December 14, 2004
Dealing with armor's weight
Posted by: mhking at
05:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
December 13, 2004
"Regis Philbin's New Year's Rockin' Eve '05?"
Looks like
Regis Philbin will be hosting the New Year's Eve festivities on ABC in place of the recouperating Dick Clark.
75 year-old Clark suffered a mild stroke last week, which will keep him sidelined from the Times Square duties that he has held court over for the past 32 New Year's Eve ball drops.
In a statement released by his publicist Monday, Clark said, "I'm so glad that Regis hadn't yet made any New Year's plans. It'll feel strange watching it on TV but my doctors felt it was too soon. I'm sure Regis will do a great job and I'm thankful that he was able to step in on such short notice."Philbin said, "It's the greatest 'temp job' in the world. I just hope I can uphold the standards Dick Clark has set for this annual event, and I look forward to his return next year."
Regis has got to be one of the hardest working hosts in television with his daily talk show, the quarterly "Millionaire" specials, plus filling in hither and yon where needed. You might remember that he filled in for David Letterman as host of CBS'
The Late Show during Dave's extended hiatus in the wake of the 9/11 disaster.
In any event, I can't think of a better choice to fill in for Dick Clark.
Posted by: mhking at
09:30 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I am disappointed at the choice for Dick Clark's replacement.........not a good choice. I won't be tuning in for the 1st time in probably over 20 yrs. I wish you a speedy recovery, Dick, YOU WILL BE MISSED!!
Posted by: r.b. at December 26, 2004 05:19 PM (triQE)
2
I believe Regis will do a great job... He takes all his opportunities very seriously and will do Dick proud. I too, send my best wishes to Dick Clark and look forward to seeing him back in the saddle in December 2005. Dick has been a tv icon for many years and Regis is the only person I can think of with as close to that record who should have been considered for this position.. and besides, we all know another long time tv icon 'Joan Rivers' hates the cold.
Posted by: GT from Canada at December 26, 2004 06:50 PM (tCTi0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wanna watch people freak out on the freeway?
Step one: Tie these balloons to the back of your car.
Step two: Step on it (of course while having a frantic look on your face)!
Step three: Try not to lose control while lauging...

Posted by: mhking at
04:59 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I want these for CHRISTMAS. (yes, I said "Christmas" not "holiday")
Posted by: Matt Haas at December 13, 2004 05:40 AM (KZlQW)
2
Hysterical!! Hey, Santa, there's room under my tree for this....
Posted by: Tony Iovino at December 13, 2004 09:44 AM (k4kqX)
3
Sell them to the new head of Hamas.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at December 13, 2004 11:29 AM (uBCxH)
4
There are no words to describe how wrong that is. Funny, but wrong.
Posted by: Gib at December 14, 2004 06:46 AM (PsC2M)
Posted by: Nick Saunders at December 14, 2004 01:40 PM (vnSex)
6
PRICELESS!! I want some. NOW! Where? Where?
Posted by: Vilmar at December 15, 2004 03:31 AM (/EATg)
7
Now those things rock!
"Hey honey......"
Posted by: Stu at December 15, 2004 05:22 AM (178+l)
8
yeah! these are really funny! unless of course you are one of the one hundred thousand iraqi civilians that have been killed already by american jihadist technology.
long live the terror state!
Posted by: serracho at December 16, 2004 07:53 AM (amaMG)
9
Yeah. Anything to turn it against the Administration, right, Serracho?
Bite me.
Posted by: Michael at December 16, 2004 08:30 AM (CO/Uo)
10
I GOTTA get me some of those! Too much fun!
Posted by: Nate at December 19, 2004 09:34 AM (H27u0)
11
Serracho:
You, sir, are a lying retard!
Posted by: Gazpacho at December 20, 2004 06:28 AM (8mfB4)
12
GOOD ENOUGH FOR DOGGIESNOT.COM!
Posted by: SCOTT at February 22, 2005 08:02 AM (yapfk)
13
Oh my! Christmas Gimmie List:
Missile Balloons and Fishing line...lots of fishing line
Posted by: Chelsea at September 13, 2005 05:12 PM (ogOqf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2004
Iran's new missile could hit US Eastern Seaboard
Former Israeli UN Ambassador Dore Gold
pointed out to Fox News Channel's Cal Thomas this weekend that the notion of Iranian missiles hitting Israel should be the least of our worries.
"This is not just an Israeli problem. The missiles being developed in Iran have a range that goes well beyond Israel."Certainly they have the Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,300 kilometers, that can strike Israel," he said. "But they're developing the Shihab-4 for hitting Europe and a Shihab-5, with Russian missile technology, that can strike the Eastern Seaboard of the United States."
Tack on a nuclear warhead -- that contrary to the hand-wringers' carping, Iran IS developing -- and the pucker factor goes up quite a bit.
Ah, but we're supposed to sit back and let the Iranians do what they want -- even though their government has stated publicly that they would like to go after the United States.
Say what you will, but World War IV continues unabated.
Posted by: mhking at
06:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
Is it Willy Wonka or Michael Jackson?

Many of Tim Burton's movies give the impression to have been made during a drug-induced high.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Burton's remake of the classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (due for a 7/15 release) falls squarely in the same camp, as evidenced by the movie's trailer (.mov), which was just released.
And, is it my imagination or does Johnny Depp look for all the world like Michael Jackson in this trailer?
Posted by: mhking at
10:51 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ah, perhaps that is why the word "creepy" came to mind. And also effeminate, effete, or sexually ambiguous.
Still, if the film looks to be drug induced, and appears to be reasonably close to the source book, I guess we have to wonder what Dahl was smoking too.
Posted by: Jay at December 12, 2004 12:07 PM (xrTDl)
2
I'm still trying to figure out why there's a remake. The orginal was fine as it was.
Posted by: kimberley at December 12, 2004 06:32 PM (ywZa8)
3
He does look creepy. I think it's the hair and a little bit of staring eyes. A couple of years ago I bought the original movie in the super DVD pack with interviews and I can't see this movie replacing it.
Posted by: Keith at December 12, 2004 06:42 PM (DrZwK)
4
I'm reserving judgement. Willy Wonka is
supposed to be weird and a bit creepy, and I think Tim Burton might be able to pull it off.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 13, 2004 02:57 AM (+S1Ft)
5
Tim Burton is not really known for conventional portrayals.
Edward Scissorhands as Willy Wonka is not considered that much of a streach of the imagination. Consider me as a potential audience member as soon as it hits the theatres.
Posted by: Jacques Vader at December 13, 2004 07:35 PM (4hquJ)
6
Wonka does look a lot like Michael Jackson in this one. I wonder if there may be a hidden statement or comparison in this film. The concept of Wonka is kind of similar to Michael Jackson when you think about it - an insanely wealthy person who immerses himself in a strange child-like world.
Posted by: Matt at December 20, 2004 08:03 AM (Dyd0V)
Posted by: Paige at July 01, 2005 01:58 AM (l8gSf)
8
First time I saw Depp as Wonka, I thought "That's Michael - errie, bizarre, made-up, unnatural..." The hanging-around-little-kids connection I'd rather not get into...
Regardless, loved Michael's music and Depp is a great actor.
Posted by: Doober at July 07, 2005 05:40 AM (7tlSd)
9
erm HELLO??? it doesnt matter what film he's in, creepy or not- i reckon any sane female in the country will have seen this!!!!!!
Posted by: Agnes at November 02, 2005 07:35 AM (XeWgg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 10, 2004
The Cosby education tour continues in San Francisco

Bill Cosby visited an award-winning inner San Francisco school yesterday, and gave his now-usual speech chastizing parents who fail their children.
San Francisco school chief Arlene Ackerman wrote a letter to Cosby, inviting him to see one of San Francisco's "dream schools," which are low-performing schools that have overhauled their approach to teaching, to greater results.
Cosby visited Charles Drew Elementary School in San Francisco's "poverty-stricken" Bayview-Hunters Point area yesterday.
After his visit, Cosby praised the school, but he stressed that it was parents -- not just the schools themselves -- who needed to step up to ensure their children beat the statistics. "Parents are 99 percent," he said. "School districts don't parent. They teach."
Ackerman said she was happy to have Cosby air his views, even though they are politically incorrect.
Cosby has been hopeful that people would get over their shock following his initial comments last spring, and that they would be more ready to be about the business of change for the better.
"I think we're past the furor part now," he said. "It's a movement now that needs to happen. ... It's time for people to just stop seeing themselves so much as victims, so much in poverty, and realize what education does and fight for it like you're fighting for your life -- and you are because that's what our children are."
It's well past time to be about the business. Well past time.
Posted by: mhking at
07:03 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You go, Bill.
So,
even though Cosby's comments were politically incorrect his comments were welcome, eh? Ackerman should never have said that. Best she'd welcomed him without qualification of anything. America needs to hear what Bill Cosby has to say.
In China, where I presently am, folks know what poverty is, and they understand that education is the route out of it. If the parents had a hard life, the family expect the kid (often the first in his family to go to university) to pull himself and them out of the dumps. Not everybody is the brightest bulb, but dagnabbit! they all want to achieve success.
Posted by: Helen at December 11, 2004 04:20 AM (WE1Ow)
2
At what point do we stop referring to Bill Cosby as "politically incorrect" and start saying he is spreading the truth, the painful truth, despite policymakers and politicians who incorrectly construe them otherwise ?
Posted by: Neo at December 11, 2004 06:45 PM (uQU0D)
3
I respect your opinion Helen, but I have to disagree. I too have spent time in China and the behavior I witnessed was suprisingly similar to the behavior that us "poor black folks" are exhibiting.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 11, 2005 03:09 PM (6mUkl)
4
I agree with Mr. Cosby's comments. The last couple of years I taught middle school students math. It was truly amazing to see how many parents never showed up for a parent conference (even when I requested one). There was always however a quick response when it came to attending a dance or a fieldtrip. Parents of students who never passed a single reporting period in any subject would call and ask about why their child could not go on a fieldtrip or allowed to attend a dance. One student I suggested retaining, after many failed attempts to reach the mother, came to school 4 days after school had ended to see if her child could be promoted.
Posted by: Teresa Cuthbertson at July 12, 2005 01:06 PM (SH9qq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 09, 2004
MoveOn.org to Dems: "We own it. We're taking it back."
MoveOn.org, the radical moonbat fringe of the Democratic Party who desperately wants to be in charge,
is insisting on taking charge -- all while blaming the present Democratic establishment for the reelection of George W. Bush.
A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats."For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."
"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
They need to take their own advice: get over it and move on. Bush won. Period. They can come back and play in four years.
Posted by: mhking at
05:23 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.
1
One can only hope ... :-)
Posted by: David Beatty at December 10, 2004 04:28 AM (0BhZ5)
2
Geez, Michael, you need to have a contact email.

Wanted to point out Bill Cosby spoke yesterday in SF: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/10/MNG20A9TV01.DTL
Kind of an interesting contrast to MoveOn.org, which is located on the other side of the Bay. I'm not in favor of nuking the place, only because I'm downwind.
Posted by: Tony at December 10, 2004 06:38 AM (tjFjH)
3
This press release has the painful feel of that scene in the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk", where he is broken and he is saying .. "all I need is this ashtray .. and this cup .. and this statue of ...".
Absolutely pathetic.
How about we let them have it ?
Posted by: Neo at December 11, 2004 06:49 PM (uQU0D)
4
Funny, how does taking millions from foreign billionaires count as 'grass roots'.
LOL. I'm loving The Jerk analogy...
Posted by: Jeff at December 14, 2004 03:18 PM (nV5Rk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Willingham blames himself for ND firing

Former Notre Dame football coach Ty Willingham has been described as a coach's coach, and one class act by many who have met him, player, coach and fan alike.
Buried amid last week's stories of his firing from Notre Dame after three "middle of the road" years for the storied football program is this little tidbit.
Tyrone Willingham blamed himself Wednesday for his firing as Notre Dame coach, saying he failed to meet the school's expectations of producing an elite team.
``I don't get into what's fair and what's not fair. I am an optimist by nature, but I am also a realist, and that makes you deal with the events as they occur,'' he said. ``So I will deal with the events.''
``I understand that I did not meet the expectations and standards I set for myself and this program,'' he said. ``When you don't meet your own expectations you make yourself vulnerable to the will of others. So today I am no longer the head football coach at Notre Dame.''
So while charges of racism get tossed by everyone from
Washington Post columnist and ESPN commentator Michael Wilbon to Jesse "I gotta find me a visable cause to represent" Jackson, and everyone in between, the most insightful and honorable comment comes from the man at the center of the maelstrom.
And for those comments and the willingness own up to his own shortcomings, my high level of respect for Willingham rose a notch higher yet today.
Mark my words -- though Willingham has departed from under the watchful gaze of "Touchdown Jesus," his journey will take him to greater football heights, and countless legions of football fans will be the better for it.
Posted by: mhking at
09:04 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I had yet to hear that, thanks. Yes, a class act.
Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at December 09, 2004 03:47 PM (U4SDZ)
2
This is a stand up guy. I heard about his firing from listening to 'net radio, but nobody reported what he'd said. Rush could have, but I don't always get to hear Rush since he comes over at 1-4AM. Willingham's a prince, a total prince. As for Jesse, let him do his poverty and racism pimp act; he won't find any buyers in Willingham.
Posted by: Helen at December 11, 2004 04:23 AM (WE1Ow)
3
The news tonight is that Willingham has been hired as the University of Washington's new football coach.
Posted by: Keith at December 12, 2004 09:27 PM (DrZwK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coulter: Libs think all conservative blacks are incompetent

Ann Coulter's
new column points out that since liberals have been pummelled over their mistreatment of Condoleezza Rice, the moonbats have turned their attention toward Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, often the punching bag of liberals in general and black liberals in particular.Thomas has been called Oreo, Sellout, and names far more unmentionable in mixed company, due to his very conservative ideology along with his conservative opinions on the Supreme Court.
Now that his name is being brought up as a serious candidate to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the spitting venom by liberals is coming back out, directed toward Thomas.
US Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), soon to be Senate Minority Leader, was quoted on this past Sunday's edition of NBC's Meet The Press as calling Thomas an "embarrasment" to the Court.
Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, had this to say about Justice Clarence Thomas: "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written."In the same interview, Reid called Justice Antonin Scalia "one smart guy." He said that although he disagreed with Scalia, his reasoning is "very hard to dispute." Scalia is "one smart guy"; Thomas is the janitor.
Coulter points to comments regarding Thomas and Rice from other prominent liberals.
Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (so you know they don't have an agenda or anything), said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." This was reassuring, inasmuch as that was also liberals' assessment of the current president before he took office and he, to put it mildly, has been doing rather well.The Kansas City Star editorialized that Rice "has not demonstrated great competence in the last four years," which is to say, Dr. Rice failed to be sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Columnist Bob Herbert sneered of Rice's nomination in the New York Times: "Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W. Bush administration."
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel – who demonstrated his own competence running Walter Mondale's campaign – said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."
As I said in a Project 21 press release last month -- quite accurately, as these accounts point out -- black conservatives are the new "trash class" of society in the minds of liberals. To them, we are to be maligned, ignored and personally attacked. The existing societal double-standard ensures that they won't be called on the carpet for it. But woe be unto any conservative, black or white, who dares to malign a black liberal. We'll be hounded to the ends of the earth by the self-appointed "soul patrol" in order to be made an "appropriate" scapegoat.
'Tis a lonely road we travel, but it's a road that our collective integrity demands that we walk.
Posted by: mhking at
02:42 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The sad thing is black Liberals don't understand that white Liberals think all blacks are incompetent.. and that without their programs we could not achieve. The Democrats are lost.
Posted by: Jim at December 09, 2004 07:07 AM (GmZ7J)
2
Do you remember conservatives saying J.C. Watts was incompetent? Remember that article by Robert Novak saying as much?
Remember Tom Delay saying he was doing things under Watts' perview because Watts wasn't up to the task?
Posted by: DarkStar at December 09, 2004 05:33 PM (cnw1A)
3
DarkStar - No, I don't specifically remember Novak deriding J.C. Watts. If your are trying to say that conservative bigots exists, I'm not disagreeing. However, regardless of which party contains more bigotted members, the current Republican platform, rhetoric, and policy is more egalitarian than the Left's. Personally, I think Republicans are more liberal in the original meaning of the word.
Posted by: Joshua Davenport at December 10, 2004 10:20 AM (iPnad)
4
This blog is totally more-ish. Every time I come here to read one article, I wind up running the whole blog. Great stuff.
Liberals pretty much think that blacks are stupid. Yeah, there are racists who are conservative. So what? Do people have to love us before we can be at ease achieving for ourselves? I don't think so. In fact, I don't care if you hate my guts. What matters is that everyone has equality of opportunity to achieve and can succeed based on the merits.
I've read a few of Clarence Thomas's legal opinions; this was a few years ago after he ascended to the SCt. The man's brilliant. Half the time, lawyers and such can't write worth a damn; not this man. Clarity and deep thought are his middle names. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about; he's just saying about Thomas what many liberal whites say about all blacks.
Posted by: Helen at December 11, 2004 04:30 AM (WE1Ow)
5
"He has been doing rather well"?????
Nice to see Coulter as stupid and head in the sandesque as ever.
Posted by: Nick Saunders at December 11, 2004 05:41 AM (vnSex)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Crazy Al says "What's wrong with me getting paid to campaign?"

Al Sharpton
got his pocked lined to the tune of $86,715 in "travel and consulting fees" from the Democratic National Committee after Sharpton withdrew from the 2004 Presidential race.
"They asked me to travel to 20 or 30 cities to campaign, and I did that," Sharpton said. "What am I supposed to do, donate the cost of airfare?"Democratic National Committee spokesman Jano Cabrera said the party paid Sharpton at the Kerry campaign's request.
"After meeting with Kerry's staff, we did agree to pay for Rev. Sharpton's travel and consulting expenses," Cabrera said. "He traveled very extensively to help the nominee and Democrats across the board, encouraging them to get out and vote on Nov. 2."
Sharpton says that he should be reimbursed for travel expenses, but records show that some $35,000 went straight into Crazy Al's pocket.
None of the other former candidates received any fees from the DNC.
This brings new meaning to the term "walking-around money."
Posted by: mhking at
02:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course they needed to pay him.
He's so shy when it comes to television cameras. It costs that much to convince him to overcome his shyness and talk on television.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at December 09, 2004 09:15 AM (uBCxH)
2
Do you recall that the GOP gave Al walking money for his race for the nomination?
Posted by: DarkStar at December 09, 2004 06:42 PM (cnw1A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 08, 2004
This is not your father's Galactica
"The Cylons were created by man.
They rebelled.
They evolved.
They look
And feel
Human.
Some are programmed to think they ARE human.
There are many copies.
And they have a Plan."
--Prelude to episodes of "Battlestar Galactica"
Have you voted today for your favorite blog (hint-hint!)? You can do so once every 24 hours until 12/12/04!Flashback to 1977: President Carter was hosting Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David. And on ABC, the pilot movie of "Battlestar Galactica" premiered, riding the "Star Wars" wave into television history.
The series starred Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch & Dirk Benedict, and told the story of mankind-turned-nomads of a "rag-tag fleet of ships led by the last battlestar, Galactica," on a quest for the fabled missing human colony: Earth.
That "Galactica" was hokey at best. It included really bad acting, hokey scripts, and oddball concepts that were insanely expensive to produce.
Flash forward to 2003.
After multiple attempts to resurrect the franchise, The Sci-Fi Channel finally put together a new "Battlestar Galactica," in the form of a four-hour miniseries. Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell headed up a cast of mostly unknown actors in a complete rewrite and rebuild of the story.
Twelve human colonies have existed in peace for many years.
Decades ago, a robotic race, called Cylons, were created to serve man. They rebelled and after a conflict, withdrew to another part of space.
The Sci-Fi Channel miniseries shows the story behind the Cylons return and their destruction of humanity. Humanity is reduced to a flotilla of starships, led by the last military vessel, the battlestar Galactica.
The Galactica is a true military vessel, and feels very much like an aircraft carrier, and is certainly far more gritty than the 70s version ever hoped to be.
This new "Galactica" is far darker than anything else out there. The miniseries showed more in terms of scenes of the destruction of the human civilization, and even in the scenes not shown, you are feeling the pain and despair of the remaining humans.
After the miniseries blew the top off of ratings records on Sci-Fi, a television series was inevitable, and with the help of the UK's Sky, the series went into production.
The entire cast of the miniseries returned, with Olmos as Commander William Adama, who is at odds as often as not with the new President of the human alliance, Laura Roslin, played by Mary McDonnell. Roslyn had been the Secretary of Education, 43rd in the line of succession prior to the holocaust, and finds herself reluctantly taking on the presidential mantle over the dwindling remnants of humanity.
The hokey names of the original "Galactica" have been turned into the call signs for the pilots of this version: Apollo is Captain Lee "Apollo" Adama (Jamie Bamber), son of the Galactica's commanding officer; Starbuck is -- yes, a girl, Lieutenant Kara "Starbuck" Thrace (Katee Sakhoff). Thrace is the "top gun" of the fighter pilots on the Galactica, and shares the predilection for cigars that Dirk Benedict portrayed as Starbuck in the original.
Canadian character actor Michael Hogan plays the hard drinking, arrogant second-in-command, Colonel Paul Tigh. The easy-on-the-eyes Grace Park is Lieutenant Sharon "Boomer" Valerii, who is more than she seems.
British actor James Callis plays Doctor Gaius Baltar, who's actions may have doomed humanity, and whose mind is plagued by the enigmatic Number Six, a Cylon who seduces Baltar's mind, and who has an as yet unknown agenda of her own.
The opening credits start with views of the fighter battles and massive destruction that punctuated the miniseries underneath a haunting vocal meloday, sounding not unlike Enya. The music emphasizes the dire situation facing the remnants of humanity. The opening concludes with a tribal-sounding rapid fire drum beat over scenes from the present episode.
The series opens up a week after the events of the miniseries, but no one has been able to sleep.
Thirty-three minutes after the fleet arrives at a new location after a faster-than-light jump, the Cylons appear, attempting to destroy the fleet's ships. This leads to another FTL jump, followed by another agonizing thirty-three minutes, hence the name of the episode, "33 Minutes."
The episode is tightly-knit with action which leaves you on the edge of your seat, and starts to play off of the events of the miniseries, providing multiple catalysts for episodes to follow. "Shakey, handheld-type" camera work, not unlike that seen in other dramas like "The Shield" or "Homicide" punctuate the series, and actually add to the dramatic feel of the show.
Most of the other episodes aired to date certainly sit in that superior categoy, while one or two others fall short.
Eight episodes have aired on Sky One in the UK over the past couple of months, under a part of their agreement with Sci-Fi. The Sci-Fi Channel's four-hour miniseries is being edited into a three-hour movie, set to run on NBC Saturday, January 8. Regular episodes begin on Sci-Fi Friday, January 14.
The full four-hour miniseries goes on sale on DVD on December 28 at Amazon, Borders, Barnes & Noble, and elsewhere.
Take a look. This is not your father's Galactica.
Posted by: mhking at
06:40 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 6 kb.
1
(psst., Michael-- sorry for posting here, but there's no email address listed. Any chance of adding me to your blogroll?)
Posted by: Tony Iovino at December 09, 2004 01:33 AM (0eViP)
2
Kudos for writing the only review of the new "Galactica" that I've read that doesn't talk about the show's parallels to 9/11.
Not that I'm complaining about the fact that the show clearly draws a lot of inspiration from recent events, nor that I'm complaining that people point this out. It's just nice to read a review that isn't a carbon-copy of all the other reviews.
Myself, I can't find enough adjectives to describe this show. It's over-the-top good. It's got tight, unrelenting storytelling, engrossing characters, and a distinctive look and feel that pulls you in. I hope it's able to find the audience that it deserves.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at December 09, 2004 06:39 AM (UAuME)
3
With a reference to the original 12 Human colonies, I feel a Biblical undertone to Galactica, ver 2.0.
At least we wouldn't have to put up with intergalactic discomania!
(sheesh!)
Posted by: Jacques Vader at December 13, 2004 07:46 PM (4hquJ)
4
I'm fairly sure the 12 colonies with earth as the 13th were part of the original story. I haven't seen anything yet in the religion of the colonists that wasn't already there. What's interesting in the new one is that the Cylons have a religion, and they're monotheists (unlike the colonists, who seem to have multiple deities, but I'm not exactly how that works; the Lords of Kobol may just be a group of prophets who have achieved worthiness of being prayed to, though I did think I heard someone saying something about "the gods" at one point).
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at January 15, 2005 06:58 AM (Ihkjb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 07, 2004
Lancaster, PA councilman demands Bush photo be removed from public market stall
Have you voted today for your favorite blog (hint-hint!)? You can do so once every 24 hours until 12/12/04!David Stoltzfus runs a baked good stand in the Lancaster, PA Central Market. Above his stall is a photograph of President George W. Bush, which he placed there two years ago.
Democratic Lancaster City Councilman Nelson Polite approached Stoltzfus recently and asked him to remove the photograph, insisting that it's presence offended he and other Democrats. Stoltzfus refused the request, indicating that the photo was there to honor the office, not necessarily the man.
“If it were Kerry that won, he’d be up there,’’ says Stoltzfus, who operates the Upper Crust stand.Doesn’t matter, says City Councilman Nelson Polite. “It should come down. This is a public market.”
Besides, says the Democrat, “Bush didn’t win here (in Lancaster City). It is like rubbing salt on a wound.”
Polite approached Stoltzfus on Nov. 12 and ask him to remove the pictures. The standholder has refused to do so, prompting Polite to say he will ask City Council to change the law so that all political items would be banned in public places.
Today, Stoltzfus pointed proudly to a photo of a smiling Bush, framed in green, that hangs above his stand.
The photo, attached to the stand portico with four brass screws, has hung there for nearly two years, since Stoltzfus and his wife, Nina, opened the market stand in March 2003.
Polite claims that he had received complaints from some of his constituents, who thought the photo's presence was inappropriate.
The photo's been there two years and Polite only began to complain AFTER Kerry lost the election?
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I hope the locals tell Mr. "Not So" Polite to get stuffed.
Posted by: mhking at
09:00 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If this is the story you read - http://www.lancasteronline.com/pages/news/local/4/10147 - check the line at the bottom.
Jim Zink, the owner of the Herb Shop stand, says he is a Democrat. But heÂ’ll hang a photo of Bush to support StoltzfusÂ’ right to hang his.
“He has every right to hang it,’’ Zink says of Stoltzfus. He says it doesn’t offend him as a Democrat to see Bush.
Sounds like my kind of guy.
Posted by: Gib Crosby at December 07, 2004 09:10 AM (PsC2M)
2
This part struck me as interesting: "Polite to say he will ask City Council to change the law so that all political items would be banned in public places."
It seems like typical Democrat short-sightedness to me, and should should make for interesting situations come election time.
Posted by: LCVRWC at December 07, 2004 09:47 AM (L3qPK)
3
Silly conservatives! "Freedom of speech" is for liberals, and liberals ONLY!
If Mr. Stoltzfus had a picture of every Republican congressman (and congresswoman) hanging up, I'd think he was nuckin' futs, but apparently he isn't that obsessive-compulsive. One lone picture of the POTUS can offend a liberal? Gads. Poop-heel Polite needs to be reminded that in pre-liberation Iraq, Saddam's likeness was, quite literally, omnipresent. And Polite has the option of not patronizing good citizen Stoltzfus. If he didn't have that option, that would mean that Mr. Stoltzfus had a monopoly going on, and that IS against the law. Asshats and logic...never the 'twain shall meet.
Posted by: skh at December 07, 2004 12:31 PM (0xwoN)
4
Isn't this typical? The liberal temper tantrum rages on. Obviously, good sportsmanship isn't their strong suit either!
Posted by: BobG at December 07, 2004 12:56 PM (4cWxS)
5
Nelson Polite is an idiot. I am offended by moronic people so I demand that Nelson NOT be allowed in public venues.
I need healing time from the devisive nature of his comments.
What goes around, comes around.
Posted by: Gabe at December 13, 2004 03:53 PM (4It18)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 06, 2004
Mfume didn't quit, he was kicked out
Vote early and vote often for your favorite blog; once every 24 hours until 12/12/04!According to Armstrong Williams' new article this morning, Kweisi Mfume didn't leave the NAACP presidency of his own accord, he was shown the door -- the culmination of a feud with NAACP Chairman (and chief moonbat) Julian Bond.
Bond has had it in for Mfume since Mfume nominated Secretary of State-designee Condoleezza Rice for the 2003 NAACP Image Award. Furious that Mfume was reaching out to the Bush Administration, Bond nominated antagonistic cartoonist Aaron McGruder (creator and artist of "The Boondocks"). McGruder had previously called Rice a "murderer" for her role in the War on Terror.
The rift grew as Mfume continued to reach out to the Republican Party. Mfume realized that by reflexively voting Democrat in every election, the black voting populace has given away most of their political bartering power. After all, what incentive is there for either party to go out on a limb for blacks, if it is taken for granted that blacks will automatically vote Democrat? In effect, the black voting populace has created conditions that make it very easy for both parties to take them for granted. Mfume rightly reasoned that by reaching out to the Republican Party on issues that they already agree with -- like empowering faith based charities, supporting school vouchers, etc. -- the black voting populace can send the message that theyÂ’re no longer willing to blindly support the Democrats. Faced with the prospect of fleeing voters, the Democrats would be forced to make new overtures. This competition, in turn, would instill both parties with a sense of urgency for addressing those issues that black Americans routinely rate as their chief concerns. This competitive pressure would provide the black voting populace with increased political options -- and increased bartering power. Somehow this point was lost on Bond, who dug in his heels with mind numbing intransigence. Over the next year and a half, the rift became unmendable.
Bond has become increasingly irrational when it comes to his criticism of conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular, referring to Republicans as the "Taliban wing" of American politics, and constantly ranting and raving about how "evil" conservatives are.
This past summer at the NAACP's national convention, Bond went further, following up on 2003 statements that referred to the GOP as the "White People's Party," and soundly denounced any blacks who would dare to support the Bush Administration.
The last straw between Bond and Mfume came when Mfume suggested a letter be sent to the President after last month's Presidential election, suggesting ways the organization and the Bush Administration might be able to work together to help black America in years to come. Bond didn't want Mfume to send this letter; Mfume sent it anyway.
Shortly after that point, Bond had Mfume voted out.
The NAACP is continuing to fall into the quagmire of racial divisiveness and mediocrity. And Julian Bond is the head mediocre moonbat in charge.
It's just sad to see an organization that could easily help black America overcome problems with family, school and community nationwide fall into to such unreachable straits. It's almost better to put it out of it's misery at this point. Bond has rendered any real repair nearly impossible.
Posted by: mhking at
08:58 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Yes, pity about Bond. Glad I'm not a member of NAACP.
Posted by: Lola at December 06, 2004 09:07 AM (V1eTE)
2
An instance of "too little, too late." Mfume should've cut the crap that he and the other moonbats perpetrate years ago. Bond probably thinks that Mfume is a traitor, an Uncle Tom, or something along those lines. Bond suffers from the delusion that his overpowering influence in the NAACP translates to power among the general populace, when in fact, it is because of jackasses like him (and Mfume), the NAACP has lost members and 'pull' with those who truly have power. Like a teenage punk who can bully his peers but gets an ass-whooping from a college frat boy, it must chap Bond's buttcheeks that nobody really gives a damn about him or his Country Club for Race and Poverty Pimps and the simpletons who buy into their propaganda.
Posted by: skh at December 06, 2004 01:04 PM (0xwoN)
3
This really is a sad state of affairs. It encourages me about Mfume, even though it was too little, too late. Bond needs to be gone and that kind of pride and arrogance will topple him soon.
Posted by: BobG at December 06, 2004 03:58 PM (R4FGI)
4
Mfume never was what the conservative elite said he was. Now, some want to call him the moderating voice.
Phui.
When Shaun Hannity can't twist your words or what you "didn't say" against you, that says something.
Posted by: DarkStar at December 06, 2004 05:08 PM (cnw1A)
5
It almost sounds like Julian Bond is suffering from "PEST" (post election selection trauma), except in his case it was an election several years ago!
Posted by: Denise at December 06, 2004 10:09 PM (6krEN)
6
I wonder if Julian might be clearing the way for Ms. Berry. Seeing as how she's out of a job and all. She and Julian probably get along pretty well, too.
Posted by: Rick Ballard at December 08, 2004 08:07 AM (1FRPH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 05, 2004
2005 Weblog Awards: Caution, Cheaters At Work

Honesty, obviously, isn't a liberal virtue, even among bloggers.
The Daily Kos was nominated for Best Overall Blog in the 2004 Weblog Awards (hosted by Wizbang), and posters there (along with posters from Wampum), in their "infinite wisdom," posted the automated code they are using to generate votes-in-quantity, in violation of the rules.
It appears that one of the Wampum authors provided the psuedo code or logic for the script hacks at Daily Kos and did so publicly and proudly at Wampum. I really don't know if the script kiddie at Kos ever saw the Wampum post, but it's just galling that a site that I have gone out of my way to promote both this year and last year would unapologetically participate (however peripherally) in what amount to a denial of service attack on the Weblog Awards site Saturday night.
Wampum is
hosting the Koufax Awards, which is the moonbat equivilant of the Weblog Awards. You'd think they'd be more logical and ethical in their approach to this.
But then again, these are moonbats who have, once again, proven their lack of ethical character.
My advice to Kevin Aylward over at Wizbang?
Screw 'em.
Yank the Best Liberal Blog award entirely, and pull any and all liberal blogs off of the award ballot. Period.
We are under no logical compulsion to provide entertainment or forum for their form of mental (and probably physical for that matter) masturbatory stimulation.
Oh. By the way. I'm still inviting your votes for me for Best Conservative Blog.
Posted by: mhking at
12:15 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.
1
My competitor! Thanks for the link, blog brother.
Posted by: LB at December 05, 2004 12:26 PM (ybj3R)
2
Sad ain't it?
Consider this, when it really counts, ie 06/08, imagine how deflated the moonbats would be when they discover their supposed numerical superiority at the voting booth was only inflated. Again. For the same reason they thot Dean, yeow notwithstanding, was gonna sweep the primaries with his prescription remedies for what ails America. I humbly posit that what ails us all are the moonbats. Bwahahaha
Posted by: Andy at December 05, 2004 04:17 PM (9Fc0D)
3
Its really a shame and shows why the values issue really is a line in the sand in 21st century America. But mostly, I feel bad for Kevin having to deal with this junk.
Posted by: Jane at December 05, 2004 04:56 PM (+7VNs)
4
Come on...this doesn't surprise anybody, does it? Liberals will say and do anything to get their way. The sad part is that they can rationalize anything in their quest for emotional fulfillment. That still doesn't change the fact that they are losers. L-O-S-E-R-S!
Posted by: skh at December 06, 2004 01:08 PM (0xwoN)
5
You get idiots of all political affiliations.
Posted by: Stuart at December 17, 2004 11:05 AM (QbxpF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 04, 2004
Giant robot suits for everyone -- only in Japan!
After the Transformers-based Citroën commercial earlier in the week, you knew that there had to be geek-laden things to out do it floating around.
Toyota unveiled the performance show for their pavilion at Expo 2005, opening in late March in Aichi, Japan.

The one on the left is called the i-foot and is designed to help the disabled get around and up stairs. In the center and on the right are two different configurations of the i-unit, the lower one being geared toward more high speed moves.
There is a video of the units in action available on the offical Toyota Expo 2005 site. Just select "Performance Show" followed by "PR Movie."
Posted by: mhking at
03:23 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Uh. The i-foot is for disabled folks? Hell, it likes like it'd take 2 pounds of Crisco and 5 shoe horns to get somebody in that contraption. The other two look neat, though. Of course, if I had one of 'em to tool around in, I'd wear something other than the "Ambiguously Gay Duo" suits the drivers shown are sporting.
Posted by: skh at December 06, 2004 01:12 PM (0xwoN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"No we aren't marketing cigarattes for kids..." Yeah. Right.

RJR Tobacco is marketing flavored Camel Cigarettes.
The flavors are sweet and the packaging is rather fanciful. Yet RJR insists that they aren't being marketed toward kids.
Many teens seem to like them, and the manufacturers said the brand is in demand.The cigarettes come in flavors like lime, berry, pineapple and coconut.
"They're kind of tasty. It sounds like a gimmick for kids, you know. I walk in there, I see the bright colors and I'm, like, 'I need that cigarette,'" said Kenny Silver, 18, a high school senior.
"It's all colorful and really cool and groovy and they look nice and, of course, people automatically think, 'Oh, nice, I want to smoke these now,'" said Hedi Lowe, 18, also a high school senior.
But R.J. Reynolds, the manufacturer of Camel, said:
"We don't, under any circumstance, market our product to youth. Our adult consumers asked us and told us they like differentiated products. That is why we offer flavored cigarettes."
Camel's
flavors include Kauai Kolada & Twista Lime. Other brands are getting into the game, including versions of Brown & Williamson's Kool with
names like Caribbean Chill, Midnight Berry, Mocha Taboo and Mintrigue.
So you judge for yourself. Are they geared toward kids or not?
Posted by: mhking at
02:52 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.
1
What'd they do, hire away a coffee designer from Starbucks to work on cigarettes?
Posted by: Digger at December 05, 2004 03:42 AM (FYEx6)
2
God forbid we fail to protect The Children from themselves.
Posted by: Beck at December 05, 2004 03:04 PM (pmSUH)
3
I'd say no, but I'd also qualify that "no" with a "Who cares?" If cigarette companies are allowed to market at all, they can be accused of marketing to kids because there is not a single medium that adults have access to that cannot also be accessed by "kids." To call an 18 year-old a kid is contrary to common sense, anyway. The drinking age should be 18, as should the "smoking age." It is unconstitutional to restrict freedoms in that manner.
At the age of 18, a guy or gal can die for their country, but not be afforded the rights other citizens who are 3 years older have? Crazy.
Posted by: skh at December 06, 2004 01:17 PM (0xwoN)
4
Ok, how
does one market to adults without marketing to kids?
Posted by: SparseMatrix at December 06, 2004 04:24 PM (Q9kzD)
5
First, while cigarettes are legal, cigarette makers are going to do all they can to expand and hold on to their market. If minors make decisions based on the general marketing of new types of cigarette, then it is time to put focus on the kids, not the marketers.
Second, while new flavors will appeal to minors, they will also appeal to many adults who smoke other brands, or who may not smoke at all. The problem here is that if cigarettes makers work to put an aire of "cool" on there product, then minors will want to be a part of that. However if they don't put on those aires, then no one new will want to be a part of it.
Not a bad outcome, but how can you expect an industry to put itself out of business?
Posted by: Byron R at December 07, 2004 07:20 AM (raVLe)
6
Exactly, Byron R. Until the gummint makes tobacco illegal (which will never happen), it is an impossibility that tobacco companies can actively advertise their products exclusively to those over the age of 21. Hell, look at advertising in general. Most of it is designed for people with adolescent minds...much like broadly-circulated periodicals are written at the 8th grade level or so.
I personally hate cigarette smoke, but I don't have the visceral hatred of cigarettes that some do. If somebody is blowing smoke at me, I calmly pull out my can of Copenhagen snuff, pack in an extry-large dip, and ask the jackass if he wishes reciprocal treatment. I've never had anybody take me up on that offer. Yet.
Posted by: skh at December 07, 2004 12:38 PM (0xwoN)
7
Well why don't they market alcohol to people that are over 21. Look at how many teenagers get drunk at parties. It's just because you don't see a person sit and drink all the time. Especially teenagers but of course you'll see them smoke a cigarette. Like was commented earlier, you can't just not market it to adults over 21 because it seems to be that at the age of 18 you are an adult. Make up your mind. When do I get to be an adult? When I turn 21, so that means that I should fight in no war, I should not be able to go to prison yet. Technically then I should still be a juvenile. Give me my rights as an adult or make me a juvenile again. Because if I'm to be a responsible adults, then give me the responsibilities that I should have. Because apparently I'm old enough to die for the country, but not come home after a hard day of work and drink a beer. Hell I can't even gamble with MY money. It is wrong, I gained a chance of prison for a crime that would have gotten me probation while a juvenile, and the ability to smoke cigarettes. Yet we all seem to be in that same age group. Where we seem to have similar interests. Such as drinking and smoking. And for some reason advertising that is supposed to be directed at a 21 year old makes a statement to an 18 year old too. Come on.
Posted by: Heath at June 14, 2005 07:05 AM (Hpmid)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And now for something completely different...
Monty Python's Spamalot, the musical based on
Monty Python and the Holy Grail opens for a five-week preview engagement in Chicago on 12/23.
Spamalot stars David Hyde Pierce, Tim Curry & Hank Azaria.
Hmmmm. Let's see. Going home for Christmas; tickets starting at $25; I wonder...
Spamalot opens on Broadway on February 14.
If you get a chance, take a look at the home page for Spamalot, it's laden (African or European?) with tons of Pythonesque noises and animations.
Posted by: mhking at
06:40 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As a fellow Python-ian in Chicago, I want to check this out myself. I bet the music will be super-catchy.
Posted by: Byron R at December 07, 2004 07:00 AM (raVLe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Impressive. Simply impressive.
Posted by: mhking at
06:08 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Being a diehard comicbook collector (Luke Cage, X-Men and Spidey are my favorites) This new Batman movie has sparked my interest. I enjoy the first one especially with Jack playing the Joker but I find that those movies were awfully dark and gloomy and an eye sore to watch (especially now)
I will also go check out Blade...
Demond S
Posted by: Demond S. Hunter at December 04, 2004 03:45 PM (YNclO)
2
Can't Hollywood wait more than 10 years before recycling another film idea?
Posted by: Michael Gallaugher at December 04, 2004 06:41 PM (IO9Rv)
3
Yeah, that looks good. I agree with Demond, Blade is also a must-see.
And since the name came up, when is John Singleton going to get the Luke Cage movie together?
Posted by: Gib at December 06, 2004 04:55 AM (PsC2M)
4
From what I understand, Singleton's
Cage is on the 2006 slate -- mind you, Marvel's really pulling out all the stops: We've got Elektra next month, FF in July, then word just came out that Chris Columbus (Director of the first Harry Potter flick) will be directing
Sub-Mariner in 2006, plus an Iron Man movie is set to come from the "house of ideas."
That doesn't even count Spider-Man 3 (2007), X-Men 3 (2006 or 2007), Hulk 2 (2006), Daredevil 2 (2006 or 2007), Man-Thing (Direct to video, 2005), Ghost Rider (still w/ Nicholas Cage in 2005), and possibly Silver Surfer (2007 or 200

.
Posted by: Michael at December 06, 2004 05:06 AM (CO/Uo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How do you get the bad guys to stop? By upping the ante
A new piece by David C. Atkins on
WorldNetDaily takes the
Untouchables tactic to get the Islamic terrorists to back off.
The name of the tactic is taken from a memorable line in the 1980s movie version of The Untouchables with Kevin Costner and Sean Connery: "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone!"
Atkins' take uses that notion along with the Cold War concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction."
I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed.
Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.
This harkens to the notion of training a mule: First thing you do is smack it upside the head with a two-by-four to get it's attention.
Meet our two-by-four: a promise, not a threat, but a promise.
Guess what. We all of a sudden would have their undivided attention, whine-fest from the United Nations notwithstanding.
Notice how we are predicated to "follow the rules" while the bad guys don't. This follows the rules, but take 'em up a notch.
And if they don't think we're serious, they can always try us. And while I'm using movie metaphors, let me quote the esteemed Inspector Callahan:
"'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya?"
My question to the Islamists and the Islamic world is simple. "Do you feel lucky?"
Well do ya? Do ya?
Posted by: mhking at
06:00 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The problem with this assessment is that in MAD, you have to assume that the opponent valued his own survival. Having US destroy the 100 muslim cities in the world WILL result in Jihad by the rest of the world, including China against US. This is precisely what the terrorists want.
Posted by: BigFire at December 04, 2004 06:32 AM (DtAIo)
2
I think China has more to gain by being our ally in any situation like the one described. Certainly they would rather attempt a grab of Taiwan than joining the Islamic Turd Patrols as they impotently thrash about. In the same fashion, I'd also think that the Arabs in their European countries would try to wrest power from their respective governments thatn attempt retribution against the US. That's why sucha large-scale 'first strike" would be a bad idea. I'd propose a far smaller-scale respsonse...for instance, just take out Mecca. I'd do it with either tactical nukes or Tomahawks. A couple of MOABs would do quite a bit of damage.
Posted by: skh at December 04, 2004 07:51 AM (0xwoN)
3
Two problems with this approach. First, a WMD attack on America doesn't justify the deaths of innocents in the 100 targets we nuke. Second, there are a lot in the mid-east who would deliberately bring an attack to provoke just such a response from us. After all, once we've nuked the Arab world, they become unbelievably united against us, and people like Osama get the WWIII they've been hoping for.
Posted by: Beck at December 04, 2004 03:05 PM (pmSUH)
4
I'm pretty sure the top 100 Muslim cities in the world would include some in countries which possess nuclear capabilities, such as Pakistan. Do we really want to get into a situation where they feel the need to strike back?
Posted by: Denise at December 05, 2004 01:19 AM (ywZa8)
5
I'm pretty sure the top 100 Muslim cities in the world would include some in countries which possess nuclear capabilities, such as Pakistan. Do we really want to get into a situation where they feel the need to strike back with their nukes?
Posted by: Denise at December 05, 2004 01:20 AM (ywZa8)
6
Hmmm, collective guilt, collective punishment . . . Kinda reminds me of the Nazis. If a resistance member (or, in Nazi terms, a terrorist) killed one Nazi soldier, the Nazis killed 100 random civilians in the same neighborhood.
Surely conservatives are in favor of individual responsibility?
Posted by: Sparky at December 06, 2004 05:46 PM (9ECrI)
7
Is the author of that suggestion an idiot or just fubar?
Islamic terrorists are the MINORITY in the Islamic world. Note the march in Germany I think a couple of weeks ago by thousands of muslims protesting islamic terrorism. noticed that did not get mentioned on here or alarmingnews although i never thought for a minute it would be.
nuking 100 cities regardless of their responsibility in a purely hypothetical WMD attack by a third party would be completely unjustified. whinefest from the UN would include almost all US allies inlcuding the ones such as Britain and France who have nukes of our own.
i know america is aggressive but that suggestion contemptible. even for the bush admin
Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at December 07, 2004 03:17 AM (302Gs)
8
islamic terrorist are a minority in the muslim world ? not YET UNFORTUNATELY thes people are willing to kill themselves and maybe theyre cousins {accidently} while comitting sucide bombings all for what ? to kill americans WHY? theyre parents and osama tell them they will be martyred TALK ABOUT A DYSFUNTIONAL SOCEITY , and we worry about our children smoking POT WHOA !!!!!! I wish we could pull all our brave youth home I pray to God nightly I pray for the muslim people too who hunger for freedom but mostly I ask god to stop the monsters like ben laden and sadam from preying on the innocents of theyre youth how dispicable is this these peopl are cowards just like SADAM in his rat hole "dont shoot me please" when hed tortured and murdered 1000s and hid while his own dilussional two boys and grandson met theyre deserved demise how many liberals cried like I did when sadam gassed the kurdissh to the north and theyre littl children were put into dumpsters NO weapons of mass destruction look it up what does it take before a liberal Kerry voter decides its time to act a lewensky in the news like clinton? This administration is GODS administration you liberals in power need to cooperate or disappear this is an important crucial time and if your not part of the solution Kennedy retire pray for our heroic troops every night GOD BLESS YOU
Posted by: kyle skinner at December 08, 2004 12:36 AM (+z3qw)
9
you've been on the pot!!!!
Gods administration? do shut up. majority of americans will? yes. will of a deity of doubtful existence? put the weed down and go into the real world. bloody christian fundamentalists.
Posted by: nick saunders at December 08, 2004 01:09 AM (vnSex)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 03, 2004
Shameless promotion dept: Vote for me in the 2004 Weblog Awards!

OK, I'm falling into the shameless promotion department here.
I'm up for the category of Best Conservative Blog in this year's 2004 Weblog Awards (which is primarily sponsored by Wizbang).
So I'm blushingly asking for your support and your vote. And I'm up against some solid competition (and some of the blogs on my blogroll, as well as some of my personal favorites!) so I'll let everyone know that it's an uphill battle for me.
You can vote once per day each day from now until December 12, so the notion of "Vote Early & Vote Often" works here.
"And we thank you for your support."
Posted by: mhking at
04:52 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Bob Baird at December 03, 2004 05:48 AM (Wm3j/)
2
Mu Nu rules, you got my vote.
Posted by: Ted at December 03, 2004 06:19 AM (blNMI)
Posted by: Tony Iovino at December 03, 2004 07:18 AM (sQDP2)
4
Done yesterday! Good luck. How many times can I vote? :-)
Posted by: Sallie at December 03, 2004 07:35 AM (OLfCp)
5
Okay, You've got my vote. I'll be expecting that box of Cuban Cohibas any day now...
Posted by: Fintan at December 03, 2004 11:13 AM (a8riH)
6
And don't forget to vote for Munuviana in the Best Online Community category while you're there!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 05, 2004 02:03 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Patrick at December 05, 2004 03:31 AM (eqeGp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
107kb generated in CPU 0.0397, elapsed 0.0937 seconds.
57 queries taking 0.077 seconds, 221 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.