What the hell is this?

What the hell is this?

More importantly, what does it mean?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're interested, the Forest

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

Here's the link.

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, the numbers on this

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

To wit:

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

Keep in mind the amount 380 tons.

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

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

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

This really doesn't add up, does it?

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 991 words, total size 7 kb.

As we all know, I'm

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

Whoa! (Click for supah-size)

Whoa! (Click for supah-size)

Posted by: Kathy at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Robbo el Llamabutcher has devised

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

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

Go read. It's funny.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's what MSN says is

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

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

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

{H/T: el butchers o' llamas)

Posted by: Kathy at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1500 words, total size 9 kb.

Or so the Sudanese government

Or so the Sudanese government would have us believe:

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

The Boobiethon is still going

The Boobiethon is still going on.

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't quite figure this

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

Posted by: Kathy at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 1 kb.

There She Goes Again!

There She Goes Again!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

This is simply amazing. I

This is simply amazing.

I can't quite get over this photograph.

I really can't.

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

See also: Michele

Posted by: Kathy at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

But I find myself in

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

GO TWINKIES!

Sigh.

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the least fun

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


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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

For those of you who

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

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

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

Posted by: Kathy at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

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.