February 28, 2004
What I Learned Today
sarcophagus -- limestone used for coffins, from Greek (lithos) sarkophagos, literally, flesh-eating stone.
Brilliant
I've been checking out a gay dating site, manline.com, recently. It has what has to be the gay dating site slogan ever: "Great men from top to bottom."
Short poem I wrote years ago that I'm not sure is finished
Sometimes when squirrels sing, the acorns go nuts.
Sometimes when the brain rings, our soul asks what.
How can we value one stick over another?
Friend over friend, sister over brother?
Sometimes when the brain rings, our soul asks what.
How can we value one stick over another?
Friend over friend, sister over brother?
February 26, 2004
Web Page Mock-Up
I've been working on a mock-up of a web page as part of an application for a job. If the layout is skewed or messed-up on your computer, now would be a great time to tell me. Thanks.
February 25, 2004
February 24, 2004
February 23, 2004
I Drew a Bottle of Whiskey
Draw Your Boss. The drawings on this site are uniformly excellent. Not necessarily in artistic quality or humor, but--well, you'll see. Just a few of the great ones: #41, 61, 69. (link from LYD)
Where's The 'Nap Duty' Box?
If anyone tells you that President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam (See: today, RNC chairman Marc Racicot), just show him or her this.
February 22, 2004
It's True Because It Rhymes
Keep kids more alive
Drive 5
Let boys become men
Drive 10
Watch out for that spleen
Drive 15
Cars make slow kids hurt-y
Drive 30
Too fast and they're done
Drive 31
What if you're late?
Drive 48
Hitting kids--nifty?
Drive 50
When drinking makes you tipsy
Drive 60
Save them from the spelling bee
Drive 70
Sail like a pirate, matey
Drive 80
February 20, 2004
A Joke About Death
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Death."
"Death wh-AUUGKKK"
Like all my great jokes, that one was inspired by Utah. I'll get to that in a minute.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It reduces our ability to be compassionate, but maybe this is a worthy price for retribution. I've noticed though that the death penalty debate is no longer about morality vs. justice. The yardstick is which method would make the criminal suffer more. During the D.C. sniper trial, I read and heard comments like "They don't deserve to live" v. "we should keep them alive so they suffer for their entire lives."
This reflects a general philosophy about incarceration in America. The idea of rehabilitation rarely enters the debate anymore. The focus is on making criminals suffer. Utah is currently debating whether to do away with execution by firing squad. Because shooting someone is a cruel way to kill a person? Not exactly:
During the Senate debate on Thursday, Sen. Ron Allen, a Democrat, said allowing murderers to choose firing squads so they can "go out in a blaze of glory" makes heroes of criminals and causes victims' families more pain.
But Sen. Dave Thomas, a Republican, argued that media circuses are "exactly what we want" in executions.
"We don't want these sentences to be carried out in the dead of night so no one knows," said Thomas, adding that lethal injection is painless and "the easy way out."
It's easier to hate someone than forgive him or her. It's often easier to point out what's wrong instead of what's right. Maybe this is just me, but I find the good parts of humanity a little harder to reach than the bad parts. We can be tough on crime, but perhaps we should be tougher on ourselves.
"Who's there?"
"Death."
"Death wh-AUUGKKK"
Like all my great jokes, that one was inspired by Utah. I'll get to that in a minute.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It reduces our ability to be compassionate, but maybe this is a worthy price for retribution. I've noticed though that the death penalty debate is no longer about morality vs. justice. The yardstick is which method would make the criminal suffer more. During the D.C. sniper trial, I read and heard comments like "They don't deserve to live" v. "we should keep them alive so they suffer for their entire lives."
This reflects a general philosophy about incarceration in America. The idea of rehabilitation rarely enters the debate anymore. The focus is on making criminals suffer. Utah is currently debating whether to do away with execution by firing squad. Because shooting someone is a cruel way to kill a person? Not exactly:
During the Senate debate on Thursday, Sen. Ron Allen, a Democrat, said allowing murderers to choose firing squads so they can "go out in a blaze of glory" makes heroes of criminals and causes victims' families more pain.
But Sen. Dave Thomas, a Republican, argued that media circuses are "exactly what we want" in executions.
"We don't want these sentences to be carried out in the dead of night so no one knows," said Thomas, adding that lethal injection is painless and "the easy way out."
It's easier to hate someone than forgive him or her. It's often easier to point out what's wrong instead of what's right. Maybe this is just me, but I find the good parts of humanity a little harder to reach than the bad parts. We can be tough on crime, but perhaps we should be tougher on ourselves.
Sorry for the trail-off in posting recently. I'm finally putting a decent amount of effort into the job hunt. I thought it would be painful but the process has been more enjoyable than how I used to spend my days: eat, nap, eat, nap, web browse, nap, shower?, nap…
Extended unemployment has turned me into a model of frugality, or as I say now, frug. After disdaining the excess of consumerism and commercialization in our society for years, I find myself having a powerful desire to take a shopping cart, a couple of beers, and a lasso and round up an electronics posse at Best Buy. "Yee-haw!" I'll yell as I bring my cart on two wheels and lasso the last remaining IPod player from the hands of a sluggish teen, his senses dulled from years of rote learning, too many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and daily visits from his friend Mary Juniper Jane.
By the time he turns his head, he will only see a shadow fading into a cloud of dust, and hear faint yells of "Haa-hee!" "Who was that?" he'll ask. A Best Buy employee, sucking on a corn cob pipe while in a rocking chair, will tilt his head up just an inch. "There goes a man who hasn't bought a new pair of pants in a year."
Extended unemployment has turned me into a model of frugality, or as I say now, frug. After disdaining the excess of consumerism and commercialization in our society for years, I find myself having a powerful desire to take a shopping cart, a couple of beers, and a lasso and round up an electronics posse at Best Buy. "Yee-haw!" I'll yell as I bring my cart on two wheels and lasso the last remaining IPod player from the hands of a sluggish teen, his senses dulled from years of rote learning, too many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and daily visits from his friend Mary Juniper Jane.
By the time he turns his head, he will only see a shadow fading into a cloud of dust, and hear faint yells of "Haa-hee!" "Who was that?" he'll ask. A Best Buy employee, sucking on a corn cob pipe while in a rocking chair, will tilt his head up just an inch. "There goes a man who hasn't bought a new pair of pants in a year."
February 19, 2004
What I Learned Today
You make a tint of a color by adding white to it.
You make a shade of a color by adding black.
You make a shade of a color by adding black.
February 18, 2004
February 16, 2004
Triumph's Best Triumph
Conan O'Brien said it was "probably the funniest ten minutes on television that's been on the air in the past five, eight years." Triumph The Insult Comic Dog visits that Star Wars geeks. (18 megs)
February 13, 2004
Tricksy Reporters!
Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign.
"I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six."
But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th.
I am posting this to point out a sneaky thing the reporter who wrote this did. It is customary practice for reporters to filter out ums, uhs, and other filler sounds that we use on a daily basis from quotes. But the AP writer left the 'uh' in Calhoun's quote, which nudges the reader to doubt what Calhoun says. And considering that the next paragraph contradicts what Calhoun says, I think that the 'uh' was intentionally left in as an editorial comment.
I found it an interesting writing technique. But maybe I'm overanalyzing the writers' intentions. Any thoughts?
"I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six."
But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th.
I am posting this to point out a sneaky thing the reporter who wrote this did. It is customary practice for reporters to filter out ums, uhs, and other filler sounds that we use on a daily basis from quotes. But the AP writer left the 'uh' in Calhoun's quote, which nudges the reader to doubt what Calhoun says. And considering that the next paragraph contradicts what Calhoun says, I think that the 'uh' was intentionally left in as an editorial comment.
I found it an interesting writing technique. But maybe I'm overanalyzing the writers' intentions. Any thoughts?
More Press Conference Goodness
I watched today's White House press briefing on C-SPAN. What breed of nerd have I become? The White House is still getting heat from the press about Bush's past and undisclosed military records. Scott McClellan's steadfast resolution to hold the White House line is comical. He often has a slight smile on his face when he says something he knows the press isn't going to buy. And check out The Daily Show reference at the end.
Q I'd like to come back to the records one more time, if I could. Forgive me if I'm beating a horse that you would rather see depart this world. (Laughter.) But the President, in his --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think most of the American people believe that this issue has kind of run its course.
Q The President, in his interview on Sunday, was asked the first question about possible release of records, the first question about possible release. He was asked, when there were questions about Senator John McCain's record, Wesley Clark's record, they authorized the release of their entire file. The President was asked, would he do that? And he replied, "Yeah." So why is the President reneging on that pledge?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, do you want to continue on and go through the rest of that questioning?
Q Because that was the first question to which he answered in the affirmative -- don't try to parse it out.
MR. McCLELLAN: John, here's the question, quote from Tim Russert. "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records" --
Q Let's go with the first question. You're parsing.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you are, because the issue that Tim Russert raised was whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama.
Q Read the first question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period." "Yes. If we still have them." We have provided you with that information, and we will continue to.
Q Read the first question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just -- you read the first question. I read this question. It was the --
Q Right. It was the very first question --
MR. McCLELLAN: The context of this discussion --
Q The very first question, when he said, "entire record," the President said, "Yeah."
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, John, let's look at the context of the discussion. The context of the discussion was clear about whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. It was very clear.
Q The first question was about entire --
MR. McCLELLAN: We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I think it was very --
Q We're going to end up on the Daily Show again with this one.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- very clear about the context of the question.
Q I'd like to come back to the records one more time, if I could. Forgive me if I'm beating a horse that you would rather see depart this world. (Laughter.) But the President, in his --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think most of the American people believe that this issue has kind of run its course.
Q The President, in his interview on Sunday, was asked the first question about possible release of records, the first question about possible release. He was asked, when there were questions about Senator John McCain's record, Wesley Clark's record, they authorized the release of their entire file. The President was asked, would he do that? And he replied, "Yeah." So why is the President reneging on that pledge?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, do you want to continue on and go through the rest of that questioning?
Q Because that was the first question to which he answered in the affirmative -- don't try to parse it out.
MR. McCLELLAN: John, here's the question, quote from Tim Russert. "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records" --
Q Let's go with the first question. You're parsing.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you are, because the issue that Tim Russert raised was whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama.
Q Read the first question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: "But you will allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period." "Yes. If we still have them." We have provided you with that information, and we will continue to.
Q Read the first question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I just -- you read the first question. I read this question. It was the --
Q Right. It was the very first question --
MR. McCLELLAN: The context of this discussion --
Q The very first question, when he said, "entire record," the President said, "Yeah."
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, John, let's look at the context of the discussion. The context of the discussion was clear about whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. It was very clear.
Q The first question was about entire --
MR. McCLELLAN: We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I think it was very --
Q We're going to end up on the Daily Show again with this one.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- very clear about the context of the question.
Political Theater at Its Finest
It's days like this that I almost feel sorry for Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary. Josh Marshall posted a transcript of a spirited conversation McClellan had with the press today. I wonder if this story will fizzle out over the weekend, and if the Bush administration will try to assist the fizzling by making a newsworthy policy declaration (e.g. a new mental health care plan, "Loons to the Moon").
Z-Beats
Like Elvis making a peanut butter and banana sandwich, a DJ mixed Jay-Z's Black album with the Beatles White album to create a tasty, heart-clogging concoction called the Grey album. If you have a modicum of interest in either band, then the songs are worth hearing. It's mixed so well that it is hard to imagine Jay-Z's songs performed in another way.
You can download the songs at this site or from Kazaa. (link from BoingBoing)
You can download the songs at this site or from Kazaa. (link from BoingBoing)
February 12, 2004
Mystery Beard Revealed
I don't know if anyone cares at this point, but I am finally revealing the identity of our mysterious, prickly stranger (image scaled down). Since no one got the answer right, or got even close, or even tried, the can of salmon will be poured into the gutter. The pouring will send it on a long journey through a maze of pipes, grinders, and tubes that will eventually return the unlucky salmon to its natural home, and possibly our drinking water.
Next contest: Celebrity Dental Records.
Next contest: Celebrity Dental Records.
Holy Sxhit
My keyboard is working again. This is very cool. I was leafing through the Best Buy ad to see if they had a sale on keyboards. I feel like Sam in LotR after Shelob poisoned Frodo and he left the comatose Frodo for dead. How could I think my keyboard could actually die? What a foolish thought. My keyboard, the voice of the hands, is like a grizzled soldier, its keys encrusted with the gunk from a 1000 papers. I love you keyboard! Not enough to clean you, but, like the raven, I will bang the enter key nevermore.
February 11, 2004
sxhit
I sxpil.l.ed winme onm nmy keyvboardl anmd I c,anm't writel. I feel. l.ike nmy hajnmdsx hagvbe vbeenm c,ut offl. Nmy worl.d isx l.inmited to l.ittl.e hol.esx where nmic,e c,anm c,raw[l. throughl. Wil.l. posxt agaijnm onmc,e I vbuy a keyvboardl. Thisx isx nmot a jokel. I anm pisxsxed offl. It wasx good wijnmec, tool. I'vbe sxpil.l.ed tonmxs of l.iquidsx onm nmy keyvboard vbeforel. Why dikd it hagvbe to givbe up nmow?
Updated for Washington
"...in this world nothing can be said to be certain but phallic monuments and quarterback controversies." (original quote (which is almost universally misquoted) / awesome resource)
Santayana said...
I know the Bushes hates the Clintons. But couldn't they have learned from Bill and Hillary's mistakes?
Much of Clinton's troubles were caused by how his administration handled scandals. Their philosophy was to stonewall and not help out the other side by releasing files or information. But unless your administration is leak-free and there's little political pressure for you to cooperate, the result of this tactic is to extend the life of the political problem at hand.
Journalists can't write the same story twice. If nothing changed, then it's not news. So if you air all your secrets at once, the media whacks you around a bit, does a few reports on how the public and politicians are reacting, and that's it. There's nothing else to report.
But with the Clinton administration, every day there would be a leak or they would grudgingly hand over a document due to political pressure, so every day there was another twist to the story and the issue stayed in the news. It didn't helped that this tactic made them look guilty even if they weren't guilty of what Republicans were accusing them at the moment (e.g. Whitewater).
Now the Bush administration is making the same mistake. Bush's military record has become a big story because his administration is acting like they have something to hide. Bush says on Meet the Press that he'll release all of his military records...and then only releases some of them. Which doesn't resolve the issue. So the next day, his press secretary sweats as he evades the questions of the once lifeless press corp. And on it goes.
I, personally, am enjoying every minute of it. Because this issue is almost entirely of Bush's creation. Do most people care whether he skipped out of doing drills for a few days? Or, the worst case, he skipped his physical because he was snorting cocaine? So what if he was? It was over 30 years ago, and people change. But how he handles it today--that speaks of his character. And it's why this story may stick around for a few days to come.
Much of Clinton's troubles were caused by how his administration handled scandals. Their philosophy was to stonewall and not help out the other side by releasing files or information. But unless your administration is leak-free and there's little political pressure for you to cooperate, the result of this tactic is to extend the life of the political problem at hand.
Journalists can't write the same story twice. If nothing changed, then it's not news. So if you air all your secrets at once, the media whacks you around a bit, does a few reports on how the public and politicians are reacting, and that's it. There's nothing else to report.
But with the Clinton administration, every day there would be a leak or they would grudgingly hand over a document due to political pressure, so every day there was another twist to the story and the issue stayed in the news. It didn't helped that this tactic made them look guilty even if they weren't guilty of what Republicans were accusing them at the moment (e.g. Whitewater).
Now the Bush administration is making the same mistake. Bush's military record has become a big story because his administration is acting like they have something to hide. Bush says on Meet the Press that he'll release all of his military records...and then only releases some of them. Which doesn't resolve the issue. So the next day, his press secretary sweats as he evades the questions of the once lifeless press corp. And on it goes.
I, personally, am enjoying every minute of it. Because this issue is almost entirely of Bush's creation. Do most people care whether he skipped out of doing drills for a few days? Or, the worst case, he skipped his physical because he was snorting cocaine? So what if he was? It was over 30 years ago, and people change. But how he handles it today--that speaks of his character. And it's why this story may stick around for a few days to come.
Need Something Else To Worry About?
How about THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Okay, I'm being melodramatic. The issue is about the upcoming scarcity of oil. You know how when a keg is near to being tapped, the beer pours out slower, and you have to do more work by pumping the keg to get it? Some experts think we're approaching this point with oil. The idea is that the world oil producers have or will soon hit the peak of global oil production. Any oil extracted after that point will need a steadily increasing amount of work (and money) to do so. In a span of a few decades, oil will no longer be an economically viable fuel source.
Considering that the world is dependent on oil for everything from powering cars to food production, and that there's currently no alternative fuel source that can meet a fraction of the world's energy demands, one may say this is good cause to worry about THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!
So is this a real problem or the product of the overactive imaginations of energy conservationists? I've been reading articles on the Net for the past hour and I think it's the former, although there's a lot of debate on the date that we'll hit the peak capacity (date ranges from "already happened" to "20-30+ years from now)
You can start looking into the issue with this article from The Christian Science Monitor.
More sources: 2 3 4
Okay, I'm being melodramatic. The issue is about the upcoming scarcity of oil. You know how when a keg is near to being tapped, the beer pours out slower, and you have to do more work by pumping the keg to get it? Some experts think we're approaching this point with oil. The idea is that the world oil producers have or will soon hit the peak of global oil production. Any oil extracted after that point will need a steadily increasing amount of work (and money) to do so. In a span of a few decades, oil will no longer be an economically viable fuel source.
Considering that the world is dependent on oil for everything from powering cars to food production, and that there's currently no alternative fuel source that can meet a fraction of the world's energy demands, one may say this is good cause to worry about THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!
So is this a real problem or the product of the overactive imaginations of energy conservationists? I've been reading articles on the Net for the past hour and I think it's the former, although there's a lot of debate on the date that we'll hit the peak capacity (date ranges from "already happened" to "20-30+ years from now)
You can start looking into the issue with this article from The Christian Science Monitor.
More sources: 2 3 4
February 10, 2004
Note Note
Note: I added a endnote to the "Say It Ain't So" piece that deals with the statistics I cite in it.
"I'm electable if you vote for me" -- Dennis Kucinich
Perhaps, most telling, the Virginia exit polls showed, was the perception that Kerry could defeat President Bush in the November election. Of the plurality of voters who said the ability to defeat Bush was the most important candidate quality in determining their choice, three quarters voted for Kerry, according to the survey.
I don't know if voters are being savvy or stupid by thinking Kerry is the most electable candidate. A lot has been made of the advantage Kerry has when one matches up his service in Vietnam against Bush's service in...well, we're still figuring that one out. But will this resonate with the public? The 1996 campaign also had a war hero v. a candidate with questionable military service. Except the draft dodger won.
Different times, different needs, different everything, I know. I'm just suggesting the conventional wisdom on this one isn't as strong as it first appears.
I don't know if voters are being savvy or stupid by thinking Kerry is the most electable candidate. A lot has been made of the advantage Kerry has when one matches up his service in Vietnam against Bush's service in...well, we're still figuring that one out. But will this resonate with the public? The 1996 campaign also had a war hero v. a candidate with questionable military service. Except the draft dodger won.
Different times, different needs, different everything, I know. I'm just suggesting the conventional wisdom on this one isn't as strong as it first appears.
The Final Lap of Mystery Beard
This is the last Mystery Beard clue, but it's a good one. This actor had a role in Blazing Saddles.
I will reveal the secret in a day or two.
I will reveal the secret in a day or two.
What I Learned Today
I'm starting a new feature, "What I Learned Today." There have been several times over the past few weeks that I have kicked myself for hearing an interesting fact and then forgetting it, despite the dedication of the full powers of my brain into avoiding the road more traveled. I am reluctant to write them down on paper, lest I die and the coroners find the notebook: "Rainbows have an extra color! It's murple!" I would be so embarrassed.
So on the Internet it goes. This fact comes from a story on NPR.
What's the secret to creating a flu vaccine? Eggs. Eggs have been used for the past 50 years to create flu vaccines. The vaccine is created by poking a needle through the top of an egg and ingesting that year's hot virus along with a second fast-growing strain (presumably so the two viruses genes can mix and ensure that the vaccine will grow fast).
Then, to speed up the virus' production, virologists incubate the eggs (375 degrees for 20-25 minutes, or until moist and chewy). The resulting virus, called the "seed virus" is used to infect the millions of eggs that produce the world's annual flu shot needs. The entire process takes about six months.
Most scientists see the arrival of a flu pandemic a matter of when, not if. The arrival of the Asian bird flu has triggered a search for a faster production method. A lot of people can die in the six months it takes to make enough of the vaccine. And it would suck for people who are allergic to eggs. (sources: 1 2)
So on the Internet it goes. This fact comes from a story on NPR.
What's the secret to creating a flu vaccine? Eggs. Eggs have been used for the past 50 years to create flu vaccines. The vaccine is created by poking a needle through the top of an egg and ingesting that year's hot virus along with a second fast-growing strain (presumably so the two viruses genes can mix and ensure that the vaccine will grow fast).
Then, to speed up the virus' production, virologists incubate the eggs (375 degrees for 20-25 minutes, or until moist and chewy). The resulting virus, called the "seed virus" is used to infect the millions of eggs that produce the world's annual flu shot needs. The entire process takes about six months.
Most scientists see the arrival of a flu pandemic a matter of when, not if. The arrival of the Asian bird flu has triggered a search for a faster production method. A lot of people can die in the six months it takes to make enough of the vaccine. And it would suck for people who are allergic to eggs. (sources: 1 2)
Somebody Get Me a Beer. I'm Having Hot Flashes.
NPR had a story on male menopause today. Shouldn't male menopause be called menopause, and female menopause called womenopause?
Say It Ain't So
President Bush predicted on Monday that the economy will create 2.6 million new jobs in 2004. And he may have ruined the economy by doing so.
You see, in 2003, Bush announced that his tax cuts would create 580,000 jobs. But by the end of the year, the economy had lost 500,000 jobs. (1)
According to my calculations, for every 1.16 imaginary jobs Bush predicted, one real job was destroyed. This is no coincidence. Similar to a proton and an antiproton colliding, these imaginary jobs given life by President Bush are annihilating real jobs. Bush has unearthed, unwittingly, an hitherto unknown cosmic law of karma that has the power to destroy our country. And with today's prediction, the future bodes much worst.
By predicting the creation of 2.6 million imaginary jobs, Bush will destroy 2.2 million real jobs, putting a knife into the staggering economy and sending us back into a severe recession. The trend will perplex economists and politicians, who will label it "the jobless recovery" and try to pin the responsibility on their political opponents. But we will know the real reason: Bush's promise not to rest until every American who wants to work has a job.
This phenomenon is not limited to job creation. Have you noticed how the stock market tanks after Bush speaks about the economy? Wonder where all the WMDs are... after Bush has been saying they would be there for many months? How he praised Cheney often in 2000 and 2001...and now the VP is nowhere to be seen?
The evidence is overwhelming, and we must take action. If we can get word to President Bush and convince him to predict the elimination of 2.6 million jobs, preferably in a nationally televised speech, the karma polarity will reverse, creating over two million jobs and ushering us into an age of relative prosperity and low unemployment.
It would be a gutsy move for him, But once he sees the evidence, I am sure it is one that he will make.
(1) I spent about a hour trying to find a reliable source on how many jobs were gained or lost in 2003. One would think the Department of Labor would have this information, but I could only find the month-to-month change and I didn't trust myself to add them correctly.
A few days after I wrote this post, I stumbled upon the liberal web site The American Prospect's web site, which has different numbers. Are they more accurate? I don't know. I present them for your own judgement:
Jobs promised by Bush in 2003: 1.7 million
Jobs lost in 2003: 53,000
Jobs promised in 2004: 3.9 million
If anyone has more accurate statistics, I would love to see them and hear about how you found them.
You see, in 2003, Bush announced that his tax cuts would create 580,000 jobs. But by the end of the year, the economy had lost 500,000 jobs. (1)
According to my calculations, for every 1.16 imaginary jobs Bush predicted, one real job was destroyed. This is no coincidence. Similar to a proton and an antiproton colliding, these imaginary jobs given life by President Bush are annihilating real jobs. Bush has unearthed, unwittingly, an hitherto unknown cosmic law of karma that has the power to destroy our country. And with today's prediction, the future bodes much worst.
By predicting the creation of 2.6 million imaginary jobs, Bush will destroy 2.2 million real jobs, putting a knife into the staggering economy and sending us back into a severe recession. The trend will perplex economists and politicians, who will label it "the jobless recovery" and try to pin the responsibility on their political opponents. But we will know the real reason: Bush's promise not to rest until every American who wants to work has a job.
This phenomenon is not limited to job creation. Have you noticed how the stock market tanks after Bush speaks about the economy? Wonder where all the WMDs are... after Bush has been saying they would be there for many months? How he praised Cheney often in 2000 and 2001...and now the VP is nowhere to be seen?
The evidence is overwhelming, and we must take action. If we can get word to President Bush and convince him to predict the elimination of 2.6 million jobs, preferably in a nationally televised speech, the karma polarity will reverse, creating over two million jobs and ushering us into an age of relative prosperity and low unemployment.
It would be a gutsy move for him, But once he sees the evidence, I am sure it is one that he will make.
(1) I spent about a hour trying to find a reliable source on how many jobs were gained or lost in 2003. One would think the Department of Labor would have this information, but I could only find the month-to-month change and I didn't trust myself to add them correctly.
A few days after I wrote this post, I stumbled upon the liberal web site The American Prospect's web site, which has different numbers. Are they more accurate? I don't know. I present them for your own judgement:
Jobs promised by Bush in 2003: 1.7 million
Jobs lost in 2003: 53,000
Jobs promised in 2004: 3.9 million
If anyone has more accurate statistics, I would love to see them and hear about how you found them.
February 08, 2004
Bush's Meet The Press Interview
If you weren't able to watch President Bush's interview with Tim Russet on Meet The Press, you can read the transcript. It's lengthy though, so I condensed it for those of you short on time.
RUSSERT: Mr. President, welcome back to Meet the Press.
BUSH: Thank you. [very fast] 9-11.
RUSSERT: I'm sorry?
BUSH: Nothing.
RUSSERT: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
BUSH: That's a very good question. The American people deserve to hear an answer to it. 9-11.
RUSSERT: 9-11?
BUSH: What about it?
RUSSERT: You just said 9-11.
BUSH: No I didn't.
RUSSERT: I'm sorry. I misheard.
[long pause]
RUSSERT: Do you have an answer to the question?
BUSH: Yes. It was a war of necessity. I made the decision to go to war based on the intelligence we had at the same. The same intelligence Congress had when they approved the war. Saddam was a madman. A murderer. A devil with three horns, one for extra devilry. For years he inflicted terrrrr on his people. He was also had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and wanted to have nuclear weapons. Some parts of our intelligence may not not turn out to be not true. But what we knew from before the war is still true today: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction programs and/or related activities.
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the economy. I have one of my charts. [shows graphic] The Bush-Cheney first three years: The unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent. There has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion to -- or it's up 23 percent. Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
BUSH: Tim, there is a reason for each of those statistics. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, and--what was the last one?
RUSSERT: $5.7 trillion debt.
BUSH: Definitely 9-11.
RUSSERT: How can you attribute the state of the economy and the budget deficit all to 9-11?
BUSH: It's pretty easy. Take a look at one of my charts. [shows graphic]. If you follow the red, pointy arrow, you can see that we had to fight the war in Iraq because of 9-11. The war in Iraq and 9-11 put a strain on our economy and raised the deficit. So I had to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. That raised the deficit, putting a further strain on the economy. That's why we need to fight another country: to avoid another 9-11.
RUSSERT: President Bush, your moon language confuses me.
BUSH: It is confusing. That's why we're going to the moon in 2012.
RUSSERT: But why--
BUSH: Knock-knock.
RUSSERT: Um, who's there?
BUSH: 9-11.
RUSSERT: I know where this is going.
President Bush wrinkles his nose and frowns.
RUSSERT: Okay. 9-11 who?
BUSH: If you don't know the answer, then you're with the terrorists. Gotcha!
RUSSERT: And with that, we're out of time. Thank you for going us Mr. President. We'll be back next week.
BUSH: I gotcha good, didn't I?
RUSSERT: Mr. President, welcome back to Meet the Press.
BUSH: Thank you. [very fast] 9-11.
RUSSERT: I'm sorry?
BUSH: Nothing.
RUSSERT: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
BUSH: That's a very good question. The American people deserve to hear an answer to it. 9-11.
RUSSERT: 9-11?
BUSH: What about it?
RUSSERT: You just said 9-11.
BUSH: No I didn't.
RUSSERT: I'm sorry. I misheard.
[long pause]
RUSSERT: Do you have an answer to the question?
BUSH: Yes. It was a war of necessity. I made the decision to go to war based on the intelligence we had at the same. The same intelligence Congress had when they approved the war. Saddam was a madman. A murderer. A devil with three horns, one for extra devilry. For years he inflicted terrrrr on his people. He was also had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and wanted to have nuclear weapons. Some parts of our intelligence may not not turn out to be not true. But what we knew from before the war is still true today: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction programs and/or related activities.
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the economy. I have one of my charts. [shows graphic] The Bush-Cheney first three years: The unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent. There has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion to -- or it's up 23 percent. Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
BUSH: Tim, there is a reason for each of those statistics. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, and--what was the last one?
RUSSERT: $5.7 trillion debt.
BUSH: Definitely 9-11.
RUSSERT: How can you attribute the state of the economy and the budget deficit all to 9-11?
BUSH: It's pretty easy. Take a look at one of my charts. [shows graphic]. If you follow the red, pointy arrow, you can see that we had to fight the war in Iraq because of 9-11. The war in Iraq and 9-11 put a strain on our economy and raised the deficit. So I had to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. That raised the deficit, putting a further strain on the economy. That's why we need to fight another country: to avoid another 9-11.
RUSSERT: President Bush, your moon language confuses me.
BUSH: It is confusing. That's why we're going to the moon in 2012.
RUSSERT: But why--
BUSH: Knock-knock.
RUSSERT: Um, who's there?
BUSH: 9-11.
RUSSERT: I know where this is going.
President Bush wrinkles his nose and frowns.
RUSSERT: Okay. 9-11 who?
BUSH: If you don't know the answer, then you're with the terrorists. Gotcha!
RUSSERT: And with that, we're out of time. Thank you for going us Mr. President. We'll be back next week.
BUSH: I gotcha good, didn't I?
Free-dum
Florida has a set of progressive open government laws where residents can request to see any public record from an agency. But the reality isn't that simple. A group of journalists, posing as regular citizens, tested the system by contacting several hundred local government agencies and making run-of-the mill requests. The agencies they contacted often denied them the information or gave them the runaround. From the article:
Some government agencies tried to justify their suspicions by citing heightened security concerns brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a post-audit interview, Taylor County Superintendent Oscar Howard said his district was hesitant to produce his cell phone bill because the volunteer wouldn't give his name.
"He could have been a terrorist," Howard said. "We have to ensure the safety of children."
Howard couldn't explain how a terrorist might use his cell phone bill to harm children.
Some government agencies tried to justify their suspicions by citing heightened security concerns brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a post-audit interview, Taylor County Superintendent Oscar Howard said his district was hesitant to produce his cell phone bill because the volunteer wouldn't give his name.
"He could have been a terrorist," Howard said. "We have to ensure the safety of children."
Howard couldn't explain how a terrorist might use his cell phone bill to harm children.
February 07, 2004
The WMD Panel
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Bush's handpicked appointments "to investigate his own administration . . . creates the appearance of a cozy inside job." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it "a commission wholly owned by the executive branch investigating the executive branch." [Wash. Post]
I can't believe this. Not that Bush handpicked the panel to investigate the weapons of mass destruction. It's that Tom Harkin and Nancy Pelosi are completely missing the point. As Josh Marshall points out, the panel can't investigate the White House.
No, really. Read the order yourself. The panel members have been mandated to investigate the CIA and the intelligence gathering process, nothing else. The executive branch--and its possible misuse of the intelligence--isn't mentioned, even implicitly. I don't even know why President Bush bothered to handpick the panel members and have the deadline for the report to be well beyond the election (March 31, 2005). He could have appointed nine feces-throwing monkeys to the panel and still get off clean.
Why isn't this news? It's like a criminal peeing on the floor and slapping "Ol Susana" on his ass to distract you from the body in his car. Am I completely misreading this? I feel like I'm living in a loony house right now.
I can't believe this. Not that Bush handpicked the panel to investigate the weapons of mass destruction. It's that Tom Harkin and Nancy Pelosi are completely missing the point. As Josh Marshall points out, the panel can't investigate the White House.
No, really. Read the order yourself. The panel members have been mandated to investigate the CIA and the intelligence gathering process, nothing else. The executive branch--and its possible misuse of the intelligence--isn't mentioned, even implicitly. I don't even know why President Bush bothered to handpick the panel members and have the deadline for the report to be well beyond the election (March 31, 2005). He could have appointed nine feces-throwing monkeys to the panel and still get off clean.
Why isn't this news? It's like a criminal peeing on the floor and slapping "Ol Susana" on his ass to distract you from the body in his car. Am I completely misreading this? I feel like I'm living in a loony house right now.
February 06, 2004
Clue #4
I have been coy about revealing too much information about our celebrity beard. Perhaps too coy, for no one has been close enough for me to remove the can of salmon and caress it, like one would do to a dying dog. So while this next clue may give too much information, I feel that it is necessary.
Clue #4: Clue #1 is a complete lie.
Keep on guessin'! Remember, a can of fish is at stake (photo coming).
Clue #4: Clue #1 is a complete lie.
Keep on guessin'! Remember, a can of fish is at stake (photo coming).
February 05, 2004
We Like The...Quiznos?
You may remember the "I Like The Moon" song that I linked to several months ago. I heard it again for the first time in a while. It was coming from the TV. Quiznos, a mythical sub company that doesn't really exist (have you ever actually seen a Quiznos?) is using a version of the song in a commercial.
February 04, 2004
I Now Pronounce You Man and Man
It will be marriage in Massachusetts, not civil unions. The highest state court ruled today that the legislature cannot offer gay couples civil unions with full rights in lieu of marriage.
I'm glad this is happening, and I'm glad this is happening today. Some gay people are content with the word civil unions if it comes with the same rights as marriage. I'm not, for the same reasoning as the courts: it's a return of "separate but equal" that creates a second class of citizens.
Some people would also prefer that we have this debate a few years from now, when society might be more accepting and there would therefore be less of a legislative backlash. I may have agreed with this 10 years ago, when the threat of constitutional revisions were much more of a possibility, but that's not a big threat now. Even some people against marriage are against barring it by amending the constitution. The only other realistic option today to prevent gay marriage is legislative, and those laws can be struck down by the courts.
My other argument on why this decision comes at the right time in history is more subtle. The acceptance of gay people in our culture started at the direct experience level, e.g. a straight person finds out his best friend is gay, and has a conflict with his previous, socialized belief that being gay is weird and/or immoral. This isn't an easy conflict to resolve. But once enough people did, the idea that we should accept gay people began bubbling up into the socialization process, through TV shows and other media. We're at the point now that most kids are being socialized to accept gay people, almost a complete reversal from 20 years ago. In one poll on gay marriage, 61% of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; 18% of people 65 and older do.
Here's my point: having the courts establish the legality of gay marriage strengthens this socialization process, even if it's just a bit. More importantly, it weakens the socialization process with the opposite message, that gays marriage is wrong. It is harder to make an argument that directly contradicts the law, whether it's a good argument (blacks has a right to equality) or a bad one.
In the past, when the courts have made rulings that society wasn't "ready" for (I'm thinking about civil rights here), society eventually adjusted to the ruling, much faster I would argue then if one just waited for people to change on their own. In other words, you may have to cram enlightenment down people's throats, but once you do, they eventually swallow (who wants to extend this metaphor to puking?). And because I think there isn't enough support for constitutional amendments today at either the national or state level, I feel this ruling comes at the right time.
I'm glad this is happening, and I'm glad this is happening today. Some gay people are content with the word civil unions if it comes with the same rights as marriage. I'm not, for the same reasoning as the courts: it's a return of "separate but equal" that creates a second class of citizens.
Some people would also prefer that we have this debate a few years from now, when society might be more accepting and there would therefore be less of a legislative backlash. I may have agreed with this 10 years ago, when the threat of constitutional revisions were much more of a possibility, but that's not a big threat now. Even some people against marriage are against barring it by amending the constitution. The only other realistic option today to prevent gay marriage is legislative, and those laws can be struck down by the courts.
My other argument on why this decision comes at the right time in history is more subtle. The acceptance of gay people in our culture started at the direct experience level, e.g. a straight person finds out his best friend is gay, and has a conflict with his previous, socialized belief that being gay is weird and/or immoral. This isn't an easy conflict to resolve. But once enough people did, the idea that we should accept gay people began bubbling up into the socialization process, through TV shows and other media. We're at the point now that most kids are being socialized to accept gay people, almost a complete reversal from 20 years ago. In one poll on gay marriage, 61% of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; 18% of people 65 and older do.
Here's my point: having the courts establish the legality of gay marriage strengthens this socialization process, even if it's just a bit. More importantly, it weakens the socialization process with the opposite message, that gays marriage is wrong. It is harder to make an argument that directly contradicts the law, whether it's a good argument (blacks has a right to equality) or a bad one.
In the past, when the courts have made rulings that society wasn't "ready" for (I'm thinking about civil rights here), society eventually adjusted to the ruling, much faster I would argue then if one just waited for people to change on their own. In other words, you may have to cram enlightenment down people's throats, but once you do, they eventually swallow (who wants to extend this metaphor to puking?). And because I think there isn't enough support for constitutional amendments today at either the national or state level, I feel this ruling comes at the right time.
Clue #3
The guess for the Celebrity Beard contest are flying in. People have guessed such names as Orlando Bloom. And many others. Will the next clue shed any light on this celebrity's identity? Will it unearth any secrets, secrets buried under an abandoned Planet Hollywood? Will the kilt of mystery lift up, revealing a willy who may be named Willy?
Probably not.
Clue #3: This actor has an X, Q, or N in his name.
One guess per day, people. That means you, Ralph! Stop sending me email.
Probably not.
Clue #3: This actor has an X, Q, or N in his name.
One guess per day, people. That means you, Ralph! Stop sending me email.
February 03, 2004
Bad Move
January 27, 2004
Dear Senator Bill Frist:
I am sending a piece of candy that represents the person to every legislator in Congress. It's my way of saying, "Thanks for your service to our country." Since you are intelligent, you get a roll of Smarties. I hope they don't get crushed in the mail!
Keep on truckin!
Jason Walther
Dear Senator Bill Frist:
I am sending a piece of candy that represents the person to every legislator in Congress. It's my way of saying, "Thanks for your service to our country." Since you are intelligent, you get a roll of Smarties. I hope they don't get crushed in the mail!
Keep on truckin!
Jason Walther
Subject: Security Alert: E-mail and Internet Scams
Date: February 3, 2004
Many e-mail scams are currently circulating the Internet and showing up in e-mail inboxes. Many times, these fraudulent e-mails are designed to entice recipients into giving up sensitive credit card and bank account information. It is important to know how to identify and validate whether an offer is a scam, and who to contact in the event you receive one of these questionable offers.
How do I project myself from a scam?
There are many steps you can take to project yourself:
* Don't follow web links in an e-mail requesting any financial information.
* Contact your bank and ask for verification before responding to any e-mail correspondence you receive from your bank.
* Visit Scamprotector.com. You can find out how much of your personal information is publicly accessible and learn how to remove it from the public arena. Just log in with the driver's license or credit card number you want to check at the prompt and Scamprotector will take care of the rest.
Many e-mail scams are currently circulating the Internet and showing up in e-mail inboxes. Many times, these fraudulent e-mails are designed to entice recipients into giving up sensitive credit card and bank account information. It is important to know how to identify and validate whether an offer is a scam, and who to contact in the event you receive one of these questionable offers.
How do I project myself from a scam?
There are many steps you can take to project yourself:
* Don't follow web links in an e-mail requesting any financial information.
* Contact your bank and ask for verification before responding to any e-mail correspondence you receive from your bank.
* Visit Scamprotector.com. You can find out how much of your personal information is publicly accessible and learn how to remove it from the public arena. Just log in with the driver's license or credit card number you want to check at the prompt and Scamprotector will take care of the rest.
Clue #2
Okay, I didn't give much information about the identity of the Celebrity Beard. Maybe this next clue will help. It's not Marlon Brando.
And we have a prize for the winner: a can of salmon. When you're in the mood for salmon but don't have time to warm it up, eat Can of Salmon. It's the salmon that swims right into the can. Shipping not included.
And we have a prize for the winner: a can of salmon. When you're in the mood for salmon but don't have time to warm it up, eat Can of Salmon. It's the salmon that swims right into the can. Shipping not included.
February 02, 2004
Celebrity Beards
I'd like to announce a new contest for the web site, Celebrity Beards. Each week, I'll post the closeup of a celebrity beard and a clue about the owner of the beard. I'll post another clue each day until someone gets the answer.
Celebrity Beard #1
Clue #1: This actor starred in a movie in the last six months.
There are no prizes as of yet, but I'll try to think of one. Happy Bearding!
Celebrity Beard #1
Clue #1: This actor starred in a movie in the last six months.
There are no prizes as of yet, but I'll try to think of one. Happy Bearding!
Three Things About Levitra
1. It's no longer erectile dysfunction. It's "ED." Or, on the tube, a football being thrown again and again through a tire. "Have a problem with ED?" "You can get help for ED." (Tip for guys: ladies love having their vaginas compared to an old tire.)
2. Levitra does not prevent against sexually transmitted diseases. This is not my bold declaration. That's one of the disclaimers for Levitra. In fact, by its function, Levitra greatly enhances your risk of getting a sexual disease. It also increases your risk of poking someone's eye out and allows you to play horseshoes anywhere. Like with ED.
3. Erectile dysfunction occurs when the heart is unable to pump enough blood into the penis. In these cases, the heart is also not pumping enough blood into the brain, arms, legs, and every other area of the body. Erectile dysfunction is an early warning sign of a heart disease. But don't worry about that. Take the Levitra Challenge.
2. Levitra does not prevent against sexually transmitted diseases. This is not my bold declaration. That's one of the disclaimers for Levitra. In fact, by its function, Levitra greatly enhances your risk of getting a sexual disease. It also increases your risk of poking someone's eye out and allows you to play horseshoes anywhere. Like with ED.
3. Erectile dysfunction occurs when the heart is unable to pump enough blood into the penis. In these cases, the heart is also not pumping enough blood into the brain, arms, legs, and every other area of the body. Erectile dysfunction is an early warning sign of a heart disease. But don't worry about that. Take the Levitra Challenge.
Why I Thought of the Following This Morning I'll Never Know. Unless I Want To.
There's a concept in psychology called "locus of control." It's the degree of control you feel over your own life. Many people whose stuttering is a disability for them have a strong external locus of control. Stuttering just "happens." It comes out of nowhere and you can't do anything about it. On the flip side, a stutterer with a strong internal locus of control thinks he or she can do something about it and improve.
Have you ever had something bad happen early in the day and think, "Geez, my whole day is going to turn out bad"? External locus of control. Don't believe in luck? Internal locus of control. Ever take a dump so huge that you gathered your friends and lifted the toilet lid like the Lost Ark was inside? That's just plan sick. And funny. But still sick.
What if your religion influences your locus of control? I may be totally misrepresenting Christian fundamentalists, but it seems that a strict following of the Bible's words would lead to an external locus of control. The idea of waiting for Jesus to return, or the apocalypse coming, or the criterion for entering heaven is accepting Jesus, and has nothing to do with what you do in life. You could argue that accepting Jesus is a choice you have and represents an internal locus of control, but I think a religion that says you get into heaven by doing good deeds and trying not to sin teaches a much stronger locus of control, because it carries through your entire life, not just one moment.
As an atheist with a strong external locus of control (at least for now), I have no answers. But I toss it out to hear your thoughts.
Have you ever had something bad happen early in the day and think, "Geez, my whole day is going to turn out bad"? External locus of control. Don't believe in luck? Internal locus of control. Ever take a dump so huge that you gathered your friends and lifted the toilet lid like the Lost Ark was inside? That's just plan sick. And funny. But still sick.
What if your religion influences your locus of control? I may be totally misrepresenting Christian fundamentalists, but it seems that a strict following of the Bible's words would lead to an external locus of control. The idea of waiting for Jesus to return, or the apocalypse coming, or the criterion for entering heaven is accepting Jesus, and has nothing to do with what you do in life. You could argue that accepting Jesus is a choice you have and represents an internal locus of control, but I think a religion that says you get into heaven by doing good deeds and trying not to sin teaches a much stronger locus of control, because it carries through your entire life, not just one moment.
As an atheist with a strong external locus of control (at least for now), I have no answers. But I toss it out to hear your thoughts.
You'll Never Look At Him The Same Way Again
I love this article on why Wesley Clark rarely blinks. It takes a odd but small detail and views it through different disciplines to give an interesting look at his habit.
Words I never expected to say during a Super Bowl
"Wait a minute. Was that her breast?"
It was. (news article, safe for work).
Update: Move over weapons of mass destruction related programs. Justin Timerblake explains the situation: "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl."
That halftime moment was so funny that I had a wardrobe malfunction in my pants. I have to say though, if Janet Jackson had any class, when Justin Timberlake ripped off her shirt she should have had a puppy pop out. Puppies are cute. Or, if not that, a titty with a laser beam for the nipple that fires the words "USA!" onto the crowd.
Isn't it great that, even in this age of uninhibited sexual imagery in the media and more graphic depictions of sex than ever before, that an exposed breast can still be considered news? As publicity stunts go, this is as uncreative as it gets, but hey, it worked.
It was. (news article, safe for work).
Update: Move over weapons of mass destruction related programs. Justin Timerblake explains the situation: "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl."
That halftime moment was so funny that I had a wardrobe malfunction in my pants. I have to say though, if Janet Jackson had any class, when Justin Timberlake ripped off her shirt she should have had a puppy pop out. Puppies are cute. Or, if not that, a titty with a laser beam for the nipple that fires the words "USA!" onto the crowd.
Isn't it great that, even in this age of uninhibited sexual imagery in the media and more graphic depictions of sex than ever before, that an exposed breast can still be considered news? As publicity stunts go, this is as uncreative as it gets, but hey, it worked.
February 01, 2004
President Bush: "I Only Do My Wife"
WASHINGTON D.C. -- In response to growing pressure for an independent probe into the intelligence he used to justify attacking Iraq, President Bush announced yesterday that he only makes love to one woman, Laura, his wife of 27 years.
"There's only one honey pot I put my stinger in," purred the President, who spoke in a silky smooth baritone. "And that's a sexy school teacher with two well-polished apples. Oh, yeaaaah."
The call for an independent probe into the CIA and White House was triggered by former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who said last week that he doesn't think Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction and questioned the quality of pre-war intelligence. Both Republicans and Democrats see an independent counsel as the only way to finally answer these questions without politicizing the search.
In spite of President Bush's announcement, he continues to remain agnostic about the quality of the intelligence and to emphasize that he has never had relations with other women. "Some people have claimed that we 'sexed-up' the intelligence to make the case for war. Others have claimed that the 2004 interns are very sexy. I wouldn't know. I'm not that type of man. Also, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11. "
If the probe goes forward and includes the President and his cabinet members in its scope, the timing of the probe and its findings could play a significant role in the November elections. President Bush's change of view on the need for a probe could signify that the administration wishes to resolve the issue well before the general election season, and that the President never, ever launches his Patriot missile into another country, nor would he want to.
"There's only one honey pot I put my stinger in," purred the President, who spoke in a silky smooth baritone. "And that's a sexy school teacher with two well-polished apples. Oh, yeaaaah."
The call for an independent probe into the CIA and White House was triggered by former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who said last week that he doesn't think Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction and questioned the quality of pre-war intelligence. Both Republicans and Democrats see an independent counsel as the only way to finally answer these questions without politicizing the search.
In spite of President Bush's announcement, he continues to remain agnostic about the quality of the intelligence and to emphasize that he has never had relations with other women. "Some people have claimed that we 'sexed-up' the intelligence to make the case for war. Others have claimed that the 2004 interns are very sexy. I wouldn't know. I'm not that type of man. Also, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11. "
If the probe goes forward and includes the President and his cabinet members in its scope, the timing of the probe and its findings could play a significant role in the November elections. President Bush's change of view on the need for a probe could signify that the administration wishes to resolve the issue well before the general election season, and that the President never, ever launches his Patriot missile into another country, nor would he want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)