January 12, 2005

Fashion Faux Pas?

I seriously thought that catty old bitch had bought the farm.

Hmph.

Still can't fault his taste, though.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Still No Self-Control

None at all. My kindergarten teacher, Miss Goddard, would be very disappointed in me as she was always teaching me to strive to control my hyperactive five-year-old self. But at least this meme is from a different source this time around.

Because I'm all about the variety.

If interested, read on after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1620 words, total size 9 kb.

January 11, 2005

Breathtaking Stupidity

Wow.

I didn't think it was possible to take the wind right out of me with a simple statement anymore.

I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Text Messaging Is For Infidels!

King Fahd (or Crown Prince Abdullah. Take your freakin' pick.) may hold the very impressive sounding job title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, but he's also your friendly Saudi Arabian telephone company owner as well.

And they don't want Saudi citizens texting in votes for a reality show, ala American Idol. Instead of doing the reasonable thing and simply voicing an opinion against this sort of behavior, what did they do instead?

They used their ownership of the phone company and just blocked 9.5 million people from texting in their votes.

{...}"We feel the program does not match the values of the Saudi culture," said spokesman Saad Dhafer. "Our social and economic market research shows that our customers want us to operate in line with these values."

I know. With all that malarkey about morals and values you'd think this move was about the reality show, but in actuality it's about text messaging. Because...

{...}But Dhafer added viewers in the kingdom were still be able to vote using a regular land line.{...}

Hmmm. I wonder how much a call to the land line costs? Is it a toll-free line? Or is there a charge? I'll bet you anything there's a charge for that call.

Anyone know?

If true, well, what does that tell you about what's really important to the House of Saud? Morals or money?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Random Question(s) of the Day

Am I supposed to know who these people are?

Does anyone else get the feeling that the spin cycle on pop culture is now going so fast that---sooner rather than later---it will spin itself right into irrelevancy?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Wanderlust

Yet Another Meme. From the only place I ever seem to get these things.

1. Go To Mapquest.com.

2. Click on Directions.

3. Enter your current address and the address of your childhood home (or at least the town if you don't remember the exact address).

4. Put the time and distance in a post like this.

5. Repost the instructions to the meme in your own blog.

Here's how long it will take to get to Howard Buffett's house*.

Total Est. Time: 5 hours, 45 minutes
Total Est. Distance: 377.76 miles

I would say that's about right. Particularly the driving time. Although you can get it down to about five hours if you don't stop too much and traffic is flowing nicely on I-35 and I-80.

I do have to say, however, that the directions that Mapquest produced for driving within Omaha are, perhaps, the worst example of how badly they've flubbed it that I've ever seen. They've screwed me up---along with many other people---in the past, but man, oh, man! This one takes the cake! In Omaha, you don't go to the north side of Dodge Street to get to the neighborhoods on the south side of Dodge Street, which is where the old homestead resides and how Mapquest routed me in. Why don't you do this? you ask. Because Dodge street is the only street in Omaha that has the capacity to go East/West where you can make decent time and provides access to all the major north/south sidestreets---anything other road is a crapshoot. As a result Dodge has the most traffic. They built the freeways goofily in town, expecting development to go north/south. Being contrary, of course, development went west, hence, there are no freeways where you need them. Dodge Street has five lanes and the traffic flows quite quickly. It would be like crossing 35W here in the Cities. You'd have to gun it to make it across, and even then it's dicey.

And as the husband loves to whine about whenever we're there, you can never, never, NEVER turn left in Omaha. Well, that's not exactly true. There are plenty of places where you can turn left. But, where he is correct in that statement is that you can never turn left off Dodge Street onto a side street unless there happens to be a turn lane, which the city planners didn't provide many of in what appears was an attempt to make things interesting. There is no turn lane onto our old block. Hence Mapquest's faulty directions to turn north to be able to go south. Oy. Just take Farnam---or any other freakin' street for that matter---and you wouldn't have this problem. Considering the old homestead is right next to Farnam Street, you think Mapquest would have picked that one up.

*The old homestead just sold again this past summer. To Howard Buffett, who is Warren's son. And yes, I mean the Warren Buffett. I used to walk past his house every day going back and forth to school. The husband asks for a moment of silence every time we pass it nowadays. Howard currently lives on a farm in Illinois most of the time, rejecting his father's capitalist ways. Amazingly enough, though, he still manages to live rather nicely on those lovely Berkshire-Hathaway "A" stock dividends. According to the Cake Eater Father, who still keeps up with the dish on our old block, he bought the place so his family---and various other relatives---wouldn't have to stay in a hotel when they visited dear old Dad, who lives five blocks away.

{Point of Origin: The Impenetrable One}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

January 10, 2005

A Quick Whine

To the email spammers of the world:

Ahem.

I don't have a penis. Hence I am not interested in penis enhancers. I am a woman. We don't have penises unless we have "issues" and require serious and painful surgery to resolve said "issues."

Please take note of this and stop sending me spam asking me if I want to enhance junk I do not have to begin with.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Your Evil Chuckle For the Day

Snort.

UPDATE: It's a good day for evil chuckling.

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

January 09, 2005

Bzzzt...

WRONG!

From The Desk of Kathleen Nelson

To: Hollywood
From: Me
RE: The Raping of My Childhood

Would you people cut it the HELL out? I've about had it with you people raping my cherished childhood movie memories because some Genius Producer decided it would be a fucking fantastic idea. Furthermore, I've had it with your faulty assumption that because a. I loved the movie when I was a child and b. I am now of reproductive age that I will c. automatically take my 2.5 children to see this flaming piece of crap. And, like, because, like, it's got Johnny Depp in it, and he's, like, all HOTHOTHOT right now! And he was, like, fantastic in that pirate movie!

I am not a sheep. I do not utter multiple "BAAAAAAA"'s because you want me to.

What is the matter with you people? Have you nothing better to do with your time than to exploit my very happy childhood because yours was bad so you spend a thousand dollars a month on therapy? Is this your plan for world movie domination? Are you sitting in some feng-shuied-to-hell-and-back office on the Warner Brothers lot, greedily rubbing your palms together, a maniacal cackle on the verge of slipping from your collagen injected lips, just waiting for the cash to start rolling in?

GOD!

But let us diverge from the topic of the rape of my childhood memories for a moment and focus on other things.

What sort of rhinoplastic hell did you force Johnny Depp to endure to look like what you thought the part of Willy Wonka should look like? Did you set him up for an extended stint in the Elizabeth Taylor Suite at the Joan Rivers' Institute for Advanced Rhinoplasty for all the work, or did you simply inject a botox suppository up his ass to avoid all those troublesome shots of botulism? Have you possibly noticed that he's as white as a goodamn mime, as well? Did you give him whatever Michael Jackson is afflicted with or is that simply makeup? I'm assuming it's the latter, but you people throw around your money like a redneck throws beer bottles up in the air for shooting practice, so one simply never knows. You do realize that with the white face and the obsession with children, Johnny does kind of give off that whole Michael Jackson-pedophile vibe, right? Because that's what I thought of. I began wondering when Charlie was going to be taken aside and shown Willy's wee-wee.

Furthermore, if you're going to spend GOBS of cash hiring Tim Burton---and then spending millions of hours dealing with the weirdness that comes part and parcel with him---you might want to make sure your visionary is actually, you know, being visionary. From what I've seen it looks as if he ran the original film through the filters of the stoners he lived next door to when he was a freshman in college who, like, thought the movie was so trippy, maaaaan! Your visionary envisaged nothing new. He did not take Roald Dahl's work to heart. Rather, he took the original movie to heart and went from there. While I could not pick out the oompa-loompas as the cuts were too quick, all the sets nonetheless looked exactly like the original. Only darker. Because Tim is, like, so dark What? Was Tim having a few off-months or what? You might want to think about getting your money back. This movie is going to scare kids. It will not make them wonder about the wonderful world of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, wishing they could win their very own gold ticket. It will, however, make them worry about the bad, bad man up on the screen. But, take heart, people. If nothing else, it should work as a wonderful anti-drug campaign in about five years.

Which brings us back to the original topic: what the hell were you thinking, remaking a beloved classic? Do you people not know the Rule of Remakes? Let me enlighten you: YOU DO NOT REMAKE A MOVIE THAT WAS GREAT! You just don't do it. You PISS PEOPLE OFF when you do. You can, however, remake a movie that had a great premise but was faultily executed. If you need an example of this rule, see Ocean's Eleven. There are plenty of bad movies around. Go trolling through the vaults and find one of those to remake. Don't fuck with brilliance. The Gods of Brilliance should and will---rightly, I might add---strike you down for your impertinence, you fucking morons, because you're raping my fondly held childhood movie memories.

I'll save my venting about how Johnny Depp will never fill Gene Wilder's shoes for another day.

There. I feel better. Now, run to the therapist and cry your poor widdle eyes out because the bad, bad woman was mean to you. Maybe you'll score some extra prozac for your troubles.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

Finally

Courtesy of a leak to the AP from some random congressional aide, we're finally getting a peek into the UN Audits of the Oil For Food Program. While we're only talking about three audits out of a total of fifty-six, well, it doesn't look very nice for the UN.

{...}Two of the audits examined irregularities including overcharging by two companies that were hired to monitor oil sales and the import of humanitarian goods under the program. Another detailed financial mismanagement by a U.N. agency administering humanitarian aid under the program.

{...}A congressional aide provided the AP with copies of three of the 56 audits, including one that found that the United Nations was billed over several years for 31 days of work in June, which only has 30 days.

Pardon me for interrupting, but it seems pretty---ahem---Goddamn basic to realize there are only thirty days in June and not thirty-one. It gets better.

{...}It was unclear what steps the United Nations took to correct the mismanagement uncovered in the reports and to demand repayment from the companies recommended by the auditors.

One audit dated July 3, 2002, examined contracts with Saybolt International BV, a Dutch company that was hired to monitor oil exports from Iraq under the humanitarian program.

The report detailed billing by the company exceeding $2 million. The company inflated invoices, charged for accommodation of workers provided by the Iraqi government and exaggerated staffing and other expenses. For example, the report found that the United Nations was billed several years for 31 days of work in June, which only has 30 days.

Another report from July 21, 1999, detailed possible overpayments of more than $3 million to London-based Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd., which was hired to inspect and monitor humanitarian goods as they were imported into Iraq.

The audit noted that the company billed the United Nations for agents deployed in December 1996, two months before the first contracts for the import of humanitarian supplies were issued.

"The contractor without consultation took the decision to deploy all the agents," the report states, costing the United Nations an estimated $1.97 million.

The company also was able to renegotiate inflated renewals of its contract because U.N. administrators neglected to consider competitors in time.

"It appears that the contractor was fully aware that the (United Nations) was unprepared or unwilling to undertake fresh bidding for the service," the report stated. "Negotiations with Lloyd's were always conducted just before the expiry of the contract."

In 1998 Lloyd's Register pulled out of the contract and was a replaced by another company, Cotecna Inspection S.A., a Swiss company, which has also been the subject of investigations of the U.N. program.{...}

{emphasis mine}

Now, Paul Volker, who's overseeing the UN's internal investigation, has pooh-poohed these audits. And I quote:

{...}In an interview Thursday, Volcker said that the internal audits "don't prove anything," but do show how the United Nations was urged to tighten up its supervision of the program. "There's no flaming red flags in the stuff," he said.{...}

Even better, UN spokeswoman Stephanie Dujarric said:

{...}"These audits do show that this was a program that was highly audited with a great level of oversight by the U.N."{...}

As if simple oversight was enough to correct the outright thievery.

It never ceases to amaze me how blind these people are to how all of this looks. If you do not have the power to stop someone from overbilling you, well, you're not conducting business in an appropriate manner, are you? Even better, you renegotiated a contract with a company that was overbilling you! And at a higher rate, too! Wow. You're smart! Give that International Governmental Organization a Gold Star for efficiency and smart bookkeeping!

According to Volcker, there aren't any "red flags" in these audits. I beg to differ. The red flag that's sticking up for me is how flaming easy it is to rob the UN.

These contractors deliberately padded their bills and expense accounts, knowing that the UN wouldn't notice. And if the UN did notice, well, there doesn't appear to be much that they could do about it, does it? These audits just give us even more proof about how corrupt the UN is. And they don't even care! It's absolutely amazing, isn't it, that they would deny the corruption, skipping over the inconvenient fact people died because of the corruption, and say, hey, but we were auditing, so we were doing something. That's weak. And any fourth-grader could tell you that.

But they're oblivious. We're doing the good deeds of the world, they say. We're relevant, they claim. We should be the leading body of international statesmanship, they demand.

Well...

If we went by Uncle Joe's old aphorism, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs, the UN's omelette would be made with golden eggs laid by a certain goose we're all familiar with. That's a pretty expensive omelette to begin with, you'll agree. But wait, it gets better. The UN would acquire these eggs, they would then pay twice the normal price (while, of course, not realizing they were being swindled until well after the fact) and then would have trouble breaking the damn eggs because someone, namely the dictator in charge of serving the omelette, would object about the portion size and would want the bigger half for himself.

Meanwhile, the poor people who just want the fucking omelette---no matter what it's made out of---are starving.

Would you want these makers of omelettes in charge of the world? Do you think they're qualified? I don't. And the fact they don't even have a clue as to how incompetent they are does nothing to convince me otherwise.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

Requiescat in Pace

A rare Kennedy obituary. By which I mean it's an obituary you'll actually want to read.

While I fully realize the treatment of Rosemary's mental retardation was completely common for the time, this story still breaks my heart. Furthermore, her treatment does seem extreme, particularly when seen in conjunction with her father's unceasing ambitions.

The only thing I can add is the sincere and fervent hope that Joe Kennedy is roasting in the flames of hell for treating his daughter, his first born, as a pariah. There should be a separate level of hell for people like this.

God rest her soul.

{Hat Tip: The Maximum Leader}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

January 08, 2005

I'd Trust Them

The UN really has a lot going for it, don't you think?

They can't stop genocides.

They can't stop people stealing from the Oil For Food fund.

They can't organize the logistics of humanitarian aid and must rely on the resources of donor nations to get the job done. When they can find donor nations to help in the first place.

They can't get member nations to pay their dues.

They can't shoot bullets at bad people, but seem willing to shoot whenever their lives are on the line.

They can't organize lasting cease fires, but can beg and plead for "three days of tranquility" to vaccinate children for polio. Did I mention that the people they're begging for these "three days of tranquility" from want to kill these children? And have been doing a bang-up job, for the most part.

And they can't stop their very own peacekeeping troops from sexually exploiting the very people they're supposed to be protecting.

YAY for the UN! I'd trust them to save my life. Wouldn't you?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

Woot!

Brad Pitt's back on the market, baby!

I'll admit to being surprised at this one. There were rumors, yes, but I thought that if anyone could pull it out, these two could. If "normal" is a word you can use to describe people who live and work in Hollywood, well, these two seemed normal, their atrocious political leanings aside. It's very sad that she couldn't see past her own career. (Provided the speculation is correct in this instance, which it easily could not be.)

It's hardly unusual to see people splitting up over the whole kid thing. I've got friends who have gone through the same thing. Both said they wanted kids when they got hitched, then when push came to shove, one bailed and that was that. Usually, however, in my experience, the split occurs over the fact that someone's scared to have kids, or they changed their minds, not that their career was more important. You would think, however, that with the careers of actresses being what they are in this day and age (i.e. forty is too old), she would have seen past that and made the big gesture.

Ah. Only in Hollywood.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Bawitdaba*

Good and interesting stuff going on over at Protein Wisdom.

The long and short of the story: Michelle Malkin has her knickers in a twist over Kid Rock being invited to play at the inaguration. She objects on moral grounds, because Kid Rock, well, he ain't a moralist, ya dig? And, of course, being the reactionary she is, wants him disinvited. Jeff replied and there's some very interesting discussion in the comments section that anyone who's interested in the potential backlash over the Jesusland debate might want to check out.

As far as my personal opinion: Kid Rock's music sucks. I've hated it for years. It grates on my nerves and I love the part of that song where the "radio edit" kicks in because I know that it's almost over with! That said, far be it from me to ban someone from playing at an inauguration he was invited to, for a president he supported during the election. That's just crass and wrong. Just because you don't like the music or what it says doesn't mean you can get up on your high horse and ban it. That's wrong. And if the inaugural committee caves and disinvites him, well, that's a serious sign to me that they wanted my middle of the road vote, but don't really want to pay me any heed.

Banning Kid Rock and his music also says to me that said censor has little to no faith in the fact they can be subjected to something they consider to be morally wrong and come out on the other side unscathed and strengthened in their morals. It's the equivalent of covering your ears and screaming, "LALALALALALALA!" really loud so you can't hear whatever it is you find objectionable. Which is childish.

And don't throw the "it's all about protecting the children" argument at me on this one. Who on earth brings kids to an inaugural event? And if so, don't you think those kids haven't heard or seen worse on the radio or MTV, respectively? Puhleeze. If you don't like it, walk away. Don't listen, but don't deny others the opportunity to choose for themselves.

Heh.

Who knew Kid Rock could inflame such serious discussion over the future of the Republican party?

See Also: INDC Journal

*That's the name of a Kid Rock song. We have it on WinAmp, and given the fact that everyone seems to have their panties in a wad over what, seems to me, a very small thing, well, the jibberish fit.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

January 07, 2005

Tee Vee Movie Time!

Geez, Amber.

Milking it for all it's worth, eh? Getting every last drop out of that hind tit, right? That's important. I understand. One must make the most of opportunity when she knocks, right? Even if it means knocking Opportunity down and authorizing Gloria Allred, her team of lackeys and your agents to all strap on and gang rape the poor girl. It's all done for a good cause: you and your bank account.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Save Your Job!

By refusing to do it!

ROME (Reuters) - Passengers on Alitalia's European flights were left hungry on Friday as cabin crew refused to serve meals and drinks in a "snack strike" to protest new working conditions at the Italian carrier.

The novel industrial action is a pale shadow of the all-out strikes which brought the airline to a standstill on occasion last year, but it has infuriated the management which is trying to drag the state-controlled company into profit.

Passengers on national and European flights were to be deprived of most in-flight services between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. (1000-1400), a union representative said. Long-haul flights were unaffected.{...}

That's good. Piss off the people who pay the company for a service, who in turn pays you your salary. That's the way to get better treatment and save your ass from the chopping block.

Well Done! Gee, I wish I would have thought of that one.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Would You Like Some Citron With Your Cheerios?

He's Baaaaack.

Ah, I'm so freakin' relieved. Phew. I was beginning to wonder if he'd died and no one was going to tell us.

Go read this. And then this.

Now you understand why I wrote this, correct?

My surfing chi has been restored to balance.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Explain This One To Me

Supposedly Microsquash can never quite seem to close all the holes in their Internet Explorer browser, and are constantly having to release security patches, but yet they think they're the ones best suited to handle the spyware problem?

And the market went down for Symantec and McAfee when this was announced---even though neither of these programs deals with spyware.

The market needs to get a frickin' clue.

Perhaps Bill Gates can buy them one.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Girl!

Why?

Call it the season of no-show snow. Despite storms to the north and south, a measly 2.8 inches has fallen in the Twin Cities, a whopping 20.2 inches below normal. That's the least measured here at this time in 114 years.

This is also one of the longest waits on record for a metro snowfall of 1 inch or more. If none falls before Sunday -- the forecast says some clouds, maybe flurries -- that 60-year-old record is toast, too. {...}

Better yet...

{...}Will snowfall return to normal later this winter?

Bad news for snowmobilers and skiers. Weather records indicate that if there's little snow by this point, odds are there won't be much more. Three of the least snowy years on record started out exactly this way.{...}

Hot Damn!

Omaha currently has more snow than we do here in the Great (Not So) White North. Just ask my father---he's shoveled four times in the past couple of days.

We haven't even put gas in our snowblower yet, let alone been required to shovel.

I can so easily deal with this. I have no issues with this. The move to Minnesota wasn't my idea---it was the husband's. I would have no problem with moving to a warmer climate, alas, that isn't going to happen. I don't like winter. Particularly Minnesota winters. We've had some lame ones in recent years, but they can be harsh, unforgiving things. The first winter we lived here we had a total of 80 inches of snow between November and March. Ten of it had fallen before we even hit Thanksgiving that year. Spring didn't happen until late April, early May and then it occurred in a two-week span of time and then, as is usual, BLAMMO! it was summer. So, the less snow there is, the easier the winter. Less thaw time is involved. Less time is spent having that snow reflect the sun right back into the atmosphere, and it will get warmer sooner. This makes me happy.

Now, if we can make it through the winter without some idiot snowmobiler racing across one of the lakes, dumping their sled through thin ice, and having to be expensively rescued, I'll be a really happy girl. If the jerks are stupid enough to race across one of the lakes at 60 MPH and then attempt to jump patches of water, they deserve what they get.

I'm sure this sounds silly to the southerners (or foreigners) amongst you, but, amazingly enough, this is a serious problem here. It costs about $50K every time some dolt who has fallen prey to the idea that they have big balls has to be rescued. And it's a big pet peeve of mine. Nature has taken its course, it has claimed an idiot, and I am perfectly happy to have that idiot's seed removed from the gene pool. Why mess with Nature? But, noooo. People have to be all kind and considerate and have to rescue these dumb fucks. For some strange reason, people feel compelled to save the lives of these morons. Why, I don't know and probably never will, but they do it anyway.

Anyway, this lack of snow is good news. For me at least. Those of you who like snow are screwed. And I really don't feel all that sorry for you.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 3 kb.

January 06, 2005

What Did Your State Legislators Do Today?

Mine spent the day learning how to be nice to one another.

More than 60 state legislators showed up at the Humphrey Institute Thursday for a conference on how to behave better and get more accomplished than they did last year.

For some, the turnout was a positive sign. Other vote-counters read it as 60 for civility and 141 absentions.

"A lot of those who should be here aren't," noted Sen. Leo Foley, DFL-Coon Rapids. "But there are enough here to create movement forward to do something about it."

The session, which was held at the University of Minnesota, was called "Beyond Bickering and Gridlock: Your Role in Changing the Legislature." It was organized by Independence Party Sen. Sheila Kiscaden of Rochester, the university's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and the National Conference of State Legislators.

Last year's Legislature ended in disarray. After nearly four months it adjourned without passing major legislation. Many observers attributed the lack of accomplishment to a high level of partisanship and an erosion of mutual respect.{...}

Ahhhhh.

My tax dollars at work.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 4 of 6 >>
65kb generated in CPU 0.0152, elapsed 0.0724 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0621 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.