August 23, 2005
It's not you, it's me. Yes, my server was down.
Sorry about The Jawa Report being down today. Something happened to the mu.nu server that knocked all of us down. It looks like it is working now. We are still having trackback and commenting problems. Hopefully, those will be resolved soon.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:40 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Glad to hear it. I thought you had a D.O.S. attack.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 04:26 PM (03F0I)
2
We did have a D.O.S. attack... Just a little one, fortunately. If it hadn't been for the spam flood coming in at the same time, we'd have been fine.
Comments are working now, by the way.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 23, 2005 05:44 PM (ymzzr)
3
Still bloody slow though.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 23, 2005 05:47 PM (ymzzr)
4
Aye Carumba! Slow is better than nothing ;-)
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 06:01 PM (JQjhA)
5
See what IP addresses generated the DOS. Maybe we can retaliate. Nothing meand of course.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 06:33 PM (03F0I)
6
Well, the only thing I noticed was that I couldn't seem to edit some misspellings in my comments. Other than that, it seemed fine. Of course, I generally just use the text feed rather than the html browser page, which probably takes a lot less bandwidth.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 23, 2005 07:06 PM (EGrxk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Transcript of Cindy Sheehan's anti-American moonbattery: bin Laden not behind 9/11, US Using Nuke Weapons in Iraq

Here are the transcropts of Cindy Sheehan's speech at a pro-Lynne Stewart rally at San Francisco State University earlier this year. Lynne Stewart, it should be remembered, was convicted of aiding her terrorist client Omar Abdel-Rahman pass communications out of his prison cell. You've probably seen some of these quotes before, but like me, may not have read the entire speech. Included in her speech is Sheehan's notion that perhaps al Qaeda was not behind 9/11--by inference 9/11 was caused by Israel--and she repeats the Leftist lie propogated by Giuliana Sgrena and the Arab media that the U.S. is using nuclear weapons in Iraq.
The last two comments by Sheehan put her in the extreme outer reaches of sanity. Not only are they totally outrageous, they are also seditious. If a neocon conspiracy was really behind 9/11 and if the U.S. was really dropping nuclear weapons on Iraqi civilians then Sheehan would be right and it would not only be immoral to support the war but it would be immoral not to actively fight U.S. troops.
Shawn from Bareknucklepolitics sent me this a few days ago but I didn't have time to post on it. When Rob from Say Anything posted on it yesterday, I figured I had better share it with you.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
09:06 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1457 words, total size 10 kb.
1
These people are sick.
And foul-mouthed.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 23, 2005 09:56 AM (x+5JB)
Posted by: Howie at August 23, 2005 10:11 AM (D3+20)
3
Sick and foul indeed, but always remember, we must not question Saint Mother Sheehan. She has "absolute moral authority," y'know.
Posted by: Ryne at August 23, 2005 10:20 AM (8XEXf)
4
I'm encouraging my readers to show up at "peace" rallies with an "I'm With Stupid" sign and send me photos.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 23, 2005 10:27 AM (RHG+K)
5
Rusty,
Am trying to trackback to this blog and run into a permissions problem when trying "to access /cgi/mt-tb.cgi on this server."
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 23, 2005 04:29 PM (EPxYG)
6
I'm pretty certain that when she talks about the "nuclear weapons" we are using, she means depleted Uranium shels and armor. The left seems to have a "thing" about depleted Uranium.
Posted by: Anachronda at August 23, 2005 05:50 PM (xGZ+b)
7
We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
Posted by: Bill Dautrieve at August 23, 2005 06:58 PM (5VTJ3)
8
Anachronda,
Follow the link to the Sgrena story. She was actually talking about tactical nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 06:59 PM (JQjhA)
9
The stupid hen gose out and starts her stupid clucking and the usial reptiles at these wretched schools let her is why dont she have a flat tire on her rainbow microbus while on her way to another big cluck in
Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 07:37 PM (Suq7y)
10
If this woman showed a modicum of civility or said one intelligent thing the media would ignore her. This woman can't understand the difference between the military in Iraq trying to give tens of millions the "chance" at self determination and Syria in Lebanon trying to take it away. This woman can't understand why saying "my son enlisted voluntarily so you should force yours to do the same" is, well, stupid.
It's all the same to her. She's lost her moral compass.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:22 PM (YudAC)
11
I'm listening to Rush right now, as I do every day, and as I type there is a caller who is a self-described liberal who is anti-Cindy. I hear about two calls a day like this. I think she's one of Rove's minions, like the flying monkeys, because every time she opens her mouth she only alienates people, including hardcore liberals, from the dhimmicratic party.
Cindy Sheehan, Michael Mooron, Screamin' Howard Dean, (What happened to him anyway? He's been quiet lately), et al, only help the conservative cause every time they speak. This, friends, is why freedom of speech is so beautiful; it can be fashioned into a rope by which idiots may hang themselves.
I think there are a lot of social liberals out there who are fairly patriotic, and are generally politically conservative, i.e. gay people who hate big government, like my neighbors, and these people are the ones who have always voted dhimmicratic, but are being alienated by the antics of the moonbats. Let us welcome them with open arms, because we can argue until the sky falls about gay marriage and health care, but fanatics want to kill us all, and that's what matters.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)
12
While I can't say for certain that Sheehan is talking about depleted Uranium rather than actual, real nuclear weapons, the Sgrena story:
other bodies found last year after the fierce battle at Baghdad airport were also completely charred and some thought of nuclear bombs.
does not sound to me like Sgrena is accusing the US of using nuclear weapons, but just saying that the sort of damage made her think of nuclear weapons. Kind of like sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc. make some people think of Nazis.
Posted by: Anachronda at August 24, 2005 04:39 PM (xGZ+b)
13
The silly bitch is having the time of her life. No one ever payed any attention to her before. Shame on the bitch. Using her son's death to get her 15 minutes of fame. I actually believe she is glad it happened. I never see her without that stupid see me grin on her face.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 09:01 PM (CBNGy)
14
Cindy Sheehan is the perfect pro-war tool. So pathetic that most "fencesitters", as I think you call people who don't give a shit, should fall over to the fascist imperialist bushian war cult side. (where's Greg and where have all the Babers gone?)
Posted by: A Finn at August 25, 2005 04:42 AM (cWMi4)
15
I think Cindy Sheehan is hot. I'm glad her husband is out of the picture so I can make my move.
Posted by: Dale Gribble at August 27, 2005 09:00 PM (/7m7/)
16
Excellent point about censorship during WWII. History will eventually prove that this war was a good one. It sickens me that the loonies actively weaken their country just for the sake of politics.
Cindy Sheehan is going to hell and will never see her son again.
Posted by: AndrewL at August 28, 2005 03:16 PM (ZIuF5)
17
She's a traitor to this country. But I'm sure she doesn't care since 'it's not worth dying for'.
Posted by: Rick at August 29, 2005 04:20 PM (P0QjO)
18
This war was/is illegal. Everyone should be protesting. Support our troops and bring them home.
Stop listening to Rush, he LIES. He believes that torture of innocent locals, picked up by warlords for a bounty, is a good thing.
I guess we should have listened to Pat Robertson...
Posted by: john at August 30, 2005 01:17 PM (1C/hM)
19
Copperheads strike again.
(For those of you who don't know your history, Copperheads were the title of Democrats who sympathised with the South, and didn't want to go to war. If only we had followed Lincolns lead and suspended Habeas Corpus on Sheehan!)
Posted by: Jacob at September 24, 2005 12:06 AM (fgNi7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Quote of the Year
Update: Ernie has the video!
Brutally Honest has provided us with the greatest movie quote ever. It's from a 1940 film called "The Ghost Breakers."
Geoff: "When a person dies and is buried, it seems there's certain voodoo priests who have the power to bring him back to life. "
Mary: "How horrible. "
Geoff: "It's worse than horrible because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes, walking around with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring. "
Larry: "You mean like democrats?"
Click on over to his place for the sound clip.
Posted by: Drew at
08:52 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
1
ahah definetly best quote ever!
Posted by: KrilliX at August 23, 2005 09:12 AM (cgkNn)
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 09:23 AM (JQjhA)
3
Oh sweet fancy Moses that was funny, and all the moreso because it's so true. God I hate liberals.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2005 04:32 PM (0yYS2)
4
For those of you who prefer QuickTime, that version is over at
BMEWS!
Posted by: Macker at August 24, 2005 08:13 PM (2GH66)
5
Bob Hope, one of Hollywood's better known Republicans, made cracks about Democrats in several of his movies. There's another movie (can't remember the name)in which Bob is hiding behind a desk listening to some masked terrorists of vaguely european extraction preaching blood and thunder, and he whispers to himself, "Democrats!" The one from Ghost Breakers is probably the funniest of the lot.
Posted by: D. Carter at August 24, 2005 09:26 PM (xT77+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Stop the ACLU Rummage Sale
Stop the ACLU has been doing a bang up job keeping an eye out on an organization that puts simplistic fifth grade truisms taught at American law-schools above national security. That's not all they do, though, for instance, check out Jay's post on
a new series of Abu Ghraib photos soon to be released. It's like the American media want to help Abu Musab al-Zarqawi recruit some more head chopping jihadis!
Stop the ACLU is trying to raise money to buy ad space in the Washington Times. They need $2,500 to buy a full page ad. To donate, go here.
If you don't have any spare cash, maybe you can help with an online rummage sale to be held on e-Bay on their behalf? Contact Zaphriel from Conservative Birth at Zaphriel@gmail.com if you have items you are willing to donate.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:25 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Jay at August 23, 2005 08:36 AM (2FcUc)
2
The infamous Atheists,Communist and Lawyers Underground the answer for the evil weathermen underground
Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 07:48 PM (Suq7y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pat Robertson Goes Over the Edge, Calls for Political Assassination
Pat Robertson has lost it. We all knew the day was coming, but it has finally arrived. The longtime leader of The 700 Club has publically called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.
“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”
Yes, Chavez needs to be stopped. Yes, if we do anything short of waiting him out it will probably have to involve armed conflict. But someone who considers himself to be a major spiritual leader in this country does not need to be calling for the assassination of ANYONE, not even a third world despot. Christians in the United States (and the world) have enough trouble being taken seriously without nutcases like this attaching themselves. Heck, we're still trying to disassociate Christianity as a whole from the Spanish Inquisition and the KKK. We don't need any more help from the likes of Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Drew at
07:37 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree. Some things are better left unsaid.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 23, 2005 08:04 AM (x+5JB)
2
This blog is loading MUCH faster. Thanx for the extra work.
Pat Robertson is such a dipstick. This is just further confirmation.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:10 AM (fl6E1)
3
Wow, Ya know, you or I could say that and get away with it, but Pat Robertson?
I don't think so.
Posted by: elliott at August 23, 2005 08:20 AM (XlQVK)
4
I rarely agree with Pat. Okay, never that I can remember, but this time, he's right, but he left a few names off the list.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2005 04:34 PM (0yYS2)
5
Remember it was that idiot carter that banned assaination tyranical eaders then he meet with castro why should not only include cheves but castro as well
Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 07:51 PM (Suq7y)
6
I am the only non Christian KKK member I know of. So let's leave the Honorable Knights of the Klan out of this.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 09:09 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Here's one I don't understand
I recently got an email from
AFA. This is normal as I tend to get them once a week or so asking me to pledge support to this cause or another. Most of the time I just ignore them because I simply don't have time to respond to every call to arms that comes down the pipeline. But this one had me taking a second look.
Your help is needed to stop pornographers from having their own Internet domain.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is studying the possibility of giving the pornography industry their own domain. ICANN would ask the pornographers to voluntarily move to the new triple X domain which would contain nothing but pornography. There would be no law to force them to the new triple X domain. ICANN would depend on the good character and integrity of the pornographers to be considerate of others, including our children!!!
In addition to having the triple X domain, the pornographers could (and would) continue sending out billions of pornographic images on every other domain. As bad as pornography is on the Internet now, it would be infinitely worse with the triple X domain. The establishment of a triple X domain would give legitimacy to the pornographers.
I'm not arguing for or against porn on the internet. It's there, it's going to be there no matter what I do or think. But I do think that it needs to be regulated just as adult book stores are. If you can't prove how old you are, you can't get in. Yes, I realize that the prospect of proving your age across the internet poses its own unique set of problems. But that doesn't mean that it should be abandoned.
But that's not the point of my post. My point is actually a question. What the heck is the AFA thinking? Seriously, what are they objecting to? Allowing someone to run a pornographic web site no more legitimizes it than allowing someone to run an adult book store. Last time I checked, they're pretty much free to run whatever type of business they like (within the bounds of conventional law). Heck, I'm all for the creation of a ".xxx" domain. It would make my life SO much easier. When I configure firewalls and content filters, I'd know exactly what to block. Yes, I know, there's nothing forcing pornographers to use the domain name. But there would be a number of them who would use it. And those would just make dealing with the whole thing so much easier.
All in all, I just can't seem to get worked up about this one and instead of support, I think I'll be sending the AFA a big WTF?
Posted by: Drew at
07:26 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.
1
You know, I thought it was a good idea too. It would make it easier for parents to filter them out. But, as was said, it is only voluntary. So you're right. If it's porn, they must be regulated and must be .xxx. What's the big deal?
Unless I'm missing something.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:14 AM (fl6E1)
2
I foresee a potential problem with defining what should or shouldn't be classified. The Supreme Court even bowed out of defining what is or isn't pornographic, leaving it to "community standards." As such, if a prudish evaluator assigns the .xxx designation as opposed to a more liberal observer, quite possibly some sites will be unfairly designated.
Just from a practical standpoint, it seems that a whole host of problems will be created by giving one group of people the power to determine what's porn and what's not.
Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2005 08:47 AM (ywZa8)
3
Here's a hint: www.midgetfarm.com is not a virtual petting zoo for the vertically challenged, though there are animals involved. Very involved.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2005 04:38 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:30 PM (YudAC)
5
Only way to move all porn under the .xxx is to remove the entire world wide web, and replace it with a new overmonitored and controlled one no-one likes due to predictability and surveillance.
Posted by: A Finn at August 25, 2005 05:02 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I've Decided We Need An Exit Date
We need to establish an absolute exit date for leaving Iraq in order to resolve any uncertaintly that might be lurking in the minds of the "insurgents" and Americans, like Chuck Hagel, fretting over whether to learn the Iraqi dialect of Islam or stick with the classical Q'oranic dialect. So I propose that if things aren't getting better by, say... Jan. 1, 3001 we get the heck out. I know it's something of a concession to the moonbats, and it's giving the enemy far more information than we ought to, but it's time we made up our minds that we just can't stay there forever. And we also ought to tell the jihadis, just for the sake of clarity, that their alternative to surrender is to go the
way of the Thugs.
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:28 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hmmm... an exit date, eh?
Time taken to get every last terrorist in Iraq:
(terrorist estimate) / (amount of soldiers in millions) = (days)
so 273 years, therefore exit date is 23rd of August in the year 2278.
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 03:39 AM (cWMi4)
2
Oh yeah, someone not me gets prosecuted (well, at least a fundamentalist district attourney or whatever is trying to prosecute) for breaking the freedom of religion by constantly mocking believers on a churches web site. XD
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 04:16 AM (cWMi4)
3
A link to info, which you won't understand due to it being in Finnish:
www.kvaak.fi/keskustelu/index.php?topic=4017.msg65070
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)
4
If my memory serves me right, Rustys father-in-law could probably translate =P
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 04:22 AM (cWMi4)
5
3001! What's the rush? My grandmother alwasy said (among many other things) "Haste makes waste!"
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 06:55 AM (03F0I)
6
While 3001 is a hilarious first answer, I think that to take the moonbats out of play the answer given by Bush et al should be thus:
"Six months after the last act of terrorism in Iraq we will start to draw down the troops. One year after the last terrorist act in Iraq we will bring all the troops home."
It gets the point across that we need to stay the course, yet it does not _appear_ to be the open-ended-until-0eternity date that the American public is hearing constantly.
Posted by: Steve at August 23, 2005 08:37 AM (1JPcp)
7
What makes you think that the Millitary and the President don't already have an exit date? Just because it has'nt been made public, does'nt mean it has'nt been part of logistal and strategic planning...just as hunting and killing folks on the hit list is a planned indeavor, so too would be the enventual pull-out of troops...I dissagree whole heartedly that this date need be made public...it does no-one any good whatsoever, and in fact creates nothing but negative-contradictive signals all the way down to the troop level (even though they are the most deserving to know when the job is done), and would ripple outward into the international political world...it's not a gesture of strength, but rather capitulation.
Posted by: Grim at August 23, 2005 10:19 AM (ywZa8)
8
How about we leave about the time that Baghdad has more strip joints than mosques?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2005 04:39 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2005
Egyptians Sweep Sinai for Terrorists
With adequate evidence that the Sinai Peninsula is a hotbed for terrorists, several thousand Egyptian police supported with armored vehicles were mobilized yesterday to
search and apprehend perpetrators and anyone with information. The sweep started in the towns of El-Arish and Sheikh Zuayed and a total of about 500 individuals were detained for questioning. El-Arish has been identified as an explosives smuggling center.
In addition to the towns, security forces fanned out on the desert in the operation which is expected to take several days. The manhunt has been called open-ended, whatever that means. Hopefully, it means that they will continue searching and apprehending terrorists until there are none residing anywhere outside the comfy walls of Egyptian prisons.
Companion at I-P.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
09:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
Navy Officer Affirms Assertions About Pre-9/11 Data on Atta
A second officer has come forward to cooberate Lt. Col. Shaffer's story concerning Able Danger and the indentification of Atta.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 - An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command.
"Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
The Pentagon better come up with something a bit more in keeping with the accumulating evidence.
Posted by: Traderrob at
06:44 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It's quite possible the paperwork is still in Sandy Berger's pants, or socks, or underwear. Get's funnier by the day.
Who is covering for who -- that is the question.
Posted by: bill at August 22, 2005 07:08 PM (7evkT)
2
We have to stand behind these guys who are risking their careers so that the TRUTH can come out!
These politics of hiding behind the classifications has to stop when it is an issue as important as this!
Not only must we find out more about Able-Danger, we must also track down WHAT happened to the documents pertaining to it!
Posted by: Perlguy at August 23, 2005 07:03 AM (jP9xk)
3
Now that the libs have lionized whistleblowers, watch them try to downplay the role to the best of their ability. Or at least try to deflect blame of bad policy from every previous administration. How many times have they pulled the August 6th (2001) memo back out of the dustbin in the past couple weeks in their first attempts?
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 07:28 AM (YudAC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
11 Pakistani Hostages Freed in Iraq
As hostage taking becomes more and more unpopular as a propaganda tool, news of hostages being released in Iraq becomes more frequent. I hadn't heard that these Pakistanis had been taken hostage last week, but I am glad to hear that they have been freed. Other news reports indicate that the three Egyptians and two Indians, kidnapped with the Pakistanis, have also been freed.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:10 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You want me to applaud because they are freeing muslims? No thanks.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 06:09 PM (CBNGy)
2
*applause* Well done, al-?????, well done, way to go. Now could you free the minds of your followers so they can get back to farming opium, riding camels and drilling oil?
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 03:45 AM (cWMi4)
3
Are they being freed because the ransoms are being paid? I find it hard to believe they had a change of heart and just let them go.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:16 AM (fl6E1)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 09:13 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bomb Attack on Christians in Beirut
Another bomb goes off in Beirut targetting Christians. I'm sure that the Iranian backed Hezbollah, which runs its own TV station in Beirut, had nothing to do with it.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
1
See above comments on freeing muslims.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 06:11 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Breaking: Agreement (NOT) Reached Over Iraqi Constitution (UPDATED)
UPDATE: Looks like a false alarm. While we should applaud the Kurdish and Shiite representatives for looking to find consensus with the Sunni minority, but at some point you just have to move on.
Bloomberg:
Iraq's lawmakers agreed on a draft constitution and will use three more days to consider amendments in an attempt to resolve differences among Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, the parliament speaker said in an Iraqi state television broadcast.
``We received the draft of the constitution,'' Iraqi National Assembly President Hachim al-Hasani said within 10 minutes of a midnight deadline in Baghdad to submit the constitution to lawmakers. ``But there are some points that are still outstanding and need to be addressed in the next three days.''
---------
Omar at
Iraq the Model report this insider scoop:
National Assembly member Bahaa Al-Aaraji just told Al-Iraqia TV that an agreement has finally been reached among the leaders of political bodies on the final draft of the constitution and that disputes over issues like federalism, distribution of resources and the role of Islam have been solved.
Via
Glenn Reynolds
MSM now confirming:
``We have assurances that leaders have agreed on nearly all items,'' Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's spokesman, Laith Kubba, said in a telephone interview today from the capital, Baghdad. ``Substantial progress has been made.''
Al Jazeera:
Iraqi Shia and Kurdish negotiators say they have agreed on a draft constitution after weeks of talks and are to present it to parliament regardless of whether the minority Sunnis agree.
Omar adds in this update on the role of Sharia:
it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued.
But since a widely agreed upon value of Islam is that Muslims are forbidden from converting to another faith and a fundamental human right is freedom of faith, how can the two coexist?
Posted by: Rusty at
04:31 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 09:15 PM (CBNGy)
2
The Sunni's will not ratify the constitution by vote in predominately Sunni areas. Chaos is their bag. That is why they are secretly and not so secretly supporting the insurgents and foreign terrorist dogs.
The only way the country can move ahead is ignore the Sunnis. What is wrong with the Shites ruling the country? The Sunnis did it for 30 years. Someone else's turn.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 09:20 PM (qxfuv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Malkin Knocks Instapundit From Top of Ecosystem!
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day that
Glenn Reynolds would be #2 on the TTLB Ecosystem. I was hoping to knock Glenn off his #1 high-horse, or if not me then
IMAO or one of Frank J's minions at
The Alliance, but at least it wasn't Kos--
anybody but Kos.
In related hell-freezes-over news, The Jawa Report is now #27 in the TTLB Ecosystem. We've broken Mortal Human status in the past for a day or so before quickly falling to our much more deserved Playful Primate status--like Laurence Simon, we've always thought this blog was full of crap. This time, though, we've managed to stay up there with the big boys for a couple of weeks, and it doesn't seem to be a glitch.
So, watch your back Michelle Malkin, here I come. Only 4363 links to go!
Oh, and here's a suggestion for The Alliance.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
03:34 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
When I go back below 100, can I have my kitty back?
Posted by: Laurence Simon at August 22, 2005 03:55 PM (uBCxH)
2
Dude,
The best thing that ever happened to your blog was your cat dying. Wait, did I say that out loud?
Posted by: Rusty at August 22, 2005 04:31 PM (JQjhA)
3
You mean all I have to do is sacrifice a cat? The damned goat's blood wasn't working.
Posted by: Flea at August 22, 2005 05:19 PM (6vEHe)
4
I may just turn that into a staged photo. Shiva's over, time for levity.
What makes good cat poison these days?
Posted by: Laurence Simon at August 22, 2005 06:44 PM (Y6hbo)
5
Congrats on your status!
Posted by: Jay at August 22, 2005 06:58 PM (BKqRl)
6
You're welcome.
Notice this has happened since I cut back on my posting here.
No applause, just send money.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at August 22, 2005 10:28 PM (Kr6/f)
7
Malkin looks confusing...
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 03:50 AM (cWMi4)
8
She has done a great job the last 18 months. She should be #1. Rusty is good too but I think she spends a little more time looking for the stuff the MSM/DNC try to keep us from finding out. Minuteman Project and Air America come to mind straight away.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 23, 2005 05:08 AM (03F0I)
9
I think she's nifty-keeno.
Plus, she linked me after I gave her a gmail account. Unlike some people.
Posted by: spacemonkey at August 23, 2005 10:12 AM (DN55C)
10
First time here, congrats .. yes -- anyone but KOS (barf)
Posted by: Jo at August 23, 2005 10:33 AM (eY7Ar)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Does Starbucks Hate American Soldiers? (UPDATED)
Often we hear from those on the Left that
I disagree with the Iraq War but I do support our soldiers 110%. Here is an e-mail forwarded to me claiming Starbucks refuses to send coffee to our troops.
UPDATE: Thankfully, This turns out to be an urban myth. So if you get the e-mail posted below, do not pass it on.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
01:59 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've received this e-mail as well. It's a hoax. There's a little write-up on snopes about it.
Posted by: REMF at August 22, 2005 02:19 PM (xuZWQ)
2
Snopes has the skinny on this one:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/starbucks.asp
Posted by: Bodacious at August 22, 2005 02:20 PM (PRcGW)
3
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_starbucks_marines.htm
Posted by: packetninja at August 22, 2005 02:20 PM (1uomX)
4
According to Snopes.com, this email's been around for awhile, and the original writer has since retracted his statement:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/starbucks.asp
Posted by: Eman at August 22, 2005 02:20 PM (c/4ax)
5
Thanks. What do you think of the new comments? Pretty super-sweet, eh?
Posted by: Rusty at August 22, 2005 02:31 PM (JQjhA)
6
Hehe, looking good, but problems with comment thingies:
First this:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@blog.mu.nu and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Then this:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi/splorp.cgi on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
(+plus tech info on both, secrecy of which I'm unaware, so I'll cut it)
Occur at random and go away by refreshing the page and/or changing IP, but still...
Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 02:45 PM (lGolT)
7
A Finn, the MuNu Collective is getting pounded by Comment Spam. Fluffy, our guard dog, brings down the comments for a second to keep the spammers from getting to far. (Same type deal occurs on occasion with trackbacks.)
Posted by: phin at August 22, 2005 02:50 PM (Xvpen)
8
How about this:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /archives/2047 on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 03:01 PM (lGolT)
9
Darn... You'd think Scaleo could've made a more practical computer box but noooooooo, they had to put the air conditioning holes in the bottom of the box so all the dust gets in when the cooler is running. Comp buzzin' wierd again, gonna get it vacuumed (
warranty sealed, so I can't do it myself or no free spare parts and fixing) before the dust bursts in flames and ruins the hard drive again... so appearances become limited to between about 0 - 8 AM.
Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 03:42 PM (lGolT)
10
I work in Seattle, and live in the Burbs.
Some observations:
Most people who pay $5 for a cup of coffee are childless America haters.
Real men will never say “give me a Grande skinny decaff latte”. I mean, just say it in front of a mirror and tell me you don’t feel ……bad gay.
I once went into a Starbucks with a University of Kansas sweatshirt my brother in law gave me and the gay boys behind the counter were making mooing noises.
This coffee they sell is really mostly milk.
Most freaks that work there have pierced their heads.
I had 3 beers and a double Makers Mark with the owner of my company at lunch today.
Posted by: Brad at August 22, 2005 03:51 PM (3OPZt)
11
They had a Starbucks in Finland but closed it down. It seems the Finns could not pronounce the words “Tall” , “Vente” and “Grande”, so all the drink orders were all fucked up.
Posted by: Brad at August 22, 2005 04:01 PM (3OPZt)
12
Starbucks sucks! Even if they send coffee to the troops, they still suck. I went in a Starbucks one time and knew I was in the wrong place. It reminded me of a cafe I went to in LA many years ago.
Do you remember the bar scene in Star Wars? OK, now you get the picture. WIERD!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 22, 2005 04:45 PM (DDXXI)
13
Umm... [tool], [vinti], [rande]? Oh well, not needed anyway, Finns always drink either black or silver coffee, so [caputsiino]s and such don't sell well.
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 02:22 AM (cWMi4)
14
And it's not like we can't, we just won't pronounce them, since foreign words go by pronounciation of the Finnish language if they are said in Finland to Finns, which means they are said as they are written, and foreign soft letters we don't normally use turn into their harder versions in speech, like g=>k, b=>p, q=>ku, w=>v, z=>s/ts, x=>ks.
Posted by: A Finn at August 23, 2005 03:28 AM (cWMi4)
15
I figure I'm still in America. If I ask for a large coffee and the person behind the counter isn't sure what I mean, I'm outta there.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:25 AM (fl6E1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Jawa Report: Faster and Skinnable!!
Notice the new-new site? The Jawa Report should load 10x faster than it has been the last few weeks. The center column should adjust to fit your screen size and we've adjusted the font color. Further, the page is now skinnable. What this means is that if you don't like the white text on black background you can switch to a black text on light background.
Cool, eh?
Thanks to Bryan of METAGFX studios, and who blogs here, for coming up with the original kick ass design concept. Muchos gracias also to Phin of Apothegm designs, and who is also an A+ blogger here, for retooling the site so that it would run faster and for working out some of the original kinks. Last shout out to Gordon the Cranky Neocon for coming up with the new Jawa Mos Eisly logo and to Professor Chaos for finding that Thomas Mann quote.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:53 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is so much nicer! "The Jawa Report" font at the top fits much better.
Posted by: tyler at August 22, 2005 01:20 PM (Y9Lwb)
Posted by: Howie at August 22, 2005 01:21 PM (yC9sH)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 22, 2005 01:40 PM (x+5JB)
4
Much better
Posted by: REMF at August 22, 2005 01:54 PM (xuZWQ)
5
Will it still have the same crappy content?
I'm seriously, it's a million times better.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at August 22, 2005 03:26 PM (Bo+tE)
6
Ah, Movable Type, how I loathe thee.
Seriously though, it
is much faster, which I like. I just don't like the white background on the comments. I would much rather have it black like the rest of the page.
Posted by: IO ERROR at August 22, 2005 04:35 PM (HaVXj)
7
Rusty - kudos to your web design people; it looks *excellent!* I definitely like the adjustable width AND the skin choice.
Keep up the excellent work, and one day you, too, will be a Higher Being... Well, officially, at least!
;-)
-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat
Posted by: Romeocat at August 22, 2005 05:31 PM (4LkDo)
8
I have to say that i really like the new design. Loads faster and easier to read. Thumbs Up!
Posted by: Rick at August 22, 2005 06:45 PM (GAC+X)
9
Love the new design Rusty, fantastic!
Posted by: Tim at August 22, 2005 08:01 PM (SQGMu)
10
Looks great and doesn't barf when I load it in my RSS reader (JetBrains Omea Reader 2.0).
Are you going to enable full posts for RSS feeds? ...pretty please?
Posted by: Zuke at August 23, 2005 01:48 AM (bW04V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The "Art" of Bombmaking
An artist in Brooklyn has decided to create a rather explosive piece for a display at the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council right before September 11. And what is this "art" that he is creating? A
suitcase bomb. That's right, he is creating a fully functional suitcase bomb complete with remote detonation cell phone trigger.
Of course, it could be truly inert: Mr. Hackett’s bomb could be a conceptual hoax. On display, the suitcase, he said, will be open to afford a view of its workings; whether it is truly operational, as he claims, is something only he will know. It will probably not, as the artist joked, have “a big red ‘Do Not Push!’ button.”
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is the only thing that will keep him from getting arrested immediately. As it is, I still think the police should test it and if it's live, he should be locked up.
Posted by: Drew at
10:17 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If there is any text associated with the work it will be in all capital letters no doubt. The tells of the troll post never change.
Posted by: Charles at August 22, 2005 11:29 AM (lQ1Or)
2
Where is Ascroft? We need him back. Suitcase bomb building in NY. Can we grow some brains and balls on Alberto? Why has Bush become so close to the ACLU the last 9 months? Get the London cops and shoot the SOB! There have always been limits on "free speech".
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 22, 2005 12:57 PM (03F0I)
3
Perhaps there is a chance that the thing will really work and will blow the bastard up. Keep hope alive!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 22, 2005 01:33 PM (DDXXI)
4
God I hate these talentless hacks who call themselves artists. Adolph Hitler was an artist you know. Well, he painted watercolors, and not too bad either, but he didn't get into art school so he had a hissy and murdered millions of people. And he was a vegetarian. And a big mama's boy who hated his father. Typical liberal. But I digress. Can't someone in the Rotten Apple have this guy whacked?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 22, 2005 09:34 PM (0yYS2)
5
Good one, jesusland joe!
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:28 AM (fl6E1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
At least he's a persistant idiot
Paul Krugman has completely outdone himself. Last week, the moron wrote a story (it must be a story, there's no truth in it), claiming that Gore won the 2000 election. Several conservative bloggers took him to task for this ignorant statement which has been proven wrong again and again.
Today, he attempts to justify his lies by repeating them.
The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner.
Which is what happened regardless of what you wanted to happen.
The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin. (emphasis mine)
I won't call this an outright lie because he did say "probable." But that is the only reason it's not an outright lie and certainly not what he was claiming last week.
more...
Posted by: Drew at
08:27 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 986 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Re: the felon purging
A little known tidbit is that had the Democrats not insisted that race, age, or any other criteria NOT be used to determine whether they had the right person (they used the discrimination card to push this) the purging would have been more accurate.
Re: butterfly ballots
I've used those and those little chads pop right out. No problem.
If Krugman believes "There was an understandable urge to put the story behind us" then why is he trying to ressurect the anger?
Idiot is too kind a word.
Posted by: Oyster at August 22, 2005 08:55 AM (fl6E1)
2
Paul Krugman is a nothing more than a political hack for the far left. Call him a whore or a shill, as both apply. He saw the crazies down in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago and was inspired to do a story on the "stolen" 2000 election. And I do mean story(my mother would tear my butt up for telling such a whopper).
I assume he didn't grow up in Texas or he would know better than to lie like that. Must have grown up in a blue state where they teach that the ends always justify the means. We learned just the opposite down here in Texas(other than at Austin).
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 22, 2005 09:00 AM (DDXXI)
3
Don't forget, Bush would have received thousands of more votes from the panhandle had Dan Blather and other Liberals not called the election an hour before the voting booths were closed.
Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2005 09:41 AM (aIu8C)
4
The butterfly ballot was approved by a Democrat....
I thought this whole issue was ended during this last election when Bush crushed Kerry in Florida. Wasn't that suppossed to be a referendum of the 2000 results?
Posted by: Fred Fry at August 22, 2005 09:57 AM (JXdhy)
5
I thought this whole issue was ended during this last election when Bush crushed Kerry in Florida. Wasn't that suppossed to be a referendum of the 2000 results?
Certainly -- up until the moment Kerry lost.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 22, 2005 10:03 AM (1j9aH)
6
As Austin Bay says:
"Fire Paul Krugman and replace him with a real economist like Arnold Kling or Walter Williams. KrugmanÂ’s been predicting economic doom for four years. He needs to get a sign and walk the streets, not write a newspaper column."
Posted by: Don Miguel at August 22, 2005 05:06 PM (+KixN)
7
Krugman must a brain the size of a pea to blabber this he sounds like the rest of the idiots
Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 07:54 PM (Suq7y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Religion of Peace Update: Cindy Sheehan Gets Beheaded by Iraqi Minutemen edition
As Joan Baez pretends any one ever really cared about her music by reliving her glory days that never really were, remember the words made famous by The Red Hot Chili Peppers:
People
Keep on learnin'
Soldiers
Keep on warrin'
I'll do the teachin' part and let our brave soldiers to the warrin. Good hunting, and remember to pop a terrorist for me. It's the Religion of Peace update:
Tattoine:
Is the CIA finally taking Rusty Shackleford's recommendations to heart and shutting down al Qaeda press releases or have we just killed so many of Michael Moore's minutemen that there's no one left to man the keyboard? Al-Qaida's Network in Iraq Goes (Temporarily) Silent.
French Report: Iran will get nuke bomb soon.
40 more 'good' Taliban warriors--you know, dead. (via NIF)
Al Qaeda WMD attack against British Parliament foiled. (via ITB)
No Sharia in Iraq! Scroll to bottom of this post to find out how you can help.
Is Sean Penn finally getting it? Not likely, but interesting report any way. (via Talk Left)
Totten: Darfur is the Bosnia of our time. Wrong, Darfur is the Cambodia of our time.
Support for terrorism falling in Middle East (via The Puppy Blender)
Bryan of The Junk Yard Blog Michelle Malkin's blog does a first class fisking of some of the anti-Iraq-war arguments.
If you missed last night's Inside 9/11 on The National Geographic Channel you missed the best 9/11 report yet made. The Countterrorism blog's Steve Emerson was prominently featured and the 2 hour show held nothing back, including scathing criticism of the Clinton Administration.
British equvelant of CAIR blames JOOs for negative media images.
Domestic Dhimmis (featuring Cindy Sheehan):
Presbyterians can't help it if they're antisemites, they were predestined that way. (via Discarded Lies)
Was Michael Grahan fired because of pressure from CAIR or did he quit?
Dennis Kucinich not gay after all, get's married to Brit. Ok, not all the way gay at least.
Vietnam Vet who knows nothing about Vietnam--or Iraq.
Operation 'Word to your mother' (aka, 'You don't speak for me Cindy Sheehan') is on.
The L.A. Times runs a column by Patterico "Peacenick paper fawns over antiwar mom."
Sheehan's latest idiotic statement revealed: "This country is not worth dying for.”
More idiocy from Sheehan: "The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush."
Confused over which is lesser of two evils: McCain v. Clinton in '08.
Anti-dhimmitude from Newt Gingrich, a John Hawkins interview.
ACLU fighting to remove Bible from everywhere, replace with Quran.
The Great Raid reviewed: NY Times idiots don't realize that Japs worse than Nazis in treatment of POWs.
Funny:
Geek dressed as stormtrooper caught shoplifting (Via FARK)
Bloggers: Where are they now? (2040)
Welcome back Kotter, I mean Commissar.
Carnival of the RINO sightings is up. Check it out.
Happy Blogoversary Aaron.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:19 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Sorry, but I'm with the ACLU on the item posted above. As a Jew, I'd rather not swear on the New Testament. I can perfectly understand if a Muslim wishes to swear on a copy of the Koran. This is a case of simple religious tolerance and respect, not some creeping anti-christian bias.
The judge is genuinely in breach of the Establishment Clause.
Posted by: ericj at August 22, 2005 10:04 AM (hrQvk)
2
If the Dems go with Hillary it's a looser. They need new blood not the same old tired people they have now. Gingrich looks pretty good. I like him. I like McCain too. Already we have way better candidates. Even if ya don't like McCain he'll smoke Clinton. She's more of a turn off than Bill.
Posted by: Howie at August 22, 2005 11:29 AM (D3+20)
3
The last two chapters of a review of Weigel's book "The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics without God":
"In the book’s closing chapters, Weigel entertains a series of possible outcomes for Europe. The chances of the EU’s dream of a post-Christian perpetual peace are slim to none; Weigel more realistically predicts that Europe’s various muddles will persist into the foreseeable future. He finds hope for Continental renewal in the still active Catholicism of Central and Eastern European nations, and in a Continent-wide critical mass of energetic Catholic youth rejecting the wayward wobbles of recent generations for the deep reserves of Christian Europe. The darkest possible outcome, according to Weigel, would be “1683 Reversed”: the continued large-scale immigration into Europe of Muslims armed with very different ideas about religion and politics. If current trends continue, these immigrants would encounter a Continent equipped to welcome them with only self-inflicted cultural amnesia, watery pluralism, and mundane humanism. Passion for the crescent would overwhelm indifference to the Cross, and these new Europeans would take charge of a demographic and democratic wasteland.
This last matter suggests most immediately why Americans have a stake in Europe’s future: Though it would take decades for such a situation to develop, a Europe potentially defined from its leadership down by a broadly anti-Western Muslim majority would pose striking civilizational challenges to the U.S. Yet for all his concern and complaint, Weigel refuses to abandon Europe to itself, and he demands the same of his readers — specifically in how we understand our own historical formation. Though patriotic amnesiacs may resist him, Weigel emphasizes that the success of the American experiment owes a great deal to the influence of Old World civilization. While qualifications and refusals of this fact have been made from Emerson’s time through our own, The Cube and the Cathedral makes powerfully clear the self-destructive consequences of squandering one’s inheritance."
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 22, 2005 12:12 PM (x+5JB)
4
ericj, if you follow the link you will find nowhere that I am against people swearing on the Koran. A liar will lie on whatever book you put in front of them. I just simply think it is hypocritical they fight Christianity symbols in the Court rooms but push Islam.
Posted by: Jay at August 22, 2005 07:02 PM (BKqRl)
5
A muslim swearing on the koran that calls for the destruction of other religions. Good thinking Eric. All he needs is a fatwa from a bearded old uneducated goat herder saying its excusable.
Why use any book? What's the matter with I swear to tell the truth and I better not get caught lying?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 07:10 PM (OvTKg)
6
Eric: If you can side with the ACLU. I can side with the Palestinians. Occasionally the Palestinians make sense. The ACLU never does.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 07:13 PM (CBNGy)
7
Oh, that's rich. Swear on a book that clearly states that it's okay to lie to the infidel.
We're much better off simply saying we know if we get caught lying, then by the laws of this country, we're going to jail.
Posted by: Oyster at August 23, 2005 08:47 AM (fl6E1)
8
Yeah Joan Beaz listen to this dim-bulb and listen to this other dim-bulb sheenan blather blather blather cluck cluck cluck
Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 07:57 PM (Suq7y)
9
People
Keep on learnin'
Soldiers
Keep on Warrin'
Was in fact made famous by Stevie Wonder and then covered by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Not that I'm picking nits or anything.
Posted by: Dane Bramage at August 25, 2005 03:31 PM (5r7F+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 21, 2005
Brushstrokes in Mosul
Rusty wrote about something I neglected, because I wasn't sure how to frame the issue. I considered posting something using precisely
the same quote from Michael Yon that Dr. Shackleford used
here. While folks like Chuck Hagel suggest we're losing in Iraq, based on the train wreck of incompetent reporting and distorted information provided by MSM, genuinely astonishing things are happening that point to precisely the opposite conclusion. Does anyone understand how difficult a global war against stateless totalitarianism actually is? And does anyone appreciate the almost-miraculous fact that we're not just holding our own, but beating them at their own game one small victory at a time?
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
10:49 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Are you sure that's Picasso? Never ever ever seen it before, and it says "MOLIC" or something in the bottom... Anyways, look at it and start blur-zooming, at least I got some figures and images to emerge from it.
Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 03:05 AM (cWMi4)
2
That's Ma Joli. But, your point is well put.
Posted by: Hollywood Oyster at August 22, 2005 06:21 AM (YudAC)
3
You guys are impressively preceptive. Truth is, I couldn't find an online image of
Woman With Guitar, and I'm not sure I can even remember which of the paintings with that name that I actually saw. This is definitely more abstract than the one at San Simeon, but figured it was at least subtitled "Woman With Guitar."
There are a lot of paintings attributed to Picasso that he didn't actually paint. In order to support the local artists, and because he had a "flood the zone" marketing strategy for his work, he'd often sign paintings produced in his style by other artists as long as they were good.
I'll see if I can find an image of the painting I actually saw.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 22, 2005 10:19 AM (Pyv9s)
4
OK, I finally found an image of the correct painting, which was done in 1913. It makes the point even more starkly that Ma Jolie since the macro image is even flatter. A print conveys almost nothing of the power of the original. I suppose one could argue that I was just "seeing things" that weren't actually there, but I don't think so. I think the apocalyptic vision was quite intentional on his part. I mean, consider when it was painted.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 22, 2005 10:47 AM (A3C+f)
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 08:10 AM (JQjhA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
115kb generated in CPU 0.0489, elapsed 0.2334 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.2059 seconds, 408 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.