Posted by: Casca at April 15, 2006 04:25 AM (2gORp)
5
Two thumbs up on the last sentence, Casca. I'm just glad I had already swallowed my coffee.
I can't criticize Mass too much for electing that bozo and Mr Heinz Kerry, because my state elected Mrs Bill and Chuckles Schumer...
I can't wait to retire and leave.
Posted by: MarkD at April 15, 2006 04:45 AM (X9njN)
6
Iran is insane, heck they all are insane. They sure live to make threats. We are going to have to deal with these vile people soon in Iran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened."
Posted by: Wild Thing at April 15, 2006 09:00 AM (tj1zH)
7
>And yet... and yet! Time magazine tells us we should be worrying about global warming. Even though scientists don't even agree whether it exists.
An overwhelming number of climatologists agree that human activities is having adverse effects on Earth's climate. Just this week, Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist said the Earth is likely to experience a temperature rise of at least 3C. About the only people arguing against climate change are those who've accepted money from fossil fuel companies for slanted 'analyses'.
> Talk about sexed-up intelligence reports! Talk about fake threats!
Please provide evidence of falsification by climatologists of the climate disruption threat.
> Those guys need to pull their heads out of their asses and smell their own shit.
This type of talk is far beneath you; you've led us to expect clear, rational thinking, not cheap shot trashtalk.
Posted by: will at April 15, 2006 05:12 PM (h7Ciu)
8
"In this case, many studies ("the Hockey Team") outside of Mann et. al. 1998 have come to the same conclusions about the climate of the last 1000 years and the current anomaly."
Will, I was following your argument until here. What do you mean by "the climate of the last 1000 years"? What's the "anomaly?" Is the anomaly, the current "warming?" Also, Earth's climate has varied over the past 1000 years. As you might recall, it is certain that Europe's climate changed fairly dramatically from the 10th century to the present. Of course, this variance in climate doesn't fit well into the current template that man is responsible for climate change. So, there have been attempts (in my opinion more political than scientific) to try and argue that there really was not a "Little Ice Age" from the 14th to the 19th century and, of course, no true "Medieval Climate Optimum" that preceeded it. The argument being that, if these periods did exist, they were confined to Europe and were not a global phenomenon.
Posted by: Blu at April 17, 2006 08:55 AM (j8oa6)
9
Well Blu,
Why is it difficult to incorporate into a "civilisation influenced global warming hypothesis" the concept of local climate change? It has been obvious that there have been serious but local changes in many places but now there appears to be enough world wide data to support a global change that probably is being influenced by industrialization.
I have been very skeptical of the Global Warming people for many years.
I have always looked at the amount of time, about 25%, of the last 500,000 years that the earth was NOT in an ice age and felt the cycle was way too long for scientists, whose data, other than core and tree ring, really only goes back 2-3 hundred years, could grasp the forces or see the details that influence this very slow cycle. All of the history of man on this planet has occured after the last major ice age
Look at this chart-
http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacemaker.htm
Iceages seem to be about 11.5 thousand years apart and warming peaks about every 100,000 years. The question is not is the earth warming but are the effects of industrialzation pushing it a bit higher and faster.
If the last 7000 years are positioned on the graph it is impossible to see small but very important pertubations of temperture change. Since A relativly small change is capable of producing catastrophic changes to our way of life; even if there is a slight upward influence due to CO2 and other effuents to the natural warming trend of the last 50K years, it is foolhardy, given the enormity of the consequences, to ignore it.
Posted by: strawman at April 17, 2006 01:48 PM (o/gnC)
10
Yeah, if the climate keeps warming, those damned Danes will establish viable colonies on Greenland,and rape and pilage Europe, Newfoundland, and north-central Asia. Fortunately their quest for expansion and global conquest will turn into a rout, when they encounter a strain of giant reptiles far better suited for the coming tropical environs.
Posted by: Jasen at April 17, 2006 08:01 PM (+0hWL)
11
> Will, I was following your argument until here. What do you mean by "the climate of the last 1000 years"? What's the "anomaly?" Is the anomaly, the current "warming?"
Take a quick look at the references I provided, which cover all of this in appropriate detail.
> Also, Earth's climate has varied over the past 1000 years. As you might recall, it is certain that Europe's climate changed fairly dramatically from the 10th century to the present.
That depends upon what you mean by dramatic; do you have any numbers in mind? What are the sources, and what were the data points they were derived from? How are these compared to the larger aggregate of data sets described in the references I provided?
> Of course, this variance in climate doesn't fit well into the current template that man is responsible for climate change.
Until you answer the points above, this is simply an unsupported assertion.
> So, there have been attempts (in my opinion more political than scientific) to try and argue that there really was not a "Little Ice Age" from the 14th to the 19th century and, of course, no true "Medieval Climate Optimum" that preceeded it.
One should rely on a critical examination of the data first and foremost. I haven't seen any arguments against a Little Ice Age or Medieval Climate Optimum, but I have seen debunking of arguments that said those were significant in light of the current warming.
> The argument being that, if these periods did exist, they were confined to Europe and were not a global phenomenon.
Whose arguments are you referring to?
Posted by: will at April 24, 2006 06:23 AM (GzvlQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The "M" In NBC Stands For "Me"
I know there's no M in NBC. You try coming up with clever titles all the time.
Anyways, I had the misfortune of watching NBC's Nightly News tonight, which is something I haven't done in quite a few years. After spending the first couple of segments building their case against Rumsfeld, the network turned its evil eye on the legendary 10th Mountain Division, currently in Afghanistan hunting Taliban.
Here's a transcript and link to the video.
What seemed odd at first, later became annoying, then maddening. Jim Maceda seemed to spend at least as much time talking about himself as he did talking about the 10th Mountain.
An example:
. . . gunmen sprayed our campsite with machine gunfire, just as we prepared to sleep, sending me digging for cover. Two insurgents were wounded, fleeing into the mountains. It was my closest call in 30 years of reporting. [emphasis mine]
Okay, so while you cowered, what else did the real men do? He doesn't elaborate.
Another example:
At dawn, we began the grueling 4,000-foot descent. I carried a 50-pound pack. My cameraman, Kyle Eppler, had that plus a 50-pound car battery, for power.
I thought that was a strange bit of information to put in the story, especially when the accompanying video showed soldiers carrying heavy gear too. Personally, I didn't give a crap how much Maceda carried. What about the soldiers? How much were they carrying? Weren't they supposed to be the point of the story?
Interestingly, Maceda did find it important to mention the four soldiers who needed medical care after the march. I suppose he did that to show how macho he was by contrast.
Maceda couldn't resist adding one more reminder of the hardships he endured to bring us "the story." In closing, he says it's
an often forgotten war that is hard work for the military and the media covering it.
Poor baby.
I appreciate Maceda's effort, but I do not need to know about it. In fact, I thought the reporter was not supposed to be part of the story. Instead of hearing about Maceda and his cameraman, I would rather have known a few more relevant details like: How many bad guys have we blown away and/or how many rat-holes have we flame-throwered?
Posted by: annika at
06:16 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.
1
When you're irrelevent, you have to keep validating your relevence. It's a way of coping.
Posted by: Casca at April 14, 2006 08:12 PM (2gORp)
2
I saw that piece too. Did you notice that they showed a soldier getting his elbow bandaged up? As if to mockingly say, "aww, poor baby!"
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at April 14, 2006 09:30 PM (KjUHH)
3
This is cold-blooded calculation about how to
personalize the story, a la Anderson and Shep during the false Katrina reporting - which, btw, only boosted both of their careers. Amazing, but true.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 14, 2006 09:36 PM (PR0L+)
4
I used to like Shep, but lost all respect for him post-Katrina. I don't watch him anymore.
Posted by: Casca at April 15, 2006 04:32 AM (2gORp)
5
Shep lost me when he acted like a jerk over some parking incident in NY prior to 9/11. What an ass. I guess when you make that kind of money, you start to believe you are the story.
I always liked the news in Japan, at least way back in the 70s. It didn't matter what channel you watched, the readers all had the same meter, tone, inflection and accent. These guys never lost their cool, even during big stories. "Prime Minister Tanaka is resigning after accepting bribes from Lockheed" got the same treatment as "today is coming of age day for 20 year olds throughout Japan."
Posted by: MarkD at April 15, 2006 04:56 AM (X9njN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lindsay Stalker E-mail Of The Day
Fresh out of the inbox:
hi, i read ur email and dam it ihave a crush on lindsay so could u pleasetell me her phone no nd email id please i promise i'll not misuse it.please hope u wont ditch me this is pretty serious and i am serious while writing this.I promise to never misuse it andif i do so kill me cause now i cant live without her if some how i get an oppurtinity to go to america i'll definately will proposeher my name is [redacted] and i am frm India.Thanking and waiting for ur support please.
Your Faithfully
[redacted]
Um, well, good luck with that.
Aaron Carter, Wilmer Valderrama, Chad Michael Murray, Adam Levine, Sean Lennon, and finally... [redacted] from India.
Posted by: annika at
02:23 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You are soooooooo cruel. Just you wait and see what happens next time you call tech-support.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 03:18 PM (xD5ND)
2
That's seriously scary. O_o
Posted by: Morgan S. at May 31, 2006 04:37 PM (Fs/2+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, The Saga Continues
Step two: Introduce new characters.

Step three: Develop storyline.

Step four: Establish conflict.
Posted by: annika at
02:11 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's funny cuz it's true.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 03:20 PM (xD5ND)
2
At last, something interesting, sex.
Posted by: Casca at April 14, 2006 08:20 PM (2gORp)
3
So... what, does he use his stem? I'd be worried about splinters...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 14, 2006 08:56 PM (954g7)
4
LF, I know they call it wood, but it's not, really. You should really worry about a pod full of seeds growing in your belly.
Posted by: Casca at April 15, 2006 04:35 AM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Don't Believe The Hype (Megastores Can Be Reasonable)
Listening to talk radio, I got the impression that bookstores are run by sneaky liberal kooks whose sole mission in life is to corrupt our minds through product placement. Which may be largely true, but not in all cases.
Cameron, of Woody's Woundup recently discovered that an anti-LDS book was being featured on an Easter display at the bookstore where he works.
Irked, he wrote a letter.
The book is Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven . . . . It is not a happy or religiously inspirational book to read, certainly. The back cover alone, which describes the Mormon church as "Taliban-like", would be amusing in some other context. The book itself is less amusing, arguing that Mormons - all Mormons, and not just a few polygamist nutjobs - are potentially violent, perhaps murderously so, precisely because of our religion. (Yes, I am Mormon.)
Well, Krakauer is certainly free to have such a view and to write it, just as B&N is free to sell his book in an open market place.
What I want to know is, how did this book end up on two - count them, 2 - different displays on Barnes & Noble's display tables? And, in regards to at least one table, I'm talking about Store List books, books that some yahoo in a cubicle in Marketing at B&N's headquarters has decided need to be displayed on specific tables or endcaps in the store.
Under the Banner of Heaven appears on both the "Religion & Inspiration" table and, amazingly, the Easter table.
It boggles the mind. Unless I missed one, Krakauer's book is the ONLY negatively-themed book on BOTH tables. As it is frankly a sloppily-researched attack on a major religion, what is it doing on these displays?
I read that post by Cameron, and figured it would turn out to be a venting experience for him, with no expectation of any response from the corporate monolith. But I was mistaken.
B&N wrote back.
You are absolutely correct. Under the Banner of Heaven should never have been included with the Easter display we are glad you took the time to bring this to our attention. It was an oversight on the buyers end, and we hope you accept our apologies. It is never our intention to insult our customers or our Booksellers.
There is a message that went out on BN.Inside today instructing the stores to remove the title from the Easter table and place it in Trade Paperback Favorites.
Stunning. You know, if I wasn't already a big B&N fan, they would certainly have earned my business for such a prompt and reasonable response to Cameron's letter. And kudos to Cameron for making the effort. I would've assumed I'd be ignored, and probably done nothing.
Posted by: annika at
11:48 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.
1
But the Mormons ARE a bunch of heretics.
Posted by: Casca at April 14, 2006 08:27 PM (2gORp)
2
Casca, Don't you mean Muslims? Last time I looked, the Mormons weren't doing suicide bombing or head choppings. Being a tolerant sort, what's wrong with a little polygamy? Keeps it in the family, and tax deductions to die for.
Posted by: MarkD at April 15, 2006 05:01 AM (X9njN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
122kb generated in CPU 0.0644, elapsed 0.1466 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.1007 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.