Last night, we had a

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

...and the #1 Reason You

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

(click for bigger) Mount

(click for bigger)

Mount Saint Helens is still rumbling along quite nicely.

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Even Jeremy's a better

Even Jeremy's a better potential Darcy than MacFayden.

And that's saying something.

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Rich realized a universal truth

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

So, a couple of weeks

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

That must have been one

That must have been one really boring video.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

The patient, in this case,

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

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

Some germy bastard gave me

Some germy bastard gave me a cold.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

A New Age of Reason

A New Age of Reason (click for bigger)

Posted by: Kathy at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to Historic Fort Leavenworth,

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

Posted by: Kathy at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not taking a picture

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

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

I present for you, my

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


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



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

Posted by: Kathy at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey kids! What the heck

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

Posted by: Kathy at 09:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's your question for the

Here's your question for the day:

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

The husband is a Rush

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

And not only was this

And not only was this kid silly, he was stupid, too.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Good God. A class action

Good God. A class action suit against Merck over Vioxx was filed in federal court in Oklahoma City this afternoon.

Less than eight hours after Merck announced it was pulling the drug completely.

Damn. Those boys move quick.
There was already a case in the state court, and given today's news the
lawyers on the state court decided to file for Class Action status in
federal court. That's the way these things work. They were probably
getting ready for it, but today's news made it important that it was
filed ASAP, to get as much PR leverage as they could. Coming strictly
as a observer of the actual legal process: a more impressive turnaround
time has yet to be seen.
I think it has to be a universal rule that whenever a lawyer smells
blood in the water they find the ability to move quickly. The rest of
the time they procrastinate. I have more than ample evidence to back
this one up. But they just decided to act from on high: I feel for the
poor paralegal who had to whip that one up this morning. And for the
runner, who had to take it to the federal courthouse, and probably had
a local news crew following them the entire time. Been there, done that
and it's annoying as hell. And all for what? Well, the legal fees
reaped from being the first to file for class action status will buy
those boys and girls some yachts. Quick thinking if you have a firm to
support, but what does it mean in the long run? Will it actually solve
anything? Will Merck be forced to "learn its lesson." Will much needed
drugs be slowed up in the FDA approval process because Vioxx was one of
the first to be fast-tracked, hence a review of the entire process will
be put forth?
Crikeys.
Merck did the right thing and they're going to be crucified for it.
Hell, there's not any "going to be" about it. They already have been
crucified. It's taken less than a day to nail them up to the cross,
hammer in the nails, and slay their side. Not only on Wall Street,
either, as this lawsuit proves. They had to have known this, but
instead of covering it up and waiting for the lawsuits to come, buying
people off one at a time, they instead saw a risk to their customers
and pulled the drug, irregardless of the consequences. Yet, instead of
being rewarded for potentially saving lives, they're being forced to
take a bath in a vat of blood.
This whole thing proves one point: when it comes to corporate
governance, there is absolutely no financial incentive to do the right
thing. You pay for doing the right thing, and you can make money doing
the wrong thing, like hushing this whole thing up, keeping Vioxx on the
market and maybe having a few people die. The lawsuit aside, Merck's
stock dropped twenty-seven percent in value today because they did the right thing
That's really fucking sad. I think the stock should have gone up. I
think responsible corporate governance should be rewarded. After all,
isn't that what the shareholders claim they want? Or is that only when they're
the ones taking a bath that responsible corporate governance is
important? They can't have it both ways. The market, at the insistence
of their shareholders, shouldn't have dumped Merck. They should have
had faith and acted cautiously.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 3 kb.

...on French rifles. Never fired

...on French rifles. Never fired and only dropped once.

A good deal, no?

I realize I'm behind here. Shoot me. I've been cleaning.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

...but it's time to compare

...but it's time to compare and contrast.

{Oh, and by the way, ELECTION FREE ZONE RULE OFF}

Read this.

{...} The most celebrated images were from the wreckage of
9/11 when Bush spoke the only truly inspired off-the-cuff remarks of
his presidency. The actual concrete details of his war-leadership - the
fall of Kabul, the blitzkrieg to Baghdad, the aborted siege of Fallujah
- were absent. So too the protracted negotiations at the U.N. or any
images of Bush with foreign leaders, or the decision to advance the war
by days to get Saddam (more bad intelligence) or even the speech that
launched the Iraq war. What I think the Republicans have realized is
that the war on terror is far more popular and winning an issue for
Bush if it is stripped of its actual events, and setbacks and triumphs
and difficulties. That's why the convention rhetoric approached
propaganda - focusing not on what has happened, but on the virtues of a
strong war-leader. The dynamics of both wars - of instant military
success, followed by damaging and difficult follow-through - were
deliberately obscured. This is good politics; but it strikes me as
risky war-management. People need leaders who level with them about
failures and difficulties in wartime - not gauzy North Korean-style
biopics about the invincibility of the Great Leader. But then this war,
vital as it is, has been exploited by the Bushies for political
purposes since it began. How else to explain the "Mission Accomplished"
photo-op or the bare-knuckled 2002 Congressional campaign? {...}In
this, Bush is, of course, the opposite of Churchill, who brought in
opposition leaders to play key roles in his war-cabinet. I know that's
not the American tradition, but a little less politics might have gone
a long way. And made the middle-ground voter a little more sympathetic
to the narrative that the Republicans are now so effectively deploying.

Then read this.

But what the terrorists are also counting on is that
Americans will not have the stomach for the long haul. They clearly
know that the coming retaliation will not be the end but the beginning.
And when the terrorists strike back again, they have let us know that
the results could make the assault on the World Trade Center look puny.
They are banking that Americans will then cave. They have seen a great
country quarrel to the edge of constitutional crisis over a razor-close
presidential election. They have seen it respond to real threats in the
last few years with squeamish restraint or surgical strikes. They
have seen that, as Israel has been pounded by the same murderous thugs,
the United States has responded with equanimity. They have seen a great
nation at the height of its power obsess for a whole summer over a
missing intern and a randy Congressman. They have good reason to
believe that this country is soft, that it has no appetite for the war
that has now begun. They have gambled that in response to unprecedented
terror, the Americans will abandon Israel to the barbarians who would
annihilate every Jew on the planet, and trade away their freedom for a
respite from terror in their own land.
We cannot forsee the future. But we know the past. And that past tells us that these people who destroyed the heart of New York City have made a terrible mistake.
This country is at its heart a peaceful one. It has done more to help
the world than any other actor in world history. It saved the world
from the two greatest evils of the last century in Nazism and Soviet
Communism. It responded to its victories in the last war by pouring aid
into Europe and Japan. In the Middle East, America alone has ensured
that the last hope of the Jewish people is not extinguished and has
given more aid to Egypt than to any other country. It risked its own
people to save the Middle East from the pseudo-Hitler in Baghdad.
America need not have done any of this. Its world hegemony has been
less violent and less imperial than any other comparable power in
history. In the depths of its soul, it wants its dream to itself, to be
left alone, to prosper among others, and to welcome them to the freedom
America has helped secure.
But whenever Americans have been challenged, they have risen to the
task. In some awful way, these evil thugs may have done us a favor.
America may have woken up for ever. The rage that will follow from this
grief and shock may be deeper and greater than anyone now can imagine.
Think of what the United States ultimately did to the enemy that bombed
Pearl Harbor. Now recall that American power in the world is all but
unchallenged by any other state. Recall that America has never been
wealthier, and is at the end of one of the biggest booms in its
history. And now consider the extent of this wound - the greatest
civilian casualties since the Civil War, an assault not just on
Americans but on the meaning of America itself. When you take a step
back, it is hard not to believe that we are now in the quiet moment
before the whirlwind. Americans will recover their dead, and they will
mourn them, and then they will get down to business. Their sadness will
be mingled with an anger that will make the hatred of these evil
fanatics seem mild.

{emphasis mine}
I suppose the point would be is that Sullivan seems to have forgotten
what he wrote the week after 9/11. And all the lessons therein.
Notice in the first passage it's all about bringing "moderates" on
board. And the only way, apparently, that Bush et.al. could do so was
to admit they made mistakes in the running of the war.
Well, ok. I suppose that could fly in a theoretical sense, but down
here in the muck and mire that is a presidential campaign, if Bush took
such an action he might as well have bared his chest and handed Kerry a
sword and told him to have at the disembowling.
What the hell is Sullivan thinking?
You do not, under any circumstances, hand your opponent the means they
need to win. That's not just politics. That's life.
Yet the greater problem with Sullivan's attitude these days is that
given the second passage, one would think that since he saw clearly in
the days after 9/11 that it was going to be a long war, that people
would need to realize this and support their government's efforts. That
he'd understand that Bush, election aside, simply cannot admit there
were any mistakes made---election or no election---because that would
encourage the terrorists.
Andrew's lost track of his priorities. I know why. Everyone who reads
his site knows why. He was personally offended by the President's
support of the FMA. Never mind that this was a political move by Bush,
and that the proposed amendment was one Sullivan even admitted was
destined to fail from the beginning, it was this act of betrayal that
led Sullivan to start turning toward Kerry. Not because Kerry is the
better alternative, or that he's proven with his outstanding four and a half months in Vietnam that he can win the war, but because he's anyone but Bush.
In theory and in practice, the guy you disagree with can be voted out.
That's the way democracy works. I fail to see, however, when presented
with the two choices we have this year, how voting for Kerry is going
to make all the problems disappear or make us safer. Furthermore, I
would expect Sullivan to come to this conclusion as well. He's too
smart for this garbage, particularly when he knew
in the days after 9/11 how important it was for us to present a unified
front. Dissent is all well and good, but when the Kerry campaign is
attacking the President's ability to lead, is second guessing
every move he makes in the War on Terror, and is constantly banging the
AWOL drum, and the lefty media covers it incessantly, well, what
message, exactly, do the terrorists get from that? I've long thought
that this election year, while boring in the extreme for its lack of
innovation, is probably the simplest election we've faced in years.
This year the choice is clear. You either dance with the guy who brung
you this far, or you look for a new partner, knowing full well that
this guy might just get you killed in the meantime. If America fails to
make the right choice come November 2nd, well, look for more terrorist
attacks. It will happen. Not because we've been lucky this far in being
spared, which I don't believe is the case, but because when an enemy
smells a weakness they attack. In case we'd forgotten in the midst of
all SwiftVets debacle, we do
have enemies. And they want us dead. Sullivan seems to forget this in
his betrayal. He's lost track of his priorites. He forgets that if we
don't win this war on terrorism none of the rest of it matters. The
economy won't matter because there won't be markets. The deficit won't
matter because there won't be an American government to pay it off. The
FMA won't matter because no one will be getting married in the first
place. For all these other things to matter, we must win the war. And to do that, we must keep the guy in office who scares the ever living crap out of the people who want to kill us.

It's really quite simple.

And one would think Sullivan would realize this.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1635 words, total size 10 kb.