February 26, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
A really heartwarming video. And I'm kind of jaded on heartwarming stuff, but this one is pretty darn cool.
Via Sheila and Ken.
Posted by: annika at
12:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I loved this. It's a type of Cinderella story.
Posted by: gcotharn at February 26, 2006 07:05 PM (CP51F)
2
Wow, that really WAS heartwarming. What a wonderful story.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2006 10:19 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 27, 2006 05:38 AM (TDwc6)
4
great post. i saw this on the news but didn't realize i could find it on the web as well.
cheers!
Posted by: jcrue at February 27, 2006 08:46 AM (ZDQoM)
5
Wow, that was incredible! Thanks for sharing this...
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 27, 2006 09:07 AM (Wz2Gp)
6
The clip is down, guess I'm a day late and a dollar short again.
Posted by: TBinSTL at February 28, 2006 09:54 AM (bYmT0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jimmy Carter's Attacker Resurfaces
. . .
in Norway.
Posted by: annika at
09:26 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Must be part of an international conspiracy...are you sure it isn't Bush's fault...?
Posted by: BobG at February 26, 2006 09:41 AM (lSsTA)
2
Monty Python, redux?
Who wrote that article, Eric Idle?
Posted by: shelly at February 26, 2006 02:44 PM (BJYNn)
3
Must have been a fraternity pledge requirement...
Or it just wanted to pass on a little in-your-face so they knew who ran that portion of the territory.
Posted by: will at February 27, 2006 08:28 AM (z62e3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Don Knotts Remembered
Back in 2004, I paid tribute to the great Don Knotts on the occasion of his birthday. Here's what I wrote:
While a lot of people swear that The Incredible Mr. Limpet is the best Don Knotts movie, i think people who think that are all wet. Knotts excelled at the physical comedy of facial expressions. Limpet was a cartoon, so it by definition cannot be the best DK movie.
The Ghost and Mr. Chicken is a strong contender. Knotts' character is named Luther Heggs, a perfect name for a DK character. i loved the whole scene where he spends the night in the haunted house. Remember the crazy organ music? Knotts was at his shaky best.
i liked The Reluctant Astronaut just a little bit better, partly because i like space movies. This one came out in 1967, at the height of the space race. The premise is typically DK: he gets a job at NASA, tells his family and his girlfriend that he is in astronaut training, when in fact he's just a janitor, hijinks ensue, his family finds out about the charade, they're terribly disappointed, then even though he's Acrophobic, he blunders onto a spaceflight, actually becoming a reluctant astronaut , more hijinks ensue. It's predictable, but still a must see.
i also liked The Apple Dumpling Gang, where DK teams up with Tim Conway as a pair of stereotypically incompetent but loveable bank robbers.
But the funniest Don Knotts movie, in my opinion, is the often overlooked How to Frame a Figg, from 1971. Here's a couple of comments from the IMDB page:
'How to Frame a Figg is a vintage Don Knotts - frenetic, farcical comedy, and features him at the top of his form as the hysterical, cat-on-hot-tin-roof nervous, persecuted civil servant Hollis Figg.'
'If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level.'
The opening scene with the ambulance is pathetically absurd, but i won't ruin it for you, it's one of my favorite comic scenes ever.
Best Don Knotts movie: How to Frame a Figg. Go rent it tonight and let me know if you agree or disagree.
There's a pretty good bio at
ABC News.com. Did you know Don Knotts majored in speech in college?
Update: Don Knotts' career as metaphor for the decline of American culture?
Posted by: annika at
08:53 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.
1
And you didn't even touch on Barney Fyfe, the comedic offspring of the Keystone Kops.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2006 12:03 PM (2gORp)
2
Wow. Someone under the age of 30 who has seen and liked the old Don Knotts movies. I agree with you about Mr. Limpett, but I have to side with the Ghost and Mr. Chicken as the funniest Knotts' movie. Then again, you can't go wrong with any of them.
Posted by: physics geek at February 27, 2006 10:14 AM (Xvrs7)
3
Always loved him. I think I liked the Reluctant astronaut best. Also liked The Love God, and Shakiest gun in the West.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 27, 2006 03:16 PM (Jk1P2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 25, 2006
Bizarre Incident
"...the clerk handed the item back to the man and saw what she thought was a severed penis...
...
...the microwave will be discarded."
Story here.
Via commenter, Radical Redneck.
Posted by: annika at
05:32 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yep, those Clinton voters are a strange breed.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2006 07:13 AM (2gORp)
2
FNS - Well at least Crystal got my talking points. Juan Williams unmasks his idiocy once again by defending the intellect and veracity of Congress. If it wasn't for affirmative action, he'd be driving a bus somewhere.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2006 08:43 AM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 23, 2006
UAE, Our Great Ally In The War On Terror...
. . .
does not recognize "U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries," according to the Wall Street Journal. Since WSJ is a subscription site, I will quote the article at length, which I found at
Michelle Malkin's blog.
Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program, according to U.S. court cases and interviews with experts in the field. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nongovernment advocacy group, last year published a list of 38 weapons-related smuggling cases since 1982 in which the goods moved through Dubai and the other islands that constitute the United Arab Emirates. Most of the illicit goods crossing Dubai go through its ports.
More generally, according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The UAE doesn't recognize those sanctions.
Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show. In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.
'You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations. It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting,' said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea. Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, 'Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problem.'
Similarly, in 2003, UAE officials refused a U.S. request to intercept a shipment of nuclear technology bound for South Africa by a smuggler named Asher Karni, according to University of Georgia sanctions expert Scott Jones, who works with U.S. agencies on proliferation issues. Mr. Karni was convicted of violating sanctions against weapons of mass destruction last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The UAE also was believed to be a nexus for Pakistan's nuclear program and hosted at least two front companies that forwarded material to Islamabad. [emphasis added]
So what. Trust the President. Don't worry. Be happy. Right?
Posted by: annika at
07:40 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Good snag. Look's like the prez has finally started thinking outside the bubble from the SOTU on.
Posted by: will at February 24, 2006 04:20 AM (z62e3)
2
Annika,
I'd be very careful about critisizing this president on Al Gore's Internet. You know he's listening, right? Probably tapping your phone, too.
As a foreigner, I have to be even more concerned, as I have no rights under the Constitution. That's why I've had to resort to renting all my sex toys. And you know what sex toys are made of? Plastic is what. Know what the base of plastic is? Oil. Oil from the UAE. I checked.
I'm trying really hard to be a good patriot of a country I'm not even a citizen of, but it's getting harder every day. If I give up my "lifestyle," the terrorists win. But my "lifestyle" involves ever so many pteroleum based products.
What's a lonely boy to do?
Posted by: skipptstalin at February 24, 2006 05:33 AM (ohSFF)
3
I'm just inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt. I heard Chris Wallace on Fox this morning say, "turn over the ports." Well, fuck, nobody is turning over any ports. They're managing an operation that has a lease interest in some ports.
And heh, if someone lights off a nuke in one of these places, then we won't have to dredge this year.
Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2006 06:20 AM (y9m6I)
4
The whole UAE port thing and the war are too complicated for me. I think that we just have to have faith in our pres. Everybody can make wrong decisions but overall, he is doing ok. The deal proves that a LOT of us are wide awake to our enemy. I'd rather keep my lifestyle than change to one from a thousand years ago. So far so good.
Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at February 25, 2006 05:36 AM (6ldTE)
5
"What's a lonely boy to do?"
Well, give up vaseline, to start with. Find a willing female instead.
Posted by: shelly at February 25, 2006 09:44 AM (BJYNn)
6
Nice arguments. I thnk the whole thing highlights the danger of the Iranians having an improvised nuclear explosive device. I doubt that a firm from Londonistan that wants to schuck itself of the job is going to be better than an owner from Dubai that seems to want a continuing business.
Posted by: michael at February 28, 2006 09:36 PM (UVK5Q)
7
"The whole UAE port thing and the war are too complicated for me."
"I'm just inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt."
bunch of stupid f*cks... you'll be working at Burger King in Mexico in ten years
Posted by: Tired at March 03, 2006 10:24 PM (Dbjg/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2006
American Idol Blogging: The Guys
Patrick: Not bad looking in a Tom Greene sort of way. His neck is as long as a giraffe's. He picked an Etheridge song??? Slow start, but he picked it up. A solid journeyman performance. Not spectacular.
Looks like Seacrest traded the gingham Maryann shirt for an Alexander Julian knock-off. I wonder if he shops at Marshall's. You know you can get some really cheap designer looking clothes at Marshall's. Not that I'd ever shop there.
David the crooner: Funny, the first guy sings Etheridge, the second guy sings Freddy Mercury. Is there a pattern forming? WTF? OMG! he sucks! It will be hard for anyone to drop a performance worse than that one. He's like the drunk guy on karaoke night. I agree with Randy totally. That was seriously horrible.
Bucky: He's a good looking kid. Let's see what he can do. He's been off key for most of the song. Crap. So far this night has been amateur hour. Did I just hear this guy stutter?
Simon is being nicer tonight than usual.
Will: Reminds me of Bobby Brady or Seth from the OC. When he was in the final two, I thought Sid should have made it instead of him. Ha ha. Nice moves, kid. His voice is not up to this Jackson 5 song, but I like his energy. I see some potential. The most memorable performance so far. Lol, Paula agrees, definitely Bobby Brady.
Sway: He's going to sing "Reasons." Another one of my favorite songs ever, so i'm nervous for him. The song is to high for him. That velvet jacket must have cost him a pretty penny. He's butchering the song. Too bad, because Sway had a good voice in the auditions.
Interesting side note (or not): Did you ever notice that the Cingular Wireless commercials always show five bars? Yet I've never seen an actual phone with more than four bars.
That guy who does the CareerBuilder.com commercials with all the chimps is one brave dude. Those fuckers will eat your face off. Chimps are not nice animals.
Chris the bald guy: He's one of my early favorites from the auditions. He's going to sing Bon Jovi. Cool performance. Excellent rocker voice. Best so far. Simon was wrong, he does have charisma.
Kevin from historic Levittown: What will his D&D buddies say if Kevin makes the big time? "*sniff* hnn hey Kevin. Can I run your character hnn while you're in Hollywood, *sniff* hnn?" When Simon said his performance was vocally excruciating, Kevin's mom looked upset, but dad's expression was like "You know, he has a point there."
You know what? I really like the fact that Becky is so supportive of every guy who gets up there. Did you see her gettin' totally into Kevin's performance? Good for her.
Gideon: This dude talks like a preacher, it's funny. He's singing "Shout?" lol. "Can we dance with your dates?" haha! There were no flashes of greatness in that performance. But he's got potential, given the right song. Don't let Simon get in your head, dude. You have a nice smile.
Eliot Yao Ming: He don't look Chinese. His performance was A'ight. One of the best tonight sure, but that's not saying much. He'll do okay until they get down to twelve. But he's got to bring it up a notch to make it all the way. Simon is whacked. This guy is not the best male vocalist they've ever had, that's just plain off.
Bobby: "Copacabana?" That was fun. He has a real Nathan Lane meets John Goodman appeal to him. I agree with Paula, it looks like he totally commits to whatever he does.
Did you notice they got two singers left and 25 minutes to fill? When I was doing plays, I always sang faster on opening night.
Ace: He is stunning. And Ace Young is such a great rock and roll name. Average vocals, which seem stellar compared to tonight's competition. But I'll predict right now that he will be a finalist. Easy. My suggestion for Ace is to make sure the word "naked" appears in every song he sings this season.
Taylor: This guy is the biggest character in a cast full of characters. "Levon" is about family values?! I think he needs to pay more attention to the lyrics. I'm pulling for Taylor. I became a big fan when he took the long walk playing a harmonica. However, I fear his look is too old for the average AI voter.
If I was going to vote for anybody tonight, it would be Chris though.
Posted by: annika at
10:08 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 777 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Yep, Bobby Brady was my first thought when I saw that kid. He'll stick around but not for long.
Crooner-boy is *so* out of there.
Gideon smiles like the frickin' Joker. He's probably out of there, too, which is too bad 'cause I kind of like him.
That
thumping sound was every woman in America sliding off her seat when Ace finished.
If Chris makes devil horns one more time I'm reaching thru the TV and ripping his FUCKING fingers offa his hands. If it's his "signature" it's a stupid one...Betcha he dots his "I's" with little hearts, too.
Paula was funnier 'n cat piss.
Didja notice opera girl in the Paula Poodle Pound? She was *not* having a good time--she knows she's outta there. And Katherine twirled and showed America her FAT ass somewhere in there.
OTOH, Heather was shakin' it
very nicely during some of the songs. Rowr.
On a seriuos note, I've noticed the judges got a good cop/bad cop thing going. Paula and Randy seem to want to give them support, while Simon tells them *exactly* what they need to do to improve. He may be rather harsh, but the contestants would do well to take everything he says to heart.
Posted by: Victor at February 23, 2006 05:07 AM (L3qPK)
2
I like the girl who flashed her tits.
Posted by: Casca at February 23, 2006 06:15 AM (y9m6I)
3
Who flashed her tits? You're joking.
Posted by: annika at February 23, 2006 06:30 AM (fxTDF)
4
I'd least that would have been interesting. I was forced to watch that crap last night. Those guys SUCKED! Absolutely horrible. This is really the best talent that they can come up with?
Posted by: Blu at February 23, 2006 12:43 PM (1YtHZ)
5
Oh my God, CHIMPS. Did you hear about those chimps who mauled that guy from Bakersfield last year? He's technically alive but his life is freakin' OVER.
I was hoping we would see more of that crazy dude they let into Hollywood because, I dunno, Randy and Paula were high? He couldn't sing worth shit, but Randy and Paula were just cracking up. He would've made things interesting, anyway.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 23, 2006 03:19 PM (XUsiG)
6
Hey, what time is it on on the Left coast? 'Cause I know all the answers right now, and I just realized it's about 6PM over there.
Posted by: Victor at February 23, 2006 05:58 PM (l+W8Z)
Posted by: Victor at February 24, 2006 11:38 AM (L3qPK)
8
There is no such things as "not bad looking in a Tom Greene sort of way." Tom Greene is freakin' troll.
Posted by: Blu at February 24, 2006 03:53 PM (1YtHZ)
9
Jeez, it used to be that I was the only one drinking and posting. Now EVERYONE does it, lol.
Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2006 06:32 PM (2gORp)
10
Why do people watch this crap??? Seriously, why is Survivor and American Idol so popular, especially with women? I really want to know.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 25, 2006 10:04 AM (1Vbso)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Limbaugh's Sophistry
Surprisingly or not, Rush Limbaugh has come out in support of the administration's decision to back the UAE port deal. His sophistry on the issue is just the type of thing that makes it impossible for me to like the guy consistently.
Rush asks "why would they spend billions of dollars to do something they can do cheaply?" He means that the terrorists could always put a bomb inside a container and ship it. They don't need to buy a port operations company to achieve the same thing.
You see the sophistry? Opponents of this deal aren't saying that Al Qaeda is buying the British concern. Or that the UAE is run by terrorists. That's just silly. And it shows how little Rush thinks of his audience, that he thinks he can slip such an argument past us.
I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh more often than not. But it's only due to the inherent strength of the conservative point of view, not because Rush is especially trustworthy or even likeable. And on this point he's dead wrong.
Rush also says that keeping port operations out of the hands of the UAE won't stop terrorists from infiltrating security. "They can do that now," he says. Well, Rush likes football, so how about this analogy. It's like saying no one should rush Donovan McNabb, because he can always get rid of the ball. In football, and in the War On Terror, you know your opponent is trying to score on you. It's not your job to make it easier for him. Quite the opposite. In war and in football you gotta play the percentages.
Posted by: annika at
11:37 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Annie,
I listened to Glenn Beck this morning and he had two callers, one from Corpus Christi(port) and one from the Coast Guard. Neither seemed that concerned with the Dubai/port deal. The CC guy likened the UAE deal to having a foreign country buy and control the FedEx portion of an airport. They're still controlled by all TSA laws and (air)port restrictions.
Now, I'm not saying that I buy it. Personally, I find myself siding with Lileks today. I did want to point out that some people besides Limbaugh don't think that this is really a problem. Then again, one of those people is Jimmy Carter, which leads me to believe it's a rotten notion.
Posted by: physics geek at February 22, 2006 01:57 PM (Xvrs7)
2
Hi Annie,
I just wanted to agree with the first part of the post by physics geek. I happen to work for a government agency in the Port of NY/NJ. First, I wanted to point out that the comparison to FedEx that the Coast Guardsman made is spot-on.
Dubai would only control terminals operations at a section of the government-owned port. They would not manage the whole port, there are many berths managed by numerous companies. That is to say they would be in charge of managing a few berths and the loading and unloading of ships and all of the associated tasks. While there no doubt is internal security they'd have to perform themselves, the larger security issues would still be governed by the Port Authority, and DHS (which may or may not be of comfort).
Those that say "we shouldn't hand over control of our ports to foreign companies" are idiots, because most of them are already controlled by foreign companies. P&O is British, and COSCO is Chinese, just to name two, so this is absolutely nothing new.
The thing that seems to scare people is the fact that Dubai is part of UAE which may or may not be tied to terrorism. The fact of the matter is Dubai is more or less an independent state (so I've read) in the UAE with extremely modern society, and probably the most westernized area in all of the Middle East. It is one of the few safe-havens where westerners are free to travel without worry, it is the exact opposite of an islamo-facist state bent on killing Americans.
Dubai is making a large investment in American commerce, and to allow terrorists to use it as a pipeline for waging terror in America would simply be a poor business decision on Dubai's behalf.
As I see it, this is more a knee-jerk reaction by alarmists who think that because the company is owned by a country that happens to be in the Middle East, that we are opening the flood gates for WMDs to be shipped in containers into our country. Let me go on record by saying that I don't think ANY risk is increased by allowing the Dubai Company to control port operations in the U.S. ports.
That said, I think the problem here is that this administration, while defending the decision, has done little to explain the position to the American people. If they would come forward and clearly explain what it means exactly, to have Dubai control some port operations, security-wise, understanding and reason would prevail, and subsequently the debate would die off. The American people deserve the explanation. Soon.
Posted by: Rob at February 22, 2006 03:00 PM (FjMC8)
3
I think the public's concern is quite valid.
The thing that seems to scare people is the fact that Dubai is part of UAE which may or may not be tied to terrorism.
It is my understanding that: 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE; funds for the operation itself were funnled through UAE banking institutions; and UAE ports were key transit routes for illicit nuclear weapons technologies to other foreign nations, including North Korea.
But you're right -- the American people need an explanation soon.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 22, 2006 03:13 PM (Wz2Gp)
4
Okay now I'm hearing the port deal benefits us in that we can keep a military presence in Dubai (should you know, something happen with Iran).
Oy.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 22, 2006 03:49 PM (Wz2Gp)
5
If you want rigorous arguement (beyond what these other commenters have successfully done) you want Drezner. He has great stuff on this. Sorry Annika, you are wrong on this one.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002595.html
Posted by: jason at February 22, 2006 04:06 PM (FPtHm)
6
The issue may not be only security for inbound shipments; it may also involve access for outbound shipments. Remember, there are multiple ports involved here. What if, for its own reasons of foreign policy, the foreign government in question orders the port operations company to shut down the facilties..let's say, in the middle of a war? Even the temporary loss of six ports would represent a huge loss to our economy and our military capability.
This isn't a theoretical issue. During the Iraq war, a European company refused to supply a part for the JDAM missile, on grounds that its country was neutral in that war.
Posted by: David Foster at February 22, 2006 04:28 PM (5F0ML)
7
Their are people who make things happen; people who watch things happen; people who wonder what happened; and people who don't know that anything happened at all. My point? Ah to know what the real story is. I'm content to live in a representative republic, and trust the guy who represents me.
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2006 05:43 PM (2gORp)
8
If you haven't already, please read the link Jason provided:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002595.html
It may explain the arrangement better than I did.
Posted by: Rob at February 23, 2006 03:24 AM (9DumO)
9
Yes, Drezner handles it tidily.
To take the FedEx analogy further, they're the equivalent of ANY tenant at a port, any airline, any cruise line, any shipper. Are we going to say... "no foreign owned transportation entities"?
The Sunday talk shows should be wall-to-wall administration flaks saying just that.
Posted by: Casca at February 23, 2006 06:27 AM (y9m6I)
10
The Drezner post is unpersuasive. He makes the same faulty assumptions (dare I say he creates a straw man?) that Limbaugh does. I'm not saying that the UAE company is a terrorist organization, or that it will suddenly become a terrorist organization. I AM saying that it will be a lot easier for terrorist moles to SECRETLY infiltrate the company on the UAE side, and gain information that will help them plan an attack. See the Hewitt link about inside jobs, which i referenced in an earlier post. The UAE firm doesn't have to be a conspirator for this to be a bad idea. They just have to have information that can be stolen and used by the bad guys. Yes, the same info could be stolen from the brits too, but NOT as easily. Do you know the real reason that the London bombings occurred in heavily muslim areas? Not because the terrorists were targeting their own. But because they could operate much more easily among their own. Not only were they subject to less suspicion, there was also a greater chance that, among other muslims, people would be sympathetic to their cause. In a country like the UAE, yes I know - an ally in the WOT, what percentage of the general population thinks that OBL is a good guy? Just a hunch, but I'll bet it's higher than in Great Britiain. Do I want to see all port operations restricted so that there is no foreign ownership? No of course not, just no ownership from countries with a high percentage of people who want to blow me up.
Posted by: annika at February 23, 2006 06:49 AM (fxTDF)
Posted by: David Foster at February 23, 2006 07:18 AM (5F0ML)
12
I think there are reasons to be especially careful in a deal such as this and I thought David Foster made a good point that I had not seen mentioned elsewhere. That said, I think the his comment as well as Annikas both make similar faulty assumptions. The UAE firm will "operate" the ports. They cannot pick them up and take them home during a conflict. They will not fire all of the (strongly) union American dockworkers and replace them with Arabs nationals. They will not be handling security, etc. They are taking over leases to operate the terminals.
It is not clear to me (as someone who has worked in international shipping)how a UAE firm operating the ports = "operating among their own"? Your argument about the bombing in London seems to undermine your point - the port leases are currently operated by a LONDON based firm. If, as ou assert, London is already a place where Islamic terrorists are able to easily blend in, then there would seem to be (at best) a marginal increase in the chance of that happening with a UAE based firm.
Too much information is already too readily available (that internet thingy is big I hear) for me to feel that someone could gain a significant amount of "insider" knowledge about port operations that would make the difference in carrying out an attack by infiltrating the company HQ thousands of miles away.
Not to mention (in my view) the cost of looking scared, xenophobic and hypocritical on trade/openness is something to be considered as well.
Posted by: Jason at February 23, 2006 08:32 AM (FPtHm)
13
Just to clarify, I ment certain areas of London are heavily Muslim. That is not to say that all of London is heavily muslim. And certainly not to say that the financial centers of London is heavily muslim. So my point stands. In the UAE, a scoundrel has advantages that he or she would not have in London.
I am not concerned about DPW firing union workers, or hadling security etc. Those are faulty assumptions, yes, but I am not making those assumptions. My only concern, as outlined in earlier comments, is that a UAE based operating company is more vulnerable to infiltration and compromise than one which is not based in a middle eastern country. It's that simple. This deal will increase the risk to a level I do not accept. It will make it easier for something to go wrong in the future. No one who supports the deal is arguing that control of operations by a UAE company will make things safer over here. But they still say, hey don't worry, all is fine. Well two weeks ago those same people would have said "we need to beef up port security!" So I think I'm justified in saying that this DPW deal is a step in the wrong direction for homeland security.
Posted by: annika at February 23, 2006 08:48 AM (zAOEU)
14
As usual, Lileks already said it way better than I ever could:
"The UAE is not exactly stuffed stem to stern with pro-American individuals; the idea that the emirs will stand foursquare against infiltration by those who have ulterior motives is the sort of wishful thinking that makes buildings fall and cities empty. IÂ’m not worried that some evil emir is putting a pinky to his monocled eye, and saying Mwah! at last I have them where I want them! IÂ’m worried about the guy whoÂ’s three steps down the management branch handing off a job to a brother who trusts some guys who have some sympathies with some guys who hang around some rather energetic fellows who attend that one mosque where the guy talks about jihad 24/7, and somehow someone gets a job somewhere that makes it easier for something to happen."
Posted by: annika at February 23, 2006 09:04 AM (zAOEU)
15
Jason..it's true that they can't pick up the ports and take them home. They could, however, direct their local management to cease operations (or, more likely to refuse to handle any shipments bound for country "X") For us to put the port (more specifically, the terminal) back into operation, we would have to:
1)Obtain legal authority to do so.
2)Find managers who are competent to run a terminal operation
3)Get these managers up to speed on the systems and procedures used by the specific terminal
4)Quite possibly, install new systems, if the foreign company refused to make its systems (which would probably involve remote servers) available to us
I'm guessing at least a month.
Posted by: David Foster at February 23, 2006 09:07 AM (5F0ML)
16
"The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."
[
Link]
I'm back at square one -- the concern is quite valid.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 23, 2006 02:45 PM (Wz2Gp)
17
Rush's arrogance is his downfall.
Posted by: Mark at February 23, 2006 06:12 PM (Vg0tt)
18
Really? I hadn't noticed his fall...
Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2006 06:24 AM (y9m6I)
19
Casca,
That's because when a bough falls in the forrest...........
The man is a total fool. Listening to Rush is a diagnostic that's used to weed out the morons in this society. He actually fell from a height of a few centemeters and landed face first in an Oxcy C haze in the moss.
I forget, why isn't this lying sack of shit in jail?
Posted by: Strawman at February 25, 2006 02:04 PM (0ZdtC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Washington's Birthday
Hugo asked for more Burns. So I can't think of a more appropriate poem for today than this one.
Ode for General WashingtonÂ’s Birthday
No Spartan tube, no Attic shell,
No lyre Æolian I awake;
Â’Tis libertyÂ’s bold note I swell,
Thy harp, Columbia, let me take!
See gathering thousands, while I sing,
A broken chain exulting bring,
And dash it in a tyrantÂ’s face,
And dare him to his very beard,
And tell him he no more is feared—
No more the despot of ColumbiaÂ’s race!
A tyrantÂ’s proudest insults bravÂ’d,
They shout—a People freed! They hail an Empire saved.
Where is manÂ’s god-like form?
Where is that brow erect and bold—
That eye that can unmovÂ’d behold
The wildest rage, the loudest storm
That eÂ’er created fury dared to raise?
Avaunt! thou caitiff, servile, base,
That tremblest at a despotÂ’s nod,
Yet, crouching under the iron rod,
Canst laud the hand that struck thÂ’ insulting blow!
Art thou of manÂ’s Imperial line?
Dost boast that countenance divine?
Each skulking feature answers, No!
But come, ye sons of Liberty,
ColumbiaÂ’s offspring, brave as free,
In dangerÂ’s hour still flaming in the van,
Ye know, and dare maintain, the Royalty of Man!
Alfred! on thy starry throne,
Surrounded by the tuneful choir,
The bards that erst have struck the patriot lyre,
And rousÂ’d the freeborn BritonÂ’s soul of fire,
No more thy England own!
Dare injured nations form the great design,
To make detested tyrants bleed?
Thy England execrates the glorious deed!
Beneath her hostile banners waving,
Every pang of honour braving,
England in thunder calls, “The tyrant’s cause is mine!”
That hour accurst how did the fiends rejoice
And hell, throÂ’ all her confines, raise the exulting voice,
That hour which saw the generous English name
Linkt with such damned deeds of everlasting shame!
Thee, Caledonia! thy wild heaths among,
FamÂ’d for the martial deed, the heaven-taught song,
To thee I turn with swimming eyes;
Where is that soul of Freedom fled?
Immingled with the mighty dead,
Beneath that hallowÂ’d turf where Wallace lies
Hear it not, WALLACE! in thy bed of death.
Ye babbling winds! in silence sweep,
Disturb not ye the heroÂ’s sleep,
Nor give the coward secret breath!
Is this the ancient Caledonian form,
Firm as the rock, resistless as the storm?
Show me that eye which shot immortal hate,
Blasting the despotÂ’s proudest bearing;
Show me that arm which, nervÂ’d with thundering fate,
Crush’d Usurpation’s boldest daring!—
Dark-quenchÂ’d as yonder sinking star,
No more that glance lightens afar;
That palsied arm no more whirls on the waste of war.
By Robert Burns.
Posted by: annika at
08:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"Hugo asked for more Burns."
He did. Great poem, pity it's a bit off; plenty of Scots fought in the American Revolution, as they were part of a united Great Britain by then. But when it comes to nationalist verse, accuracy matters less than passion!
Posted by: Hugo at February 22, 2006 09:20 AM (hDybU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 21, 2006
American Idol Blogging: The Ladies
Mandisa from Sacramento. This girl can bring it. She's 29 too. Let's hear it for the older girls. The Heart song shows versatility; no one expected her to go Rock right out of the gate. Simon is absolutely right, she has thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the girls. Mandisa will be a factor.
Kelly from, Abermarle North Carolina. Cute, small town girl, yada yada yada. I sense that she does not have the emotional toughness to dig down and fight when it comes to the later rounds. But then, did Carrie? Maybe not, but this girl does not have Carrie's voice.
Becky. Too glamour girlish. Guys will love her, girls will hate her. She's frickin annoying too. She relies on too many vocal gimmicks, and she's not that good a singer. Springseen is not for her, either. Bad choice of songs.
Ayla, the athletic chick. She's so tall, I think she could hurt Ryan. I actually like her voice, despite her overuse of the vibrato. I also liked her black outfit. I just don't see her making it into the top two or three. Plus, she thinks she can divide her attention between basketball and AI. I wouldn't be surprised if she were forced to make a choice sometime in the next few weeks. Smiling more would definitely help her chances.
Paris. This girl can also bring it on. Oh and one of my favorite songs in the entire world too, "Midnight Train To Georgia." She has a little trouble with the lower register. But she's having a hell of a good time up there. The judges gush over her. I like her too.
Stevie, Sacramento representin' again. Opera training, multilingual. Where's her breath control? Nervous I guess. I'm such an armchair singer, like I wouldn't sound like shit up there. But as Randy might say, dude that was not good. Why would she pick such a crappy song?
Brenna. I predict this girl is going to bug the shit out of America. And she picks "You Are the Sunshine of My Life?!" Let's see how she does. Okay. Predictably, a bad song choice, and her attitude is all wrong. It's a ballad, what is she doing? I don't know what she's doing. That was shit, dude. Nice grille though. Her ortho did a great job.
Heather. If I didn't know her name, and I had to guess it after taking one look at her, I would guess Nicole. But my second guess would be Heather. I like her personality. But the girl is a shower singer. Her boobs are worth ten thousand votes, and her voice is not ready for prime time. Boring fucking song. And what's with all the altos this year? Lets hear some more sopranos.
Melissa. She's got a different look than the rest of the beauty queens. I'm glad she decided to go brunette. Another alto, but I like the throaty quality to her voice. She's more comfortable at the low end of the spectrum, and she can belt it too. If she picks the right songs, she can go far. At first, I would have said this was a safe song choice, but she nailed it. I agree with Paula, amazing.
Wow, Melissa said she has never been shown on AI until now? I find that hard to believe. Those shows were taped and pre-edited. I can't understand how they could fail to show one of the final twenty four at least once.
Lisa, the sixteen year old. Very pretty and sings good too. A little "pitchy." She's trying to work the crowd. I expected better from her tonight. She'll make it into the middle rounds at least, though. She's got heart.
What drugs is Paula on this year? They're totally different than the ones she was on last year. She's too mellow. I think I liked the hyper Paula better.
Kinnik. I miss Vonzell, and I think the judges did too. Holy crap. When I heard she picked Oleta, I said forget it. But I was way wrong. That was the performance of the night for me. I'm sorry the judges are all whacked. I didn't hear no sharps. Even still, better sharp than flat on that song.
Katharine. A little advice honey. You might want to re-think the whole emulating Barbra thing. As Walter Matthau once said of her: "Great talent... difficult person." She can sing, but it wasn't a standout for me. She does this strange dancing thing. It's weird, like she's having a seizure or something. Dude, she was up there but she was not the best of the best tonight. I'd say she was like number five, maybe six.
Posted by: annika at
08:00 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Sorry, I was watching NBC just so I could simmer over their failure to fully cover an Olympic event (in this case, ladies' figure skating). And no, an argument between two Americans does not count as an Olympic event.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 21, 2006 11:45 PM (etmLz)
2
I have concerns over Paris's habits. She shouted, "Hey!" four times, and I think she ended with, "Hey, yeah!" All those "hey's" are the singing equivalent of "you know?" and I was seriously getting annoyed with them.
As for Melissa--they didn't show Bo Bice until this round last year, either.
Opera chick is
so out of there, and I'll throw the party when Brenna is booted. That chick annoyed me from the first time she opened her mouth.
Posted by: Victor at February 22, 2006 04:52 AM (L3qPK)
3
Forgot to snark on Katherine: I liked her voice and song choice (and you know how much
I love Babs!), but her stage presence/dancing reminded me of Joe Cocker. Her butt was about the same size as Joe Cocker's, too.
Posted by: Victor at February 22, 2006 04:54 AM (L3qPK)
4
Lol, excellent analysis Victor. Except her butt was the size of Joe Cocker.
btw, I could swear they showed Bo earlier, are you sure about that?
Posted by: annika at February 22, 2006 06:43 AM (fxTDF)
5
My AI crush this year is Katharine. Although that Pickle girl is easlily the hottest of the bunch...there's something about Katharine I prefer.
And Brenna is like nails on a chalkboard for me.
Posted by: Robbie at February 22, 2006 08:49 AM (lbWbV)
6
LMAO, the boyfriend and I too, wondered what Paula is on this year....
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 22, 2006 11:27 AM (Wz2Gp)
7
Oh, and Randy calling all the girls "dude" and "man" got _damn_ annoying.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 22, 2006 11:27 AM (Wz2Gp)
8
Dude, let it go.
I'm for the one who flashed her tits.
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2006 05:45 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Back To The Cotillion Ball
I have been bad at reminding you all about the
Cotillion Ball lately, but do check it out this week. Cassandra of
Villianous Company did a great job. I love the 50's domestic goddess pictures.
Posted by: annika at
07:22 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Whew, glad you brought it up, cause you KNOW what happened to Cinderella when she got to the ball... SHE CHOKED!!!
LMAO, I NEVER get tired of that one.
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2006 10:15 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Still More Behind The Scenes At Fox News

Hey, this is easier to do than a hot tub post.
Posted by: annika at
06:21 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Carpal Tunnel? Single again?
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2006 10:17 PM (2gORp)
2
Isn't Amy almost 40 now? I would think the age difference would cause problems. I also see problems with the in laws; wasn't Bill irritated with Jimmy doing his Jimmy thing during Bill's days in the big house?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 21, 2006 11:32 PM (etmLz)
3
Yup.
Jimmy is an equal opportunity Presidential abuser.
Posted by: shelly at February 22, 2006 04:19 AM (BJYNn)
4
At least your hot tub posts are easier to figure out. I don't get this one.
Posted by: Victor at February 22, 2006 04:57 AM (L3qPK)
5
Chelsea wouldn't be caught on the same side of the room with that skank Amy. Amy hasn't used deoderant since she chained herself to the fence at the Reagan White House. Ah for those halycon days. Who was that nasty old hippy she cohabited with who was 20 years her senior? Didn't he commit suicide? If so, completely understandable. After all, how low can one go?
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2006 06:16 AM (y9m6I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Please Let This Be An Omen
Jennifer and
Cassandra both have links which ask the essential question, "What was the #1 song in the U.S.A. the day you were born?"
If there's any justice, I think this should be a more accurate predictor of future life than the astrology charts.
That's because my song is "Rich Girl" by Daryl Hall & John Oates, lol. I love that song.
Posted by: annika at
06:00 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Presaging my life as a romantic and impatient Italian lover...
Its Now Or Never
by Elvis Presley:
"Its now or never
come hold me tight
Kiss me my darling,
be mine tonight
Tomorrow will be too late,
it's now or never
My love won't wait."
Posted by: gcotharn at February 21, 2006 10:10 PM (74mUn)
2
Not sure what this means. Incidentally, my singing voice is in the baritone range, not the soprano range.
"In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight..."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 21, 2006 11:34 PM (etmLz)
3
"People Got to Be Free" by The Rascals --- yeah, as former Soldier in the US Army, that fits me pretty well.
Posted by: Robbie at February 22, 2006 08:53 AM (lbWbV)
4
The Third Man Theme by Anton Karas. Well, AFAIK I've never heard it, and didn't he used to play football for Detroit?
Wait, the football player was Alex...
Remembering him still makes me way too old.
Posted by: MarkD at February 22, 2006 10:15 AM (oQofX)
5
Obviously, you're not a fan of the zither. TTM is classic Wells, Orson that is. I often use Harry Lyme as a nom de guerre.
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2006 11:22 AM (y9m6I)
6
"Walk Like a Man" for me. Cool.
Posted by: physics geek at February 22, 2006 01:59 PM (Xvrs7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
President Misplaces Shield
On
September 20, 2001, George W. Bush gave one of the great presidential addresses in modern history. In it he made this vow:
It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.
And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
Today, President Bush asked the following
rhetorical question:
I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue.
And I ask this:
What happened to that police shield that's supposed to be in your pocket, Mr. President? What will you tell the victims and their families if port security does turn out to be "an issue?"
This is a big mistake.
Update: Ken sees a parallel with the border situation.
Like the border with Mexico, the President seems to be tone deaf when it comes to guarding our borders. He seems to think it is more important to play nice with Mexico than it is to keep millions of illegal aliens from entering the country. I believe the same mind set the President uses towards Mexico is the same he is employing to rationalize the UAE takeover of our ports. Both situations are wrong and risk our national security.
Update 2: the best argument I have read on the subject was written, not suprisingly,
by Hugh Hewitt.
Posted by: annika at
03:40 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.
1
You seem to agree with the conventional wisdom. I don't know enough yet to say whether this is a good or bad decision. However, when Chucky S., perhaps one of the most vile, disgusting (though shrewed) members of the Senate, is the lead spokesman for a position, I'm always tempted to take a look at the opposing view.
Hey, you could be right; but, all I'm hearing now is politics. None of the talking heads have been terribly convincing. And the politicians appear the most cynical---looking at 2006 more than security. The most neutral voice I've heard on this has been, surprise, Rush Limbaugh.
Anyway, along with you, our esteemed hostess, there are a lot of smart contributors (even you, Strawman) to this blog and I'm looking forward to getting educated.
Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2006 04:48 PM (JBa2Z)
2
The only reason there's bi-partisan opposition to this is that the Democrats see it as another Harriet Miers. A way to bang on Bush from two sides again. It's not because they give a rat's about homeland security. I predict hearings, then a bi-partisan roll-over. This thing will go through, and we better hope something bad doesn't happen.
Posted by: annika at February 21, 2006 06:01 PM (fxTDF)
3
Malcolm Muggeridge was right. "We live in an age where it is possible to know everything, and understand nothing."
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2006 10:26 PM (2gORp)
4
The second deadliest terrorist incident in U.S. history, one which killed nearly 200 people, was conceived by a citizen of which nation? And does the U.S. still do business with companies from this nation? All the time.
Actually, the thing that surprises me most about Bush is not that he entrusts security to Middle Eastern outfits, nor that he thinks illegal alien amnesty is a good thing. The big surprise is that he has NEVER vetoed a bill. Yes, his party controls Congress, but it's still surprising that Bush has NEVER exercised the veto. I find this especially ironic when comparing Bush to Gerald Ford, a creature of Congress if there ever was one, but someone who understood the powers of the executive and how to use them.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 21, 2006 11:39 PM (etmLz)
5
It is Customs, the Port Authority and the Coast Guard that are responsible for security not the companies running the terminals. This is all politics.
Posted by: Shug at February 22, 2006 08:13 AM (U7X+u)
6
Shug...I don't think it's possible for the Coast Guard, the Port Authority, and Customs to be fully responsible for port security. These places are too big, and there is too much going on. A malevolent port operating company could probably sneak an illicit container off the ship and onto a trailer or a rail car chassis without the authorities knowing anything about it. This could probably also be done by a conspiracy of malevolent employees without the operating company knowing anything about it.
Posted by: David Foster at February 22, 2006 09:20 AM (5F0ML)
7
Maybe I watch too much 24, but I'm not convinced that you can prevent a mole from getting into the system once you hand over operations to the UAE company. There isn't such a solid dividing line between security and operations as you might want to believe. By necessity, the two speres must have knowledge of each other, and therein lies the weakness.
Maybe security will all be handled by Americans, but security details would have to be disclosed to operations in the UAE. I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility (as Bush has said) that our enemies would know this and try to gain access to the security details by getting moles into the UAE company. Or trying to turn sympathetic UAE employees.
Unfortunately, it seems Bush is willing to bet that this won't happen.
Posted by: annika at February 22, 2006 09:35 AM (zAOEU)
8
It's time for a serious discussion of port security procedures: conducted partly in public and partly in closed Congressional hearings. It's certainly not possible for all incoming containers to be inspected; there are just too many of them. What is essential is that the freight documentation (describing the container contents) be produced by trusted entities, that there be a rigorous process for determining who those entities are, and that the system for receiving and reviewing those documents is not easily hacked, either electronically or by the insertion of human moles. It is also essential that nothing get out of the container yard without matching an appropriate document.
Posted by: David Foster at February 22, 2006 10:10 AM (5F0ML)
9
I just read an informative post on Michelle Malkin's blog. Defintely worth a read.
Posted by: Blu at February 22, 2006 10:48 AM (JBa2Z)
10
If it is not possible for the Coast Guard, the Port Authority, and Customs to be fully responsible for port security then *that* is the problem not who owns the company running one of the terminals. In matters like this I would not trust a British, Danish, Chinese, or US Corporation any more or less then a UAE one
Posted by: Shug at February 22, 2006 11:56 AM (U7X+u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Planes & Poetry
David Foster has a post about The Collings Foundation Wings of Freedom Tour, where a B-17, a B-25, and a B-24 are visiting various cities around the country this spring. The schedule is
here. I would sure love to ride in one of those things, if they give me a parachute.
In addition, David excerpts some wonderful WWII bomber poetry. I bet you didn't think there was such a thing.
Posted by: annika at
01:05 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I might have to take them up on that $500 airplane ride. Wonder how long they take you up for?
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2006 03:19 PM (2gORp)
2
I think it's about half an hour.
Posted by: David Foster at February 21, 2006 03:43 PM (5F0ML)
3
I got a chance to ride in a Confederate (now Commemorative) Air Force P-51 a few years ago (O.K., more like ten years ago.) Still the best money I've ever spent. It goes to a good cause, is a rare opportunity, and is one heck of a good time.
Posted by: Trevor at February 22, 2006 08:04 AM (RwZxT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 20, 2006
More Behind The Scenes At Fox News

Previous Dhue blogging installments: here and here.
Posted by: annika at
07:38 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
On a totally different note, when are you going to do annika's second annual swimsuit review? The SI swimsuit issue is out already.
Posted by: Victor at February 21, 2006 05:06 AM (L3qPK)
2
Brrrrrrrrrr, sounds cold, how about warm pudding?
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2006 09:34 AM (y9m6I)
Posted by: Scof at February 21, 2006 12:16 PM (a3fqn)
4
MMMMMMM.... Laurie Do-Me, She puts the FOX in Fox news.
Also fond of Derry Alexander.
Actually they have a lot of good looking info babes.
AND, Fox has its trademark, ULTRA LIP GLOSS!
Posted by: Kyle N at February 21, 2006 03:19 PM (K0pst)
5
Is it just me, or is the hair color of Fox News females skewed in comparison to the general population? The good news is that if they ever decide to yank Greta off the air, you have a good shot at getting the job.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 21, 2006 11:41 PM (etmLz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Just Get It On Already

Are we gonna see this in print?
Posted by: annika at
03:56 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What's that? Sex in the cartoons?
Posted by: Casca at February 20, 2006 04:57 PM (2gORp)
2
Careful there Annie, a this may get you a Fatwa or something.
Also, better put a picture of you in a Burhka on the header, instead of the anti-Islamiscist outfit you sort of have on...
Posted by: shelly at February 21, 2006 01:23 AM (BJYNn)
3
And just
why would you want Casca as your bitch? You could do so much better.
Posted by: Victor at February 21, 2006 05:07 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 19, 2006
And What Do We Do With Witches?
Burrrrn them!

A Muslim pop singer has been forced to hire bodyguards to protect her during a visit to Britain next month after she received a string of death threats from religious extremists.
US-based Deeyah is due in London next month to promote a new single and video, released tomorrow. But the track 'What Will It Be?' has already outraged hardline Islamists here as it promotes women's rights.
Her performances with a clutch of male dancers and revealing outfits have also deeply offended many Muslims. In one scene in her latest video, the singer drops a burqa covering her body to reveal a bikini.
Oh the horror!
The 28-year-old singer claims that in the past she has been spat upon in the street and told that her family would be in danger if she did not tone down her work. The situation is now so bad that Deeyah feels she cannot visit Britain without protection. 'I can no longer walk around without specially assigned bodyguards' . . . I would be lying if I said abuse from religious fanatics didn't upset or scare me.
. . .
'I have been on the verge of a breakdown. Middle-aged men have spat at me in the street and I have had people phone me and tell me they were going to cut me up into pieces. I became this figure of hate simply because of what I do and wear.'
More Deeyah biographical info
here.
I can't tell you whether I like her music, because I can't find any samples on the web and she's not on iTunes. Then again, it doesn't really matter. Now that Muslim extremists have been granted an absolute veto power over anything "offensive," I don't really expect to be seeing Deeyah at the top of the Billboard charts anytime soon.
Here's some lyrics i was able to find, from the offending song, "What Will It Be."
From the land of the free to the jewel of the empire
Does the truth only come from the top of a holy man's spire?
From three paces back, covered head to toe
Are the rules just for the masses and written just for show?
. . .
(chorus)
Do you stand up, lay down or follow?
What will it be?
Will it all be the same again tomorrow?
What will it be?
You can claim it but the words are hollow
Do you stand up, lay down or swallow?
What will it be?
. . .
We don't take it lightly when you threatinin women,
How you have so much hate and faith in religion.
Fake in the system, need to take a break wit the dissin,
Before you end up in the lake where they fishin.
Hearin bout the muslim madona, asian J Lo,
Lookin for drama (OK) if you say so.
If you that religious and not with trendy clothes,
Then what you doin' even watchin' videos.
I think this chick has a death wish. But as Oprah might say,
You go girl!
Update: Listen to Deeyah here.
[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
Posted by: annika at
02:26 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Great post, Annika. Doesn't this stuff just make you sick to your stomach? I get furious when I read stories this. Where is the Feminist Left? Too busy hating Bush to say anything about the condition of women in the Middle East. Not a word about how many woman have benefited from our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesnt' fit the template. What is even more disgusting is that there are going to be those that will somehow try to excuse Islam for this incident just like they do for all the other atrocities commited in its name. Some dumb shit will bust out the "moral equivalence" between all religions nonsense. Sicker still, some will blame the woman for not being more "sensitive" to her religion and culture.
Hate to be so un-PC folks, but Islam----yes, Islam. Not Christianity or Judaism---is the major threat to human freedom in the 21st century. Get used to it. It aint' going anywhere.
Posted by: Blu at February 19, 2006 04:02 PM (JBa2Z)
2
look at that slutty outfit she has on in the pic: arms uncovered, hair hanging out everywhere... I'm feeling a fatwa coming on... or, er, somethin...
Posted by: gcotharn at February 19, 2006 07:37 PM (74mUn)
3
Listen to some
Deeyah (
Deeyahcide; Plan of My Own; What Will It Be)
Posted by: bettiwettiwoo at February 19, 2006 08:41 PM (ZGQP0)
4
I seem to recall that Jay Leno's wife has something or another to do with rights for females in some oppressed area or another.
Why can't they declare "Kids Bop" offensive to Muslims? A bunch of kids sing adult songs that have been cleaned up significantly. It's hawked on TV all the time. Argh.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 19, 2006 10:33 PM (tvxBS)
5
I would like to issue my own Fahtwa... on Phil Collins, GODDAM I am so sick of his crap, I hear it everywhere. You are all encouraged to kill Phil Collins on sight. If you succeed I will insure that you will gain 72 virgins in heaven, or 72 raisens, can't really be too sure about that translation.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 20, 2006 02:11 PM (Wtgpw)
6
Blu,
As much as I generaly find your solutions to the problems endemic to the planet abhorrent, your identification of Islam as the most dangerous force on earth (more dangerous than even Dick Chaney) accurate. The test of the civilized world will be the challenge of fanatical islam in current decade.
It is a frightening enemy that welcomes your death and its own equally.
Posted by: strawman at February 20, 2006 05:01 PM (0ZdtC)
7
Serious courage.
And to those people..who seem to lurk especially in journalism, entertainment, and academia..who love to pat themselves on the back for their "courage" in opposing GWB yet who are the first to quail at a threat from a jihadi..read about this woman and see what real courage looks like.
Not that these people could recognize it if they see it.
Posted by: David Foster at February 20, 2006 08:41 PM (5F0ML)
8
Mr. Forster,
It is one thing to agree that some followers of Islam are a very real threat to many civilized countries and institutions on the planet and quite another to believe that GWB has a clue about correcting them. He does not. The state of affairs with regard to this problem are in a downward spiral and nothing afoot is reversing the trend. Regardless of how many we will slaughter in Iraq or anywhere else, a fundamentally grass roots movement will prevail or at least maitain its strength. Nothing I have seen since 911 tells me the "courage" of GWB's policies have resulted in anything more than the destruction of Iraq, the death of too many Americans and Iraqi's, increased hostility toward the US around the world, the alienation of our allies, the sloping of our economy to benefit the wealthy, the enormous accumulation of our debt in the hands of our competitors, the reduction of services to the needy at home, the imperialization of the Presidency, the stagnation of wages and addition of low paying jobs, and too much more to list. Oh, on the plus side inflation seems controlled and interest rates low, but these two things are what fuels our economy, not industrial output or an increase in personal wealth. Under the umbrella of having a plan to make us safe this asshole is engaged in a creating a legacy so ruinous that it will take decades to reverse.
Posted by: strawman at February 21, 2006 09:15 AM (0ZdtC)
9
strawman...my point was not to argue that GWB is correct on Iraq, though I do believe that. My point is that in truth, it takes no particular courage to oppose those policies, particularly if one works in an industry like entertainment or academia in which 90% of one's peers and decision-makers think the same way. Yet academics and Hollywood types are continually patting themselves on the back for their courage...sorry, it's like giving yourself the Distinguished Flying Cross for things you have done in a combat flight simulator. Meanwhile, these same individuals show surprising amounts of diffidence when it comes to any behavior that might make them targets of the jihadis. It's one thing to engage in "transgressive" behavior that might upset little old Catholic ladies from Dubuque; it's quite another to do "transgressive" things that offend those who might actually kill you. Making the distinction might be called prudence; it certainly isn't courage.
Deeyah *does* show genuine courage, and I have seen little interest among the "progressives" in supporting people like her.
Posted by: David Foster at February 21, 2006 10:27 AM (5F0ML)
10
David Forster,
Deeyah may either be displaying courage or a death wish, we may never no but I try not to be too critical toward those who show some effort, to raise their voice against the forces of oppression. On ther other hand I don't feel that all that can be spoken or drawn ought to be. I think the most difficult aspect of free speech is not to abuse the privilage. Self censorship is practiced by the American press on a daily basis as it is in all western countries. Gunter Grass was interviewed the other day and compared the Danish cartoons to the cartoons of the Nazi propaganist's images of Jews. American newspapers would not run a cartoon of Jesus with a crown of dynamite blowing up abortion clinics. Or the Pope being fellatedby a mafia chief as thanks because HH might have argued for forgiveness in some crimal matter related to the mafia.
Drawing insulting streotypical cartoons about the Prophet of one billion people to make a statement about a relatively few individuals does not amount to an important excerise of free speech. Defending his right to have done it misses the point entirely. Free speech was intended to allow all discourse that furthers discussion of an issue such that the government shall not act to protect its interests by censorship. All private organizations may excerise restrictions on speech and behavior. A neighborhood association can have a no flag and banner rule as easily as it may impose a no yellow house with red shutter rule. Newspapers all censure themselves for various reasons not the least of which is their economic survival.
I think the Danish cartoon incident is an unfortunate error on the part of an editor who confused free speech with his insensitivity to a culture he holds in low regard.
Posted by: Strawman at February 21, 2006 11:20 AM (0ZdtC)
11
"Gunter Grass was interviewed the other day and compared the Danish cartoons to the cartoons of the Nazi propaganist's images of Jews. American newspapers would not run a cartoon of Jesus with a crown of dynamite blowing up abortion clinics. Or the Pope being fellatedby a mafia chief as thanks because HH might have argued for forgiveness in some crimal matter related to the mafia."
Strawman, I didn't see the interview with Mr. Grass. But based on what you quoted he is a fool. Comparing those VERY TAME cartoons to any of the examples stated is very simply inane. Comic strips/cartoons ridiculing Christianity are ubiquitous. Islamic newspapers routinely display the most vile anti-semitic propoganda. (Indeed, they teach it in their schools.) This sounds like the very same moral relativism/moral equivalence crap that one expects from the politically correct. Islam has a long history of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. This religion deserves no special consideration---indeed, if anything at all, it deserves special condemnation for its moral cowardice and history of unending violence against those who either oppose it or are apathetic to it.
All this so called "rage" is phony anyway. The "riots" are staged Islamic propoganda by people with a very specific anti-Western/anti-civilization agenda.
Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2006 01:29 PM (JBa2Z)
12
p.s. It also worthy to note that those who bomb abortion clinics are pariahs in Christianity. Alternatively, those who blow up innocent woman and children are heroes to Muslims. There is no equivalence. When will we start seeing mass demonstrations against suicide bombers? (Besides the recent hotel bombing in Egypt, which ended killing a bunch of Muslims, when is the last time you saw a spontaneous Muslim reaction against terroism.) These people give tacit support to the "few" by there utter and near total silence.
Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2006 01:37 PM (JBa2Z)
13
thats very expansive of Stawdog to be all against insulting someones religion. I wonder where he was on the whole Piss Christ episode? I know all his lefty fellow travelers were for it.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 21, 2006 03:25 PM (K0pst)
14
Blu,
Much of what you say is true, nonetheless it is no sin to be more civilized or less provocative than your ranting neighbor. Yes they dish it out, and yes they should be able to take it, and to a certain extent the outrage is a staged exposition and opportunity to vent at the west, but to say that the west's freedom of expression is compromised if a Danish cartoonist gives a second thought to the effect of his work is just not true.
I can't say that I have seen many Christians out protesting the actions of the clinic bombers and whether they are treated as pariahs by most Christians does not mitigate the actions of millions christians who praise them and give them support. The same is true of Muslims. The majority condem the jihadist and suicide bombers yet many priase them and lend support. I think a cartoon deriding the passive acceptance of the majority of Muslims toward crimes committed in the name of Mohammed or Allah might be more to the point.
I stand by my claim that the American press would not print similarly "tame" cartoons about Jesus or the Pope or a great Rabbi.
Posted by: Strawman at February 21, 2006 03:27 PM (0ZdtC)
15
Kyle,
I think you confuse the motives and obscure the point of what many people do and say. I will defend the Danish cortoonist's right to draw and print whatever he wishes, as I and my fellow travelers will do for the artist that sat a cross in his own unine. That does not mean I endorse his work nor agree with his point of view. What is does mean, however, is that I will try to stop the likes of you who would try to deny his rights with petty bullshit about sacrosanct themes and would try to selectivly legislate his freedom of expression to suit your beliefs. He may be guilty of creating offensive and unsavory art but what you wish for is far more offensive.
I wish the world were a more considerate place and no one actively expressed their rage at each other or felt the need to tear down anothers beliefs, but I do not think for a moment a government can legislate gentility and compassion into existence.
Posted by: Strawman at February 21, 2006 03:41 PM (0ZdtC)
16
"I think a cartoon deriding the passive acceptance of the majority of Muslims toward crimes committed in the name of Mohammed or Allah might be more to the point."
Yes, I agree, that would be an excellent way of pointing out that reality.
"I can't say that I have seen many Christians out protesting the actions of the clinic bombers and whether they are treated as pariahs by most Christians does not mitigate the actions of millions christians who praise them and give them support."
I don't think you have a good feel for the larger Christian community. Every major leader of every major denomination condems the bombing of abortion clinics. More importantly, the bombing of abortion clinics and violence against doctors/nurses is, in a word, rare. This is not the case with Islam, where violence in its name occurs ON A DAILY BASIS. And, moreover, is rarely ever condemned by its religious leaders, or its adherents.
Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2006 04:57 PM (JBa2Z)
17
Blu,
Let me first rise to my feet after my faint upon reading your post to our Hostess's latest tilt away from the idiot chimp on the imprudent choice of a protetion company for our port protection. I have no idea whether or not they are a capable choice, only that it is a choice so tin eared it makes Chaney look like a smooth operator.
But as for your comment that violence is rare in the abortion struggle I would argue that every vessel bulging, shouting, gruesome poster baring, driveway and sidewalk clogging christian who tries to impose his/her will in front of a clinic, threatening young women with hell-fire and damnation and spewing outright lies about the impact of the procedure on their bodies,is committing a violent act.
Posted by: Strawman at February 21, 2006 06:31 PM (0ZdtC)
18
You won't get an argument from me on the politics. The clear and easy choice is to say "fuck no!" But I've tried to listen to the pros and cons sans a knee-jerk reaction. From what I can tell so far, it seems like the security piece hasn't changed only the operational piece (i.e. the piece the Brits had previously). I also think the President's question was legitimate. (The question cited by Annika in the post.) There is no doubt in my mind that had the administration said no to this deal that they would have been branded as Islamophobes by the very same Dems who are crying foul now. I think the Reps are in a tough position. The "pro" side of this argument cannot be given in a 15 second soundbite. I plan on reading more about this. Regardless, even if the President is making the even-handed call with a partner on the War on Terror, it is probably a loss politically.
In regard to your argument about protesters, I can only respond by saying that a picture and a slogan are a far, far cry from murder.
Posted by: Blu at February 21, 2006 10:32 PM (JBa2Z)
19
Blu,
The port security issue seems to be pure politics. If the British firm that had been doing the work ( I have no idea if they were through or effective) has only changed with regard to a transfer of ownership than I think this is an unfortunate turn for the President but not a change in the status of port security. I, of course, don't pity his position but rather revel in his bad luck.
Ugly pictures, throbing temple veins and shouting are not murder but your word was violence so I went with that. Can you agree it is violence against women and I'll agree it is not murder.
Posted by: Strawman at February 22, 2006 10:50 AM (0ZdtC)
20
Yet another example of why we in the west must confront these intolerant bastards at every opportunity. The right to freedom of expression means NOTHING unless we can say things that will offend people, even offend them deeply. No compromise on this issue can be acceptable.
Posted by: Perry de Havilland at February 24, 2006 03:36 PM (UDEKc)
21
Sorry, just read this by Strawman:
"I think the Danish cartoon incident is an unfortunate error on the part of an editor who confused free speech with his insensitivity to a culture he holds in low regard."
Are you kidding? Flemming Rose (the editor in question) did this to prove two things (he has always been very clear on this) - (1) to show that there was a climate of intimidation caused by muslims against people who wanted to express themselves in ways they found offensive (2) that offending people is indeed a part of free speech and that in Denmark, as in most western nations, the right to free speech trumps religious bigotry...
Well point (1) was proven beyond any reasonable doubt as Muslims across the whole damn WORLD held a protracted Kristalnacht against anything Danish in responsive to something the disapproved of and point (2) was proved when the government of Denmark stated to any Islamic leader who was paying attemtion that they regretted the offense caused but HAD NOT POWER TO LIMIT FREE SPEECH. So... far from a mistake, publishing the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten proved beyond ANY doubt everything that Flemming Rose wanted to prove. And just incidently he propelled his newspaper from an obscure right-wing Danish paper to the torch bearer of western values across the free (i.e. non-Islamic) world. I wish I could make 'errors' like that!
BTW, I have blogged the hell out of this incident and have over 1,000 comments on about 8 articles (over 670 on one in particular where published the cartoons). It is a huge issue in the culture war as not only must we face down intolerant Islam, it puts the home-grown multi-cultural left in a lose-lose situation. How sweet is that?
Posted by: Perry de Havilland at February 24, 2006 03:52 PM (UDEKc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Re-Re-Reconquista
Is this
the latest step in Islam's campaign to gradually retake Europe?
The Spanish Islamic council has asked prime minister Rodriguez Zapatero to promote the conversion of Cordoba cathedral, which was previously a mosque, into an ecumenical temple. The council said that the gesture 'would help with the foundation of the Alliance of Civilizations,' and denounced 'a continued campaign of Islamophobia in some media outlets.' Mansur Escudero, president of the council, thanked Zapatero for his 'brave support for alliance and understanding between civilizations, which should not leave out in any way the different religions.' He said that the conversion of St. Sophia's Basilica in Istanbul and Cordoba cathedral to ecumenical temples would 'allow Christians, Muslims, and believers in other religions to pray together to the same God and strengthen spiritual and brotherly links,' and added, 'We are convinced that the Catholic Church, which works for ecumenicalism and dialogue between Christianity and Islam, will receive this initiative favorably.'
Convinced? As far as I know, Cordoba Cathedral, also known as la Mezquita, is still in operation as a Catholic Church. I'm not so sure the Pope would want to turn it into some sort of generic spriritual feel-good center.
Before you go saying "well, the Mezquita was originally a mosque," check this out:
First, the Romans built a pagan temple on the site. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the new Germanic masters of Spain (the Visigoths) replaced it with the Christian church of Saint Vincent. When the Arabs conquered the peninsula in the early 8th century, they tore down the church and began building their great mosque, which - commensurate with Cordoba's importance as the centre of Muslim power in Spain - became the largest mosque in all of Islam after that of Caaba, in Arabia.
When the Christians re-conquered Cordoba in 1236, they did with the mosque what they did in all of the cities of Andalucia - instead of bothering to build a new church, they simply 'converted' the building to Christianity and set up an altar in the middle. In the 16th century, this modest gothic insert was enlarged and given its current Renaissance - and later, baroque - styles, resulting in the strange hybrid which we now see . . .
So perhaps the Italians have the primary right to the Mezquita, since it was originally a Roman temple.
As an aside, the story of the Bells of Santiago is interesting:
[I]n spite of lengthy peaceful interludes and economically-motivated episodes of laissez-faire, there was generally, in the 800-year long war between Spain's Christians and Muslims, an uninhibited desire to cause as much harm and humiliation to one's adversary as possible. This explains many of the apparently irrational acts which took place - perfectly illustrated by the story of how the huge bells of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela were dragged 500 miles south to Cordoba and then all the way back again.
At the height of Muslim power, during the Omega Caliphate at the end of the 10th century, the fearsome warlord Al-Mansur led a bloody raid through northern Spain, going as far into Christian territory as Santiago de Compostela. On the loose in the great pilgrims' city, the Moor had the audacity of riding his horse into the cathedral and letting it drink from the font of holy water, outraging the Christian townsfolk; then, even more insultingly, he had the church's bells carried 500 miles south to Cordoba, where they were melted down to make lamps to illuminate the Great Mosque.
When, two and a half centuries later, in 1236, the Castillian King Ferdinand the Third ('The Saint') reconquered Cordoba, his first action, to avenge the humiliation caused by Al-Mansur, was to have the lamps carried back to the shrine of Saint James, where they were melted down to make a new set of bells.
Yes, this has been a long war.
Posted by: annika at
09:53 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Hmm if the Spanish Islamic Council, (who always preach brotherhood with other religions if we just do what they want), is willing to give back all the mosques in the middle east that used to be Christian churches or Jewish temples first we may be able to take them seriously. As for now they are all a bunch of hipocrits.
Posted by: jeff at February 19, 2006 02:04 PM (Oy8FT)
2
Yes, it has been a long war. Unfortunately, too many don't realize that it is still going on...and many, many more don't know it ever started. If the West loses this war it will be because we have forgotten our history and our way.
Posted by: Blu at February 19, 2006 04:22 PM (JBa2Z)
3
I don't think the West forgot its history. Instead, I think most of the West just self-loathes their past and heritage now.
As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
Posted by: reagan80 at February 19, 2006 06:26 PM (K9tdw)
4
Great Revel quote. I was reminded of it when reading Annika's post. Funny that you used it. First time I saw it was in a Michael Barone essay in which he makes a similar point as you.
Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2006 07:33 AM (JBa2Z)
5
Actually, Blu, I directly ripped that quote off from a Mark Steyn column.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 20, 2006 07:47 AM (K9tdw)
6
Good choice. Steyn writes some brilliant stuff. He recently wrote an essay on the dangers of "sensitivity" that was pretty spot on. I should check out his site more often.
Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2006 09:13 AM (JBa2Z)
7
A friend of mine had a comment about the Cordoba proposal that I think sums it up:
Sure -- just as soon as the Liturgy is celebrated at the Hagia Sophia again.
peace,
Posted by: Zach Frey at February 20, 2006 09:47 AM (mU/Ct)
8
It's wonderful to see you have posted this.
The problem, as ever, are that the mass media are not regarding this as a real menace for the people, as a lot of them are just bought. We, in the blogosphere, are managing to alert about it. But it's disgusting and very discouraging to see that the people who can do something are just dancing with the enemies.
Thanks from Spain.
Posted by: Spanish Eowyn at February 20, 2006 01:11 PM (XkI1g)
9
WOW, International Annika!
Heh for you amature plagarists, a bit of Kipling, although in the spirit of things, I SHOULD claim it as my own:
When Homer smote his bloomin' lyre,
He'd heard men sing by land and sea,
And what he thought he might require
He went and took -- the same as me.
The market girls and fishermen,
The shepherds and the sailors too,
They heard old songs turn up again,
But kept it quiet -- same as you.
He knew they knowed, they knowed he knew;
but did not sqwak, nor make a fuss,
But winked at Homer down the road,
And he winked back -- the same as us.
Posted by: Casca at February 20, 2006 02:00 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
This
game seems strangely familiar. I don't know.
Led there by Sarah.
Posted by: annika at
08:32 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: annika at February 20, 2006 03:38 PM (fxTDF)
Posted by: Mike at February 20, 2006 05:37 PM (Ffvoi)
Posted by: d-rod at February 20, 2006 08:03 PM (12W4E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 18, 2006
The State Of Poetry Education In The Muslim World
It must be pitiful.
Come on, a haiku is 5 syllables, 7 syllables, then 5 syllables. How hard is that, now?
Posted by: annika at
07:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
LMAO, "on top of spaghetti", all covered with cheese.
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 09:10 PM (2gORp)
2
I lost my Koran, when somebody sneezed.
Thanks for the linky!
Posted by: Vinnie at February 18, 2006 10:35 PM (f289O)
3
Your Glamour mag parody is da Shizznitts! I nearly coughed up all my coffee.
here is my bloging haiku.
Better than talking
meet interesting people
beat up on a troll
Posted by: Kyle N at February 19, 2006 04:48 AM (4l13K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
136kb generated in CPU 0.0466, elapsed 0.1309 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.1015 seconds, 325 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.