October 08, 2004
The Bush-Kerry Debates, Round Two
Time for the sequel.
As I mentioned last week, this debate, live from Washington University in St. Louis, will be in a "town hall" format, with questions from a live audience. The audience is made up of undecided voters (as if I completely believe that).
Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC's Good Morning America will moderate this evening's debate.
As with last week's debate, live streaming coverage can be found from C-Span (RP) or BBC World (WMP) online.
Live blogging has commenced all over the place -- check the blogroll at the right; most folks are offering some form of live, running commentary. In addition, Free Republic has a live message thread running with ongoing conversation.
Post-game analysis will run pretty much all weekend long in the usual places.
Posted by: mhking at
02:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
British hostage Bigley beheaded
Sad word in this morning that 62 year-old British hostage Ken Bigley, kidnapped with murdered Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong three weeks ago,
has been murdered in Iraq.
Militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah say they believe Mr Bigley was killed on Thursday in the town of Latifiyah, 22 miles south-west of Baghdad.A news presenter in Abu Dhabi said on television: "We have learned from informed sources in the Iraqi capital that the kidnappers of Kenneth Bigley have killed him."
The horrific alert comes just 24 hours after Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said there were promising behind-the-scenes to secure Mr Bigley's release.
There are conflicting reports
regarding the circumstances of Bigley's murder.
U.S. military sources told NBC News that they have reports from Iraq that Bigley might have been killed while trying to escape. The reports indicate that a number of "others" who might have been trying to help Bigley escape were also killed, the sources said.
No stills or video has been released of the decapitation by the monsters, as has been the practice in the past.
UPDATE - 12:30P ET:Reuters confirms that a videotape of Bigley's beheading exists, and they have seen it. It will be available on the web soon. I'll have links to it once it becomes available.
Bigley's brother has been quoted as saying that Prime Minister Tony Blair has his brother's "blood on his hands."
Posted by: mhking at
05:07 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Horrible as the news is, it's important to notice that he was trying to escape, and that there were others who might have been helping.
The islamofacists won't be showing that, just as they didn't show the Italian who defied them as he died.
Posted by: Fausta at October 08, 2004 05:42 AM (amKa9)
2
Reuters has seen the video. Looks like this is pretty much confirmed.
Posted by: John Little at October 08, 2004 06:09 AM (4jzOE)
3
Amazingly, Reuters doesn't place the blame on Bush. Bigley's brother must be in grief, but how he can blame Blair for the actions of Islamofascist bastards is a leap o' logic.
Posted by: skh at October 08, 2004 09:52 AM (0xwoN)
4
Islamo-Fascist cockroaches!!!!
Posted by: Joshua at October 08, 2004 03:19 PM (ZOwDj)
5
Because Britain and America could have gotten Bigley released but chose not to. quite simple really.
oh and because had it not been for Bush and Blair Bilgey would not have been in iraq in the first place nor would terrorists have been able to kidknap him.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 09, 2004 06:08 AM (JJWO4)
6
Paul B has been ranting against Blair et al for some time now and has been visited by Dutch and British police. Philip B on the other hand has stated that it is not the government's fault. Paul B is involved with Stop the war as well.....hmmm. Claiming the Uk/US could have got Ken B released but choose not to shows someone has been taking the happy pills rather than writing the essay that is due next week.....nice of young-white-and-liberal to (a) call them terrorists unlike his liberal friends who call them freedom fighters and (b) imply that he is actually a racist by telling us all he is white and therefore liberal (c) Oh and young. Ageism! Shoot the young whippersnapper!
Posted by: dave t at October 09, 2004 06:37 AM (YEz8c)
7
1. Am young. 21 on tuesday which i assume still makes me young.
2. Am white no way around that one.
3. Politically I am a liberal.
I see the insurgents as part freedom fighters. The people who kidknap and execute people such as Bigley and the Americans he was with are terrorists in my book. Attacking coalition soldiers who are occupying and therefore fair game is fair enough targeting civilians makes one a terrorist.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 10, 2004 11:44 AM (E1ciy)
8
So you want Saddam back? Want to look at some Iraqi blogs and see that the real picture is not what wee Charlie Kennedy is telling you? As a former soldier who took part in Gulf War 1 we are not 'fair game' so I wonder what the lads from the local regiment think about you saying they were fair game when they lost two on a recent tour to your 'freedom fighters' from Iran. Oops they were in Iraq? Bad mapreading Mr Insurgent!
More of your wishy washy Liberal 'we hate the war but support our troops...?'
Posted by: dave t at October 10, 2004 01:31 PM (rcNW0)
9
Unlike most Americans i meet I can make a distinction between supporting my country's troops and the war they are fighting. Most fellow Brits can also make this distinction. Seeing as you are probably no more intelligent than that post of yours here is the distinction in laymans (that means for the average bloke on the street) terms.
1. The war was wrong. There were no WMDs, no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and you were not asked in by the Iraqis, no UN security council resolution and according to international law war for regime change is illegal.
2. However if you are a member of the British Army and as far as i am aware the US Army you do not get a choice from your political masters where you go. If George W..ker Bush or To55pot Blair order you to go somewhere then off you go.
This whole liberals are against our brave boys because they are against the war is bullshit created by republicanazis like Bush to deflect public attention from his warmongering. In your case it seems to be working.
Our troops are occupiers and the Iraqis have every right to attack them. I don't like it when British troops get attacked by the populace because i do feel they could be better off without saddam and they are british, but they are occupiers and have to expect attacks. perhaps fair game was an unfortunate choice of words.
Answer me this (expecting a sensible answer is wildly optimistic but what the hey)
1776 British troops on British soil attacked by the locals. Terrorism, insurgency or legitimate protest?
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 11, 2004 06:08 AM (E1ciy)
10
Just for info I am currently halfway through a four year English/History (Hons) degree with Education at Stirling, a real university not the former Oxford Polytechnic....I bet you tell the girls you 'are up at Oxford' do you? I am a trained instructor, a member of the executive council of a national political party (I'll tell you which one when I see your next post), a war veteran who is 80% disabled thanks to the IRA (more of your heroes...)and a married father of three kids all older than you. Oh and I have got straight A's so far on all my semesters.....so the thick old squaddie stereotype did not work for you did it?
Amongst other things Saddam ignored 17 UN resolutions, the ISG report says Saddam had WMD and wanted to get them up and running and would have done if the sanctions had been lifted by the UN head honchos who were also gaining money (as were France and Russia etc) from the Oil for Food prog.....I also note you say nothing about the thousands killed yearly by Saddam. Will you still be saying the same if the WMD suddenly appear in downtown London having been moved via Syria for example? As I said go and look at some of the Iraqi blogs rather than Salam Pax.....you might find he was just a bit biased being the son of a Ba'ath party official....
I suppose if London does go up in smoke you and your ilk will blame anyone but the people who did it - the terrorists. Yet you'll be the first to scream for some poor soldier to die to protect you if one comes knocking on your door..... And to use the American War of Independence where Brits fought Brits as an example ! Hello! It was a civil war! I don't think somehow you are going to get a First Class in History .......there are no so blind as cannot see.....try and look at BOTH sides rather than blindly accept what you are told. I thought students were supposed to question everything ! I do and my professors love me for it and we have some great discussions about Iraq, politics and teaching.
I guess this was not a sensible answer but when you use words like Tosspot Blair and Nazi etc. you probably weren't wanting or are capable of giving one. You haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about. Go away, do some REAL research and come back when you have a reasoned argument with evidence not ranty talking points from some PowerPoint presentation.
Posted by: dave t at October 11, 2004 11:26 AM (rcNW0)
11
1. Don't say i am at oxford. I don't need to. Yes Brookes used to be Oxford Polytechnic but is now a university that was shortlisted for the Times University of the year 2003. Voted best new uni in UK for last 3 years or so and history course and dept there is rated 5 star. Stirling for the record got 5 not 5 star. for 2004 the Times League Table puts Oxford Brookes 20th in the Country for History with a 5 star rating and an overall score of 87.3. Stirling is equal 40th with 5 rating and overall score of 82.9. For the further record i obtained grade A at GCSE and grade A at A-Level. Furthermore on my synoptic A-level paper, a 2 essay question paper on nazi germany i got 100 percent amd have the slip to prove it.
2. I do not like the IRA nor do i know anyone who does. They are however a good example of why it is better to negotiate with terrorists to a point than engage in the ultimate futility trying to kill all of them.
3. In a strictly legal sense 1776 was a British civil war though as a fellow history student you would have to admit that most of the colonists fighting against Britain considered themselves American.
4. Saddam ignored 17 security council resolutions true. However we id not go to war to enforce those 17. We got ourselves 1441 which threatened him unless he allowed weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. Those inspectors found nothing and Blix's report in February 2003 while mentioning more could be done on the co-operation side, Iraq was showing a greater willingness to co-operate than before. We attacked in March 2003 because it was fast becoming obvious that had we allowed Blix and El Baradaie (can't remember how his name is spelt) time to complete the job they would have reported back what the ISG told us last week -and for the record what many liberals myself included were saying before the war and all the way up to now- and completely destroyed Bush and Blair's reason for war.
5. Can you really not see the flaw in this logic. "Saddam must be forcibly disarmed because he is a danger to us and the region." why hasn't he attacked up to now and why didn't he attack with WMDs in March 2003 "He was afraid of our response" looks to me like containment was working then.
6. If london were attacked by terrorists yes i would be a pissed as everyone else. I would however look a little bit further and ask myself WHY a terrorist felt the need to attack me and my country. Odds are it would have something to do with us screwing them somewhere along the line. People do not become terrorists for no reason.
7. I have never ever claimed to dislike soldiers. I have the utmost respect for the british army as it is the most highly trained on the planet. The soldiers in iraq are doing what they were ordered to do which is unfortunate but not their fault. my beef is with the politicians who sent them there for no reason.
8. yes 1000s per year were killed by saddam. how many iraqis have been killed in the 17 months since we invaded? have heard in the region of 10000 but not sure what total figure is. What is the magic number by the way. At what numerical point does one set of deaths become OK and another genocide or mass slaughter? Our invasion got rid of saddam yes. What will replace him? a legitimate democratic government elected by the iraqi people under electoral conditions condusive to a fair election? not any time soon. What will the US response be if the above does by some miracle happen and an iranian style theocracy is fairly elected? Will they accept it? pigs might fly.
9. If you don't like phrases such as tosspot blair and republicanazi then perhaps you might like to refrain from insulting liberals and others on here can stop using the term islamofascist.
10. If i believed everything i was told i would not be having this argument with you. I would be supporting Bush and Blair and claiming the war was right.
11. ok apologies for the thick stereotype was out of order with that one.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 11, 2004 11:40 PM (E1ciy)
12
See how easy it is to actually persuade me that you have deep felt views and that you are thinking about them?
I used to live in Oxford so am glad to see that Brookes is getting better than the old days when it used to be a depository for the forerunners of the BNP Youth Wing.....
The major sticking point is STILL however that you are pesisting in woolly thinking that if we are nice to the Terrorists that they will stop everything and become our friends. They are religious fanatics and many of their leaders have said that they are not interested in negotiating but only in killing all unbelievers. I for one, whilst defending to the death if necessary your right to have your own views, will continue to be wary and take precautions to protect my family and my friends as I honestly believe that unless we destroy the Islamic fanatics (to allow the rest of the Muslim world to continue to develop) then we have no chance for a stable world. Let us not forget that they have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims so far....and what about rights for women, children etc. Islam needs to have the equivalent of our Reformation in order to allow all her followers to become equal. So far there is little sign of this happening.
PS Read Major General Richard Holmes's latest on the War of Independence - jolly good book and continues the case made in Rebels and Redcoats off the BBC series that it was a civil war ....but let us not go there or we will be here for the next week and I have an essay on the antiwar movement during Vietnam to finish off! Cheerio and back to work I think!
Posted by: dave t at October 12, 2004 12:19 AM (rcNW0)
13
i think its sick putting that video onto the net the people that put it on there need locking up
Posted by: karla palin at March 18, 2005 04:08 AM (sSioJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 07, 2004
Playing God. No other words for it.
When you think you've heard everything about the sliminess of the attitudes of some doctors,
something else comes along to blanch your skin and drop the pit of your stomach even further.
Leading doctors today called for a major overhaul to avoid babies being born alive after abortions.Professor Campbell said that all abortions carried out after 18 weeks of pregnancy should include an injection, followed by drugs, to induce labour and a stillborn child.
Next week a motion is being tabled at the British Medical Association conference that babies should be entitled to all the intensive care that babies born prematurely receive. Consultant obstetrician-Jim Thornton said in the past babies were born alive after abortion more regularly but "people didn't make a fuss and pretended not to realise the baby was born alive".
Professor Thornton, of City Hospital, Nottingham, said: "Once it is born, you can't kill the baby but the law doesn't say anything about to what degree you resuscitate it.
"The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully."
Professor Campbell does not believe that a baby born in this way should be kept alive at all costs.
"What paediatricians do is spend resources keeping a baby that is going to die, alive. It is absolute nonsense. It does show that is up to us (obstetricians) to make sure the baby is not moving."
As I mentioned previously, I try to stay away from abortion conversations as a whole. But what happened to the vaunted Hippocratic Oath? Blog brother
Avery put it succinctly: "At Least Our Ob/Gyn Was Human..."
Posted by: mhking at
05:18 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I dislike abortion itself but believe the choice of women in this area should not be infringed upon becuae religious and unreligious people don't personally like it. If the baby to be aborted was mine however i would sing a diff tune.
The stuff in your post is stunning and awful if true. If a baby that has been aborted then is born alive it should be cared for. If the abortion didnt work TOUGH!!!!!! surely it is against the hypocratic oath to allow a baby to die because it was supposed to be dead when born.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 05:25 AM (E1ciy)
2
I'm so glad the doctors' names are public, that will help me to know to avoid them.
Posted by: Lola at October 07, 2004 07:53 AM (V1eTE)
3
YW&L,
So, for you, the only difference is that the child comes out dead, vs. comes out alive. That's the demarcation line.
Who decides this line? Why at that point? Why 18 weeks, vs 17.5?
This is the problem with the pro-choice position - it's entirely an arbitrary, subjective choice what is considered viable, human life. This is why the anti-abortion people have the logical upper hand - for those folks, life begins at conception, and a line need not be drawn.
TV (Harry)
Posted by: Inspector Callahan at October 07, 2004 10:21 AM (qKXq+)
4
No it is not the only difference for me.
My position on abortion is this.
1. Personally i do not like it. If i were a prospective father and the mother wanted an abortion i would give her anything she wanted for as long as she wanted to not have an abortion.
However if there are genuine grounds for an abortion then OK and here's why.
2. There is debate as to what point in a pregnancy a foetus is a person. As far as I am concerned it is in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and someone who rdeads the bible every day of his life can argue otherwise till the cows come home. The seed of an oak tree is not an oak tree it is a seed and therefore a POTENTIAL tree. A foetus of 3 weeks is a POTENTIAL person as far as i am concerned.
3. If the life or health of the woman is in danger if she goes through with a pregnancy then I am sorry the life of the person already alive comes first.
4. As a bloke i am never going to be in the position of a pregnant woman therefore it is not up to me or any other man for that matter to tell a woman she HAS to have a baby.
5. What about a woman who has been raped?
Despite this i cannot believe that any doctor would kill a baby that has been born alive after an abortion. thats just sick.
I believe in a womans right to choose and the bible is no where close to being an acceptable or legitimate argument to the contrary. That said i would try everything to persudae ther mother of my future children to not have an abortion. ultimately it is and SHOULD be the womans choice.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 11:21 AM (E1ciy)
5
My line of demarcation is the mother's health. If the pregnancy is a serious health risk to mom, psychological as well (but serious, not she just doesn't feel so hot) the I agree with the right to abortion. A woman shouldn't have to go through pregnancy knowing she is going to die or suffer serious life long health consequences.
But just because she doesn't want it? If the baby is alive then mom has nothing to do with it anymore; help the child.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 07, 2004 11:29 AM (jFNc5)
6
That sums it up better than i put it.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 07, 2004 01:28 PM (E1ciy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CBS to BoycottCBS.com founder: "You're a putz!"
CBS has sent it's first statement to the founder of BoycottCBS.com,
in the form of a snarky e-mail from CBS executive Ted Data to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino.
Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS’ “Black Rock” headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:“PARANZINO..YOU'RE A PUTZ!
“GET A LIFE PARANZINO!!!!”
Paranzino responded with aplomb to the e-mail.
“I’m flattered that CBS News executives read our web site, because we certainly don’t watch their news programs. CBS News debate ratings last night ranked fourth behind NBC, ABC, and Fox, which was showing baseball. It’s time for CBS executives to stop sending silly emails and start cleaning house at their troubled news department.“And I’d like to thank Mr. Data for his email, which made me feel young again. I haven’t been called that since junior high.”
No other "official" word has come out of Black Rock to BoycottCBS.com's efforts.
Posted by: mhking at
05:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
"This Land" sequel to premiere on Jay Leno tonight
Jib Jab, the outfit that gave you
"This Land," the satirical flash animation of George Bush and John Kerry going at each other to the tune of "This Land is Your Land,"
are at it again.
From the creators of the political satire sensation "This Land" comes a sequel set to the tune of "Dixie."The online animation "Good To Be in DC!" features the presidential and vice presidential candidates along with Attorney General John Ashcroft, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, filmmaker Michael Moore, talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Jane Fonda.
"In `This Land,' you had basically (President) Bush and (John) Kerry," said Evan Spiridellis, who co-produced the cartoons with his brother, Gregg. "This piece is more about the whole town, the whole system."
The new piece is set to premiere on
The Tonight Show Thursday night, and will be available online at
JibJab.com shortly after.
Posted by: mhking at
04:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
Dennis Miller on George W. Bush
From Dennis Miller's
Tonight Show apparance the other night:
That's why I like Bush. He doesn't over-think it. He wakes up every morning, jumps out of bed, lands on his two feet, scratches his balls, and says, "Let's kill some f@#@$ing terrorists!"
Posted by: mhking at
03:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
October 06, 2004
High-octane beer on the way from Anheuser-Busch
Anheuser-Busch is
introducing a sweetened, caffeinated beer, targeted at twenty-somethings that regularly guzzle vodka-based drinks like they're going out of style.
The new beer B(E) -- read as "B to the E power" -- will roll out in several phases starting in November.Advertising will focus on in-store merchandising and promotions at bars and nightclubs, with some local print work and online marketing, Anheuser-Busch officials said.
B(E) infuses beer with caffeine, guarana and ginseng, along with berry aromas for a sweeter, yet more tart taste at 6.6 percent alcohol by volume, said company brewmaster Nathaniel Davis.
Anheuser-Busch designed the new brew for 21- to 27-year-old drinkers who seek novel beverages and switch drinks more frequently according to mood and occasion, the company said.
The new drink will be priced somewhat higher than standard beers, and marketed in slimmer cans, not unlike Red Bull and other energy drinks.
Posted by: mhking at
05:35 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Doesn't mixing alcohol and caffeine sort of defeat the purpose of both?
Posted by: Scott McClare at October 06, 2004 07:32 PM (DqZD3)
Posted by: Gib at October 07, 2004 03:46 AM (PsC2M)
3
That's jus sad that they are creating a whole new generation of people who drink inferior beer. ... uh I mean become alcoholics.
Posted by: Joshua at October 07, 2004 05:05 AM (ZOwDj)
4
I think this is a similar concoction to Buzz Beer, the drink Drew Carey and friends brewed up on the Drew Carey Show a few years ago.
Posted by: JQ at October 07, 2004 04:27 PM (+QIvh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Liberal Dominance of Black Media Won't Fix Itself
My new Project 21 piece was published this week.
Not all blacks are liberal, but liberals nonetheless dominate the black media.
So what's a conservative - especially a black conservative - to do about it?
For one thing, stop allowing this dominance to occur by default, because it's falsely defining black America as less conservative than it really is.
In a October/November 2003 Gallup poll, more blacks identified themselves as conservative (30 percent) than liberal (22 percent). A 1996 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll similarly found a nearly equal distribution among blacks who defined themselves as conservative, liberal and moderate. School choice and gay marriage are just two of the recent high-profile splits between black America and the liberal establishment.
It's obvious there's a diversity of political opinion in the African-American community, but what about the seemingly monolithically liberal black media?
In most major radio markets, black radio dominates the dial. In black radio, Tom Joyner rules the roost. His ABC-distributed program is among the top draws not only in black radio but in urban and suburban radio, period. A long-time radio veteran with extensive local-market experience in Chicago and Dallas, Joyner holds court over a cornucopia of topics. He and his cohorts are frequently visited by phone or in person by newsmakers and commentators who maintain a definite sway among black Americans. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Julian Bond are among Joyner's semi-regular guests. NPR and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley is a regular weekly contributor.
Joyner additionally hosts gatherings at Disney World, festivals around the nation and even an annual ocean cruise. He holds fundraisers for historically black colleges and is an outspoken advocate of "giving back" to the community.
Tom Joyner is an opinion leader in the black media establishment.
His mantra nowadays is getting President George W. Bush out of office. Joyner's program hosted several of the Democratic presidential candidates, but he hasn't had on anyone from the GOP. While part of this can be attributed to the current anti-Bush, anti-Republican bias of Joyner and his compatriots, just as much blame lies with the Republicans themselves.
The visible communication sources in black America - from Joyner and Smiley on the radio to BET to TV One on television as well as publications ranging from Johnson Publishing's Jet and Ebony to Earl Graves' Black Enterprise and the local black press - are a virtual wasteland when it comes to conservative ideas.
Conservative blacks from Project 21 often are represented in press reports and with New Visions Commentaries, but why isn't the President there? Why aren't Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell there? Why aren't John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld there?
Why was Trent Lott only on BET to apologize for putting his foot in his mouth regarding the late Strom Thurmond and not to discuss conservative proposals to reform Social Security, how tougher standards and choice can improve education and how tax cuts don't just help the rich?
All those individuals will readily show up at Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh's bully pulpits. That's not a bad thing. It's always good to preach to the choir.
But always rallying the faithful doesn't expand one's presence. One cannot expand their message unless and until they step outside their comfort zone.
Going on black radio may not be easy or comfortable for conservatives at first. A wariness exists on both sides. As the ice is broken - and as black America recognizes that this is not a matter or a means of being used or pandered to simply for votes or support - both sides will begin to open up and to discover that a common ground truly exists.
Even Tom Joyner may discover there is not only room but a necessity for a vigorous political debate among black Americans. To deny it is to deprive black America of something it truly deserves. But it is something that both he needs to be open to as well as those pushing conservative policies.
Posted by: mhking at
06:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.
1
When BET had the Sunday talking head show, they complained that they were always rebuffed when they tried to get GOP presence on the show.
Tavis Smiley regularly gets the conservative view on the day's topics.
In the Baltimore area, Ehrlich and Steele appear in the Black media, though not as often as they do on the conservative stations.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 06, 2004 03:36 PM (cnw1A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And the No-Prize goes to...
I didn't get a chance to award the "No-Prize" yesterday; it got a bit on the busy side here (plus I was out for a good chunk of the day).
Anyway, the best caption for Ketchup Boy's attempt at playing football has to go to Songstress7 for here entry, "Senator Kerry attempts to find his head in the last place he left it...
I don't know when I'll do another one -- although doing one weekly sounds like it might be a fun thing to do.
I want to thank all you folks who participated though! Thanks!
Posted by: mhking at
05:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.
Oh, and for us Nip/Tuck fans...
Nip/Tuck's season finale was last night on FX.
The "out of left field" revelations kept coming hot and heavy.
First we find out that Ava's a man (ok, transgendered).
Then not only do we get to see the slimy Alec Baldwin as the doctor....
...we find out that HE'S AVA'S HUSBAND!
And if you think I'm revealing everything, just wait until the last five minutes (after all, The Carver is still out there and gunning for Sean)!
And after the teardrop in the final scene, we're left hanging until next June!
Both The Shield and Nip/Tuck are starting late next season, due to Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon both appearing in Fantastic Four, shooting now for a July release (as Ben Grimm and Victor Von Doom respectively).
Posted by: mhking at
05:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
October 05, 2004
Ooh...that's gonna leave a mark...
Quote of the night that sums up the entire debate from Vice President Cheney:
"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight. "
That's what you call "smackdown."
John "Breck Girl" Edwards fidgeted, hemmed, hawed, and did his level best to try to deflect, defend and otherwise protect the man at the head of the Democratic ticket, John Kerry.
Edwards insisted that he and Senator Kerry were not guilty of the flip-flops that their record strongly indicates, while Cheney went on the offensive, attacking the dismal voting and attendance records of both Kerry and Edwards.
Edwards tried to link Cheney's personal association with defense contrator Halliburton with failed companies like Enron, and the criminal activities of that company's head, Ken Lay. Cheney countered by challenging Edwards' lack of experience on the Hill (Edwards has only been in the Senate since 1999; Cheney has served in four presidential administrations, and has also been a part of the leadership of the US House).
Unlike last week's tie, I've gotta give this one to Cheney.
Posted by: mhking at
06:24 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
1
OUCH!! Smackdown is right.
Did you happen to count the many times John Edwards mentioned Kerry and then said "I'm sorry, I know that's against the rules." But he kept doing it anyway.
I typed out and have the transcript of the first Presidential debate and I can prove for a fact that Bush won that debate; I would have to say the same for this one - Cheney won the debate in spite of and despite "his long resume'" that Johnny boy here kept bringing up.
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 05, 2004 06:44 PM (D39Vm)
2
Great quote. Too bad Chaney has already admitted it is not true. He has met him before.
Posted by: DarkStar at October 05, 2004 07:03 PM (cnw1A)
3
Cheney win. Facts against accusations. Cheney is just level headed and answers so completely that Edwards just look...light...
Posted by: jbrookins at October 05, 2004 07:04 PM (8QQyX)
4
bush did not win the debate last week. if anything kerry came off better although he did not land any killer blows. he looked and sounded more presidential while bush seemed like a naughty schoolboy pleading with teacher for another chance.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 05, 2004 10:31 PM (E1ciy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Darth Vader v. "Bambi for the defense"
Dick "Lord Vader" Cheney is set to take on John "Breck Girl" Edwards this evening.
As with last week's debate, live streaming coverage can be found from C-Span (RP) or BBC World (WMP) online.
The post-game analysis will be all over the place; stay tuned for our own post-game wrap.
Posted by: mhking at
04:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
Rodney, we all respect you. God bless you.
1921 - 2004
God
welcomes Rodney home today....with much respect.
Bye, Rodney. We'll miss you.
Posted by: mhking at
03:59 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Man, what you guys trying to do, make me cry?
I about teared up reading your headline and comment.
Much love for Dangerfield.
I love 'Back to School'.
The scene with Sam Kinison (the history professor) is my favorite.
Posted by: Joshua at October 05, 2004 04:52 PM (ZOwDj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 04, 2004
BREAKING: New Mt. St. Helens eruption - live video
A new eruption of steam is coming from Mt. St. Helens in Washington state. But as we watch the live shots this morning, the clouds are much darker, which may or may not indicate the presence of magma or lava as opposed to only steam, which has gone up over the past three days.
NorthWest Cable News and their affiliates KGW-TV/DT Portland & KING-TV/DT Seattle are providing live streaming coverage (WMP).
The USGS has maintained their Level 3 alert, which is the highest volcano alert level. The USGS has said that there is at least a 70% chance of a "major" eruption over the near term, ranging from the immediate timeframe to as far out as two to three weeks from now.
(Other coverage from
MyPetJawa and others;
Forester is liveblogging from the Mt. St. Helens area)
Posted by: mhking at
08:13 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Can I ask a question? This live feed - does it only come on when the USGS comes on and reports something and on only when something is happening?
Please let me know. Thanks,
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 05, 2004 03:57 AM (D39Vm)
2
This particular feed will come up when NWCN (along with their Seattle & Portland affiliates - KING-TV & KGW-TV respectively) bring up live coverage; usually when an eruption takes place.
Posted by: Michael at October 05, 2004 04:12 PM (bJ0qq)
3
Thank you - and thanks for hosting it, too.
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 05, 2004 06:36 PM (D39Vm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SpaceShip One set to make history
Burt Rutan's Ansari X Prize entry, SpaceShip One, is set to make it second qualifying flight in order to win the 10 million dollar prize this morning.
NASA-TV is set to stream the flight live beginning at 9:30A ET.
The ship, piloted by 51 year-old Brian Binnie, will be ferried aloft by a Rutan-designed plane called the White Knight to 50,000 feet, where it will be released. SpaceShip One's engine will ignite, thrusting the ship upward to an altitude of more than 60 miles above the surface of the earth. The ship will glide back to a landing in the Mojave desert about an hour and a half after the initial take off of the tandem White Knight/SpaceShip One pair.
UPDATE: The Virgin Galactic/SpaceShip One team is also streaming live video now.
Posted by: mhking at
04:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
October 03, 2004
Dr. Alveda King appearing in ad for BlackGenocide.org
I tend to purposefully keep away from abortion conversations as a general rule; I've never had one, and don't plan on it, either.
In any event, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Alveda King, is appearing in a new public service announcement, entitled "Restore the Dream," for BlackGenocide.org, a website that discusses abortion and the negative effect it has on black America.
VirtueMedia's newest film commercial, starring Dr. Alveda King, outspoken pro-life advocate and niece of the legendary Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The commercial reveals the Black Genocide of abortion, that is plaguing African American Communities in America.
You can view the
ad here (Flash required).
Posted by: mhking at
04:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How the heck to they tattoo the numbers of a fetus' arm?
Posted by: Laurence Simon at October 03, 2004 06:07 PM (7bUSM)
2
How can we run this ad of Dr. King on our local cable station?
Posted by: david lindley at February 24, 2005 04:11 AM (kS/WA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 02, 2004
I REALLY could say something here, but you can caption it so much better....
When John Kerry does stuff like this, he just begs for really bad captions. I could say something really bad here, but I'll leave it to you to caption this one. I'll award a "No-Prize" (back from when Marvel really was Marvel) on Tuesday. Excelsior!
Posted by: mhking at
03:12 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Blogster at October 02, 2004 03:57 PM (qox09)
2
Senator Kerry attempts to find his head in the last place he left it...
Posted by: songstress7 at October 02, 2004 04:01 PM (ZT2y5)
Posted by: Joshua at October 02, 2004 04:48 PM (ZOwDj)
4
"The Senator's flip was quickly turning into a flop."
Posted by: Me at October 02, 2004 08:40 PM (ZlHWU)
5
“I've had one position, one consistent position.”
Posted by: Watcher at October 02, 2004 08:55 PM (JOQdp)
Posted by: kimberley at October 03, 2004 06:58 AM (PcgQk)
7
Isn't this how they do it at Lambert Field?
Posted by: LJ at October 03, 2004 10:52 AM (AaBEz)
8
"Hey Hillary - Are you sure the Kennedy's did it this way?"
Posted by: GMRoper at October 03, 2004 01:43 PM (PcgQk)
9
Proving his support of gun owners, Senator Kerry displays his familiarity with the shotgun.
Posted by: Mara at October 03, 2004 05:21 PM (h/75H)
10
1) It's the usual scene on the playground:
Kerry: "Hey guys, look what I can do!"
Other 1: "Someone remind me again why we support this clown?"
Other 2: "Hey, look, um...
away from over there!"
2)Kerry gets practice for brown nosing the UN...
3) [in bad taste, but it sure was funny!]
Posted by: MetallicaRat at October 03, 2004 09:19 PM (uQOa7)
11
Captain's Quarters stole your caption contest...
There are some funny captions over there though.
Posted by: Joshua at October 08, 2004 03:55 PM (ZOwDj)
12
"Security this is Jennifer. Mister Kerry has snapped his DEPENDS drawstrings again. Could you divert the press's attention and bring me a fresh pair"
Posted by: Patrick Deck at November 13, 2004 10:11 PM (g6k4U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iraqi AQ hostage beheaded; video released on internet
Nafi'a Daoud Ibrahim is the victim this time; he's an Iraqi citizen who, according to an AQ-affiliated Iraqi terrorist group, was a contractor working for United States forces.
The footage from the group, Ansar al-Sunna, showed a militant beheading the man, identified as Iraqi national Barea Nafea Dawoud Ibrahim.The group said in a statement accompanying the video that Ibrahim was an "apostate" (a person who abandons their faith). It was dated Oct. 2.
"I have set up three telecommunications networks for the Iraqi National Guard. I have been working in Taji since June 2004," a frightened-looking Ibrahim told the camera. He was wearing an access badge issued by the U.S. forces around his neck.
Two men later held him down and one proceeded to behead him, before placing his severed head on top of his body.
"We say to all those who even consider working with the crusader forces that they should repent," the group warned.
Still photos of the monsters' handiwork
(GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING!) can be found at
MyPetJawa, while the beheading video
(GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING!) can be
downloaded here (WMP video link courtesy
NEIN).
Posted by: mhking at
08:30 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think it is so cruel, I hope this kind of action can never happen again!
Posted by: william at October 14, 2004 06:17 PM (V7BS9)
2
i think we should go paki huntin a bit of revenge
Posted by: jack and kyle at December 20, 2004 10:31 AM (iF0lc)
Posted by: doud rafia at April 17, 2005 12:17 AM (EhfLz)
4
i am still craying my brother till my dethe
Posted by: doud rafia at April 17, 2005 12:18 AM (EhfLz)
5
why??????????????????????????????????????????????
Posted by: doud rafia at April 17, 2005 12:19 AM (EhfLz)
6
killthe barstardand id gladly take an offer to do that
Posted by: abdul at August 17, 2005 07:21 AM (FvUGb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 01, 2004
Bigley cage video was "staged?!?"
Dutch intelligence
raided the home of the brother of British AQ hostage Ken Bigley in Amsterdam Friday night.
Apparently there have been claims made that Ken Bigley was able to roam about his captor's locale free, and was only caged for the purpose of the terrorist videos.
Dutch intelligence officers raided the home of Kenneth Bigley's brother last night. An intelligence officer from the Foreign Office is understood to have accompanied them to Paul Bigley's home in Amsterdam.The raid came amid claims that the British hostage was free to roam his kidnappers' home in Iraq and was "caged" only for terrorist videos.
Paul Bigley's computer was seized and he was interrogated about his alleged contact with the Tawhid and Jihad group, which yesterday claimed responsibility for Thursday's killing of at least 35 children in Baghdad.
In Fallujah, Mohammed Kasim, an Iraqi-born gunman with a British passport, said the latest video of Mr Bigley showing him shackled in a cage had been staged to "terrify" the British public. There was no way of verifying the claim, particularly in a country awash with rumour and conspiracy theories.
Two of Mr Bigley's American colleagues were beheaded by the captors, believed to be the group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Gruesome footage of the murders was transmitted on the internet.
Kasim, an Iraqi-born British citizen who claims to have "joined" the resistance in Fallujah, says that he hears about Bigley every day, and made the assertion that Bigley was only caged for the videos.
Kasim says that he is not part of the Zarqawi-Al Qaeda-affiliated group that has been responsible for most of the terrorist beheadings in Iraq. He would not show a passport to confirm his claim of British citizenship, nor would he confirm his London address, citing a need to protect his family who still lives there.
Posted by: mhking at
06:22 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
so he has links with them. if either of my sisters was in Ken bigleys position i would sponsor osama bin laden for british citizenship and immunity from extradition to the US to get her back.
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at October 02, 2004 03:58 AM (E1ciy)
2
If any of my sisters were in Ken Bigley's position I would pray for the terrorists. The rest of the family would be in Iraq in a flash turning over every stone looking for her. Those of us not already in the military would probably join up with the grim determination to wipe out such vermin to spare other families our anguish. You don't negotiate with terrorists. You kill them otherwise other people's family members will end up in their clutches.
Posted by: Samantha at October 02, 2004 06:59 AM (sYFP3)
3
Well, it just shows to go ya. When it looks like a bad summer playhouse production - it is. Thanks, Michael, for sending the word out on this. I have been crazy busy and missed it completely.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at October 02, 2004 01:51 PM (OOB9J)
4
That these people do this in the name of their god is sick. They are just sick f|_|cks.
Posted by: Paul at October 09, 2004 01:06 AM (mIZjU)
5
some how i cant get it through my head how some human could kills its own kind in the name of god well im a christain and you dont see me going around killing people for the love and power of our father its just wrong and a really sick thing to do as far as im concerned they need a taste of ther own medician not saying that killing is right but then they need to know how the families feel and have to go through i understand that they want revenge but there is a beter way
Posted by: nicole at October 09, 2004 02:19 AM (v6JZ5)
6
its no problem,we'll just take these iraq idiots out one by one if we have to..its all gravy..
r.i.p ken bigley
Posted by: this guy kicks ass at October 09, 2004 06:42 AM (O6B/O)
7
What you have to remember, is that it is only a small minority of people doing these hideous things,all the others involved are just following orders,i have been researching obedience and conformaty recently, though it is wrong for these people to follow such immoral orders,they are killing to obey,and i don't think that this is looked into enough.
Posted by: katie at October 13, 2004 01:33 AM (bUwX2)
Posted by: doud rafia at April 17, 2005 12:16 AM (EhfLz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BREAKING: Mt. St. Helens Erupts
Mt. St. Helens is currently erupting steam.
KGW-TV/DT Portland & KING-TV/DT Seattle are providing a live video stream (WMP).
Geologists are describing this as a "small eruption."
It was not immediately known if this is the event that scientists have been predicting for days, or if it is a precusor to a larger event.
UPDATE (4:25P ET):Forester lives near Mt. St. Helens, and is liveblogging it.
Posted by: mhking at
10:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mount Saint Helens is a widely known mountain, but why? Some may say it is a great location for vacation and others may say it is good for hiking. The largest and most memorable moment on Mount Saint Helens, however, is itÂ’s devastating eruption in 1980.
This young mountain was formed by the accumulation of lava and tephra–materials of all sorts deposited by volcanic vents blasting them into the air. Named after a British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert (also known as Baron Saint Helens), Mount Saint Helens has a tremendously long history and legends told by the northwest Indians. They state that the mountains were once people. They also suggested that St. Helens Mountain was a beautiful lady named “Loowit.” “Wyeast” and “Klickitat” were two brothers that desired the love of and clashed over her, destroying forests and towns as they fought. Wyeast and Klickitat’s father, “Sahale,” found out about this and destroyed all three of them. Where each of them died a mountain formed: A beautiful mountain for Loowit (Mount Saint Helens), a proud mountain for Wyeast (Mount Hood) and a mourning
mountain for Klickitat (Mount Adams). This story was just one of the many perspectives on Mount Saint HelenÂ’s existence.
An overwhelming disaster occurred at 46° N 122° W when Mt. St. Helens erupted 25 years ago. This explosion changed the concerns of many and woke mankind up to reality. Before the eruption, Mount St. Helens had a summit altitude of 9,677 feet! The peak was more than 5,000 feet above its base and the mountain was six miles across at ground level. On May 18, 1980, this all changed. The once most beautiful and frequently climbed mountain turned into a disaster. During the eight weeks before the eruption the north end of Saint Helens started to swell until it was a few hundred meters bigger and also very unstable. On the morning of May 18 an earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale made the unsteady North Slope collapse and created the largest landslide in history. It plummeted into Spirit Lake at 150 miles per hour. Leaving less pressure on the magma residing beneath the volcano, gas came out
at amazing speeds, driving the appalling eruption of May 18, 1980 into action.
At the time of the eruption the volcano literally ‘blew up’. The whole northern slope exploded from the release of gas. For almost nine hours a strong cloud of ash erupted, eventually reaching 12 to 15 miles above sea level. The column stirred eastward at a speed of 60 miles per hour, reaching Idaho by noon. It destroyed man-made material, plant life and animal life. At the mountain, fiery debris rained for miles around destroying forests, houses and killing approximately 65 people.
This explosion was followed by a series of eruptions that lasted six whole years. Of course, these were of much less power because much of the pressure had been released in the first eruption. They consisted of lava instead of the ash in the 1980Â’s and instead of flying into the air the lava oozed and flowed out.
After the eruption the new summit was only 8 525 feet from ground level. The forests surrounding the mountains were singed and no good for lumber, the main industry in the area. Many citizens became jobless and the tourist industry excelled. Many peoples lives were changed and donations for volcanology increased amazingly. The major effect, though, was the waking up of the most powerful country on earth to the realism of volcanic eruptions.
Mount Saint Helens placed an indelible mark on the land, minds, and people of America. With one natural happening a country changed. Just that single day altered the attitudes of many, and opened the eyes of all.
Posted by: Cam at May 11, 2005 04:52 PM (rp6r3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
93kb generated in CPU 0.0483, elapsed 0.5561 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.5241 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
