Cake Eater Chronicles

This notation was penned

This notation was penned in beside the photograph:

"...Josh...oops,
I mean Brad kept trying to feed me straw. Jane's a hottie, but her
husband's a friggin' idiot. Fer chrissakes, dude, I've got a butt going
here. Is he blind? I'm trying to smoke and here he's are trying to
domesticate me. Get a clue. I'm on my break and I'm a UNION llama: I
get what I want, when I want it. That's the power of labor!"
Sigh.
So, here we have more evidence of the Llamas descension into
leftist-celebrity brownnosing hell.
They really are a pair of suckups, aren't they? I wonder if there's a
twelve-step program for this sort of thing? I'm sure there is, but I'll
admit, I'm just too lazy to go looking for it. Anyhoo, as we all know,
the first step in any recovery of this kind is admitting you have a
problem and Steve's in serious denial. And I believe an intervention is called for.

Because, you know, I really do
care.
I hate to point out the obvious, but I never actually admitted defeat.
I simply said that a llama in a waistcoat would be better at playing
Mr. Darcy than Matthew MacFadyen. Nothing more. Nothing less. Methinks
the technical term is "projecting," but I'm no shrink, so I'll leave it
up to the medical community to label him appropriately. But for me,
I'll just say this: Good Gravy, man! Realize that's Josh Lyman trying
to feed you straw? Have you no shame?

I wonder if they're going

I wonder if they're going to charge interest?

Or at least I think

Or at least I think that's how the French say it. And spell it. Erm. Anyway...

Ahem.

I just came across this and I do believe I'm going to succumb to a case of the vapors, ala Mrs. Bennet.

Kiera freakin' Knightly???????

I think not.

Jane, bring the salts!

Interesting article from the NY

Interesting article from the NY Times Magazine on Kerry's foreign policy.

Here are the highlights:

But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality. When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.' This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts. {...}The challenge of beating back these nonstate actors -- not just Islamic terrorists but all kinds of rogue forces -- is what Kerry meant by ''the dark side of globalization.'' He came closest to articulating this as an actual foreign-policy vision in a speech he gave at U.C.L.A. last February. ''The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations,'' he said then. ''It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.'' This stands in significant contrast to the Bush doctrine, which holds that the war on terror, if not exactly a clash of civilizations, is nonetheless a struggle between those states that would promote terrorism and those that would exterminate it. Bush, like Kerry, accepts the premise that America is endangered mainly by a new kind of adversary that claims no state or political entity as its own. But he does not accept the idea that those adversaries can ultimately survive and operate independently of states; in fact, he asserts that terrorist groups are inevitably the subsidiaries of irresponsible regimes. ''We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients,'' the National Security Strategy said, in a typical passage, ''before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.'' {...}By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders. Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails. One can infer from this that if Kerry were able to speak less guardedly, in a less treacherous atmosphere than a political campaign, he might say, as some of his advisers do, that we are not in an actual war on terror. Wars are fought between states or between factions vying for control of a state; Al Qaeda and its many offspring are neither. If Kerry's foreign-policy frame is correct, then law enforcement probably is the most important, though not the only, strategy you can employ against such forces, who need passports and bank accounts and weapons in order to survive and flourish. Such a theory suggests that, in our grief and fury, we have overrated the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin -- and thus conferring on the jihadists a kind of stature that might actually work in their favor, enabling them to attract more donations and more recruits. {...}He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea ''evil'' and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program. Similarly, he has said he would rally other nations behind sanctions against Iran if that country refuses to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Kerry envisions appointing a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process, and he's intent on getting India and Pakistan to adopt key provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. (One place where Kerry vows to take a harder line than Bush is Pakistan, where Bush has embraced the military ruler Pervez Musharraf, and where Kerry sees a haven for chaos in the vast and lawless region on the border with Afghanistan.) In all of this, Kerry intends to use as leverage America's considerable capacity for economic aid; a Kerry adviser told me, only slightly in jest, that Kerry's most tempting fantasy is to attend the G-8 summit. {...}When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists.{...}

{my emphasis) So, according to Kerry there isn't a war on terror, per se, but rather an overlarge, yet "myopic" response to the attacks on 9/11. Not a clash of civilizations but rather a "clash of civilization against chaos." A more effective way of dealing with those chaos-inducing terrorists who'd like to kill us is by serving them with indictments, even though, dare I say it when Clinton did the same damn thing it didn't really serve as a deterrent to future attacks, ya dig? He, basically, thinks it will all just go away if a law enforcement tack is taken. Americans will rest easy, they'll go to bed at night not worrying about waking up to see planes slamming into tall buildings. Because, of course, unless you have him out there chatting up world leaders and mullahs and doing his diplomacy bit, you don't have the "law" part of "law and order," do you? Gotta have that law. It's crucial. Because everyone respects laws, don't they? I mean, the UN is just a friggin' palace of virtue, right? It has to be. It's the UN after all. Al-Qaeda is just like organized crime, only with rags on their heads rather than fedoras. There's no difference between thugs, after all. Christ. You want more attacks? By all means, vote for Kerry. If he should win, however, I don't want to hear one goddamn word out of anyone about why did this happen? how can we prevent it from happening again? why do they hate us so much when we took the warm-friendly-bunny approach to foreign policy? You either get it or you don't. If you don't, and you choose to vote for Kerry, well, you'd better keep your trap shut the next time we're attacked. I don't want to hear your whining.

Devoted Cake Eater Readers I

Devoted Cake Eater Readers I present to you Tommy Lee: University of Nebraska-Lincoln...student.

LINCOLN, Neb. - Multi-tattooed rocker Tommy Lee (news), a high school dropout, plunged into life as a University of Nebraska student Thursday — for reality TV. Lee mingled with fellow Cornhuskers for an NBC show in which he'll take classes in chemistry, literature and the history of rock 'n' roll. Flanked by production crews and cameras, Lee bought books and Nebraska apparel at the University Bookstore while a mass of onlookers strained for a glimpse. "It's like a big circus," student Paul Penke said. On Monday, the Motley Crue drummer will even try out for the Nebraska marching band. NBC spokeswoman Susan Ross said the network hopes to get six episodes worth of footage for a series set to air next summer. Lee will have a tutor and live off-campus.

Since the football team's not doing so hot this year (by Nebraskan standards, anyway)I'm sure Tommy's visit to Lincoln will be the hottest thing since they filmed Terms of Endearment there and Jack Nicholson flew in for a few hours to shoot.

He'll have to drive to Omaha to find hookers, though.

Man, are we living in

Man, are we living in a nanny state or what?

*what would Pele do? Methinks Pele would say whatever
the Portugese equivalent of "What the f@$k are you people thinking?"
happens to be.

Courtesy o' Martini Boy, The

Courtesy o' Martini Boy, The Horserace Blog has done some interesting research on
county voter registrations, and it doesn't look good for Kerry.
The thing the Strib continuously ignores in its rush to define
Minnesota in Garrison Keillor terms is the massive demographic shift
that's been going on since the mid-90's. According to the Strib,
there's still great respect for the Scandahoovian Liberal way, and of
course we'll all respect that great liberal tradition and vote
accordingly. Despite the fact we have a very
conservative Republican governor. Despite the fact that the majority of
our House representation is Republican. Despite the fact that Normy-Boy
Coleman bitchslapped Walter Mondale (the Walter Mondale. Former
VP. You know who I'm talking about) to become Senator after Wellstone
died. Wellstone's memorial service did the DFL no favors in that
election, either. The facts are there for anyone who cares to look. The
place is going conservative. It's happening and has been happening. Are
my findings of a scientific nature? Nope. They're strictly the product
of my observations. Look at the most recent poll conducted
by that pillar of journalism, The Star Tribune. If Minnesota is really
as liberal as the Strib and everyone else would have us believe, well,
why is Bush within seven points? I think it's an exceedingly fair
question, given what the nation believes about Minnesota's political
views and given the last two elections, where Republicans have
succeeded over DFL guys they wouldn't have beaten ten years before. To
be fair, the Strib has admitted that Minnesota is in play, but
still...the editorial endorsements will, generally speaking, be DFL
across the board, and I guaran-frickin'-tee you that in at least one
endorsement, probably the one for Kerry, they will blather on about the
great Scandahoovian liberal tradition that is Minnesota's and will
suggest that people vote according to that tradtion, because it's our own.
Maybe twenty years ago it was our own. Not anymore. While I'm not
discounting the fact that redistricting has been kind to Republicans,
seats were shifting right before the Legislature got its hands on the
census reports. Jesse Ventura, while still to the left of Norm Coleman,
nonetheless beat out the uberliberal Skip Humphrey (yeah, he's Hubert's
kid)for governor in 1998. To my mind, Mark Dayton's election to the
senate in 2000 is an abberation because he outspent Rod Grams by
millions of dollars. And I mean millions of dollars. You couldn't turn
the damn TV on without seeing an ad for Mark Dayton. It was disgusting.
Moving along, if Wellstone had lived, my gut feeling is that he would
have been reelected, but by a very small margin that would have been
chalked up to the incumbent factor and not because he convinced anyone
that he was the best man for the job. Normy Boy's a popular creature
here in the Cities, and he ran a great campaign in 2002. But what's
more is that, even though he's a Republican, he genuinely appeals to
conservative Democrats. After all, he used to be one. What's surprising
about his success, though, is that he never suffered for his
switcheroo. Everyone kept bleating on about how he would pay and he
never did. If Jesse hadn't appealed to so many 18-24 year-olds, well,
it's very possible he would have been governor. Norm came in second in
that very close race. But, like I said, none of this really means
anything because they're just my observations, but still...the
evidence, once you look at it rationally, adds up. It's tight now, and
it's going to get tighter. I'm going to be the only person in the state
of Minnesota who's not
surprised if Bush takes it. I genuinely think it could happen. If it
does happen, it will be by a few thousand votes and not a few hundred.
Such a defeat will leave a mark on the DFL'ers and will force people to realize that---duh---Minnesota's going conservative.

In a piece he wrote

In a piece he wrote for the Weekly Standard Jonathan Last is nicer to George Lucas than I have been.

A small sampling:

These changes, counterproductive as they are, should be endurable. After all, George Lucas created these movies. He has the right to wreck them if he wants. But Lucas isn't just putting out newer, flawed versions. He is embarked on a campaign to create The One True Version of the Star Wars mythology. You see, every time Lucas tinkers with one of his movies, the changes becomes the official version. The older versions are then quietly and efficiently erased from the public record. If you want to see the Star Wars movies as they once were, tough luck. You'll need to go to eBay or the black market and pay hundreds of dollars for the 1993 laserdisc set, or find a bootlegged DVD of the same. The early, unscarred VHS editions are all aging and deteriorating and besides which, were mostly in pan-and-scan full screen. In a few years the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy will be vanished completely. Many filmmakers put out director's cuts of their movies, which are sold alongside the theatrical versions. George Lucas, on the other hand, is so obsessed with airbrushing history that at the end of the day, only Jar-Jar Binks will be left seated on the couch with Lenin.

Ah, well. Jonathan's a pro and Lucas likes to sue. I can't blame him for watching his words, which, by far, is the most eloquent sum-up on the subject that I've read. Go read the whole thing. But, hey, if you want to read a few posts about George that aren't nearly so well-written, but are more vents to get that nasty, icky bile out, you can go here, here, here and here.

And yes, I still think what he's done to Sebastian Shaw is particularly despicable.

If you're going to commit

If you're going to commit an armed robbery,
it might behoove you to have arms that work, eh?

Holy Crap, that must have

Holy Crap, that must have been one noisy, bothersome chicken.
I don't think the dog earned any "man's best friend" points here,
either.

Cheney took Edwards over his

Cheney took Edwards over his knee and spanked him.

Try and get that
image out of your head, why don't ya? Anyway, I could go through the
minutiae and detail out how and why he was spanked, but the ultimate
conclusion would be the same. So, honestly, why should I bother?

Yep. The BOOBIETHON'S still going

Yep.
The BOOBIETHON'S still going
on.
Get over there and DONATE, damnit! There's something for everyone.
And they also need *more* pictures from bloggers to be submitted. So,
if you're a blogger and haven't been involved to this point,now is the
time to bear your mammaries! Honestly. If I can get over myself to do
it, you can, too!

If for no other reason

If for no other reason than Michele is whipping the big guns out. She appears to be worried.

Hmmmmmm.

{Insert conversation overheard at the DIA smoking lounge yesterday}

First Guy: Yeah, there's nobody better than the Yankees. They'll win...eventually.

Second Guy: Yeah, they're just tired. Nobody's better than them. They'll pull it together. Like they did in '78. When that one guy hit it over the Green Monster. God, what was his name?

{Time passes. Brain fart ensues}

Kathy (who can't take their ignorance any longer): Bucky Dent?

Second Guy: Yeah, Bucky Dent! That's him! Thanks!

First Guy: Never heard of him.

Well, maybe not. Particularly if

Well, maybe not.

Particularly if there's the potential for a gun shot wound.

Hmmmmm. So, Robbo denies cuddling

Hmmmmm.

So, Robbo denies cuddling up to Susan Sarandon. Typical. He calls it "slanderous." Well, no, Robbo, actually it's libelous, because I didn't say it, but rather published
it, but we won't quibble about the semantics. And that's only dependent
upon if it's actually a lie. (And he claims to be a lawyer!) Then he
threatens retaliations.
Well, Steve-o, on the other hand, reacted quite differently.
One can only assume this is because he's a tenured political science
professor and feels safe admitting he's actually a liberal. He shot
down the claim of libel quite quickly and decided to take a tack
reminiscent of a certain New Jersey Democratic Governor: he not only
admits that they posed with Susan "Everyone Should Drive a Hybrid, The
Death Penalty is Wrong Because I Played a Nun in a Movie That Won Me an
Oscar So That Opinion Must be Right" Sarandon, but submits that Heifer
International's catalog used the wrong photograph. One can only
assume that he means they airbrushed off some extra llama ass fat or
something like that. Until one actually reads what he has to say.

Yeah, yeah, yeah---like you'd turn down having Susan
Sarandon put you on a leash?(I'm talking to Macktastic Rusty Wicked and
INDCent Bill, folks!) Come on, that's one hell of a fluffy sweater---of
course I'm not going to ask what type of wool that is. As to Patricia
Heaton, we the LLamabutchers would not only allow ourselves to be
leashed, but I'd even let her pose with a croquet mallet.

Then he goes on the attack with a claim about who's holding out on whom. (And yes it's whom)

I submit for your persual:

Gack. Like I'd ever let Michael Moore take part of my caloric, chocolately goodness. Pffft. As if.
Yet, just to remind you to consider the source of this libelous attack,
I went snooping through the Llamas private scrapbook and lookie what I
found:

Just so you know, it's not just the hotties they're snuggling up to. One of them even let Ed Asner
hold their leash.
Consider the source, people.

Kids, I have rough news.

Kids, I have rough news. Brace yourselves.

Ya ready? Firmly trussed, are you?

Ok.

You're being dumped.

By me.

In favor of the manuscript. Which, as of about one-thirty this morning, is finally
going like gangbusters.
That's right. I'm dumping you to write fiction. It'll be temporary,
probably just for the next few days or so, but I'm on a hot-hot-hot!
streak right now and there's absolutely no way that I'm jumping off the
storyline freight train that's speeding through my brain just so I can
blog.
Ain't gonna happen.
It is bad timing, I know. Just as I've made some readership gains. But
the manuscript must come first. Sorry, folks. I do love you, but---and
I hate to point this out to you---you have plenty of other reading
options available. Go hit the links on the left hand side and all of
those wonderful folks should keep you busy until I get back.
Now back to the wilds of southern Sudan and illegal arms deals, debt
reduction in preparation for an IPO, Madrid and its kilometer zero,
and, of course, ransom demands!
Ciao for now.

This is what qualifies as

This is what qualifies as torture nowadays:

In the letter dated July 12 of this year, Begg protested his innocence of any crime and demanded to know the reason for his detention in Bagram, Afghanistan for a year. He said he was denied natural light and fresh food, had been held in solitary confinement, and was forced to sign and initial documents presented to him by U.S. officials.

But wait it gets better.

He also said he was physically abused, stripped and paraded in front of cameras held by U.S. personnel. "During several interviews, particularly though unexclusively in Afghanistan, I was subjected to pernicious threats of torture, actual vindictive torture and death threats, amongst other coercively employed interrogation techniques," he said in an extract of the letter read by BBC radio.

Hmmm. Sound familar? Abu Ghraib anyone? Yet, surprisingly, nowhere in any of his complaints about his treatment at Guantanamo and Bagram, does he whine about being forced to sit on the floor, blindfolded, restrained, and gagged, while one of his captors read an interminably long manifesto before they whipped out a knife and beheaded him.

Rather puts the Jane Austen

Rather puts the Jane Austen Cage Match to shame, eh?

Quite.

Well, let me take that

Well, let me take that back.

This shouldn't be cool because there's the chance of loss of life and property damage.

SEATTLE (Reuters) - New tremors detected overnight at Mount St. Helens increased the likelihood that the Washington state volcano would erupt again, scientists tracking renewed earthquake activity at the mountain said on Sunday. Willie Scott, a U.S. Geological Survey geologist, said that tremors were detected in the crater of Mount St. Helens at 3 a.m. (1000 GMT) that indicated that a second eruption could be in store after Friday's minor explosion that sent up a plume of steam and ash. The U.S. Geological Survey kept its warning level at a Level 3-Volcano Alert and kept off-limits a visitor center at the Johnston Ridge Observatory about five miles from the volcano's crater as a safety precaution. Gases were also detected for the second day, Scott said, suggesting that magma may be building up underneath the crater's lava dome created after a 1980 eruption which killed 57 people, destroyed more than 200 homes, devastated hundreds of square miles, and sent ash drifting across North America as far east as Oklahoma. Scientists do not expect any eruption to cause damage to surrounding areas on the same scale. A Level 3 warning means that there is a potential hazard to life and property in the area, the Geological Survey said.

But it is cool. Concerns and qualifications notwithstanding. When Mount St. Helens blew in May of 1980, I was just finishing up third grade and I was concerned with other things. I was still reliving the glory of being chosen to crown a statue of the Virgin Mary on May Day at an all school assembly. My brother, David, was graduating high school. If I'm remembering correctly, I think my other brother, Tim, along with my sister Susie, following the example of most college students, were moving to a new apartment in Lincoln and we had to help them cart their shit from one squalid apartment in Nebraska's capitol city to another. That happened a lot so I could easily be confusing things, but I'm pretty sure we were dragged down to Lincoln that spring when UNL let out to help move boxes. I am sure, however, that school was to get out that week and summer vacation was about to begin. (Catholic schools in Omaha still get out weeks ahead of the public schools. The nuns set that precedent: they'd had it with us by that point in time and the lay teachers saw no reason to abandon that particular philosophy. They still get out weeks earlier than the public schools.)

Anyway, I think you get the point. Stuff was happening
in my busy nine-year-old life and all of the Mount St. Helens activity
was background noise. Hence, I missed it when she blew her top.
Yes, we talked about it in science class, but with it being the end of
the school year, it wasn't an in-depth discussion. This being the day
and age before VCRs in the classroom (hell, we didn't even have
televisions)it didn't have the chance to sear itself into our brains
via repition. Of course I saw the National Geographic
when it came out, but that was months later. As a result, though, I've
always felt somewhat cheated. I never saw it when it happened. I missed
the big show. So, while it's not really a great thing that she's going
to blow again,
I'm feeling as though I've got a second chance to make sure I don't
miss it this time around. Friday's eruption, while thrilling, was kind
of a letdown. I wanted a little more. Not much, mind you, just a little
more. A bigger plume of ash would have satisfied. A completely darkened
sky. I wanted what happened in 1980. I wanted what I missed the first
time round. While I'm wracked with guilt over this, because I know it's a bad thing to want more, I still do want more. And it looks as if the mountain is going to oblige me.

"Cool", says she, whilst feeling like a criminal in the meantime.

After spending the morning driving

After spending the morning driving the husband to hell and back
(obligatory moment of frustration:
@#@W$#$%#@#getyourgoddamnlicenseback!@#@#W#%$@#! what? do I look like a
goddamn chauffer? ok, that's over with. note of apology to the husband:
sorry darlin'...just couldn't quite help myself.) I'm way behind on
what I need to do to get us out of the house by five a.m. tomorrow
morning.
The laundry needs to be finished. The house is halfway clean and the
other half is awaiting me. Then there are all the assorted joys
associated with packing to contend with. So, as you might have already
guessed, you people are taking a back seat to everything else.
I don't know what to tell everyone about live blogging from Tempe.
Should have more of an idea of that tomorrow. Blogging will continue
while we're in Phoenix---wee bastard is coming with---but I don't know
what to tell ya'll about what to expect other than that. Oh, and one
more thing: GO RED SOX!

The husband's laptop just bought

The husband's laptop just bought the farm.
Sigh.
It just crapped out. He's taken it apart and was unable to find the
problem. He just announced that either the chip has crapped out or the
entire hard drive has done the same. He doesn't know. The thing won't
boot up at all, hence there's no way to check. Fortunately, thanks to
office networking, everything was saved to the desktop and no
information was lost at all. While he has his desktop (Gandalf), he had
the laptop for giving presentations and for checking message boards
while he was playing his games. This, in case you didn't know about the
husband's problem with his clients paying him (grrrr), is yet another
computer that he kept because people chose not to pay him. This one was
actually from the web development company that fired him via email,
then refused to cough up his final paycheck. We paid for it by means
other than slapping down the Visa, but essentially, it's no skin off
our collective nose that it crapped out. But that doesn't mean much
when you're married to a techie. While the laptop's not really a
necessity, it, however, is a given that he's not going to see it this
way and that he'll start whining...soon.
When he begged and pleaded for permission to spend loads of currency on
Gandalf, I demanded one concession in return: that he wasn't to bitch
about speed, memory or anything of the sort for two whole years. My
grace period ends in January. I was relishing the thought of enjoying
the remaining few months of enforced silence. Now, everything's
different. He won't bitch about Gandalf until January, but he will
bitch about the loss of the laptop starting now. We'll see how this
shakes out.

Weddings are always busy, exhausting

Weddings are always busy, exhausting things, of course, but during our
stay with the in-laws we did manage to spend some time with them.
One of the activities the husband wanted to do with his father was to
go and see this car at one of the local dealerships.

To explain, the husband's business
revolves around car dealerships. The husband, to put it simply, is an
IT strategy guy: he looks at the big picture and finds the most
cost-effective solution to a specific task that his clients need to
accomplish. To put it succinctly: he gets the best bang for his
clients'---car dealerships---buck. There are only a few companies that
provide software for dealerships, and it's outdated, outmoded crap that
falls a hairsbreadth short of extortion when it comes to the price. The
husband is the dealer's advocate when they go to upgrade. In fact, the
reason the husband is currently starting his own software company right
now is because these massive corporations just aren't offering what he
sees is needed for the industry. Hence we're living in entrepreneurial
hell right now, but if this thing succeeds...well, I'm not going to
speculate, but it could be big not only for us, but potentially could
be revolutionary for the entire car selling industry.(Anyone with some
spare cash lying around who wants to invest can email me...the address
is over on the left hand side. Really. No amount is too small.) While
it's not a lot of fun right now, there still is fun to be found in the
midst of all the entrepreneurial nightmares, and we had fun going to
look at this car.
A couple of weeks ago, a contact introduced the husband to a
representative of GT40 North America, because he thought there were
opportunities for both parties in the matter. I'm not going to go into
the details here, but one of the outflows of this meeting is that we
found out one of GT40's was being showcased in a dealership right up
the road from the in-law's house. Being the car geeks that they are,
the husband and the father-in-law wanted to go and see it. Wow, was it
ever impressive!
Next year, Ford is releasing a new GT and
is selling it for about $150K. Or so they say. However, according to
the sales manager at the dealership we visited on Saturday, a few have
actually made it to dealerships in L.A. and Vegas and have been sold
for much, much more than the retail price. Ford's only making 1100 of
them, so when they hit the market, they're actually going for about
$500K in auctions. What's different about the GT40 is that this company
bought the plans and all of the licensing from Ford and they're the
only ones authorized to make this vehicle. In essence the difference
between the two is that one is custom-made for you, the driver, with a
big ass Roush engine that is capable of sustaining speeds upwards of
120mph for hours on end, and the other is made on an assembly line by
union workers who probably don't give a damn. Now, I'm not a big one
for looking at cars that I will never have the skills to drive, but it
was fun checking this car out. The engine is rear-mounted, they had the
hatch popped, and it was a testament to the beauty that could be found
in simplicity. Simple lines, beautifully large exhaust tubes, shiny
chrome---all of that stuff you don't see anymore when you pop the hood
on your car was present and accounted for. Even better, there aren't
any computer chips in this car: it's something you could tinker with
yourself, if that's your thing. You'd have to ask the husband about the
specs for it, I was zoning out by that point in time, but it's low to
the ground and it will go fast. And it's built for your body type, too.
According to the sales guy, if you decide to purchase one of these bad
boys, the company will fly you out to Indianapolis to custom-fit it for
you, as if you were purchasing a suit. What's interesting to me is
that, if this is your sort of thing, this is actually a bargain. It
will cost you much, much less to purchase this model than if you bought
one of the new Ford versions.
To sum up, I will quote Ferris. "If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."

Hey, Mr. H.! Send me

Hey, Mr. H.!
Send me your new email address, dude. I'm having email withdrawals.
I might actually have to---GASP!---call you tonight if I don't hear anything from you today!

...that since The Llamabutchers site

...that since The Llamabutchers site seems to be down today, if they went into hiding because of this.

Hmmmmm.

Here's my contribution to fact

Here's my contribution to fact checking other bloggers:

Robert, in his post about the math on global warming being incorrect, used this analogy:

Remember that old Bloom County cartoon where Oliver has devised a Grand Unification Theory of the Universe that accounts for everything except flightless waterfowl, causing Opus to disappear before our eyes? Eventually Oliver notices that he forgot to carry the seven, causing a jangled Opus to reappear.

Robbo, my dear, you're wrong! Oliver didn't forget to carry the seven. He forgot to carry the TWO. And here's my proof!

(click for supah-size!)

The Cake Eater Chronicles: We're Possessed With An Overabundance of Useless Knowledge! (TM)

I've been quiet about all

I've been quiet about all this Operation Clark County nonsense
because other people have expressed my concerns better than I could
have. However, the hullabaloo was raised before the letters---from
non-celebrity Brits---were actually printed. It was the idea of the
project that got most people going. I wanted to see what these
international dissenters were actually going to say for themselves.So,
knowing they were going to excerpt them today, I hopped on over to the The Guardian's website to see what they had to say.

Nothing really new, as it turns out.

A few tasty tidbits:

{...}"Please, change the world by changing the man in the
White House."
{...}"I have loved America ever since, and it is because of this love,
that I write to you today. Because I'm saddened to what is happening to
America's image abroad and the hatred I see all around me."
{...}"The unity so prominent in the days after 9/11 is now shattered, a
wealth of sympathy squandered as our governments continue to lie and
justify the wholly unjust crimes we have committed. World anger is
rising."
{...} "I started working back in the UK in 2000. With the distance that
comes from separation, I would return to the US and feel the difference
in attitudes following the calamitous events of the destruction of the
World Trade Centre in New York. It was not 9/11 that changed the
American outlook however. I believe that it was the response to 9/11 by
its leadership that has caused this bleakness to manifest itself in the
American consciousness. The war on terrorism and the climate of fear
generated from the Office of Homeland Security were used to subvert
American awareness and enabled the Bush-led Republican government to
pursue the war in Iraq without opposition from within. This is why I am
writing to you to ask for your help in turning the tide. I truly
believe that we all cannot afford another four years of Mr Bush being
in power. I have never done anything like this before and I, myself,
might resent the intrusion in receiving a letter like this. Forgive me,
then, please. My motivation is not driven by anyone else or by a
pressure group, I am simply someone who misses the America that I knew
and loved."
{...} I am writing to you in the hope that it may encourage you to use
your vote in the forthcoming presidential election. But, why would I do
this? The answer is simple, because yes, although it is a very strange
thing to do, it will help me clear my own conscience with respect to
the war in Iraq. You see I am one of those who, when the protests were
made in London, thought about it and did not take part. I was fairly
sure at the time that the war was a bad idea, but I also believed that
Iraq probably did have weapons of mass destruction, and although it was
not an immediate threat it probably could become one at short notice.
What I believe now is very different. I am now prepared to stand up and
be counted. I hope that you will feel the same. {...}

So, in essence, this is a popularity contest. These letters have the
same tone of the advice I received when I was a very unpopular sixth
grader: if you do this, we'll like you again.

Never mind that it doesn't appear that The Guardian,
if it was truly a source of independent thought it claims to be, might
have published letters that endorsed Bush, just to present a different
point of view. They didn't, yet that's not really important. What is important about these letter writers and The Guardian itself is that they are stuck in a 9/10---a September 10, 2000---mindset.
Remember those halycon days that led up to the 2000 Presidential
Election? When Bill Clinton was still in charge. Where Al Gore was in
lead and was seemingly unstoppable? Where George W. Bush didn't want to
have a thing to do with nation building? Remember when we didn't have a
deficit, but rather a surplus? Ah, those were the good old days to the
Europeans. Yet life has changed for Americans in the past four years,
and the Europeans are forgetting about this, or rather are coopting
this change into the views they held back then. The thing that
Americans are most concerned about, what is shaping most American
opinions of this election--- 9/11---has very little to do with
European-held opinions about this election a other than that it
provides Bush dissenters with the line: we squandered the goodwill of the world.
So, what's the point of all of this? This isn't about choosing a leader
who, Europeans feel, will make the world safer. This isn't a referendum
on the global War on Terror or the War in Iraq. This isn't about Kerry
being a viable alternative to Bush. For them, this election is about
taking America back to a time when America was liked.

This is about taking America back to the year 2000. Not unlike some disaffected Americans, the Europeans want a do-over.

Which means dumping George W. Bush.

They don't like the guy in office. It's really quite simple. They never liked the guy in office; they think he stole
the election from Al Gore. They think he's uneducated because he
occasionally mangles the language. They think he's unreasonable in that
he puts America's interests first, and the UN's second. They think he's
unenlightened because he doesn't brownnose like Chirac does. They think
he's the antithesis of Clinton, who was well loved and highly admired
by those Euro elites. Life was good for Europe under Clinton---where
his sexual activities were looked upon favorably---why wouldn't they
look upon those days in the '90's through rose colored glasses? They
seem to think that if we go back to the policies of the Clinton
Administration, well, none of the bad stuff, like what happened on
9/11, would ever happen again. If they could make the claim that 9/11
happened because Bush was in office, they would. After all, everything
that happened in the Bush administration before 9/11 wasn't exactly the
height of popular European thinking, was it? Anyone remember the Kyoto
fallout of that summer, and how Bush paid the price for the Senate's
rejection of that treaty? What about Bush's dumping of the ABT treaty
so we could have that magnificent Missile Defense System? Boy, that was
popular, wasn't it? Remember the throngs of globalizations protestors
at the G-8 summit in Genoa who burned Bush in effigy? The truth of the
matter is that nobody in Europe liked us before 9/11. And they most
assuredly don't like us now. Yet, the crux of their arguments is that
if John Kerry were elected president, America would be liked
abroad and that's all that really matters, isn't it? Because, as their
logic tracks, if America was liked no one would want to attack her,
would they?
What Europeans fail to realize is that this is not a goddamn popularity
contest. It's an election that will, to put it quite bluntly, decide
whether we will bow to the terrorists or if we will keep on fighting
them. I can qualify and say that I'm not really all that fond of
President Bush's policies. I think he's spending too much money and
that he panders to social conservatives too much. I am more a
libertarian than a Republican. But if I qualify, I must also add that I
truly believe that he's the guy I have to vote for, not only because I
agree wholeheartedly with his stance on global terrorism, because the
Democrats just don't get it.
They don't get that some of us think socialism is a bad, and failed,
idea. Yet they push on with their notions of class warfare, because
they'll benefit from the fallout. They don't understand that you're
responsible for your own level of success in life and that there is no
such thing as a government safety net. They do not comprehend that
America is more about following a dream than being stuck in one union
job all of your life. They do not get that terrorists do not play by
UN-approved rules. They think law enforcement is the best way to rid
ourselves of this problem. But mostly, I believe it comes down to the
fact that the Democrats just don't understand that America, in all of
her flawed essence, is not about following the safe path. America is
about taking the bold, brave path that might lead to doom, or might
lead to glory---one simply never knows. America is about taking the
Evil Kneival jump over forty junked cars. America is the breath held in
suspension, wondering and waiting and having no freakin' clue about the
outcome. America is not
about playing it safe. But most importantly, America is not about doing
what everyone else thinks is the right thing, particularly when history
tells us it would be disastrous to take any other path than the one we
are following, no matter how unpopular it might make us.
Europeans don't get this. Everything they have are things that
conservative Americans loathe. They have universal health care. We have
health insurance. They have what, seems to me at least, is universal,
unlimited welfare when they don't have a job. We have sixteen weeks of
unemployment and then the benefits run out. They have pensions. We have
retirement plans. They have six weeks off a year. We're lucky if we get
two weeks after a year's probationary employment. They have a
thirty-some-hour-a-week workweek. We work at least, if not more, than
forty-hours a week. They are pampered by their governments from cradle
to grave. We are not. Their tax rates take a goodly amount of a
person's income to pay for all this goodness. We balk if our effective
tax rates shoot higher than thirty percent---for all of our taxes.
They've taken the responsibility for taking care of oneself away from
the individual and placed that burden on the state. The only reason I
can think of for doing this is because they don't have faith in their
individual citizen's abilities to care of themselves and to plan for
their futures. They're not able enough. Europeans believe their
governments are the answer; their futures are dependent upon the state
being just that, so they'd best support and put their faith in their
governments. Which, of course, boils over into support for
international organizations, like the UN, because there is order and
support to be found there. Or so they think. America, however, was
founded on the precept that the state was not something to be trusted.
Faith will only be given when it is shown. We are two fundamentally
different creatures. This is why I think America, particularly
Conservative America, baffles them. We want to take care of ourselves
because, as we see it, government only mucks up the works; they want
their governments to take care of them. So, they rationalize, if we
encourage Americans to ditch the man in charge, America will be more
like them and life will be comfortable
again. Wrong.
Because of 9/11. The sleeping tiger that is America was rudely waked.
Following our great tradition of self-reliance, we see the War on
Terror as a situation that can be solved. It's an opportunity that can
be exploited for the good of all. We're looking for the root causes.
We're trying to solve the problems that breed hijackers who take the
lives of innocent civilians. We're not hiding, because that's what
we've done in the past and obviously it didn't work. But Europeans
don't buy this for one simple reason: that it's George W. Bush who's
doing the work. If it was Bill Clinton it would be a different story,
wouldn't it? Europeans seem to think that if there was an
administration in place in Washington that they could trust;
that held similar values to its own, all would be right. And they make
all of these statements while simultaneously, obliviously, and very,
very wrongly, placing the blame for 9/11 on the shoulders of Democracy.
If you would just stop pissing people off, you'd be liked again.
Well, like the average sixth grader, America has two options: they can
throw aside their principles and be popular, or they can stick with who
they are and what they know to be right and be unpopular, yet better
off in the long run.

This is positively shameful. {...}What

This is positively shameful.

{...}What injured or ill veterans are finding when they return from overseas is a complex set of government processes for reviewing whether they will receive financial help. They have to navigate two of the largest U.S. government bureaucracies in the VA and the Pentagon (news - web sites), and multiple medical review boards assess the extent of their injuries. Even with the current backlog and the prospect of staffing cuts, VA officials are trying to increase the department's visibility, reaching out to new veterans to make sure they are aware of the services they can receive and urging them to apply. Principi said he recently sent letters to 178,000 veterans explaining the available benefits. He said the department is doing its best to keep wait times down by giving recent veterans higher priority, aiming for benefit claims that are filled within 100 days. Currently, the VA takes about 160 days per claim, and 60,000 to 70,000 new claims come in each month.{...}

Oh, yea. Letters making soldiers aware of what they need to do to file for benefits. That's what's needed to sort this out. Let the veterans know what they need to do...after all, the burden's on them. That's crap. A hundred days is still too long to decide a claim. Come on and get real. Even thirty days is too long to decide a claim. If someone's been wounded in combat it's not exactly like they're trying to take advantage of the system, like a civilian who claims they're disabled, then moves a refridgerator and gets caught on videotape. If someone's in a wheelchair because they've been paralyzed, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they're going to be disabled for life, does it? Here's what I suggest: pay the vets their full benefits whilst the claim process is taking place. If it turns out that they deserve less than what they're receiving, fine, so be it. But don't jerk them around in the meantime. They deserve better. Like a system that's not a nightmare to navigate. The government has futzed around too damn long on this one. They've had chance after chance to straighten out the VA and they never manage to get it done. What is it going to take? And when are they going to realize that drastic actions need to be taken to ensure that vets are taken care of? It's about time they sorted it out. Our vets deserve better.

Gives new meaning to the

Gives new meaning to the colloquialism, "talking through your ass," doesn't it?

Oy. It's as if they'll let anyone start up a blog. Sheesh. Where's quality control when you need them?

Blaque Jacques had some for

Blaque Jacques had some for the people of Vietnam. In return, Phoenix has some for him.

A small sampling:

I'm not sure how the English language could lead to an "ecological" disaster. I have never seen a tree fall down because of someone speaking in public. I've never seen ground waters become contaminated because someone said something. I've never seen wetlands drained or forests cleared or mountains crumble because someone spoke in English. However, I could see how the French whining and braying about their increasingly marginalized importance in the world sphere could add to greenhouse gas emissions. I've always held the theory that the French military was as useful as a fart in the wind. That would get us to methane emissions as well.

I would highly recommend not pissing her off. The life you save could be your own.

I don't feel like blogging

I don't feel like blogging today, so, you know what? I'm not going to!
Every now and again it's good to be the boss of, er, myself! Anyway,
here are some goodies to tide you over until I get my ass back in gear.
--- Go here and laugh your ass off. (Mr. H. aka "Ikea Boy" should get a particular kick out of this site.)

--- For some fun Blaque Jacques action, go over to Fausta's.

--- For more hot French action, go over to Douglas' and see evidence of how Sarkozy is positioning himself as the Anti-Chirac.

That should tide you over.

As promised, the long awaited

As promised, the long awaited Third Annual Blogger Boobiethon
is up and running!
If you like boobies go fork over some moolah to keep all those boobies
you love dearly healthy! Honestly, it's better than giving your money
to Andrew Sullivan or public radio. If you give to Andrew, well, you'll
get an extra dishy email once a week. And if you give to public radio,
well, you'll maybe get a mug---and only if you donate over $200.
Whoop-de-freakin'-doo. By giving to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation via the Boobiethon, you're not only supporting a fabulous
organization, you get to see lots of boobies. And it's TAX DEDUCTIBLE!
Can you say that about your other pr0n habits? I think not. And, yes, a
tastefully rendered photograph of my very own set of boobies is posted
somewhere on the site. See if you can figure which boobs are mine. Who
knows, maybe I'll give you a medal if you guess right.

...but the husband and I

...but the husband and I are going to Phoenix next week.

We fly in on Wednesday. The 13th.

Given Steve-o's trip
to St. Louis (which we haven't been told is completely coincidental, by
the way)I'm wondering if the bar hasn't been raised and now I'll have
to go and cover the damn thing.
Ugh.
We're going to Phoenix because the husband's best friend is finally
getting married and the husband has been tapped for the role of Best
Man. Wednesday night is the bachelor party. Which means my evening is
free while they roam around the titty bars of the greater Phoenix
metropolitan area. So far, my options for that evening include sitting
around with the in-laws, with whom we'll be staying, or I can
drive up to Tempe, wi-fi laptop in tow, and see what is going on.
Hmmmmm.
I dunno. I suppose I could always forgo the inlaws and all the debate
nonsense and go and get the bride drunk. I like Brad's choice and I
can't wait to see her. She's awesome and we hit it right off when we
were first introduced. In fact, in the past two years, we've talked
more than the husband and Brad have. (Theirs is one of those Zen
friendships: they don't have to chat with one another daily. Christ,
years can (and have) gone by with very little communication. They'll be
best friends until they cack. Whenever they get together, it's as if
absolutely no time has passed. Very, very wierd.) But where she and
Brad live is hell and gone from the inlaw's house. Tempe is closer to
the inlaw's house. In fact, it's only three suburbs away, which
translates into a half hour drive, but still...is it ultimately worth
the bother? I don't know. Very few people read this damn thing. I
suppose if I choose to do this, I could link whore the hell out of it,
but still...I'm not a native. I don't know where the media types will
be hanging out. I can make some educated guesses, but will I be right?
Or will I wind up driving all over Tempe like a tourist that night, on
a fruitless search for action? Ultimately, is it worth it? Discuss
amongst yourselves.

You can stop checking the

You can stop checking the wire services to see if a Phoenix-bound plane
crashed. We are very much alive. Tired---very, very
tired---but alive.
First off, I want to apologize for even mentioning the possibility of
liveblogging the debate. I should have known better. So, I'm sorry if I
raised anyone's hopes, but it's not like I haven't warned you people
before about my lack of reliability. This is
The Cake Eater Chronicles: where our promises don't mean a damn! (TM).
It's really not my fault you people never listen! Sheesh. One would
assume that you all knew that the only thing I reliably produce around here is crap. It's really not my fault that you're all delusional.

Anyway, it's been gogogogogofreakin'go!
since Tuesday. Everything that needed to be done before we left got
done, and when the husband shook me awake at 4:15 a.m. CDT yesterday
morning, I thought that life was pretty damn cruel, as I'd had about
four hours of sleep. But we managed to get over to the airport and into
the check-in line for our flight, only to be halted when the nice lady
at the counter said, "Mr. Nelson, you're on the Do Not Fly list. We're
going to have to check this out. So, I'm going to ask you to stay with me while we get your name off the list."
Wooooh. Scary stuff when they tell you can't go anywhere, but as it
turns out it was no big deal. There, apparently, is a Michael Nelson on
the list, but it's not my Michael Nelson: they ruled him out
using his birthdate and middle name. But it took them about fifteen
minutes to take care of the problem and now I have to make sure he
takes care of it before we fly back to Minneapolis on Monday. The
ticketing lady said they have about four people every flight who have
the same name as someone on the list. When we were walking away, the
very unperturbed husband commented, "So, this is what Teddy Kennedy was
bitching about? What a puss!"
The rest of the flight was uneventful and we arrived at the inlaws
house at around eleven. The thing that's screwing me up right now is
the time change. You see, Arizona doesn't do the whole Daylight Savings
Time thing, so we're two hours behind our time zone...so when the
husband returned from the bachelor party and finally went to bed at
four a.m. local time, it was actually six a.m. at home. I, of course,
was awake when he got home, so I think I've got an hour on him, as far
as sleep is concerned. All told, I've slept a total of nine or ten
hours in the past forty-eight. I'm living on caffeine and cigarettes
right about now. And I don't know that it's going to get any better.
The husband, not surprisingly, is doing better than I am. Travel
always, always, always wipes me out. I'm not really at peak performance
until about two days into a trip. By tomorrow I should be fine. It's
just getting to tomorrow that's going to be a bit of a problem. I hate
to tell everyone this, but I didn't even watch the debate last night.
Even though I WAS HERE! I have absolutely no idea what was said, who
said it and who got the most points for being obnoxious. I have no
clue. I haven't checked any blogs. I read the newspaper---an actual
dead tree edition!---but it didn't tell me anything new. So,
essentially, I have no clue about any of it. Instead of driving to
Tempe, we had to drive to pick up the husband's tuxedo for the wedding.
Then we went over to the bride and groom's house and chatted before the
boys took off for the bachelor party. Then I went over to the groom's
sister's house with another old friend and we sat around, drank wine
and had a girls' night. And it was fun! So, on the whole, I think I had
a more fulfilling life experience than if I'd fought the traffic in
Tempe, found a place to park and then tried to figure out what was
going on where. If I'd had a few more hours to figure everything out, I
probably would have come up with something, but I didn't. We got here
at eleven. We had lunch at noon. We slept for a few hours and then by
the time we had to leave, the debate was about ready to begin. I didn't
have time to moblize my efforts. Ah, well. Such is life.
So, here's post #1 from sunny and hot Arizona. How many more of these
you'll get, I don't know. I can't imagine that, with the minimal brain
activity I've got going on right now, I'm not really impressing anyone
with my witty writing. Pffft.

Fausta's got more on the

Fausta's got more on the French hostage situation. As does a new-to-me blog, The Last of the Famous International Playboys,
whom Fausta links but who also deserves a brand spankin' new link here
because what he has to say is really quite phenomenal, given the
circumstances. {insert Marlene Dietrich accent here}
Interesting. Very, very interesting.

What's with the "redux" you ask? Well, not only because it's the appropriate usage of the word, because it's French, of course. I'm excessively worldly that way. No?

The next two weeks cannot

The next two weeks cannot possibly go fast enough for me.

A small sampling of the headlines from my Yahoo homepage:

Bush, Kerry Visit Critical Iowa
Americans Going to Canada for Flu Shots
Legal Battle for Presidency Underway
Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes
Bush Defends Himself Against Kerry's Charges
Bush Defends Himself Against Kerry's Charges
Bush Rejects Kerry on Terror War, Economy
Reuters Poll: Bush and Kerry Still in Dead Heat
Political Yard Sign Wars Rage as Election Nears
Bush Rejects Kerry on Terror War, Economy
Kids Pick Kerry to Be the Next President

IDON'TCARE.IDON'TCARE.IDON'TCARE.IDON'TCARE.IDON'TFUCKINGCARE!
I figured out who I was voting for in March. If you haven't decided
yet, FIGURE IT THE FUCK OUT, TELL IT TO A POLLSTER WHEN THEY CALL YOUR
HOUSE, SO WE CAN GET THIS DAMN THING OVER AND DONE WITH!
I have just so had it with the way elections are run nowadays. It's a sickening display of vacuous waste that we could all do without.

Yet again they gave the

Yet again they gave the Nobel Prize for Literature to
someone with whom I'm not familiar.
Who is this chick?
And is she really all that great? Or, is it like I suspect, did she win
because she holds the "correct" political views and her work reflects
that? Christ. Give it to Updike already. He should meet the qualifications:

{...} who "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."

I suppose it all depends upon what your definition of "ideal direction" is, doesn't it?

A friend of mine from

A friend of mine from Des Moines, who, for some unknown reason, labors under the delusion that I'm a Democrat, sent me this link the
other day.
I'll be enjoying the apocalypse, thank you ever so bloody much. In
fact, I'll enjoy it so much I'll light up a smoky treat and pour myself
a Sapphire and tonic (lime on the bottom)and I'll toast all the chicken
littles out there from whom I have taken so much.* Should be a good
time, no? *bonus points if you can name the movie and actor

As much as it

As much as it slays me to admit it, yes, even a llama in a waistcoat is better Than MacFayden.

Fausta has some new information

Fausta has some new information from France 2 as to the two French journalists who were taken in August in Iraq.

Very, very odd.

Sully's out pimping for cash

Sully's out pimping for cash again.

Notice how Sully would like Trey Parker and Matt Stone to advertise their movie on his site...as a way of showing his admiration for their work.

How very generous of you, Andrew. I know if I made a movie, I'd want to reward your loyal fan following by paying you money to advertise my movie on your site! Wow! I'd be so thrilled
to have you be a part of my endeavor that I'd pay for a crappy web ad
that wouldn't have any significant effect on actually putting butts in
the movie theater seats! But never mind about that! You, in
your mercenary way, want to be a part of the joy that is my movie! It's
just so sweet of you, Andrew! I don't quite know how I'd ever contain
my joy at the thought of buying a web ad on your site! It just makes me
feel all warm and fuzzy that I feel some actual wooziness coming on!
{insert collapse to office floor here}

What the hell is this?

What the hell is this?

More importantly, what does it mean?

If you're interested, the Forest

If you're interested, the Forest Service has a webcam trained on Mt. Saint Helens.

Here's the link.

{hat tip: Margi, whose husband also has some tips in case ash decides to scatter over your vehicle.}

Ok, the numbers on this

Ok, the numbers on this one aren't matching up.

To wit:

VIENNA (Reuters) - Nearly 380 tons of explosives are missing from a site near Baghdad that was part of Saddam Hussein dismantled atom bomb program but was never secured by the U.S. military, the United Nations said Monday. {...} One substance found in large quantities at the Al Qaqaa facility was the explosive HMX, which Fleming said had "a potential use in a nuclear explosive device as a detonator." Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the HMX had been sealed and tagged with the IAEA emblem while being stored at Al Qaqaa. Iraq was permitted to keep some of its explosives for mining purposes after the IAEA completed its dismantling of Saddam's covert nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Gulf war. Fleming said HMX also had civilian and conventional military applications. In the months prior to the second Gulf war, the IAEA was certain that none of the dual-use materials were being used in a nuclear weapons program.

Keep in mind the amount 380 tons.

Now, if you go researching and find El-Baradei's statement to the Security Council of January 9, 2003, the story is a wee bit different:

The relocation and consumption of some dual use materials has been among the questions raised in connection with Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations. The high explosive "HMX" is a prime example of such material. The removal of Agency seals on the HMX and the declared relocation and consumption of some of the HMX must be explained and documented by Iraq before the Agency can reach a conclusion with regard to the use of such material. The Iraqi declarations indicate that out, of the 228 tonnes of HMX available in Iraq at the end of 1998, 196 remained at the facility where the HMX was previously under IAEA seal. Iraq also declared that it had blended the remaining 32 tonnes with sulphur and turned them into 45.6 tonnes of "industrial explosive" provided mainly to cement plants for mining. The material balance, current stock, whereabouts and final use of such material are currently being investigated.

The numbers don't match up. How can 380 tons of nuclear weapon-compatible explosive have been stolen, when before the invasion, the IAEA claimed there were only 196 tons of HMX? And that was down from 228 tons in all of Iraq, or so they claim, in 1998, because the Iraqis had mixed 32 tons for commercial blasting purposes.

This really doesn't add up, does it?

El-Baradei used the same numbers in a subsequent report to the Security Council.

2. HMX 53. The relocation and consumption of HMX (a high explosive of potential use in nuclear weapons), as described in Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations, has been investigated by the IAEA. In those declarations, Iraq stated that, between 1998 and 2002, it had transferred 32 of the 228 tonnes of HMX which had been under IAEA seal as of December 1998 to other locations. In addition, Iraq stated that a very small quantity (46 kg) of HMX had been used at munitions factories for research and development. At the request of the IAEA, Iraq has provided further clarification on the movement and use of the HMX. In that clarification, Iraq indicated that the 32 tonnes of HMX had been blended with sulphur to produce industrial explosives and provided mainly to cement plants for quarrying, and that the research and development using the small quantity of HMX had been in the areas of personnel mines, explosives in civilian use, missile warhead filling and research on tanks. 54. IAEA inspectors have been able to verify and re-seal the remaining balance of approximately 196 tonnes of HMX, most of which has remained at the original storage location. The movement of the blended HMX and the other small quantity of HMX has also been documented by Iraq. However, it has not been possible to verify the use of those materials, as all of it is said to have been consumed through explosions and there are no immediately available technical means for verifying such uses. The IAEA will continue to investigate means of verifying the Iraqi statements about the use of the HMX and blended HMX.

The numbers about
the amount of HMX never changed. Let me correct that: 46 kg of HMX was
deducted from the 196 tons because the Iraqis fessed up to using some
for munitions research. But 46Kg here or there doesn't really make a
dent when you're talking about 196 tons of explosive, does it?
The numbers essentially stayed the same---all before the run-up to the
invasion. Don't believe me? Go through all of the IAEA's daily reports
and see if you can find something to indicate that instead of there
being only 196 tons of HMX, there were actually 380. Go ahead. I dare you.
Yet we're supposed to believe that 380 tons of HMX has gone missing.
Explain that one to me, would you? Because you know what this means if
the the 380 ton assessment is correct, right? It means Saddam and his
cronies, between 1998 and 2002, when the inspections resumed, were
acquiring nuclear-grade explosive material. And how, precisely, does
that square with El-Baradei's claim that Iraq wasn't reeestablishing
his nuclear weapons program? The dual-use purpose of HMX doesn't really
fly once you take the numbers into account. Because, after all, Saddam
had no need to purchase more HMX for blasting purposes because he'd
already raided the stash he had for precisely that purpose. Which, of course, means that---shocker---there were WMD's and the case for war was, indeed, justified.

UPDATE: It might help if I learned how to, you know, read.
There's other types of explosives missing besides the HMX. I'm a dolt.
I'm doing a big take back. You'd think I should have known better than
to trust a Reuters wire article.

As we all know, I'm

As we all know, I'm a little on the wordy side. For whatever reason,
simplicity, despite being the standard I aspire to, eludes me most
days. I write sentence after sentence after sentence, all in a vain
attempt to explain myself better. Today, Michele, God Love Her, is speechless over this article, but more specifically, this paragraph:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Well, unlike Michele, I've got words. Lots of words. Some of them vile, too. I agree with her when she says the entire tone of the article is somewhat juvenile, but that last sentence is such a heart-stopper, it completely negates the tone Booker tried to achieve with the rest of his commentary. While I'm sure Booker would claim that he never meant to imply that he wanted Bush assassinated in reality, that it was just a joke, given The Guardian's outright moonbattery during this election year, well...it sure as hell doesn't look good, does it? Particularly right after he got done talking about the election. You know, that veritable thump-thump of Democracy: our right to vote. If you seriously believe Booker, well, if Democracy doesn't provide what he believes is the "correct" outcome to this election, well, it's all right to off the President of the United States. That will provide the correct outcome. Despite the fact that given the rules of Presidential succession, Dick Cheney would then be in charge. If Booker really wanted a Democrat in office and was willing to rouse the world wide chorus of nutjobs with scoped rifles, well, then he'd have to instruct the assassins to pick off not only Bush, but Cheney, as well as Hastert, then the President of the Senate to get to someone he actually thought would be an appropriate choice. Let's not forget, as well, that this anonymous person would also have to shoot Colin Powell, you know, just to make sure he didn't pull an Alexander Haig. But Booker didn't say any of that: he implies that shooting Bush would be enough to get America on the right track. Tighten up the tinfoil on your noggin' buddy. All that space radiation is getting to you. Where the fuck does The Guardian get off? What is it with their particular brand of William Randolph Hearst-in-reverse journalism? To put it quite bluntly: Who the fuck do these people think they are? Do they honestly believe they're accurately representing mainstream views? Where is the editorial control? Who is the editor who guided Booker, and why in God's name did they think that this was an "ok" sentence to keep in an editorial particularly after the reaming they've received over their Operation Clark County fiasco? Have they absolutely no clue about what is actually going on or are they so blinded by their partisanship that they simply cannot distinguish right from wrong? Naive questions, I'm sure some of you will say, but I can't help but asking them. Presumably they have an editorial board for just such a reason---where the hell are they? Do they not realize this was so far out of bounds that there's no possibility of a judge overturning the call? I wonder how they'd feel if, during the elections in the UK next year, some American editorial writer called for the offing of Tony Blair should Labour should win reelection? What would they say to some American writer asking "Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him to blow up Parliament? Maybe he'd be successful this time around? What about that hatchet man who lopped off Charles I's head? Wouldn't he be a handy guy to have around right now?" Sounds a little bit different, doesn't it, when it's your country where someone---a foreigner---wants to foment rebellion?

While I'm not really big on activism, I think The Guardian should know how we Americans feel about this sort of thing. After all, they apparently do
care enough about America to attempt to manipulate our elections with
their Operation Clark County, that they should care when some of us are
displeased with what they've published.
Here's the information for The Guardian's reader representative, Ian Mayes.
As I believe this to be a huge editorial mistake, the reader
representative, who is supposed to make sure they "get things right"
should be made aware of how we feel. This is why I'm sending you to the
ombudsman for the paper, and not the Letters section. I want someone
with the power to make things right. Letters to the Editor are easily
dismissed, particularly when the tone they employ isn't exactly productive.
In other words, decrying a particular point of view because that
particular country has an established track record for having poor oral
hygiene standards isn't intelligent nor is it bound to change someone's
mind. However, decrying an editorial published by a mainstream news
organization that calls for the assassination of the President of the
United States and asking why no one on the editorial board thought this
was perhaps a bad idea---in a polite and respectful tone---is bound to change someone's mind. Get the gist, kids? I don't want anyone sending an email to The Guardian
calling them "Limey Assholes." Whatever rhetoric they employ to try and
get their misguided points across, well, they don't call Americans
"unedmucated dickwads who can't pull their heads from their arses."
Language matters.

Whoa! (Click for supah-size)

Whoa! (Click for supah-size)

Robbo el Llamabutcher has devised

Robbo el Llamabutcher has devised a clever system to help you distinguish between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

"{...}there is an easy way to keep your Biblical stories straight: God is a parent. Jesus never had kids."

Go read. It's funny.

Here's what MSN says is

Here's what MSN says is the music of my senior year in high school.

On the whole, I'd say the list was accurate. Paula Abdul was the girl that year, and I still have the Simply Red A New Flame
tape in the basement. Even though it's not on the list, I have fond
memories of headbanging in the old Le Baron to Guns N'Roses Sweet Child of Mine. So, on the whole, the list is accurate. However, I take issue with If I Could Turn Back Time by Cher: that was strictly spring of junior year, which was 1988. And the only
reason I remember this is because of that damn video. And you know
which one it is.
Around sixth grade or so, my parents had forbidden MTV. I wasn't
supposed to watch any videos because, according to my mother, "it was
all sexsexsex!" Understandably, this was a major bummer. I'd been
watching MTV since we'd acquired cable: which was a few months after
its inauguration. So, being the clever girl that I was, I switched over
to VH1, going strictly by the "No MTV" rule. It wasn't MTV: it was VH1.
And they were worlds apart. Or so I reasoned until my parents banned
that one, too. But these being the days before cable locks and v-chips,
I simply got sneaky about my viewing habits. I learned how to sense my
mother's force field very quickly. I noted all the creaks in the
floorboards between the kitchen and the family room and when she hit
one, I changed the channel as quickly as I could. Which was very
quickly, in the scheme of things and which required an interesting set
of manuevers, since the parentals wouldn't chip out five extra bucks a
month for a remote for the cable box. At any point in my wasted youth,
you could have found me sprawled out on the floor directly in front of
the television set. Since we had no remote, the sofa was deemed too far
away from the box to provide ample viewing options. So, the floor it
was. I'd lay there, right smack in front of the TV (which, no doubt, is
why I'm considered legally blind in some states), on my back, a pillow
under my head, legs bent at the knees. In some ways, this was
completely natural thing. I know most people sit on sofas and think
sitting on the floor is crude. Well, we didn't have that option. The
size of our family dictated that more than a few of us wound up on the
floor: there simply wasn't room for all of us to sit on the sofa,
particularly if Mom was watching the boober with us. We were expected
to automatically defer to her if she came into the family room. Whilst
booted from the cushy sofa, Mom nevertheless provided us with pillows
and we, being the limber young things we were, really didn't mind all
that much. In other ways, however, this was not natural. By the time
MTV had been banned, there were only four of us kids in the house,
meaning that with the easy chair at the back of the family room there
was ample space for us all to be off the horrifically ugly brown shag
carpeting that was the family room floor. But the floor was still
comfortable and we still laid on it, even though there was ample sofa
space. Furthermore, if I wanted to watch MTV, it was crucial that I
stayed away from the sofa.
So, I suppose you can picture it. A young, skinny girl, flat on her
back in her family room, watching MTV's broadcast from a TV that was
conveniently placed on a shelf about two feet off the floor, keeping an
ear open for her mother so she doesn't get yelled at. Well, yeah,
that's about right. But here's where the interesting maneuvers come in,
because I didn't bother to lift myself off the floor to change the
channels.
Huh? You say, wondering how such a thing is possible.
Well, the thing to keep in mind is that my knees were bent.
Another thing that would probably go a long way toward explaining all
of this is that I have narrow feet, with long skinny toes. So, with my
right leg casually balanced on the left knee, I could change the
channel on the cable box without ever lifting up by using the second
toe on my right foot. I could even do it with socks on, too. Am I
talented or what? Getting back to the whole Cher debacle in high
school, it should probably be mentioned that I never fooled my folks.
They knew
I was watching videos; they just only rarely caught me at it. They
would lecture me about it, I would throw out a line or two about how
the videos weren't really that bad, they'd lecture me some
more, and because I was the last of eight kids, that pretty much was
the end of that. As my older siblings never fail to remind me, I had it
easy in comparison with them, and yes, I can finally admit that that is
true. However, when I started dating, and inviting boys to come and sit
on the sofa in the family room, I was more than a little embarrassed
that I couldn't openly do what everyone else was doing: watching MTV.
So, being a brazen little tart, I would flick on MTV when boys were
over and we'd watch, all the while I'd be praying silently that my
parents wouldn't come in and bust me and embarrass me in front of
whatever guy I was trying to impress the hell out of that particular
night.
So, one night, in the spring of 1988, I was watching TV with a boy
who'd just taken me out to dinner and obviously had plans to get to at least second base that night. We'd just finished watching Hollywood Shuffle and had flipped on VH1 while the tape was rewinding before we started The Princess Bride. If I Could Turn Back Time comes on, and while this is really not a video you want to be watching with a, shall we say, excited,
eighteen-year-old boy to begin with (particularly not when you're a
seventeen-year-old virgin with plans on keeping it that way), the
situation becomes even more undesirable when, ahem, your uberconservative father walks into the room...
...just as Cher straddles one of the big guns on that battleship.
You know, it's pretty bad when you can feel a blush coming on. When you
can feel the heat flood into your face, it's absolutely awful. You're
embarrassed, the world knows it and there's no way to hide it. But it's
even worse when you're embarrassed, for all the right reasons I might
add, and everyone's oblivous to the fact.
My father says "hi" to the guy, he says "hi" back to my dad and they
start in on an earnest conversation about the merits of Cher's work. My
jaw dropped when my father, for whom the height of musical joy is the Beer Barrel Polka,
tries to prove that he does, indeed, know something about pop culture
and starts chatting about how Cher was married to Greg Allmann at one
point in time. HUH?
I couldn't change the channel. I was halfway across the room, sitting
on the sofa, and the toe thing just wasn't an option. I tried to change
the conversation, but the two of them were so into it, there was no
going back. And I knew when the coversation was over and done with, I was going to get busted big time
for watching videos. Something I was not supposed to be doing, yet had
neglected to mention to my date that evening because I was deathly
afraid of being thought uncool. The teenage angst was so thick you
would have needed a chainsaw to cut through it. However, nothing
happened. My Dad left the room after the video was over. My date said
my Dad was a really cool guy. And I, after a long "what the hell?"
moment, completely baffled and bemused, slammed The Princess Bride tape into the VCR and thanked God it was all over with.

So, I know this particular song came out in 1988. It just did. There's no forgetting it at this point in time. Even though Amazon disagrees with me. Well, maybe I'm wrong and my memory is playing tricks on me. It might have been
that other video she did with her much-younger boyfriend where
she's---YET AGAIN---scantily clad, but damnit, I think you get the
gist! Which would be, it's all Cher's fault!
Well, not really, but I had to wind this post up
somehow and the whole fact checking thing threw me. Grrrrr.
Longwindedness for nuthin'!

{H/T: el butchers o' llamas)

Or so the Sudanese government

Or so the Sudanese government would have us believe:

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Under fire from the United Nations over continued violence in Darfur, Sudan's government on Tuesday accused rebels of trying to increase international pressure on Khartoum. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a report to the Security Council on Monday the Sudan government had made no progress since last month in stopping attacks on civilians or punishing those behind atrocities in Darfur. But Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail pointed the finger at rebels operating in the troubled region. "They want to give a message to the international community that the situation is deteriorating and that the international community should continue putting pressure on the government of Sudan," Ismail told reporters in Khartoum.{...}

{my emphasis} This could mean all sorts of things that have the potential to be weighty and serious, but I'm ignoring those for the time being because, damn, is that the biggest line of bullshit you've ever heard, or what? I shouldn't be surprised: the Sudanese government is about as delusional as your average Bellevue patient, but it never ceases to amaze me what the Sudanese Foreign Minister will throw out there to defend his government. The spin is amazing. Ismail's no Baghdad Bob, because there's always a hint of International Community Approved Truth (TM) to whatever he says, yet anyone with a lick of sense can see the the situation for themselves. Still he gets up there, time after time, and spews the same stuff. Carville could learn a thing or two from this guy.

The Boobiethon is still going

The Boobiethon is still going on.

Go over and give some coin to support mammary gland health!

I can't quite figure this

I can't quite figure this cold out.
I obviously caught it in Phoenix, and it decided to hit warp speed when
the husband and I were in the Denver International Airport on our very
long layover. The flight between Denver and MSP was not fun, to put it
mildly, as the pressure changes wreaked havoc with my sinuses. On
Tuesday it was still going strong, yet by the end of the day it was on
the wane. Wednesday, I felt much better, and only wound up taking a nap
in the afternoon to deal with some resultant tiredness, but felt fine
when I got up. Yesterday, while still a little stuffy and tired, it
became apparent that I was no longer the victim who was suffering the
most: the germs had spread and I'd given it to a highly miserable
husband. By the time I bundled the husband off to bed, I thought my
cold was over and done with...
...until this morning. I'm all stuffy again and feeling wiped out. I
don't quite know what the deal was. I work from home. My contact with
the outside world has been limited to a few trips to Walgreens and the
bank. That's it. The rest of the time I was home. I couldn't possibly
have caught a new cold, although I suppose that is the most likely
scenario. Going to a drugstore is not a healthy option when your immune
system is already gasping for air, but damn...it's the same thing, all
over again. I should be done with this. Apparently not.
Sigh.

There She Goes Again!

There She Goes Again!

This is simply amazing. I

This is simply amazing.

I can't quite get over this photograph.

I really can't.

It's amazing. See that bespectacled woman in the black hijab? She's a poll worker and she's trying to hold those women back. They were so eager to cast their vote for president that they stormed
the polls.
It's amazing. Particularly when less than three years ago these women
couldn't have left their houses by themselves without living with the
fear of being stoned to death for immodesty.
Why? Because the Taliban said they couldn't and they were willing to
back their laws up with force. Under the Taliban, women weren't allowed
to go to school. Or work. Or to the market to buy food for their
families. Or any other place without some male relative tagging along
to protect the general male population from their evil-woman ways.
Because that's why Islamic women wear headgear and burqas: not to
protect them from leering men, but rather to protect the leering men
from temptation. Women are inherently evil and just create temptation;
by forcing them to wear all that cloth, the men are just protecting
themselves. In the Afghanistan of the Taliban this discrimination was
legally sanctioned. Fast forward almost three years later to today.
Do you see any men in that photograph? I didn't either. And, as best as
I can tell, the polling stations weren't segregated, either. Yet today,
despite all these women have gone through, they were equal in the eyes
of men who, just a few short years ago, would have cast the first,
second, and third stone, and who would have just kept on winging rock
upon rock until that woman was dead. Are you getting it yet? This was
the right fight to pick. This isn't a fight over stoning that, given
their position in society, they never would have been able to win. This
is a fight over whether or not they should be able to partake in
government to ensure they never have to worry about being stoned to
death for walking alone to the market ever again. And they won that fight.
It makes me so incredibly proud, as an American, that one of the
benefits of the War on Terrorism is the fact that these women have been
liberated. This is democracy in action. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING FOR. Something good came out of 9/11. We made it happen. We took lemons and made lemonade.

See also: Michele

But I find myself in

But I find myself in a position where it's my only option. Ahem.

GO TWINKIES!

Sigh.

It's one of those "lesser of two evils" things.

One of the least fun

One of the least fun things about going out of town is the backlog of
mail you have to deal with when you get home. We had five days worth.
So, while the husband's weeding the junk from the bills, he throws a
catalog from this organization into
my pile, because it had my name on it. That's the husband's way of
abdicating mail responsibility: if it's got my name on it, I'm the one
who has to throw it out. But, never having received anything from them
before, I was curious and started flipping through it. The basic gist
of this catalog is that you, the ever conscientious consumer, can buy a
farm animal for a family somewhere in the world. The purpose of this is
to provide less fortunate people with the means to not only survive,
but thrive. This is their Christmas catalog: instead of shlepping
around the mall to only wind up buying your loved one something they
don't need, you can instead make a donation to Heifer International and
they'll take that money and put it to use buying animals. A good idea,
no? Well, yes, but Heifer got some celebrities to pose for the catalog.
Apparently, it's a good idea to use celebrity endorsements to sell
something. Hmmm. I had no idea. I'm flipping through and decide I can
deal with Ed Asner snuggling up to a cow, or Walter Cronkie holding a
baby chick, or even Patricia Heaton with a goat on her lap, but you
might imagine my surprise when I came across this picture:

You know, it's one thing to find out that your friends are supporters of sustainable development, but it's completely, entirely
another to find out that they're such shameless PR whores that they'd
actually stoop to posing with Susan Sarandon! I mean, of all the
celebrities they could have posed with, they have to choose Susan "I'm
a Supporter of Fascist Totalitarian Dictators" Sarandon? Come on!
What? Was there a diva deathmatch in the dressing room with the goats
over Patricia Heaton---a Bush supporter---and they lost? Was this
better than having to snuggle up with Ed Asner? Or were they offered
the Ed Harris/Amy Madigan option and decided Ed and Amy were a bit too
repulsive to even contemplate? Was this a choice of the lesser of a few
evils? It's making me suspicious in the extreme. Steve and Robert's
allegiances have been called into question with this one simple
photograph. I can only assume that they thought they'd never be found
out. It's obvious that they thought this catalog would only be sent to
tree huggers, yet somehow Heifer International managed to acquire the
Neiman-Marcus mailing list, which I'm on, and they were found out.
Well, boys, the gig is up: you need to explain yourselves to your
devoted readers. We deserve an explanation for this outrageous PR
whoring.

For those of you who

For those of you who have always thought Maria Shriver was a frigid bitch, well, here's your proof.

MONTEREY, Calif. (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Monday that his speech backing President Bush at the Republican Convention in August resulted in a dramatic cold shoulder from his wife Maria Shriver, a member of the very Democratic Kennedy family. "Well, there was no sex for 14 days," Schwarzenegger told former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta in an on-stage conversation in front of 1,000 people. "Everything comes with side effects." The crowd roared with laughter, but the governor may have been serious: he has said little in public to back fellow Republican Bush since then. Panetta, a Democrat, had asked him how Shriver, whose uncle was U.S. President John F. Kennedy, had reacted to his praised but partisan prime-time convention speech.

Judge for yourself. Any woman with cheekbones like that knows how to withhold sex. I bet it's true.

Last night, we had a

Last night, we had a hard frost here in the Cities.
Summer's officially over.
Bummer.

...and the #1 Reason You

...and the #1 Reason You Should Be Reading The Llamabutchers is...

(click for bigger) Mount

(click for bigger)

Mount Saint Helens is still rumbling along quite nicely.

It's kind of cool when a mountain provides its own cloud cover.

Even Jeremy's a better

Even Jeremy's a better potential Darcy than MacFayden.

And that's saying something.

Can you tell that I'm really perturbed by this?

Rich realized a universal truth

Rich realized a universal truth yesterday.
I'll add on another little truth:
When Rich chooses to eat his bullet, the Cake Eater Pad will wind up
becoming famous as a place that he stayed for one night. If this were
London, we'd get one of those blue plaques you see all over the city
that declaim something like, Thomas Hardy lived in the basement for a day. Alas, Cake Eater Country isn't London, but I can still see the historical commission going nutso over this one.

So, a couple of weeks

So, a couple of weeks ago, when I coined the phrase "Llamalanche" I
received a very nice email from Steve-o in reply. I told him in the
email that I sincerely thought that, in terms of blog powerhouse
status, they were on the bubble and that pretty soon everyone would be
bowing down and paying homage to them.
Turns out I was right.

Why, you ask, are they successful? Well, it's because they put out posts like this, this, this and this. They're all good. Go and read them.

That must have been one

That must have been one really boring video.

The patient, in this case,

The patient, in this case, would be Sean Penn.

President Bush isn’t the only one upset with South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone over their new puppet film, Team America: World Police. Oscar winner Sean Penn apparently wrote an angry letter to the comedy duo after they made fun of Sean ‘P Diddy’ Combs’ Vote Or Die campaign to persuade US youngsters to vote in next month’s presidential election. He was infuriated at Stone’s theory that America might elect better leaders if lazy, apathetic voters stayed at home and didn’t bother to vote. In the letter – said to have left the comic writers “howling with laughter” - Penn wrote: “I remember a cordial hello when you guys were beginning to be famous guys around Hollywood. I remember several times getting a few giggles out of your humour. “I remember not being bothered as you traded on my name among others to appear witty. I never mind being of service in satire and silliness. “I do mind when anybody who doesn’t have a child, doesn’t have a child at war, or isn’t or won’t be in harm’s way themselves is saying that ’there is no shame in not voting if you don’t know what you are talking about’. “You guys are talented young guys, but alas, primarily young guys. It’s all well to joke about me or whomever you choose. “Not so well to encourage irresponsibility that will ultimately lead to the disembowelment, mutilation, exploitation and death of innocent people around the world. “The vote matters to them. No one’s ignorance, including a couple of hip cross-dressers’, is an excuse.”

Christ. How dumb can you be, Penn? Lighten the fuck up, would you? No one with any sense is going to take what these guys have to say about politics seriously. Methinks you're overestimating the power of celebrity and its "role" in shaping public policy. On the bright side, look for a new South Park that viciously mocks Sean Penn soon!

Some germy bastard gave me

Some germy bastard gave me a cold.

A New Age of Reason

A New Age of Reason (click for bigger)

Welcome to Historic Fort Leavenworth,

Welcome to Historic Fort Leavenworth, Mr. Frederick. We hope your stay here will be an enjoyable one.

I'm not taking a picture

I'm not taking a picture of this one, even though I wouldn't have to
move an inch to do so, so I'll simply describe the situation.
Living on the second floor, you wouldn't think we'd get a lot of
"nature"---birds aside---this high up from the ground. But we do. The
main reason for this is because whomever planted the three pine trees
that reside outside my office window, didn't realize that planting them
less than four feet away from the house was, perhaps, a bad
idea. As a result of the trees' proximity to my window, I get the daily
joy of squirrels racing their way up the tree and parking their fat
asses on a branch that, were there not a screen on said window, I could
reach out and touch.
Now the squirrels can be fun to watch. I enjoy it when a fight
breaks out between two of them this high up from the ground. They leap
from branch to branch, darting and dodging, lauching the occasional
Kung Fu assault, making the whole endeavor seem less like a squirrel
fight and more like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's good
fun, and for the money, the squirrel action is better than a Jet Li
movie. But most of the time, the squirrels climb up the tree and park
themselves on the branch whilst concentrating on giving me the evil
eye. This, understandably, can be somewhat disconcerting.
Today, however, it's neither entertaining nor disconcerting. It's
gross. A squirrel has parked his ever-widening, acorn fed ass on the
branch and is currently licking his privates.

I really don't need to see this first thing in the morning. I really, really don't.

Now, aren't you glad I didn't take a picture?

I present for you, my

I present for you, my fellow Pride and Prejudice nutjobs, your new Darcy.

That's
Matthew MacFayden. I'm sure everyone who's watched BBC America has seen
this guy more than a few times. I know I have. He also played the
horribly disfigured naval officer, Cave, in Enigma.
But you didn't know his name, did you? Well, you do now. And I have to
tell you, I don't think this is a bit of inspired casting: I think it's
lame. This guy is not Darcy. He's good, don't get me wrong. He won't
embarrass himself or me. But he's just not Darcy. The only
conceivable scenario for this guy play Darcy is if he were the fourth
or fifth understudy and everyone ranked above him caught a virulent
case of food posioning when they partook of a communal curry.
Particularly when compared to this guy.

Sigh. Ain't he just a dream? And worth ten thousand a year, too. I
suppose the thing that MacFayden is missing is the "hunk of burning
love" factor. I simply cannot picture him jumping into a pond to cool
off after a hot, long ride, then walking up to Pemberley, being
surprised by Miss Bennet and the Gardiners and managing to pull off the
charming awkwardness of the situation. That and have every female not
only rooting for him, but lusting after his wet bod in the meanwhile.
Most Austen males have some point in the movie where they get to be
dashing and heroic. Think of Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility,
carrying an incapacitated Marianne back to the cottage in the pouring
rain and I think you'll get what I'm driving at. Well, Darcy, despite
his Herculean task of bringing Wickham to the altar, is always dashing.
He just has that thing going on for him. To my mind, at least, it's
where he doesn't have a clue that he's at his most admirable. And
adorable. I just can't see Mac Fayden pulling that off.

Hey kids! What the heck

Hey kids! What the heck is going on?
Yeah. It's me. Checking in with y'all before I start packing it all up
for our flight back to the People's Republic of Minnesota later today.
The wedding went off without a hitch on Friday. Well, I shouldn't say
without a hitch, because there was a hitch---as in the groom got stuck
in construction-induced traffic and arrived at the church about an hour
and a half later than he was supposed to be there for pictures. This
was after he was almost dropped his truck off at the wrong hotel.
Understandably, it was a little tense, but Brad eventually showed up,
and all was well with the world. I've never seen a groom enjoy his own
wedding more. He was Mr. Happy throughout the ceremony and that was
nice. Margo, his bride, was cool as a cucumber---a weepy cucumber, but
she was cool nonetheless. And she was also gorgeous, too. So, they're
hitched. They're happy. We're happy, and we're getting the hell out of
this state while we've got the opportunity to do so. If one more person
says, "Kathy, I think you should move down here," I think I'll probably
strangle them. Brad's sister, with whom we also have a close
relationship, was all over us with the oft repeated question, "when are
you moving here?" Brad's mom, whom I adore, mentioned that "the kids
would love it if you moved here." Of course the inlaws dropped a few
hints. And My very good friend, Barb, who also lives here, dropped the
hint yesterday, too. Sheesh. Never have so many people been so
interested in where we should live. I find that really odd. It's nice
to be wanted, but honestly, other than seeing me more, do they really
have a say in it? Nope. And do I really want to live here? Noooooooooo.
Am not moving to Phoenix. Just not gonna do it. If, at some point in
the future we choose to escape winter living, we'll move to Texas. Not
Phoenix. While it would be fun to move somewhere you have a guaranteed
social circle from Day One, it's a. too hot here b. there's too much
driving involved to get anyplace c. my in-laws live here. Anyhoo, it's
been fun to be down here, but it's time to go home. Even though it's
cold and shitty in Minneapolis. I heard a rumor about sleet falling
over the weekend and it's not pleasing me. As we have a three-hour-plus
layover in Denver this afteroon (Hey Goldstein!
Come out to the airport and buy me a drink, damnit!) I'm going to try
to do a little wi-fi blogging, provided the smoking lounge at DIA has
free wi-fi. If I can't do that, well, the Red Sox game will be on by
that point in time and life will be fine.

Here's your question for the

Here's your question for the day:

How many people in the real, non-cybernetic, non-blogospheric world have you heard drop the word Islamofascist into casual conversation?
Not many, right?
After picking up the tuxes on Wednesday night, we were over at the
groom's house. The guys were waiting for the imminent debauchery to
become, well, imminent.
I was waiting for the bride to show up for a few minutes so I could say
"hi" and maybe make some plans because I blew off liveblogging and
needed something to do other than hang out at the in-law's house. The
debate was running on the big screen TV in the background; John Kerry's
freakishly long face was distorted even further due to the sheer number
of pixels needed to make up his ugly mug on that monstrous TV. The
topic of politics was, of course, front and center. We were all
friends, of course, so we knew this was a safe activity---for the most
part. But there was one man who was there---another groomsman---who was
new to the husband and I, at least, so we tempered our words. Just in
case. There was no need.
The minute the word "Islamofascist" slipped from his lips, I knew where
he stood, and I smiled.
I knew I had a blog reader on my hands.
But, as it turns out, that wasn't the whole story. I found out the next
night that I had an actual blogger
on my hands. He's somewhat of a newbie blogger, and isn't producing
much at the moment, but that's easily understood as he and his wife are
moving house soon. His name is Jay Swartzfeger and you can find his
blog here.
Besides being married to a very cool woman, he's a web designer (I
think that's his job. I'd actually have to find his card to confirm and
who the hell knows where that's at. I'm certainly not going looking for
it at 12:30 in the morning.), and an award winning beer and mead (yes,
that's right...mead. Turns out you really can ferment anything in your kitchen.) brewer. Go and check him out. You'll find him well worth your time.

*You might get more. You might not. Simply because I'm fickle that way.

The husband is a Rush

The husband is a Rush fan. God help me, I know. But mainly he's a fan
not because of the caterwauling of the lead singer, but because of Neil
Peart, the drummer. The husband, if you didn't already know, is also a
drummer. As a sign of true admiration, or to prove that he's not a
nutjob to be a fan of this band, in the past the husband has made the
claim, many times, that a group of scientists had studied Peart's style
and come to the conclusion that there was no conceivable way he should
be able to do what he could do on the drums; that the human body
shouldn't be able to manipulate a kit like Peart did; in essence, they
summed up that the guy was either a freak of nature (being struck by
lightning will do that to a person) or that he was a robot.
Now he has a drum playing robot named after him, so I suppose the robot claim isn't too far off, eh, dear?

(tip o' hat: Martini Boy's bartender)