FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 11:21 PM) James Joyce? FlaSoxxJim Kid's music thread had me thinking about my back catalog when the gargoyle reference popped up.

S'gotta be the shoes!

I didn't know about the shoes. But in case you want to be sure not to miss some of the other WS loot out there, you can check out http://www.chichamps.com.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 10:02 PM) Gargoyles are INSANE. Cold, grinning stone silhouettes Are looking down from tall minarets They ponder poor Marie Antoinette And you'll eat cake while I lose my head.

Ohh, wait until JUGGS has to jump to the defense of quantum physics. He'll get on me about taking on the role of Darwin's Bulldog around here (with apologies to TH Huxley). But let's see him sit silent while the Holy Grail of physics is challenged. JUGGS! (I only skimmed the piece, but think it's bunk, btw.)

Good stuff, Kid. Your vocals on Too Much Love get sounding lik the gravel-throated guy from Mighty Mighty Bosstones. And the vocalist on Seasons of Bliss sounds like he was shooting for a Perry Ferrel thing. Good mix of stuff.

Wow! Cool beanz. I'm going to start downloading now. Coincidentally, a friend from way back just sent me a mp3 out of the blue of something I had done like 10 years ago and have hardly played since. It seems to be a third of an octave higher than I recall doing it, even by my eternal boy soprano standards. If I get brave I might post it for download, but be forewarned that you need to have a couple of statistics classes under your belt to understand the lyrics. And yes, it is a love song - just a very analytical one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 09:03 PM) What in the world does "related by correlation" mean? They didn't work together, the defector who said they worked together was a known liar, Bin Laden hated Hussein for running a secular regime, and Al Qaeda was virtually absent in Iraq before the war. Does correlated mean they disliked the U.S.? Yes, but they disliked each other more. Does correlated mean they were both Muslim? Well, yeah. But beyond that, I don't know what you're saying. Sounds like an ideological statement. And it's the idealogues who have gotten us into trouble here. Axis of Evil and all that. 9-11 gave the US an excuse to take on anybody that disliked us because El Quaida disliked us too and look what they did to us?!? Third grad schoolyard logic. But good enough to let Bush pick a fight with the country he wanted to pick a fight with.

The dialogue here is quite informed, even if it had to be coerced by Kap suggesting the thread was too silent on the side of the Dem backers. How about the participants here taking a stab at dissecting this essay by Norman Podhoret? It's an advance piece from the December (newsstand date) Commentary Magazine, so it would be good to get a head start on either countering or supporting (depending on your position) these talking points. Some of this has been touched on in this thread, but there are other specific points that I'd like to hear comments on. It's a long-ish piece, but worth reading even if only to rip holes in it. The central point of the piece is that the anti-war charge that GWB intentionally misled us into war is a falsehood that has been "refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike." My take on it is that the piece very conveniently leaves the most damning evidence out of the mix, namely the fact that the key justification messages AND messengers had been largely discredited months before the invasion yet the administration kept using all of this "evidence" in their argument for war without ever sharing the VERY LIKELY probability that it was bunk. Of course, probability and certainty are key parts of Podhoretz' argument. He reminds us that " "To lie means to say something one knows to be false." And by extension, he pleads with us to accept that as long as the administration didn't know with 100% certainty that all of the intel was bogus then running with it the way they did was technically not lying. This is the new version of arguing over the definition of what "is" is. The piece also utilizes a lot of the recent pro-war gospel statements – that the Brits had 100% confidence in their intel so why shouldn't we. etc. The problem is, we now know a number of British intelligence folks dind't have 100% confidence in the information. There's also a lot of Wilkerson statements in there that are undated, so it's hard to decide how much of that is him talking and how much is the administration spin machine he was still a part of at the time. Lots of other thoughts, but 'd like to see some from all of you as well.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 01:25 PM) These kinds of threads are always quiet around here... Yes, because that's the way the Liberal Machine wants it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 9, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) Amazing how quiet this thread is. I wonder why? If this were a thread about George W. Bush's lies, it'd be at 600 pages by now, dotting the I's and crossing the T's and also giving us updates on whether or not he was lying about taking a s*** in the oval office toilet. Was that a two inch turd, or a six inch turd? Would you testify to that under oath, sir? I don't know how amazing it is. Balta's post above, #2 in the thread, makes the salient points that differentiate the two situations fairly clearly. He also points out what I've tried to stress to everybody who points to Congressional Dems who backed the invasion in 2003, and that is that Congress was only showed the intel the administration wanted them to see, and it didn't have a huge "*" on it and a "This is total garbage" disclaimer attached. The administration knew that though, even if nobody else did. I mean, how are you going to hoodwink Congress into authorizing your war if you let them in on the scam? I don't have much to add to that.

I can't even think of what had to be going through the minds of her four kids when she drowned them. Mom, why are you doing this?? Even 4 years later I get choked up thinking about this one, it's just absolutely brutal. Poor, poor kids.

backlash against what? The concept of a Constitutional guarantee of equal rights for all American citizens? YEEEHAW! :banghead

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 11:20 PM) Bob and Tom: Dickens Cider Let's see if this works. Not for the easily offended. Works like a charm. And I do find I prefer a nice Dickens Cider can.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 11:06 PM) It's like I'm reading a mirror. Dyslexia?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:37 PM) Corzine being declared the winner quite early Governor John Corzine (D)

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:21 PM) Kaine is being declared the winner Governor Tim Kaine (D)

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 09:13 PM) Well, aside from the fabric care instructions, I believe you've got: "We are sorry that our President is an idiot. We did not vote for him." Très Bon!

It's official. Science education in Kansas is beyond saving. Screw it. The country needs fry cooks too. Whole story here.

Perhaps Rex Kickass or maybe Kip can help out with the French translation. . .

Now that I'm starting to dig, there were rumblings of something strange about Falujah 2 as far back as January. This is from Dahr Jamail, one of the embedded journalists at the time: Here's the whole piece. Andf these excerpts are from the blog Non Sum Dingus. That description sure sounds like the pictures Kip posted. The plausible deniability here is going to be that the Willy Pete was used to illuminate the battlefield and some of it just happened to inflict casualties. The only real counter to this is to press the question of why the soldiers were trying to hide evidence of its use, if in fact it turns out that was the case.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 04:18 PM) For those who have kids and have breastfed... Did your babies lose weight in the first few days before the moms milk came in? Madison lost 12 ounces, but there hasn't been any milk yet, only colostrum, which is normal. they want us to supliment, but she doesn't want nipple confusion. Any other stories out there? Yes, weight loss of as much as 10% of the birth weight is normal. The colostrum is good, fatty stuff and it keeps them going until the milk comes in. Nipple confusion is a very real thing, although IMO most often it's less confusion and more of a rejection by the baby of the breast for the bottle because it's a lot easier to fill a belly from the bottle. That said, a little bit of supplementation until Madison gets the hang of nursing from Mom is not going to be a problem. My wife had a hard time in the early going getting our firstborn to suckle. She obviously preferred the supplementation because it was easier to get out. We went to a lactation consultant that was part of the hospital care network and she was AMAZING at how she helped us. My wife nevver had a problem (other than soreness and chapping – lanolin is a must!) after that and botth our kids stuck with breastfeeding into their second year.

The words that will haunt Frist if it turns out he just demanded an investigation of GOP Senators: Well done, Bill.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 03:49 PM) There is at least a rumor going around that these prisons were discussed at a GOP meeting last week, and at least 1 GOP Senator (Lott) may have gone on TV and suggested it was a Republican who did the leaking, since the info was so close to what was discussed by the Republicanns last week. Bill Frist: Uhmm. . . about that investigation. . . nevermind?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2005 -> 01:39 PM) I LOVE the Mr Obvious show and the Love Brothers. I will have to admit that I have listen to B&T much in the last few years, and if the FCC is taking stuff off of the play list, the show could very well be suffering because of it. If that is true, it is a damned shame. Yeah, I can pretty much guarantee you'll never be able to get you Dickens Cider any more. There is a 2 CD Mr. Obvious compilation due out. When you get it, burn it for me.