you need to watch harvey birdman, adult swim, cartoon network, if you want to see crummy old cartoon shows toasted to a golden brown most tastefully. currently being rerun at 1AM nightly.

boiled cabbage stench? hoo boy.

like other folks have noted, the bradley since its inception has been a death trap with armored patches on it. it started with the dubious decision to put a gun on an APC; in battle situations, APCs are not the primary targets armed vehicles are, so it became a way of putting soldiers into a target. then all the other tradeoffs; more armor meant making it slower. fancy lightweight armor either burned or gave off toxic fumes. and of course the gun had to have ammunitions stored inside with the soldiers. along with fuel.

a tribute to the power of the defense contractor over the military and national security.

oh, and it's not a tank because it doesn't have a turret.

is the rightwing's view of everything as a war to be fought and an enemy to be vanquished. whether it's the american righwing or the israeli rightwing (or it's equivalent in any arab country).

Folks at Princeton came up with the concept of "wedges"; one wedge equals a net reduction of one billion tons of carbon (not a billion tons of CO2) dumped into atmosphere by 2055, by any means. (draw a graph of total net carbon emissions vs time, it looks like a wedge, get it?) That turns out to be a useful size scale to discuss things; significant in results, requires a big but not impossible effort. For instance, reducing worldwide auto emissions by 50% is one wedge.

Anyway, when they came up with this in 2000 the world needed 7 wedges to keep below 450 ppm. Now we need 12 wedges, starting in 2007. Oops. Make that 14 wedges starting in 2010.

You begin to see why this idea that we can think it over and decide what to do, maybe take some baby steps beginning in 2025, just isn't going to work.

"Another explanation, frequently espoused, is that voters, particularly downstate, voted for the American-sounding names of Fairchild and Hart over the obviously foreign-sounding names of Sangmeister and Pucinski. '[N]o one had heard those foreign-sounding names, and from Chicago and its collar counties to Cairo in Little Egypt, people voted for white bread and American-sounding (i.e., WASP) names, knowing absolutely nothing about the candidates.'"

http://www.prin.edu/users/els/departments/poli_sci/state/state/larouche.htm

'Cuo-mo, Cuo-mo, Cuo-mo'

-Lauch Faircloth (apparently, in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live News Update, having forgotten that his name was Lauch Faircloth)

"Real science is replaced by flim-flam." "Our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail." "A lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence." "There are a lot of potential dissenters." "This is covered over with the vague claim that all scientists agree."

That litany of doubt should be patentable or copyrightable. Milloy was well paid for coming up with it for use versus health hazards of tobacco; next the ozone hole, but now really hitting the big time using it on anthropogenic climate change.

But to see just how irrelevant to any particular content the litany of perpetual doubt is, and how easily it can be applied to anything, note that in fact all those statements above are in fact direct quotes from Junkscience (i.e. TASSC i.e. Milloy)'s page debunking evolution. http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/darwin.htm

"Aren't most of you kind of proving his point?"

The knowledgable, interested readers of Salon have proved themselves, now and in the past, no different from the kind of folks Taibbi describes, in the aggregate. And why would they/we be?

Wish I/we/Taibbi had the answers as to how to fix this. It's why we can't have nice things.

But not necessarily in his campaign and many of his supporters, who exhibit the same kind of us-vs-them primate troop mentality which has screwed humanity up forever. (I should note that I at first wrote "followers" up there, not "supporters")

Yeah, that's hilarious. All that "support" they showed for the war and for Bush in 2004 and 2006 and all, eh? At least the Arab-Americans voted for Bush in 2000, so maybe they'll go for McCain.

"There is an assumption in this discussion that the Jewish vote has been liberal over the last three decades. It hasn't. It voted for Reagan, for Bush I, for Bush II. It did not vote for Clinton I, but did for Clinton II. It voted for Gore I, did not vote for Kerry."

Oh, how interesting. In what country was that? In the US, it was very different:

Jewish Vote In Presidential Elections

1980

Reagan (R) 39

Carter (D) 45

Anderson (I) 14

1984

Reagan (R) 31

Mondale (D) 67

1988

Bush (R) 35

Dukakis (D) 64

1992

Bush (R) 11

Clinton (D) 80

Perot (I) 9

1996

Dole (R) 16

Clinton (D) 78

Perot (I) 3

2000

Bush (R) 19

Gore (D) 79

Nader (G) 1

2004*

Bush (R) 24

Kerry (D) 76

Nader (G) <1

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

the jews control the media which they use to inflate their image of importance, and the national political machines are too dumb to see this. lucky we have such perceptive individuals who do, to tell us. as often as they can.

he should run right up to the border, waving the flag in one hand and a six gun in the other, bellowing 'osama, i'm acomin' ta smoke ya out'.

as long as he doesn't get the US or its military involved.

the problem is that sexuality in general in our culture is so screwed up. fishnet stockings and high heels and corsets are not a natural sexual item. put them on a chimp and see if the other chimps are aroused. sex has become such a marketing scam, that people get half aroused whenever a tv program cuts to a commercial.