February 22, 2005
Holy Shit!
The President, in his Party Boy days,
smoked weed.
I'm going to need to be alone for a while.
Posted by: Attila at
05:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No WAY! Who KNEW? Karl ROVE must have MADE him do it! WATEVER shall we do?
Posted by: RW at February 22, 2005 06:19 PM (GGtnr)
2
He never inhaled.
I bet it was more like a kid trying a cigarette. Couple puffs, then never again.
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2005 07:22 PM (HxpPK)
3
Teach, George aint that sort of fellow. No obfuscating for him. He smoked, he inhaled, he got the munchies.
Now he doesn't, and that makes all the difference. I can see a day when the President does smoke. Right about the time the Surgeon General releases a report saying that pot smoking causes cancer.
Pot smoking: Gives you cancer, but you don't care.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at February 23, 2005 06:54 AM (gy/JT)
4
That's it for me. No way I'm voting for him in '08.
Posted by: Kingslasher at February 24, 2005 09:53 AM (SOfML)
5
Back in the Day, everybody smoked - well a few dweebs didn't, so you can console yourself, your parents were never that cool....
Getting caught with smoke, was like getting a traffic ticket, several cities had basically decriminalized pot, and more were on the way.
But the government - not learning the lesson from the 1920's prohibition - decided prohibition was the way to go, and Nancy Reagan said, "Just Say No," and we got the War On Drugs - fantastic success it has been!
If look up some brand names, like Acapulco Gold, and Mexican Red, you will find that they are held - but not used - by various tobacco companies. They were getting ready for the day we realize "prohibition today, prohibition forever" probably won't work any better this time around.
And you really shouldn't be shocked, GW has always said that when he was ypung and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 24, 2005 04:22 PM (S417T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Andrew Cory
. . .
takes on the prospect of a Hillary candidacy in '08. Writing in Dean's World, he maintains that she won't run.
I think she will.
Posted by: Attila at
04:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I used to think that her run in '08 was innevitable, but I'm not so sure anymore. Granted, she certainly has the money, and the visibility to run for office, but I don't know if she has the political backing necessary to do it- not with Dean as head of the DNC.
Posted by: Dennis_Mahon at February 23, 2005 03:06 PM (xjx1K)
2
HRC will never get my vote. It's a trust thing, and I don't trust her.
Sure, she has said some more conservative things lately on immigration, but I am not convinced that she truly believes them.
Posted by: David R. Block at February 26, 2005 10:56 AM (qU2Gr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 08, 2005
It Wasn't Linda Lovelace?
CalTechGirl is making book on the
true identity of Deep Throat, which we are apparently about to find out.
I love a good mystery, and CTG has links to some of the juiciest speculation.
Unfortunately, we have the "unfair advantage" of knowing that one of the reasons we're about to find out is that DT is very ill right now, so that gives us another angle to look at. Almost ruins the puzzle. Almost.
Posted by: Attila at
02:39 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One of the theories being bandied about is that "Deep Throat" was George H. W. Bush. Apart from the fact that "41" hardly seems like the kind of guy who would know what "deep throat" means, we just saw him up and about on Sunday, looking healthy as could be.
So either the "Deep Throat is dying" rumors are bogus, or "41" wasn't him.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at February 08, 2005 03:54 PM (UAuME)
2
I'm not sure it sounds like H.W.'s style.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 09, 2005 09:40 AM (RjyQ5)
3
I'm still sticking with Ford, it was the only way he was going to be President. Seriously, he lost to Carter, how bad do you have to be to loose to Carter?
Posted by: the Pirate at February 09, 2005 10:29 AM (SksyN)
Posted by: Donna at February 09, 2005 11:07 PM (0yEW+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 03, 2005
But Seriously . . .
Can't we handle this in a different way? In this day and age, it seems profoundly unwise to plan an event that places, in one building:
The President of the United States;
His entire cabinet;
The Vice President, and the Speaker of the House.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff;
The entire Supreme Court
and both chambers of the legislature.
All it would take would be one very successful strike, and AQ could knock out our government more effectively than they planned to do on 9/11.
There would be no one left to rebuild the rest: we'd have to elect new everything from scratch. It makes no sense. It's unwise.
Posted by: Attila at
02:11 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.
1
By law, or perhaps custom, there is always someone in the official line of succession out of town during events like the SOTU. I know that doesn't seem like much but it's enough to keep a command structure intact.
In the case of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for instance, their deputies are always someplace else.
A successful attack would be messy, the human cost great, but ours is a government of laws, men and women can be replaced. The military wouldn't miss a beat, the Governors of the various States would appoint replacement Senators, the Deputy Secretaries would serve in their Cabinet positions pending confirmation by the new Senate and, within just a few months a new House would be elected. The first order of business would be to appoint a new Supreme Court.
Nor would a successful attack on the Capitol during the SOTU be easy, Security leading up to, during, and after such events is tighter than a gnat's ass, from guys and dogs looking for bombs to armed fighters overhead. The danger isn't during the SOTU, it's during an ordinary Wednesday when both Congress and the Court are in session and the President at his desk. A small nuke would get them all.
Posted by: Peter at February 03, 2005 06:30 AM (ywZa8)
2
Peter's right -- there's always a Cabinet member who isn't in the chambers during a SOTU. Normally the newsies on TV remark on this and identify who's not present.
Posted by: McGehee at February 03, 2005 07:56 AM (S504z)
3
I'm no evil mastermind, but I consider myself to be a fairly smart guy. I cannot conceive of how a large-scale attack on our capital could be carried out on "State of the Union" night. The District is studdied with anti-aircraft missile batteries, and there's a full-time CAP. Vehicle and foot traffic can't get anywhere near the Capitol. So in order to carry out an attack, the bad guys would have to get their hands on a
strategic nuclear weapon — in the hundred-kiloton range — and somehow smuggle it into the country. A weapon that size shines like a spotlight in neutron and gamma radiation, and would be detected from miles away by the folks who are responsible for looking for such things.
Unless we're talking about a James-Bond-style scheme involving burrowing under the Capitol with a tunnel-boring machine from southern Maryland, I just can't imagine how the Bad Guys could get a weapon capable of killing everybody in the building into a position where they could use it.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at February 03, 2005 10:14 AM (UAuME)
4
All the above are correct, but I worry that the trigger would be pulled too late. I don't want to hear stories about planes violating DC air space as we do now. I want to hear stories about planes being shot down inside DC air space. Then I'll worry less about attacks during the SOTU or on any given Wednesday. Harsh...sure...but that's the game were playing now.
Posted by: Don at February 03, 2005 11:49 AM (FsGoB)
5
Read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (the end) and Executive Orders (the whole book).
If we had a President and state governors, we could reconstitute the Supreme Court, cabinet and Senate. However, we'd have to wait until the next scheduled General election (November of an even year) to reconstitute the House. That would be a mess - we couldn't even pass a bill to pay for fighting whoever did it.
I would assume that in such a case, the states would call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to allow a special election for the House (and probably the Senate). However, that opens up the whole "lots of other amendments" can or worms.
We really need to pass an amendment to handle the case of a significant portion of the House being unable to serve.
p.s. I think I'm in love with your site logo. :-)
Posted by: Mark at February 03, 2005 12:24 PM (LeJtm)
6
1) I'm well aware that one cabinet minister sits the SOTU out. But I don't see how the Transportation Secretary or whatever would be capable of pulling a whole new government out of his/her hat.
2) Let's remember that if things had gone per plan on 9/11, both the White House and the Capitol would have been hit. We missed dealing with the "many dead ligislators" problem because flight 93 was delayed, and taken out of the game by its own passengers. We missed having a damaged White House (and maybe even a dead VP/First Lady) because the White House is harder to spot from the air than AQ anticipated, and the hijackers had to settle for the Pentagon, which is easy to recognize.
3) My understanding is that Mark is correct, and we don't have a mechanism in place for replacing legislators in a timely fashion after a disaster. We need to fix this in any event.
4) The fact that "life would go on" after the government got decapitated doesn't mean that it's a hot idea to do things this way. Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court and probably the cabinet should have been elsewhere last night.
This is not an arena wherein we can afford another "failure of imagination."
We're supposed to be Americans: more interested in what's practical than pomp and circumstance. Some of these people should be watching the event on video monitors.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 03, 2005 01:08 PM (RjyQ5)
7
Shoot, don't worry.
Cheney is an android. Clinton is bulletproof. Pelosi became one of the undead decades ago. I think President Bush might be Spiderman in an alter ego, and so his Spidey-sense would save him.
We'd have enough govt no matter what happened.
Posted by: Nathan at February 03, 2005 07:31 PM (HIQoA)
8
They might knock out most of the federal government, but you still have 50 functioning state governments. I would expect the governors of Maryland and Virginia to step in with immediate disaster relief to DC. I would expect some rapid, if temporary, devolution of power to the states, until a new national government could be set up. Our system is quite resilient, and I'm sure such a scenario has a contingency plan dating back to the Cold War.
Posted by: JohnL at February 04, 2005 09:02 AM (Hs4rn)
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 04, 2005 09:43 AM (RjyQ5)
10
Look, congresscritters die all the time, there are 535 of them and a bunch of them are old farts, heck, some even older than me. If a Senator drops dead, the Governor of the State appoints someone to fill out the rest of the term.
If it's a representative that keels over, well that's another story. If there is only a short time until the next election, nobody worries too much, it's custom that a Representative from the other Party will sit out a controversial vote, much like they do when they are going to be out of town. It's called 'paired voting' and is as old as the House of Representatives.
If more than a couple=three months is left on the two year term, a special election is called.
If the whole House, or a substantial part of it were wiped out, say by a bad bunch of Gin in the cloakrooms or a bomb or virus-covered money, then there would be a special election.
The wheels wouldn't stop turning, by the time that bugetary problems showed up we'd have a whole new crowd of congresscritters.
Our system is a lot more resiliant than you seem to realise.
Posted by: Peter at February 05, 2005 12:13 AM (ywZa8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
For Some Reason
John Kerry didn't seem to be in the greatest mood. Wonder why.
Posted by: Attila at
01:50 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Reasons why Kerry didn't look too happy:
1) Teresa suspended his allowance
2) He lost his CIA hat
3) Mary Cheney has a book contract
4) He was tuckered out from not overhyping
Shaking Spears
Posted by: Spear Shaker at February 04, 2005 01:57 PM (dKtkS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dick Cheney
. . . really hates this shit. I think that to him the public part of his job is the most burdensome. He's like a mirror-image of the average VP: he is an actual advisor and helper to the President, but he dispises the ceremonial aspect of his job.
He's not just the classic VP who sits around and waits for the President to die.
Posted by: Attila at
01:46 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
yeah. i think you're exactly right. i'd never really connected it all before though...why he seems so uncomfortable with the BS. the mirror image! very good! kudos to you...
Posted by: koley at February 03, 2005 07:17 AM (t9HRc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It Must Be Admitted
. . . that the boy has learned to speak in public. He kept that smirk on a short leash, and almost never stumbled over his words.
And he dug it when people yelled "no" while he made assertions about Social Security; he couldn't hide that. He likes conflict. He enjoys this process because he's pretty sure he's going to win the fight.
For an illiterate business major, he has big brass balls; they've got to clank when he walks.
And if you have any sympathy for his goals, it's hard not to like him.
Okay. I'm going to forgive the O'Shaughnessy incident. Let's never speak of it again.
Posted by: Attila at
01:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Clank!
Swagger...
Clank!
Swagger...
Heh heh!
It wasn't on that short of a leash. I think he should just give it up and wear his ten-gallon hat and a pair of sidearms to things like this. 1) it would tick off the left, 2) the rest of the world would doubtless get the message.
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 03, 2005 03:10 PM (0DDAz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Okay. I'm Over It.
I mean, this is what you get when you vote a business major in as President of the United States. Mangled references from famous poems.
I'm all better now, really.
Where the fuck, by the way, were his speechwriters? Did none of them major in English?
Where were the fact-checkers? Drunk again?
Anyone in the West Wing have a bookcase in their office?
I'll be fine, though, really.
Posted by: Attila at
01:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
FDR Didn't Write This Poem
Ode
We are the music-makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
With wonderful deathless ditties
We build up the world's great cities
And out of a fabulous story
We fashion an empire's glory:
One man, with a dream, at pleasure,
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;
And three with a new song's measure
Can trample an empire down.
We in the ages lying
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself with our mirth;
And o'erthrew them with prophesying
To the old of the new world's worth;
For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.
—Arthur O'Shaughnessy
(who was not Franklin Roosevelt at any time)
I guess it's too late to take my vote back, huh?
Posted by: Attila at
01:16 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
1
IRAQ: WELCOME GENERATION-CHOICEMAKER
The HUMAN PARADIGM - Intro
Consider:
The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.
See the complete article at Homesite:
"Human Defined: Earth's Choicemaker"
http://www.choicemaker.net/
An American Choicemaker
Psalm 25:12
Posted by: an American Choicemaker at February 03, 2005 04:47 PM (u5doH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
49kb generated in CPU 0.0346, elapsed 0.2016 seconds.
214 queries taking 0.1857 seconds, 482 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.