December 31, 2003
Roasting
I didn't even SUBMIT anything for the Bonfire, and yet
Kevin got me. I'm weeks behind on getting my name and writing (good and bad) "out there."
hln
Posted by: hln at
12:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
December 29, 2003
Blackfive and Good Drinking, Good Food, and Coleman Grills
I had the recent pleasure of interviewing the blogosphere's own
Paratrooper of Love this last Friday. This will be a bit out of order and, well, disjointed, but it's more fun that way. The later the entry, the more alcohol was consumed, and so on, and so forth.
It began as naming good drinking cities. It went elsewhere but stayed mostly on topic; we tried to hit all 50 states.
- Boston - "#3, home of Sam Adams."
- Chicago - #1 - great! [interviewer thinks he's biased]
- Milwaukee - [Has a #2 by it but my notes say that Brian says "no." I don't remember Matt giving it a #2...how'd that get there?]
- Philly - "#11 - "Claim to fame - beef with fried cheese - I love it." [Interviewer cringes again]
- Cleveland, St. Louis, Denver - [All get "ok" ratings.]
- Boulder, CO - "Big party town if you have a big trust fund."
- Ames, IA - "Not so horribly bad."
- Ann Arbor's "Great."
- Lansing - "Cheap."
- Arizona - "Nothing there." I don't think we ever even got to towns.
- Annapolis - "Top 20." [He has an ex-girlfriend there - Sherry (I gave her the nickname of "Cooking") who sings in a bar.]
- DC - "No, but Georgetown" [censored]
- Virginia - Richmond - "Too many Marines"
- Texas - [he transitions to food yet again] - "good BBQ"
- Austin, San Antonio - "Okay."
- Dallas - "Overrated. Cowboys suck. It'd be good for the sport if Troy Aikman" [censored]
- Tulsa - "Not such a bad drinking town." [Brian noted that "it's a slut backwards."]
- Tahoe - "Pretty good place." [censored] "But the lake is beautiful."
- Las Vegas - "Never been."
- Nona Rosa, San Francisco - "Great. Ask for Chris if you go there."
- Malibu, LA "Okay" [Interviewee ranks beer above random women in this conversation. He likes grills, though. Something was mentioned about Armorall and Salma Hayek. Matt said, "You can Armorall her, too." [I don't believe this was a euphemism; it would have to be censored then, and I don't have a notation.]
- Portland, OR - "#25. As weird as San Francisco, but not as expensive, not as big."
- Seattle's "Okay - good place." [Matt then went into tour-guide mode, mentioning Pioneer Square, Gasworks Park, Fremont Republic. He mentioned "diverse" and used the words business suit and Rastafarian.]
- Vancouver - "Great drinking town." [More tour guide stuff - buildings, cobblestone streets.]
- Missoula - "Kinda okay. Bottom 100. But if you're in Montana and you have to go somewhere, it's a good place to go. Helena, no."
- Wyoming? "No." [Somehow we digressed to a skiing tangent. I have no context.]
- Utah - "Mormons." [He'll pass. Maybe ski there someday.]
- South Dakota - Badlands "Okay."
- North Dakota - "All they can do is drink."
- Omaha - "Buddy was a Guinness distributor. Pull off the highway. $2 filet mignon. I'll take 6." [More toury stuff - historic downtown, 1850, 1860, saloons.] "Nothing else to do. Eat steak and drink beer."
- Kansas - "No."
- Indiana - "No. Mr. Green's from Indiana. Yeah, Indiana, no."
- Alaska - "Hmm."
- Mobile's - "Not too bad."
- Mississippi - "No."
- Georgia - "Hard drinking in Georgia."
- New Orleans. [censored] "Anywhere you go and they ask you if it's for here or to go - that's a good place."
- Charleston - "Great drinking town. If I can clean out all the scotch in one bar, that's not a good thing."
- North Carolina - "Okay if you like tattoo parlors and strip joints." [disclaimer: Matt wishes that the 82d Airborne not take offense.]
- Tennessee - "Every town in Tennessee is a good drinking town."
- Louisville - "Good town. A lot of colleges nearby. Cool pubs and breweries downtown. Good place to raise a family. [Matt contrasts with North Carolina and then censors himself.]
- South Carolina - "SC pride - bumper stickers. You buy them in bars. Women in South Carolina wear stuff with Carolina on it, and they don't mean North Carolina. Charleston - more pubs than any other town in the south." [See previous section about scotch.]
- Alabama - "I don't want to piss anybody off in Alabama, so we'll just skip Alabama."
- Minneapolis - "Good. Nothing else to do except freeze your ass off. They drink a lot of vodka. Good Indian restaurants. Closing time is midnight. This is a problem unless you start drinking at 3 or 4."
- Newport, Rhode Island - "Take a ferry out to Block Island. 45 minute ride. Great place. Lots of bars."
- Connecticut - "Ex girlfriend there." [She drove him to a lot of drinking.] "Bethel is a good place. Good ice cream. Meg Ryan's from there. This is bad; she left Dennis Quaid."
- Buffalo - "Buffalo Wings - Tin Lizzie's. Quite a few others. What the hell else are you gonna do?"
- New York, New York - "Too expensive."
- Portland, Maine - "#99. Not a bad place."
- Santa Fe, Albuquerque - "Fun place." [Heather challenged to accurately spell Albuquerque correctly. Bluffs. Takes a drink of water instead of wine.] "Good restaurants and all of the restaurants have good bars. Really, really nice. Could raise a family there, but your kids couldn't spell Albuquerque." [Further, this spelling of Albuquerque is much simpler while sober.]
- Boise - "Great frickin' town. Skiing, weather, mountains, beer - underrated. Raise a family there. Bruce Willis and Demi Moore."
- New Jersey - Jersey Shore - "Right before Desert Storm, couldn't buy a drink there - always covered with a blessing."
- San Juan, Puerto Rico - "Lots of Tequila. Brings out the evil twin."
- [Interviewer cannot read her last bit of notes about the University of Illinois area - something about grills, not girls, drinking, no skiing, and the food sucks - Olive Garden being the best you can get there.]
And there you have it.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:56 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 7 kb.
1
All this time, I thought Matt had a drinking problem. Apparently he was merely in training for the Olympic Drinking Medal.
I'm thinking he'll get the gold.
Great interview!
Posted by: Harvey at December 29, 2003 10:59 AM (tJfh1)
2
Heh - when my daughter was a senior at Purdue, it was the year of the Rose Bowl. All the Purdue-ites who went to LA for the event, congregated at a particular bar. They ended up drinking the bar dry on New Year's Eve. Dry - no liquor left! So, if you're in Indiana the place to go is Harry's in West Lafayette where they teach 'em how to do it.
Sadly I had children so young that I never did figure out the bar situation in St. Louis. The problem being that if you are young and have kids, you don't have the money to go out, much less go out drinking.
Posted by: Teresa at December 29, 2003 11:35 AM (nAfYo)
3
Nothing good in Alabama? Guess these classless shits never been to the FloraBama!
Posted by: _m2 at December 29, 2003 01:52 PM (ea+zM)
4
Bah, there's great drinking in Mississippi, at least in Oxford.
Posted by: Chris Lawrence at December 29, 2003 07:06 PM (iWXB2)
5
Wait, wait, wait - are you saying that Matt was
drinking?
Frankly, I don't believe it.
Posted by: Mr. Green at December 29, 2003 08:31 PM (KZZwu)
6
Teresa - You're right. As a Purdue grad I can vouch for Harry's. Friday afternoon (any Friday afternoon) was prime time and the window seats were the place to be. I spent many a brain cell with a long neck in one hand and chicken wings in the other.
Thanks for bringing back those memories.
Scott
Posted by: Scott at December 29, 2003 09:09 PM (yM0EN)
7
Mr. Green, a Purdue grad, brought me to Wagners for beers and ribs one time so Indiana isn't all bad. Just a dig at Mr. Green...heh.
I believe my response as "No" for Mississippi is for not having any experience drinking in Miss. If the word no really bothers you, open a freaking bar in Mississippi and invite me.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 29, 2003 10:56 PM (/ODrp)
8
Yeah, Indiana, no.
Blackfive talk with forked tongue.
Posted by: Victor at December 30, 2003 07:34 AM (L3qPK)
9
Pah. There's few towns in the nation where you can't get good drinking, and that's usually only on Sundays.
Arizona? Nothing in Arizona? Tequila and the largest concentration of silicone in the country in Scottsdale?
Where every woman is a 5'8" blonde bombshell? What is he thinking?
I agree with Florbama's, though too many flyboy's. Of course, where else can you see soldiers parachuting into a courtyard to get free drinks?
Tampa, FL. Ybor. Year round Mardi Gras, 20,000 nightly, 50-80,00 on the weekends, 200,000 for Strawberry Festival. All in ten blocks
Hermosa Beach, CA The Pier. You've never seen woman so beautiful it hurts to look at them. And then take them home.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, for New Years. 0 Degrees but you look thin next to the natives.
Anywhere in Clearwater, FL. - Bikinis, Corona, and cheap beer. And Parrotheads.
Posted by: TheYeti at December 30, 2003 04:29 PM (+yDzP)
10
Thanks TheYeti - I was making note on how great a Tampa/Clearwater is if your looking for fun.
As to Indiana, having spent a couple of 30 there I can promise there is nothing else to do BUT drink (oh and tip cows, but that's a whole 'nother post).
Posted by: Tammi at January 15, 2004 07:15 PM (rZmE1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2003
New Blog Showcase
Wow - this week hasn't flown like some of the others where on Sunday I scratch my head and say, "wow, it's THAT time again."
Still, to get the voting thing done and checked off of my to-do list, my votes are for
My Word's post and
Front Page News' post on The Point.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:54 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
It's a Mad, Mad Cow
Hello. My name is Heather. I'll be the host of this blog. Again.
Been without Internet access for about 24 hours, and with the holidays and stuff, I've lost immediacy with the whole mad cow story. But, of course, others have put into print (at least on screen) their thoughts.
First I read was Kevin at Wizbang in his post
Mad Cow Patties, and it covers the political bent taken on this issue. Evidently, Dr. Howard Dean points his parentally shaking finger at the Bush administration for not being able to immediately immobilize and something like magnetically (and instantly) recall any other of the bovine persuasion that may be affected. Oh, please. Eric Schlosser was seriously yapping (eloquently, I might add - that's not an affront) in his book
Fast Food Nation, and that was released in 2001. That means it was written the previous year or two years. Mr. Dean, meet Mr. Schlosser. For more on that,
I reviewed the book earlier.
Kevin's nicer than I am. He says:
Instant traceability would be nice, but would have had no effect on the foreign boycotts of U.S. product. Nations have enacted immediate bans on our beef product just has we have done with Canadian beef and British beef before that. Whether or not we could instantly identify the history of the infected animal would have ZERO impact on bans. Immediate bans are a politically easy and popular mechanism to quell domestic uneasiness. Being able to block imports for good cause is also popular because it makes money for domestic producers; just ask US beef producers coming off their best year ever partially due to the ban on Canadian imports.
And he's absolutely right on the money here. It's as if everything changed in that second when the disease was identified. Ack! Panic! What else could be lurking?
And as to the sufferance of the beef industry, from a foreign standpoint, yes. Kevin again:
Taxpayers are already supporting the cattle industry and farming in general with a byzantine myriad of federal programs. As many have pointed out the industry has lobbied against the kinds of controls now being called for, so a good case could be made for the fact that they made their bed and should now lie in it.
Ah, industry responsibility. "We can self-police." "Oops."
I'm going to segue for just a bit - yesterday I purchased the book known as
Portrait of a Burger as a Young Calf. Very small print, this one. It may be good it's in paperback. Publisher's Weekly calls it "A more generous view of the beef industry than Eric Schlosser's recent
Fast Food Nation...an absorbing first-hand account." Somebody get me a copy of
The Jungle for my birthday in July?
But, excuse, me for a moment. I have to go shake the steaks in the marinade. Moo.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.
December 24, 2003
December 23, 2003
So Restless Indeed
It's 10:23 p.m. I'm just now blogging, and I have given myself 7 minutes to complete this post. 5 a.m. comes early.
Do you recognize the lyric? Are you one of those people who can't sit still - who can't relax until exhausted? I am. It explains the cycling, the weight lifting, the volleyball. I think with inactive people they call this ADHD. And give them drugs. Actually, it's probably just the Type A personality. Or programmer's leg.
You've seen it, haven't you? The leg that bounces up and down. It's usually my right leg moving in some silly way. Often, it's the left tucked under the right and the right leg swinging. Motion. Gah! Must have motion.
Brian named it, and it's a habit I've seen with many in my profession. I don't think I've noticed it with
the guys I
work with, but I've seen it. Really, I have. We sit for such long periods of time. So often, I just can't deal. I have to get up and get more water. Shake the leg while standing. Just do SOMETHING. And when I'm in a hurry, oh, look out. Frenetic motion, pushing others aside; parting the slow flesh-colored seas. I'm on a MISSION, people; doncha see? The grocery store can stress me out. I have to suppress the "Rarr!" emotion and subsequent actions.
Why do people move slowly anyway (I'd best wrap up - 2 mins left)? I just don't get it. I mean, if you've already pulsed yourself into an exhausted heap and are melting in your own sweat, okay. But this languid sloth that overcomes most, uh, probably normal folk, I just don't get it.
That being said, I'm going to go shake a leg in my sleep. Or something. And please tell me you can
hear Simon LeBon, right?
"She's moody and grey, she's mean and she's restless..."
With editing, it's 10:33.
Good night. Rarr!
hln
Posted by: hln at
10:34 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You've seen it, haven't you? The leg that bounces up and down. It's usually my right leg moving in some silly way. Often, it's the left tucked under the right and the right leg swinging.
Alright, where did you hide the camera?!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 24, 2003 07:42 AM (jtW2s)
2
Not under the desk at work. I wear too many skirts. Today's a foot-tapping day.
hln
Posted by: hln at December 24, 2003 09:27 AM (CWwGn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2003
Obesity and Laws. Again.
Today at Yahoo!, we learn that there are
already some state-level laws in place.
Yeah, okay. I like the latter half of the article.
"There's a lot of fear and hysteria," said Mike Burita at the Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group for the restaurant and food industry. "We're allowing government and these public health groups to dictate our food choices to us."
Among his top targets is the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group that produces a steady flow of warnings about unhealthy food, from movie popcorn to Chinese takeout.
"It's OK to have a cheeseburger and fries, but it shouldn't be a mainstay of your diet," Burita said. Exercise and education are the solutions, he said. "Kids went from playing dodge ball to playing computer games."
The skeptics are being heard. A Texas proposal to limit school children's access to snack and soda vending machines died after the state soft drink association complained. Most of the 80 or so obesity-related bills around the country also failed to pass.
"It's difficult to want to tackle something like this, something as huge as this," said Weiner, the Nevada lawmaker. She plans to bring together people from the food industry and the public health community to work with lawmakers.
If people want to be fat, let them be fat. The only thing I've advocated so far is more detailed labelling. I'd be pretty obnoxiously vocal if somehow my
favorite junk food were no longer available at my local grocery store, and that's where this may head someday if it goes out of control.
And can't you see it? A butter ration. "Mrs. Noggle, I'm sorry. You've purchased five tubs of butter in this last week. You can't have any more." Nevermind I just finished making 60 dozen cookies to give away (if you gain weight over the holidays, make sure everyone around you gains more!).
In my recent travels, I did notice that people seemed less overweight everywhere I went. In St. Louis, here, it's quite prevalent. But in San Francisco and around Massachusetts....naaa. Someone might carry an extra 10 or 20, but nothing that would cause the health uproar and nothing that couldn't be removed with some extra sweat and nutrition caution.
So there's the blog entry for the evening. I'm off to volleyball.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:21 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I am here as an accident of fate, linked from allah- it's pretty simple folks if you take in more calories than you burn you will gain weight;
if you take in less calories than you burn off you will lose weight. Do as you please. I will go away now............
Posted by: eieio at December 22, 2003 08:13 PM (J6xVD)
2
I'm off to volleyball.
Sigh. Our season ended a couple weeks ago. No more v-ball until January...
Posted by: NTodd at December 22, 2003 08:40 PM (CDNE8)
3
I've been reading (in my "spare" time) the transcripts from the FDA obesity task force meetings. Personally I'm hoping the trend goes towards economic incentive to be healthy instead of banning unhealthy things. I want to deduct my gym dues!
Posted by: Nic at December 23, 2003 07:30 AM (nUOJD)
Posted by: Victor at December 23, 2003 07:32 AM (L3qPK)
5
Volleyball was cathartic. I'm afraid my arms are still red (next day). That's a sign of receiving some spikes (mostly well, I might add).
Nic, my company used to have a "wellness" program where it would pay for things like volleyball or part of a gym membership - I think up to $200 a year. That went the wayside because of the economy. But, yeah, I'd like to deduct my gym membership, too. And my cycling gear. And my ice skate sharpening, etc.

hln
hln
Posted by: hln at December 23, 2003 07:35 AM (CWwGn)
6
I always love it when people think they can legislate health - or at least that's what they want you to think. What they really want is more money or money to begin a program. Ah do-gooder government in action.
Posted by: Teresa at December 23, 2003 09:10 AM (nAfYo)
7
Oooh, cycling gear! (Homer Simpson drooling voice)
There was an article in the paper this morning about local schools teaching "lifetime" activities in gym to try to get the kids off their increasingly fat butts.
I feel a blog post of my own coming on... ;-)
(I must say, though...I've been working in public health for most of the last 15 years, with government agencies, and I have met a lot of people at FDA, various institutes at NIH, etc. who truly do care about peoples' health, for health's sake and for the productivity/economy of the country.)
Posted by: nic at December 23, 2003 10:26 AM (nUOJD)
8
What I find wrong--always--is the height-to-weight ratio being the Golden Rule in deciding how obese a person is. By that rule, Cal Ripken Jr. is obese!
I've seen him in action--I can safely testify an obese man cannot move like that.
OK, that's the extent of my knowledge of obesity. Useless--sorry to take up your space, Heather.
Posted by: Victor at December 23, 2003 12:51 PM (L3qPK)
9
Check this out...
I know what you're doing, and I'm going to TURN YOU IN!!!
www.waronjunk.com (turn your speakers on)
Posted by: Sgt. Belcher at May 21, 2005 10:53 AM (vHA97)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 21, 2003
New Blog Showcase (and Housekeeping)
Okay - should be back to normal blogging (more of it) in the coming weeks. I hope to actually have some time off where I'm not doing something Christmas related very soon.
Here's my
vote for the New Blog Showcase.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:23 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Your vote isn't showing up on the Bear's scorecard:
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ba.php
But he's going to check again tonight:
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2003/12/22/showcase_ecosystem_troubles.php#001258
Posted by: Harvey at December 22, 2003 08:24 AM (tJfh1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 20, 2003
Cars for Women!
Michele at
A Small Victory has a post about Volvo (you know -
They're Boxy but They're Good)
designing a car with women in mind. She says:
So Volvo got a bunch of their female workers together and had them design a car with women in mind. This prototype will include such innovations as a valley down the center of the headrest for ponytail wearers, and an hood that can only be opened by a mechanic (who is contacted by some wireless thigamajig) because women just hate to be bothered with mechanical maintanence of a car.
Whatever.
Yeah. Strange, no? Cars are pretty unisex. The actual article says this:
Volvo hopes the prototype will send a message to female buyers, who have long felt neglected by male designers and disrespected by dealerships.
Beyond that, Volvo wants to shake up the male-dominated culture inside the company, something found at virtually all automakers. Ultimately, Volvo says, the project might help attract women employees as well as women buyers.
We should make cars for Asians! For people of Hispanic descent! Maybe not. Want to make a car appealing to women? Make it curvy and eye-catching. Oh, wait, that's just making the car appealing to me. How would I know what women want?
Just a bit more...
more...
Posted by: hln at
11:11 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Susie at December 20, 2003 11:35 AM (0+cMc)
2
The fact that Volvo's engineering is dominated by men wouldn't have anything to do with the vast majority of engineers being male, do you think?

This reminds me of a project the Army undertook probably 15 years ago, wherein they strongly encouraged female recruits to become mechanics, because they were "under-represented" there.
Basically, within a year or two most of them had transferred into different jobs.
Dogmatic liberalism, which sees ANY difference as evidence of discrimination, ultimately has to destroy free choice in order to get the result it wants.
Who was it that said with the French national motto -- liberty, equality and fraternity -- that you destroy the first when you try to enforce the other two.
Posted by: Discoshaman at December 21, 2003 12:03 AM (ardxO)
3
I love that you have a "whimsy" section. The bywords of my own blog are "fear and whimsy."
Posted by: Discoshaman at December 21, 2003 12:05 AM (ardxO)
4
It should be called Dolores.
Posted by: Victor at December 21, 2003 09:05 AM (16A49)
5
Just stopped by to second Susie's groan...
Posted by: Harvey at December 21, 2003 01:11 PM (ubhj8)
6
Oh no - triple that Groan!!!
Posted by: Teresa at December 21, 2003 04:49 PM (nAfYo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 19, 2003
Suggestion Deception, What's Your Question?
Is suggestion deception?
Apparently so.
MINNEAPOLIS - One of the state's most influential medical groups has joined the fray in saying officials should change language on the state Department of Health's Web site suggesting abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
In a letter obtained by the Star Tribune dated Dec. 9, Dr. Robert Meiches, head of the Minnesota Medical Association, said the site's language — while not exactly inaccurate — is misleading and confusing to women.
The breast cancer language has generated controversy since it was first posted in September, because critics say it's designed to frighten women considering abortion.
Not inaccurate but misleading. How? Intent. And, please, tell me, a scholar of communication, how to scientifically ascribe intent to another human being or group of human beings. Together, we can publish one hell of a paper. You have a motive guess that may or may not be wrong. Hey, look, I twisted that sentence. Someone chide me for my
journalistic bad behavior.
And back to the case at hand. Hey, abortion kills fetuses - whom some of us see as human beings! Would that not dissuade some pregnant lady folk who might be considering ridding themselves of what Ani DiFranco lyricizes "
the son or daughter I thought better of." I'll bet it does. Does the word "kill" elicit fear? PETA certainly hopes so.
But here's the paragraph that flipped the switch on the Blog About flag to. 1. Here's the big, nasty, horrifying offensive language.
The Web site, as well as a Health Department pamphlet, state that some studies suggest that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, while other studies suggest no increased risk. That contradicts the conclusions of the nation's leading medical institutions, including the National Cancer Institute (news - web sites), which found earlier this year that there is no evidence of an increased risk.
"It is deliberately deceptive," said Dr. Janette Strathy, legislative director of the Minnesota branch of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It oversimplifies a very complex situation with the goal of frightening the patient."
Let me repeat: "
The Web site, as well as a Health Department pamphlet, state that some studies suggest that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, while other studies suggest no increased risk."
What's the complex situation? I'm lost.
Oh, and, hey, wait - we're Americans. We're too stupid to realize that medical studies might contradict each other and make up our own minds. "Suggest" means "Is." We can't read that sentence and conclude that there's conflicting evidence. You know what - a
woman who never has children incurs increased risk for breast cancer. Quick, women, conceive! Hey, honey, do we have plans for this evening? I really ought to reduce my risk for breast cancer, no? I mean, it is my top priority, and reading that something might put me at risk puts me into immediate tizzy irrational panic! Aargh! What a euphemism that is anyway - reducing the risk of breast cancer.
[Reader: note change from Health category to RANT]
Interestingly, I side with the NCI on this one. If it says no increased risk, probably no increased risk. But goodness - quit the freak-out. Anybody disagree that further studies on breast cancer and all/any of its possible causes is a bad thing? Oh, the controversy of this complex issue. Let us plaster all of the newspapers with this horrible miseducation of our nation's women.
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:07 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
1
What I hate is the attitude on the radical left that *anything* one might say that's even slightly negative about abortion is somehow oppressing women.
I'm nominally pro-choice, but I despise that attitude.
Posted by: Little Miss Attila at December 19, 2003 10:26 PM (3aUho)
2
Bah! Women can't even decide which dress to wear for an evening out. They're all silly and easily confused. Even a slightly ambiguous statement like that would send them into a tizzy of bafflement.
[ducks]
[not fast enough]
OW!
Posted by: Harvey at December 20, 2003 08:50 AM (tJfh1)
3
Harvey, a lot of KY and grunting should help you get that dumbbell out of your fundamental orifice
Posted by: Victor at December 20, 2003 09:22 AM (16A49)
4
ha ha ha "findamental orifice" ha ha ha
Good post.
Combine this "assumed stupidity" premise with our overly litigious fellow citizens and you see why so many high-dollar court cases are won over frivilous issues.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 20, 2003 09:55 AM (7y1/0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 17, 2003
Massachusetts Dose of PETA
I thought I'd feed you some local news this evening.
Animal rights advocates will single out small children at performances of "The Nutcracker'' in the next few weeks by handing out fliers saying "Your Mommy Kills Animals'' to youngsters whose mothers are wearing fur.
Yes, involve those children. And in the dark, it'll be really obvious, obviously, which is real and which is fake fur. This just in from the
Boston Herald.
The fliers include a color drawing of a woman plunging a large bloody knife into the belly of a terrified rabbit. The fliers urge kids to "ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes.
"And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy - she's an animal killer.''
First, idiots, you can't kill dead animals. That's like performing a post-mortem health examination. "Nurse, how's the dead rabbit doing?" "Still dead, doctor." Five minutes later "still dead." Second, PETA, pipe down. What is this target-the-kids racket? How low can you sink? If you've been reading me for any length of time, you know my beef with PETA is that now animal welfare folks (like me) are perceived as loony as PETA whackjobs. Yeah, great.
A child psychologist interviewed offered a nice rational attack.
"It's using children in the worst possible way,'' she said. "If (the activists) want to legitimately work to protect animals from destruction for fashion, they have every right to. But to do so by targeting children and making them feel their mothers are murderers is absolutely unconscionable.''
Yeah, yawn -
same vein as this. PETA! It's everywhere.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:17 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I know it won't happen, but I wish a parent or group of parents would sue these...these... grotesque monsters. Money always talks, maybe it might get their attention.
But, how dare they even THINK about handing out something like this to a child! It's bad enough when they physically attack an adult wearing fur. But to approach a child in this manner should be considered child abuse. The wack-jobs who do it should be sent to jail for it - period. And the PETA organization should be held accountable.
Hey there's an idea, maybe we could get them shut down as being a center for child abuse!
Posted by: Teresa at December 17, 2003 11:51 PM (nAfYo)
2
As
The Commissar would say:
If we weren't supposed to wear the hides of animals as coats, why are they made out of fur?
Posted by: Sophorist at December 18, 2003 12:01 AM (S3wEd)
3
"how many dead animals she killed"
Duh!
Posted by: Tim at December 18, 2003 09:56 AM (3Wso0)
4
First the impotent Santa billboard, and now this. Geez.
Posted by: Tony at December 18, 2003 10:16 AM (k2QzX)
5
I saw this news earlier and told my husband I want three things for Christmas:
a mink coat
tickets to the Nutcracker
brass knuckles
Posted by: LeeAnn at December 19, 2003 09:19 AM (HxCeX)
6
Ass-kickings all around are good for us as a society.
Posted by: TheYeti at December 19, 2003 11:03 AM (+yDzP)
7
Congratulations, PETA! Just when I thought they couldn't get any more annoying and outrageous! PETA claims to be in favor of the ETHICAL treatment of animals... Last time I checked, human beigns were part of the animal world, including children! Even after 7 years of working in child welfare, it never ceases to amaze me the new and terrible ways some adults come up with for abusing innocent children!
Gotta run! I have to pick up my FUR scarf from the cleaners before Christmas!
Posted by: Mrs. Green at December 19, 2003 12:26 PM (bQTZL)
8
Fur scarf? Eh, I'll just use a cat. I bet Galt wouldn't mind serving as a scarf for a social outing. He'd probably hiss at the PETAite for me.
hln
Posted by: hln at December 19, 2003 12:28 PM (CWwGn)
Posted by: Mr. Rakka at March 08, 2005 03:32 PM (anvdo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 16, 2003
"That's Not Really Saddam Hussein" and Other Travel Stories
Warning - another of Heather's disjointed travel stories. Kinda like
this one.
So I'm flying out of Lambert this morning, and an old lady (who's wearing salmon-colored slacks and has six great-grandchildren she's never met but is about to) says to me while gesturing to CNN broadcasting from above:
"They say they got him, that Saddam Hussein. But I don't think they did." "Hmm" I say - very noncomittal, and much more interested in my imminent breakfast. "He has so many that look like him, you know," she continues.
And I think - wow, what a fun conspiracy that would be. Double #247, come on down! You're the next contestant in the DNA is Gonna Be Right!
Naaa.
So I fly into New Hampshire to rent a car and drive into Massachusetts (did I spell that right?). And in the airport, I notice a Dunkin' Donuts. "Got to make the donuts." Yeah, that. St. Louis has driven them outta town with Donut King taking over the previous locations. Also, of course, there's Krispy Kreme, and some of the groceries make their own. I shouldn't discount the local donutteries (like University City Donuts). But Dunkin' Donuts - maker of the best apple fritter ever. I noted it.
I drove 40 some odd miles to get to my destination, and, I kid you not, I must've seen EIGHT to TEN freakin' roadside free-standing Dunkin' Donuts shops. It's amazing. I saw more Dunkin' Donuts than I saw Subways. Than McDonald's. How do they survive?
Walgreen's is kinda like that in Missouri. My mother has this theory that the stores are just pods sent from outer space. Phoom! A new Walgreen's. "Hey, wait, Bob, was that drugstore there last week?" Me, I have a sound effect for it. If you've ever played Civilization III, the sound effect is the noise that's made when you turn your settler into a city. If you haven't played, get thee to Best Buy, spend $10, and get the game. At least then you'll have a point of reference for this silly post.
I'm sitting in the business center of my hotel, not having connectivity in my room. Because of this, posting will be sporadic or nonexistent for the next few days.
And if you don't hear from me by Friday, assume one of those Dunkin' Donuts stores ate me to feed its profits. Or something.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Civilization III exists primarily to annoy Civilization I & II players. The computer opponents are programmed not so much to be a challenge as to be a pain in the butt.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 16, 2003 08:57 PM (kOqZ6)
2
Could you please pick me up a chocolate chip muffin while you're in there? :-)
Posted by: Harvey at December 17, 2003 11:01 AM (tJfh1)
3
Off topic - did you have a topic? - can anyone see my blog? I posted something earlier and when I hit refresh everything on my blog was gone. All my stuff is still in Blogger but my blog is a blank. Is this just BlogSpot screwing with me or what? I'd say yes but I don't see this happening on any other BlogSpot pages.
WTF?
Posted by: Mike the Marine at December 17, 2003 01:27 PM (Zw7Hl)
4
Harvey said you were making a run. Pick me up a lemon-filled donut while you're out? Please?
Smooches!
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 20, 2003 10:01 AM (7y1/0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 15, 2003
Well, Doh!
Yeah, I rigged it, but oh well.

You are the the Swedish Chef.
You are a talented individual, nobody understands you. Perhaps it's because you talk funny.
FAVORITE EXPRESSION:
"Brk! Brk! Brk!" (it's BORK you sillies!)
HOBBIES:
Kokin' der yummee-yummers
FAVORITE MOVIE:
"Wild Strawberries...and Creme"
LAST BOOK READ:
"Der Swedish Chef Kokin' Bokin'"
QUOTE:
"Vergoofin der flicke stoobin mit der brk-brk
yubetcha!"
What Muppet are you? brought to you by Quizilla
Found all over Munuviana!
Ambient Irony and
Jennifer's History and Stuff.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:17 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I am AMAZED I wasn't him, seeing as I nearly wet myself with the answer "Putting de fishey in de oven".
Sigh, I was Kermit. Boring.
Posted by: Helen at December 16, 2003 06:22 AM (WrdM/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Philosophical Moments
Wow, I seem to have a pretty serious Aristotelian bent, according to
this test, found via
The Evangelical Outpost.
My top matches:
1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Aquinas (89%)
3. David Hume (86%)
4. Ayn Rand (79%)
5. St. Augustine (75%)
6. Plato (71%)
I'm not sure Aristotle, Sir Thomas, and Mr. Skeptic Hume would get along very well if kept in a warm room for 6 hours without a door and/or windows. So how's that work in my head?That's my first thought. Do I contradict myself? I don't think I do. No, wait, I do. Naa.
I am pleased to note that Utilitarianism never made an appearance. It's hiding under the dust ruffle in my guest bedroom.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:54 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Brian J. at December 15, 2003 09:45 PM (yJyUC)
2
Hmm. I get:
1. Epicureans (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (92%)
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (92%)
4. Jeremy Bentham (92%)
5. Aristotle (85%)
Well, we have Ayn Rand and Aristotle in common, at least.
But I must say that my answer to most of the questions was "all your answers suck".
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 16, 2003 12:21 AM (kOqZ6)
3
WOOO!
1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Aristotle (90%)
3. Plato (76%)
4. John Stuart Mill (71%)
5. Aquinas (68%)
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 16, 2003 07:18 PM (9c74f)
4
You rock, Trey.
If you won't tell the Ayn Rand Institute that I scored so highly on Mill, I won't point out that you got a 76% for Plato.
Deal?
Posted by: Brian J. at December 16, 2003 10:45 PM (yJyUC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Watch Your Aorta?
Okay, this was the
oddest thing in the health feed I got today.
WASHINGTON - Bill Linski was lying down watching television when he felt as if something in his chest was being ripped apart. The largest artery in Linski's body, the aorta, was splitting. It took a major operation to keep him together, and his surgeon thinks Linski's weight training triggered his brush with death.
The pain began in the middle of Linski's chest, went away for a half second, then returned, racing up through his neck and into his jaw, leaving him wheezing.
Linski was only 21. He had worked out that morning to prepare for competitive bodybuilding, and at first tried to pass it off as muscle pain or heartburn. But his father had died of a massive heart attack at age 38, and "in the back of my mind, I pretty well knew something was going on," he said.
You can read the article - it's basically about this special, strange case. The pic of Mr. Linski shows one heck of an awesome scar (repeat after me: scars are sexy), and it also illustrates the incline press with dumbbells. And, I doubt I need to tell you what that helps you avoid.
Sparing your drinking since
I made you all drink this weekend,
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh come ON! Say the words! Say the words!
By the way, you're now #1 for exercise manboobs:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=exercise+manboobs
Posted by: Harvey at December 15, 2003 09:23 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2003
New Blog Showcase
And...500th post. Does that legitimatize me or something? Likely no. 500 more.
I especially liked anti-antiwar's hope for
success. Equally impressive was the post on Locke, or Demosthenes about
economics and reconstruction contracts.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
A Difference of Opinion
By now, of course, everyone is aware of the capture of Saddam Hussein.
Brian and I were at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis this morning, having stayed there last evening after his company's Christmas party.
I was washing my face, and I heard him explain, "Oh, my God." A few moments later I emerged, and the television lower caption told the story before the reporter, who was explaining a tangent of the operation.
I felt immediate relief.
I'm not sure why that was my first reaction, but I've given it a bit of thought, and I think that's because Hussein's capture is tangible. It is a very good thing that we have the man alive and not dead. Alive, perhaps he can save lives. Alive but defeated, and perhaps those who were fearful can move on. Alive but defeated, and perhaps his allies will slowly, one by one, concede defeat.
Unrelated but still today, I went to do my duty for voting for the
New Blog Showcase, and I found this post by N.Z. Bear. This week, sponsorship goes to the
Liberal Coalition. Having never visited, I did exactly that, and I found some postulating about how democratic contenders might spin Hussein's capture to their advantage. Each point taken alone seems weak. I said as much, and then I ventured to the source of the post.
The weblog is
DOHIYI MIR, and this is the first time I've seen it. So I read along a bit. This post seems
accurate. And
this heartfelt. But here's where my mental brakes
screeched. The post is entitled Truth With a Side of Lies. Not the lies thing again, but, alas, yes.
The bad guys attacking our soldiers are not terrorists--they are guerrillas, engaged in an insurgency. Nor are they a direct threat to the American people--or is this an admission that the neo-con's beloved "flypaper strategy" is a failure? I'll further note that we created the current violent environment in Iraq through an illegal invasion and inept occupation.
Regardless, these statements are proof positive that Bush offers only fear to the American people.
And I have this to say. I started to comment on the site, but I believe I lost the top part of the comment, so this is a safer haven for my words. I don't address the "created the current violent environment in Iraq though illegal invasion and inept occupation." I just let that slide. But the post brought out my own thoughts, and they are not in accord with the author's. Seldom do you see me wax political - mostly because there are others who do so much more eloquently and effectively - from both sides of issues. But today - here we are. My response:
Of course it does. The continuation of violence in Iraq going on, that is. How do you stop a suicide bomber? You don't. He or she could be any person in a crowd (or car), willing to sacrifice his or her life to destroy and take the lives of others. We face cowards who are willing to die, kill those whom they do not know and may not begrudge, and give no warning.
I don't think there's any way to "win" against one. Or many.
The violence in Iraq will continue. It will continue long after we are gone, too, likely.
Is all of it senseless? Of course it is. I heard something on the radio today from a former army so and so - tuned in too late to catch who he was. But he made pretty much this same point and that it was highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein was coordinating the attacks himself.
Just a few thoughts. In an earlier post, you say "Truth With a Side of Lies." I hate this approach because everything else I'd read on this blog seemed to include balanced argument. Because person X and person Y disagree, and person Y is in power, person X labels his words as lies.
Take your classification of guerillas. I disagree, and I'll take to the dictionary.
Guerilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. (from dictionary.com).
Okay - suicide bombings - yeah, it fits either way - terrorist or guerilla. You believe one way, and I believe the opposite? Is one of us lying? No, I don't believe so. It's merely semantics.
You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war. Have we done any good in Afghanistan though we have not found bin Laden? Some would say that we have not. My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001.
Would there have been further terrorist attacks had we quivered in a diplomatic corner - had we tried to merely move on with our lives as if nothing had occurred?
I have no idea. I cannot postulate because these things did not occur. And if I cannot postulate about an alternative reality, then, truly, neither can anyone else.
Pray for peace and stability. As I do.
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:51 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Hey, my cunning plan of having a controversial hed worked! :-)
Seriously, though, you make some good, thoughtful comments. I'll be linking to this post at my site.
One thing here: the issue about guerrillas is not semantics. We are involved in a guerrilla war, just like in Vietnam, where suicide tactics were also used. It's not just me saying this--the folks at the top of the military call this a guerrilla war.
What I object to about Bush's statement is that he is trying to paint all of this as part of the "war on terror", and he can't do that unless he calls the insurgents "terrorists". By creating a false connection and trying to fuel Americans' fear, he is lying. It ain't the same as saying "green men from Mars are invading," but it's still a calculated deception.
I did not accept Clinton's lying about his penis, and I do not accept Bush's lying about his war.
Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 02:21 PM (bW9IA)
2
I don't disagree with your post, but I do find this quote disturbing:
"My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001."
Will a domestic attack then cause you to conclude that we have done no good? It's hardly fair to the men and women working to stabilize Afghanistan, or to those working for our security at home, to deny they have done any good if one attempt slips through the net.
Nor is it fair to assume that, as long as we do not suffer from a successful attack, that we have "done good." I believe we have done good in Afghanistan, but I fear that many of your conservative colleagues follow this line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion: since there has not been another domestic attack, the war on Iraq has contributed positively toward a peaceful state of the world. This hold no more reasoned weight than asserting "the economy seems to be recovering, and we have been watching more reality television. Hence, reality TV is good for the economy."
Posted by: hans at December 14, 2003 04:38 PM (SSLGd)
3
> You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war.
Most of the people attacking our soldiers and allies and aid workers right now in Iraq were not a threat 9 months ago either. They had no reason to attack America or Americans, and no opportunity to do so. Nor did they have and WMDs to sell to the real terrorists.
Now we've (a) kicked out of power a lot of Baathists, who now have nothing better to do than attack Americans, (b) killed, injured, humiliated and oppressed thousands of formerly docile average Iraqis, some of whom have joined the Iraqi resistance, and some of whom have joined the real terrorists, (c) put thousands of American soldiers and aid workers (not to mention our allies and friendly aid workers) right in the thick of things, (d) invited the real terrorists in to take a shot with "bring it on" rhetoric and practice.
So of course we can't say for sure what would have happened had we not invaded, but we can make some pretty good guesses:
* Baathists would have remained in power (and thus had no reason to attack us)
* average Iraqis would have continued to live under the oppressive yet relatively stable Saddam regime (and thus had no reason to become either anti-American guerillas or terrorists)
* Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits
It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which either a Baathist loyalist or any average Iraqi would have even come up with the idea of attacking Americans, let alone having the werewithal to do it, a year ago.
Can you see the difference between Iraqi resistance guerillas and the real terrorists?
And can you see that the real reasons for this war were to line the pockets of military contractors, and to realize the geopolitical fantasies of a few radical neocons?
Posted by: Alex at December 14, 2003 06:04 PM (XKAKK)
4
Actually, Alex, your entire argument hinges on your assertion that
Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits
I think you're focusing too narrowly on
Al Qaeda when we need to fear not just a single band of merry ambulatory improvisational explosive devisers but any number of them.
Considering that Saddam Hussein gave refuge to too many high-ranking Abus while he was in power and that he paid bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers, he was an eligible target. He wasn't going to stop his pro-terrorist practices on his own.
Posted by: Brian J. at December 14, 2003 07:47 PM (yJyUC)
5
NTodd - 1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.
2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying. You would think that a President who lied would be in a bit more trouble than...than what?...nothing? It must be that Bush is having all of the ones who know the truth murdered...Really people, I am so damn sick of hearing this Bush lied mantra without any proof/repurcussions for the president.
3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure? You say to-may-to, the Telegraph says to-mah-to... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...
Alex - 1. war and occupation is full of risks. We definitely underestimated the reaction of the end of Saddam's regime.
2. In theory, I agree somewhat with your last two points (the somewhat is because I think you have a weird definition of stable and I seriously doubt that average Iraqis are attacking Americans). Plus, you could say the same thing about any war in which we invaded a country...were the Germans killing Americans daily before we landed in Normandy?
3. I disagree with your point on al Qaeda being persona non grata in Iraq. We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.
4. Grow up and post your real email address if you want to be taken seriously.
As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.
American Heritage Dictionary definition of Terrorsim:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 14, 2003 07:50 PM (6nsnp)
6
1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.
Exactly how am I supposed to do that to your satisfaction? I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. No matter--you either believe me or you don't. I care not a whit.
2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying.
Then I don't believe you've been paying attention for the past several months, and my rehashing all the old evidence will do nothing to convince you.
3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure?
Exactly why you don't go invading other countries on "darn good" intel. Preventive war is dicey business, which is why it has been universally condemned ever since the Axis powers got their asses handed to them.
4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...
Time will tell. Just as the inspectors said. But I'll note I was not fooled. After years of sanctions, inspections, and intel that directly contradicted BushCo's assertions, it was pretty clear that there was no WMD.
And even if I am ultimately proven wrong, it matters not: my arguments against the war don't rest on the existence of WMD.
We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.
You mean in the Kurdish controlled area, in which Saddam had no power? Riiiiight.
As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.
It doesn't matter what you prefer. The insurgents are guerrillas by all classic definitions, and according to the military folks in charge.
Nice strawman about Saddam = Washington. Nobody has claimed anything of the sort. I echo what many "experts" have said: the resistance has little to do with Saddam at this point. Check out my blog, or Juan Cole's, or a myriad other sites that offer a more realistic, nuanced view of the insurgency.
Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 09:43 PM (TtsA5)
7
Well, Ntodd, I guess time will tell if you are genius or a fool...
1. If you don't care, then don't spew about how bi-partisan you are about lying presidents.
2. If memory serves, the last one got called on it. Don't know why this would be different.
3. I guess I will spell it out for you. We'll have to wait and see because there are media reports about the connection which I posted. That is unless you are really the director of the CIA...are you?
4. You were not fooled, but everyone on the security council, every nation's intel services contradicted the great Ntodd.
Intel is never perfect and it is always a gamble. And if there is WMD, "it matters not?" No, it matters (wasn't it one of the supposed lies?) and it just shows that you were a debater in high school who learned the classic bait and switch technique. You address half of what I queried...and still no proof, links, grand juries, etc.
Congrats, you egomaniac.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 14, 2003 10:43 PM (6nsnp)
8
OK, fine, let's call them all terrorists. But let's distinguish between
* terrorists who plot acts of violence against civilians outside their own countries
* terrorists who were all set and making plans to attack the US a year ago
* terrorists who would have loved to attack the US if only we made their job easier by transporting a couple hundred thousand troops and aid workers to within a few hundred miles of them and their explosives caches
* terrorists who are trying to expel the occupying force which just expelled them from power
* terrorists who would have lived normal(*), non-terrorist lives if it weren't for an invasion and an occupation that pushed them over the edge
* terrorists who were inspired to come from a neighboring country to help the previous two types of terrorists
and then, just for argument, let's call the first three types of terrorist "apes" and the final three types "gorillas"
I think that Todd's and my argument is that the war in Iraq created a lot of brand new gorillas, and didn't really reduce the number of, or risk from, the apes.
As for documentation of Bush's lies, that's a whole other conversation. But if you like I'd be happy to buy you a copy of Franken's book, or Ivins', or any of the lefty screeds, for Christmas. (And most of them don't even cover Q3-4 '03!)
(*) The premise here is not that "the average Iraqi" is truck-bombing hospitals, but that many new terrorist recruits were until recently in the ranks of normal, albiet possibly emotionally unstable and borderline disfunctional with bouts of raving, non-terrorist citizens.
- Alex yes really at stinky dot com
Posted by: Alex at December 15, 2003 12:02 AM (XKAKK)
9
Alex - it all goes back to the title of the post. A difference of opinion. We're focusing on different things, and we all call them "facts." Blackfive likely isn't going to want to purchase Franken's book until it's out in paperback. 'Round here, that's a better idea because paperback screeds from the opposite side do less damage to the walls when you throw them. And, typically, you will. At least once.
And, really, do you buy all that just because they said it? I'm reading Laura Ingraham's
Shut Up and Sing right now. I can't stomach it without filtering some and saying in my head, "no, you're wrong" on about every other or every third point. I can assure you, I'd do the same with one of those books. We don't have a Franken book in the house, but if I wanted my dose of Ivins, I could life
Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? off of my husband's "read" shelf. I'll pass, though. Too many other things much further ahead in the to-do list.
I don't see Blackfive spouting off other people's obviously slanted books as his proof. Your evidence of evidence is not going to wash with someone who has a difference of opinion. At least do me the honor of quoting your proof from said book, seeing as it might be another year or so before it's part of the library.
hln
Posted by: hln at December 15, 2003 05:34 AM (yJyUC)
10
RE Ntodd: First Post " I do not accept Bush's lying about his war "
Ntodd: Second Post " I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. " Either keep the cake or eat it.
In reguards to Iraq; it is my belief that the invasion was picked as a set piece battle. The U.S. is in a war with militant Islam and it's Arabic exponents. Merely persuing bin Laden's ghost through the mountains of Afganistan was an insufficient response to 9-11. The average, would be terrorist needed to see that America would fight and win in a campaign against a regime that was still considered formidable in the Arab mind. The international frame-work, already existed for military intervention in Iraq. It was, in some respects, a road apple. We needed a major operational theater, central staging area, and a reason; the Bathist regime provided all of these.
In the present era of P.C., our President would have hit a wall, both political and diplomatic had this plan been outlined bluntly. So, the occassion had to be met in less than straight foward terms. We made the war about WMDs and democracy both of which are valid goals in the long term but... we needed action in the short term, and chose to stress these issues. It often makes sense to handle the easy issues 1st, even if they seem tangential. Was Iraq planning to sell sarin to Alqeda this year maybe so, maybe no.The point is: Iraq is part of a larger strategy a stepping stone or pressure point.
The ultimate objective is taming the Islamo-Facist movement in the mid-east. We must realise there exist no common ground between occidentalism and wahhabbism. The muslims have decided correctly or not that Israel and the U.S. are the source of there pathetic situation. They are unambivalent in a desire for our fall. They delivered the terms of negotiation on 9-11. Anything other than a forcefull response, will simply reinforce their belief in our weakness. The only way to deal with a man who fundamentally wants you dead, is to fight and win. And never let him hold out any hope of victory. Be fierce and decisive. They want us dead and worship their own deaths, I want to live and enjoy life peacefully. There is no moral equivocation, no happy median.
Final Note: Could we drop the specious B.S. about the war being a ploy to enrich some of Bush's friends. I would not accuse Clinton/Gore of such evil, inspite of their questionable dealings with the Buddhist, Red Chineese and the timebomb they left in N.K.. America has never had a president capable of such evil as sacraficing his own citizens/soldiers for nothing more than a little personal enrichment. When someone suggests this they loose much credibility in my estimation.
J.W.
Posted by: J. Wilkinson at December 15, 2003 08:26 PM (Q6CNr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 13, 2003
BUSTY REDHEAD BUNNY PICTURES
Yes, really. Type that into MSN, and you get me. Of course, you also get Slashdot (uh, of course), Log Cabin Crafts, and then three CHOICE porn sites. Don't worry - just screenshot pics of the first pages, so you can
click the link, but I'd suggest you not do this at work.
To searching person, sorry. Nothing about me bespeaks bunny or busty. I can tell you how to avoid manboobs, though.
Drink up.
hln
Posted by: hln at
03:00 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
1
*gulp, gulp, gulp* Wow, Heather, you gotta watch that "man-boobs" thing. Me and the Bartender are chugging, but Harvey just flashed his chest at some guy and was thrown some beads.
Posted by: Blackfive at December 13, 2003 06:44 PM (QQv3w)
2
Ya know, Matty, you're just jealous because your man-boobs only elicit screams of horror, while my fuzzy-puppies are admired and revered by people the world over. Somewhere in the Philippines there's a cult dedicated to their worship.
Anyway Heather, I just popped by to say that when I think of Busty Redhead Bunny Pictures, I've *always* thought of you first. You're just that sweet :-)
Posted by: Harvey at December 14, 2003 08:46 AM (ubhj8)
3
Harvey, with that comment about the tribe in the Phillipenes, I could cause a
HECK of a Filthy Lie scandal, y'know.
Now, mail me the beads. Bead earning through writing.
hln
Posted by: hln at December 14, 2003 09:34 AM (yJyUC)
4
Finally! The recognition you deserve.
I was #3 for "Chinese Lady Hairy Armpits" at one time, as a referral informed me.
Posted by: Phelps at December 15, 2003 12:43 PM (+fTy8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 11, 2003
Candy-Coated, Baby
Brian and I both work full time. We sometimes talk about the not-too-distant future when perhaps this will not be necessary. I'm not sure who started it, but the euphemism for the non-worker is the one who "sits" (or lies) "on the couch and eats bon-bons all day."
Of course, in recent years, that's been amended (if the person of reference is me) to "sit on the couch and eat bon-bons for 10% of the day and spend the rest of the day working 'em off." Yeah.
At any rate, last evening, we had the bon-bon discussion for some reason. And I said, "what is a bon-bon?"
And Brian intimated that he thinks it's a little individual ice cream treat. Later, of course, after I'd looked up
the definition, he CLAIMED that this was not the ONLY kind of bon-bon, but rather it was HIS mental bon-bon. Or something.
To me, a bon-bon is a chocolate-covered cherry candy or something like that. And, realistically, I could probably down six or so without feeling sick, but, OY, that seventh one might just do me in.
In a non-related discussion that I referred to today while conversing with
Hans, I had a joke with a friend that overeating different foods led to said non-burned calories appearing en masse as attached to one body part. Like, y'know, fudge goes to your nose. He said that the Nutri-Grain billboards have helped him avoid
Cinnabons and their Siren calls at airports. Not bad, eh? (And in a non-related note direct to Hans, gotta love this
good software design.) Someone call in [suspenseful music]
The Tester.
Wow, I'm all over the place tonight. Blogging overdose. So, back on topic. Now YOU know what a bon-bon is. And you know what it signifies in the Noggle household. And how to keep it off your middle finger? Good-good.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:03 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
1
My mom made 'Martha Washington Bon-Bons' each Christmas when we were growing up. It was kind of a sticky coconutty white candy rolled into balls and dipped in chocolate.
And no, I don't really miss them much. (The Bon-bons)
Posted by: King of Fools at December 12, 2003 02:56 PM (7CoPT)
2
chocolate.....mmmmmm....
(and remember to vote in the New Blog Showcase!!!)
Posted by: Susie at December 13, 2003 10:32 AM (0+cMc)
3
Married With Children.
Peg Bundy. Bon-bons and watching Oprah.
Posted by: TheYeti at December 15, 2003 03:26 PM (+yDzP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
113kb generated in CPU 0.0489, elapsed 0.1708 seconds.
98 queries taking 0.1412 seconds, 304 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.