He Kinda Reminds Me of

He Kinda Reminds Me of a Dr. Seuss Character

Posted by: Kathy at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

He Kinda Reminds Me of

He Kinda Reminds Me of a Dr. Seuss Character

Posted by: Kathy at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Rose Garden Fountain

Rose Garden Fountain

Posted by: Kathy at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Rose Garden Fountain

Rose Garden Fountain

Posted by: Kathy at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Mr. Little Guy is Back

Mr. Little Guy is Back For The Summer.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Mr. Little Guy is Back

Mr. Little Guy is Back For The Summer.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

I keep forgetting to post

I keep forgetting to post this.

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait's cabinet approved a draft law
Sunday allowing women to vote and run in parliamentary polls, moving
them a step closer to full political rights they have sought for
decades in the conservative Gulf Arab state. The draft needs
parliament's approval to pass into law. A decree issued by Emir Sheikh
Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah giving women the vote was narrowly defeated in
the 50-man house in 1999 by an alliance of Islamist and conservative
tribal MPs. Kuwaiti women have been fighting for suffrage for more than
40 years, only to be blocked by Islamists and male politicians. "The
council (of ministers) decided to approve the draft law and transfer it
to the Emir, God protect him, in order to transfer it to the National
Assembly," a cabinet statement said.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

I keep forgetting to post

I keep forgetting to post this.

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Kuwait's cabinet approved a draft law
Sunday allowing women to vote and run in parliamentary polls, moving
them a step closer to full political rights they have sought for
decades in the conservative Gulf Arab state. The draft needs
parliament's approval to pass into law. A decree issued by Emir Sheikh
Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah giving women the vote was narrowly defeated in
the 50-man house in 1999 by an alliance of Islamist and conservative
tribal MPs. Kuwaiti women have been fighting for suffrage for more than
40 years, only to be blocked by Islamists and male politicians. "The
council (of ministers) decided to approve the draft law and transfer it
to the Emir, God protect him, in order to transfer it to the National
Assembly," a cabinet statement said.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Downtown Minneapolis Skyline Replete With

Downtown
Minneapolis Skyline Replete With Canoe

Posted by: Kathy at 03:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Downtown Minneapolis Skyline Replete With

Downtown
Minneapolis Skyline Replete With Canoe

Posted by: Kathy at 03:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

FOUR AND A @#%&$@! QUARTER

FOUR AND A @#%&$@! QUARTER FOR A GALLON OF MILK!

Milk shortage, my ass. This is the fault of all those Atkins dieters.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

FOUR AND A @#%&$@! QUARTER

FOUR AND A @#%&$@! QUARTER FOR A GALLON OF MILK!

Milk shortage, my ass. This is the fault of all those Atkins dieters.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

But tomorrow and the rest

But tomorrow and the rest of the three day weekend is supposed to suck
in metorological terminology. So the husband and I went over to Lake
Harriet this afternoon and I brought the camera along.
Pictures forthcoming.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

But tomorrow and the rest

But tomorrow and the rest of the three day weekend is supposed to suck
in metorological terminology. So the husband and I went over to Lake
Harriet this afternoon and I brought the camera along.
Pictures forthcoming.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Get over it already. DUBLIN

Get over it already.

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Four months after Janet Jackson outraged
the United States by bearing her breast on TV, Ireland has banned a
video to encourage voting in next month's European elections because it
shows a bare nipple.
In Britain, where bare breasts are shown daily in tabloids, the film
will be shown in censored form. The breast-feeding sequence survives
but shots of the offending nipple have been edited out.
The 45-second film was produced by the European Parliament's
audio-visual department and shows a suckling baby trying to decide
which of its mother's breasts to feed from.
The idea is to show people making choices -- like voters at the ballot
box.
While the sight of a baby suckling at its mother's breast is considered
acceptable for hundreds of millions of other Europeans, Irish officials
believe it would cause offence in Roman Catholic Ireland.
"I decided that due to sensitivities here, this is not the right image
to promote anything in Ireland, unless it is of a medical or scientific
nature," the head of the European Parliament's Irish office, Jim
O'Brien, said.

Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.
Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.
Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.

Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.
Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.
Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.

There. Are you desensitized enough yet? If not go here. Or I can start typing again.

Your choice.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Get over it already. DUBLIN

Get over it already.

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Four months after Janet Jackson outraged
the United States by bearing her breast on TV, Ireland has banned a
video to encourage voting in next month's European elections because it
shows a bare nipple.
In Britain, where bare breasts are shown daily in tabloids, the film
will be shown in censored form. The breast-feeding sequence survives
but shots of the offending nipple have been edited out.
The 45-second film was produced by the European Parliament's
audio-visual department and shows a suckling baby trying to decide
which of its mother's breasts to feed from.
The idea is to show people making choices -- like voters at the ballot
box.
While the sight of a baby suckling at its mother's breast is considered
acceptable for hundreds of millions of other Europeans, Irish officials
believe it would cause offence in Roman Catholic Ireland.
"I decided that due to sensitivities here, this is not the right image
to promote anything in Ireland, unless it is of a medical or scientific
nature," the head of the European Parliament's Irish office, Jim
O'Brien, said.

Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.
Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.
Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.

Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.
Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.
Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples. Nipples.

There. Are you desensitized enough yet? If not go here. Or I can start typing again.

Your choice.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

I haven't written anything about

I haven't written anything about the Abu Ghraib scandal because what I
would have written about the scandal itself had been said better
elsewhere. A quick synopsis of my thoughts on the matter: the abuse is
disgusting, abhorrent, reprehensible.
And that's the extent of what I think about the scandal itself.
However, as far as the commentary in the blogosphere and in newspapers
regarding what the military should do now that these photos have been
released, well, that's another matter entirely. I've got plenty to say
about that. I've read accounts that cover the oh-so-colorful spectrum
of political views that we all look forward to reading on a daily
basis. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The suggestions range
from drawing and quatering the accused to listing out the reasons for
Rummy to resign to speculating wildly on how this will affect the
campaigns in Fallujah and Najaf. Some are wild in nature, yet others
make some sense. Do I think these bloggers and commentators should shut
the fuck up? No, they're allowed to say whatever the hell they want to
say about it. I would, however, ask them to stop armchair marshalling
this war and declaring in bold print what the military should do about
this scandal. Why do I ask this? Because most people aren't qualified
to comment on what it takes to win a war, how hard it must be, and the
horrible situations soldiers find themselves in on a daily basis to
fulfill the will of a plan they haven't seen, let alone commented on. I
know I don't, which is why I haven't written anything about it other
than to tell you to read what Sgt. Hook had to say. He would know,
after all. I don't. Oh, she's pulling a Micah Wright! The only people qualified to
comment on a war are the ones who've served! Lambast and crucify her!
No, I'm not.
Say whatever the hell you want to say about this scandal. I don't care.
I can choose to disagree with it. It's my position, however, that you
should actually have some level of military experience before you start
pontificating on how these people should be strung up and what sort of
adverse effects this scandal will have on troop and homeland morale,
how this will affect the war overall, and how this has ultimately
wrecked the mission we set out to achieve. I've come by this opinion
honestly, just in case you were wondering. Go here and
look at the list of promotions and know that my cousin is on it. (I'm
not going to email him and ask him if I can publish his name here.
Quite frankly, he's got other, more important, things to deal with.)
He's a talented guy who's made a career out of the Army. He's really
cool guy, too. Yet I'm always and forever terrified to open my mouth in
conversation with him about anything even vaguely related to the war
because he will set me straight if I'm wrong. Yet he only does this
sparingly, which makes it all the more effective. You see, it's pretty
obvious he wants people to have opinions about what is going on
with the military, but he's not afraid to correct them if their
opinions are faulty. I've been wrong in the past and he's corrected me.
Which is why I'm hesitant to shoot my mouth off when chatting with him
because he always adds something new and very impressive to the
conversation about which I had no clue. As terrified as I am of looking
stupid, I still ask questions and he still answers me.
The essence of the difference is this: as a civilian I see things one
way. I can follow a to b to c and make my conclusions based upon my
civilian knowledge. But there is a whole set of knowledge that as a
civilian, I am not able to access to formulate my opinions. My cousin
does have that information, however. He is in the know. Does that mean
his opinions are infalliable? No. But I would take his word over
someone who is in their very comfortable apartment, blogging about what
really should be done about this scandal to make sure we don't lose the
war because of it. I'm asking bloggers and commentators to realize that
they don't know everything and that perhaps, just perhaps, they should
have faith in their Armed Services.
I do. Look hard and look long for evidence that the Army does not know
what the hell it is doing when it comes to dealing with this problem.
The logic follows that you must have lost faith in the army's
operations somewhere along the line to decry now that they're not
competent enough to deal with this crisis and that the entire mission
is in jeopardy as a result. Where was that event on the timeline and
why did it affect you? Did they make an effort to resolve the problem?
But most importantly, do you have all the information about the issue from all sides?
Chances are, you probably don't. Should this stop you from publishing
your assertions? No. Not at all. But it should make you think twice
before you draw your rhetorical sword out of its sheath and declare
that all is lost.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 902 words, total size 5 kb.

I haven't written anything about

I haven't written anything about the Abu Ghraib scandal because what I
would have written about the scandal itself had been said better
elsewhere. A quick synopsis of my thoughts on the matter: the abuse is
disgusting, abhorrent, reprehensible.
And that's the extent of what I think about the scandal itself.
However, as far as the commentary in the blogosphere and in newspapers
regarding what the military should do now that these photos have been
released, well, that's another matter entirely. I've got plenty to say
about that. I've read accounts that cover the oh-so-colorful spectrum
of political views that we all look forward to reading on a daily
basis. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The suggestions range
from drawing and quatering the accused to listing out the reasons for
Rummy to resign to speculating wildly on how this will affect the
campaigns in Fallujah and Najaf. Some are wild in nature, yet others
make some sense. Do I think these bloggers and commentators should shut
the fuck up? No, they're allowed to say whatever the hell they want to
say about it. I would, however, ask them to stop armchair marshalling
this war and declaring in bold print what the military should do about
this scandal. Why do I ask this? Because most people aren't qualified
to comment on what it takes to win a war, how hard it must be, and the
horrible situations soldiers find themselves in on a daily basis to
fulfill the will of a plan they haven't seen, let alone commented on. I
know I don't, which is why I haven't written anything about it other
than to tell you to read what Sgt. Hook had to say. He would know,
after all. I don't. Oh, she's pulling a Micah Wright! The only people qualified to
comment on a war are the ones who've served! Lambast and crucify her!
No, I'm not.
Say whatever the hell you want to say about this scandal. I don't care.
I can choose to disagree with it. It's my position, however, that you
should actually have some level of military experience before you start
pontificating on how these people should be strung up and what sort of
adverse effects this scandal will have on troop and homeland morale,
how this will affect the war overall, and how this has ultimately
wrecked the mission we set out to achieve. I've come by this opinion
honestly, just in case you were wondering. Go here and
look at the list of promotions and know that my cousin is on it. (I'm
not going to email him and ask him if I can publish his name here.
Quite frankly, he's got other, more important, things to deal with.)
He's a talented guy who's made a career out of the Army. He's really
cool guy, too. Yet I'm always and forever terrified to open my mouth in
conversation with him about anything even vaguely related to the war
because he will set me straight if I'm wrong. Yet he only does this
sparingly, which makes it all the more effective. You see, it's pretty
obvious he wants people to have opinions about what is going on
with the military, but he's not afraid to correct them if their
opinions are faulty. I've been wrong in the past and he's corrected me.
Which is why I'm hesitant to shoot my mouth off when chatting with him
because he always adds something new and very impressive to the
conversation about which I had no clue. As terrified as I am of looking
stupid, I still ask questions and he still answers me.
The essence of the difference is this: as a civilian I see things one
way. I can follow a to b to c and make my conclusions based upon my
civilian knowledge. But there is a whole set of knowledge that as a
civilian, I am not able to access to formulate my opinions. My cousin
does have that information, however. He is in the know. Does that mean
his opinions are infalliable? No. But I would take his word over
someone who is in their very comfortable apartment, blogging about what
really should be done about this scandal to make sure we don't lose the
war because of it. I'm asking bloggers and commentators to realize that
they don't know everything and that perhaps, just perhaps, they should
have faith in their Armed Services.
I do. Look hard and look long for evidence that the Army does not know
what the hell it is doing when it comes to dealing with this problem.
The logic follows that you must have lost faith in the army's
operations somewhere along the line to decry now that they're not
competent enough to deal with this crisis and that the entire mission
is in jeopardy as a result. Where was that event on the timeline and
why did it affect you? Did they make an effort to resolve the problem?
But most importantly, do you have all the information about the issue from all sides?
Chances are, you probably don't. Should this stop you from publishing
your assertions? No. Not at all. But it should make you think twice
before you draw your rhetorical sword out of its sheath and declare
that all is lost.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 902 words, total size 5 kb.

--- The Messenger. Ms. Ebadi

--- The Messenger.

Ms. Ebadi pushed for the need to promote human rights and democracy
alongside economic development. Without singling out any specific
countries for criticism, she made it clear that financial aid to
countries she described as "undemocratic," only helps prop up
repressive regimes. "In countries that are undemocratic, where their
governments are undemocratic, and where all the administrative,
political and economic power of the society lies in the hands of one
person or a special group or elites of a country, the granting of loans
means assisting dictators and opposing people who are already
oppressed," said Ms. Ebadi. "In other words, to say it more clearly, if
undemocratic countries receive loans and credits, they are strengthened
to become more negligent of the rights of their people." She added that
the people living under a bad government will also harbor anger for
nations or international institutions that are seen as having helped
that regime. "The palaces of tyrants will one day fall, and it is then
that the people, the oppressed people, who will, with hatred and
grudge, look at the countries that supported that and the institutions
that provided loans to that former system and consider them as the
reason for this, as an accomplice to the crime that occurred and as a
reason for their misfortune." Ms. Ebadi also said she believes freedom
is the most important human possession. She added, though, that anger
is the enemy of intellect -- and that people who are angry could resort
to means that threaten world security.

Instapundit says
this "sounds good to him." And I suppose it does. After all, you have
the first Islamic Female Nobel Peace Prize winner declaring that
democracy is indeed a good thing and that the IMF should stop rewarding
countries that don't practice it. However, the quickie bio on Ms. Ebadi
seems to neglect a few things. According to a October 16, 2003Economist article (subscription required)...

- {...}she
did not follow colleagues to overseas refuge after the revolution, but
stayed on as an advocate, fighting cases of political murder,
repression and domestic violence. A defender of Islam, she wrote
learnedly about women's and children's rights under Islamic law. She
lost most of her high-profile cases, but survived. Overnight, she has
become a celebrity.
So, while she's "fighting the good fight" she's still basically the
Iranian female equivalent of a losing Alan Dershowitz. Or a Jacques
Verges.
- {...) Rather than the flexible jurisprudence to which Shia
Islam lends itself, and which Ms Ebadi champions, Iran's Islamic
Republic has promoted what Farideh Gheirat, a leading women's lawyer,
calls a “bone-dry version”. Lawmakers and judges reinstated
polygamy, made it virtually impossible for women to divorce without
their husband's consent, and condemned adulteresses to be stoned to
death. The intrusion that offends foreigners the most, the compulsory
head covering, is a minor irritant.
She's apparently for democracy for other countries, but for her own
legal system she still prefers Shia Islam jurisprudence. Which we all
know is just so fair and unbiased toward women---something she works to remedy, yes, yet she still thinks that Islamic jurisprudence can work. How?

- {...}Iranian
women, even many who are indifferent to her causes, are intensely proud
of Ms Ebadi's achievement. But do not expect her to become a role
model. Despite a dash of radicalism—she goes bare-headed outside
Iran—she remains wedded to the cautious reformism that is espoused by
Mr Khatami and his supporters. And that, many believe, has failed. A
small but growing number of women are coming to reject the legal
superstructure to which Ms Ebadi is committed.. Ebadi is not the
best messenger, it seems, to be preaching about rewarding those
countries who have democratic governments, when it doesn't seem as if
she wants it in her homeland. Whether for political expediency or her
religious beliefs, she has thrown her lot in with the noble repressors
in her own country---those who try, but never seem to get any reform
enacted. And the Nobel Committee rewarded her for her half-measures.
So, really, is she the best and most qualified person to be lecturing
anyone about the virutes of democracy?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 702 words, total size 5 kb.

--- The Messenger. Ms. Ebadi

--- The Messenger.

Ms. Ebadi pushed for the need to promote human rights and democracy
alongside economic development. Without singling out any specific
countries for criticism, she made it clear that financial aid to
countries she described as "undemocratic," only helps prop up
repressive regimes. "In countries that are undemocratic, where their
governments are undemocratic, and where all the administrative,
political and economic power of the society lies in the hands of one
person or a special group or elites of a country, the granting of loans
means assisting dictators and opposing people who are already
oppressed," said Ms. Ebadi. "In other words, to say it more clearly, if
undemocratic countries receive loans and credits, they are strengthened
to become more negligent of the rights of their people." She added that
the people living under a bad government will also harbor anger for
nations or international institutions that are seen as having helped
that regime. "The palaces of tyrants will one day fall, and it is then
that the people, the oppressed people, who will, with hatred and
grudge, look at the countries that supported that and the institutions
that provided loans to that former system and consider them as the
reason for this, as an accomplice to the crime that occurred and as a
reason for their misfortune." Ms. Ebadi also said she believes freedom
is the most important human possession. She added, though, that anger
is the enemy of intellect -- and that people who are angry could resort
to means that threaten world security.

Instapundit says
this "sounds good to him." And I suppose it does. After all, you have
the first Islamic Female Nobel Peace Prize winner declaring that
democracy is indeed a good thing and that the IMF should stop rewarding
countries that don't practice it. However, the quickie bio on Ms. Ebadi
seems to neglect a few things. According to a October 16, 2003Economist article (subscription required)...

- {...}she
did not follow colleagues to overseas refuge after the revolution, but
stayed on as an advocate, fighting cases of political murder,
repression and domestic violence. A defender of Islam, she wrote
learnedly about women's and children's rights under Islamic law. She
lost most of her high-profile cases, but survived. Overnight, she has
become a celebrity.
So, while she's "fighting the good fight" she's still basically the
Iranian female equivalent of a losing Alan Dershowitz. Or a Jacques
Verges.
- {...) Rather than the flexible jurisprudence to which Shia
Islam lends itself, and which Ms Ebadi champions, Iran's Islamic
Republic has promoted what Farideh Gheirat, a leading women's lawyer,
calls a “bone-dry version”. Lawmakers and judges reinstated
polygamy, made it virtually impossible for women to divorce without
their husband's consent, and condemned adulteresses to be stoned to
death. The intrusion that offends foreigners the most, the compulsory
head covering, is a minor irritant.
She's apparently for democracy for other countries, but for her own
legal system she still prefers Shia Islam jurisprudence. Which we all
know is just so fair and unbiased toward women---something she works to remedy, yes, yet she still thinks that Islamic jurisprudence can work. How?

- {...}Iranian
women, even many who are indifferent to her causes, are intensely proud
of Ms Ebadi's achievement. But do not expect her to become a role
model. Despite a dash of radicalism—she goes bare-headed outside
Iran—she remains wedded to the cautious reformism that is espoused by
Mr Khatami and his supporters. And that, many believe, has failed. A
small but growing number of women are coming to reject the legal
superstructure to which Ms Ebadi is committed.. Ebadi is not the
best messenger, it seems, to be preaching about rewarding those
countries who have democratic governments, when it doesn't seem as if
she wants it in her homeland. Whether for political expediency or her
religious beliefs, she has thrown her lot in with the noble repressors
in her own country---those who try, but never seem to get any reform
enacted. And the Nobel Committee rewarded her for her half-measures.
So, really, is she the best and most qualified person to be lecturing
anyone about the virutes of democracy?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 702 words, total size 5 kb.