I'm not even going to step on the scale this week. Just too depressing--I've been horrible. But I will run, and I will get my butt back in gear in order that I might have a better performance next week.
But enough about me--what about you? What's animating your life these days? What events are catching your interest on the national and international scenes? Are you strangely fascinated by the Tiger Woods story? Any thoughts on some of the new little widgets I've added to the site?
Share your thoughts with a world of readers thirsting for them!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Two thumbs down on the 'do you like this post' thing. Please reconsider.
The strangely fascinating story for me this week is not Tiger but Desiree 'Executive Privilege' Rogers. My initial thought was
'rookie staff, rookie mistakes' but this woman is so oddly arrogant and clueless. One would think being responsible for a state dinner would mean to a fortnight of sleepless nights before the event, not flitting around in a designer gown-and an ugly one-at the event as a guest.
I meant 'would mean a fortnight' not 'mean to a fortnight.'
You gotta do better than that, Sally. Why is it two thumbs down? What's wrong with giving folks who don't have the time or inclination to write a way to voice their opinion?
I think the Feedjit could become a sideline sport all of its own. I can't wait for the one that says"Easton MD arrives at Conservative Wahoo from Hot Liberal Chicks.com"
Barack Hussein holds a "jobs summit" and both the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business were not invited to share their ideas at the event featuring 133 guests.
This fits well with your earlier chart illustrating the lack of private sector experience. The AFL-CIO was invited, even though a union has NEVER CREATED a job.
All this going on while congress debates healthcare plans that will stifle job growth.
How about the Big 10 winning the Big 10 / ACC Challenge, largely in part to Wisconsin's fine victory over Duke?
I know CW has a certain affinity for the "zit-backed, corn-fed, white guy" college basketball that comes out of the Midwest.
Oh yeah...BEAT NAVY!!
Not a fan of the rating system. I just think it's too much style-wise.
On a separate note, I realize I may be late to this party, but does anyone else on this site watch A&E's "Intervention"? Compelling television.
I'm with Sally, the rating system junks things up. Mudge, I tried coming in from a few porno sites the first day it was up but it wouldn't register. Thumb down to ratings, thumb up to Feedjit.
How many does that make for the Big Ten? Two?
We'll I want to talk about the war. I've always been quick to criticize Obama on this issue because I thought he was dragging his feet and costing lives on the ground. My view has always been fish or cut bait. Get in and win the damn thing or get the hell out. I didn't agree when Clinton went into the Balkans because It was basically a sectarian war and we had no business choosing sides. But if we go in, go in for a reason and don't dick around.
That brings us to Afghanistan. Several opinion leaders whom I respect have said the additional troops will be enough to do the job. My question is, what job? There's no doubt we can put a lid on the country, but at what cost? The Pashtun (the problem) down south are about 40% of the population and they have zero interest in cooperating with the infidels (they've seen it all before). And they seem to like the Taliban. Right off the top of my head I recall that they bled the Brits, Russians and anyone else who tried to take over their little piece of paradise. So if we do "win", what have we won? Unless we change hearts and minds (ain’t gonna happen) all we're doing is holding a gun to their heads, at a tremendous cost to us.
So, what is to be done? I propose this; since we're already there set up a couple of air bases in strategic locations. Put in a battalion of green-beanies or jarheads along with what ever air support is appropriate. Tell the Pashtun potentates, ok we’re gone, you've got your tribal areas we don't want 'em, do what you will. Grow all the dope you want (that's Amsterdam's problem) whatever. But if some idiot drives a plane or otherwise f---- with us again, and we can trace them back your goat-molesting Australopithecus looking ass, then my friend you will very soon be in a world of hurt. We will make your land uninhabitable. No more second chances, screw up again and it’s your ass!
A couple of bases would cost about 10 billion a year, give the central Afghan government a couple of billion and give the Packys a couple of billion to keep their Pashtun occupied. Pacification on the cheap.
Simplistic?
C'mon Dan. Zit-back white boys of the Big Ten finally win one after what, six tries? Go away.
So last Sunday I instituted the "Big Fat John weight loss plan," a la your original concept, with some mods. Five 2-a-day workouts since Sunday, snacking on only fruit between meals (which are meat focused and light otherwise), copious amounts of tea during the day, and a couple of drinks with dinner to kill the appetite and help me sleep. Shaved 4 pounds in 5 days, trending well. I came to the realization that I wasn't getting chicks solely based on my pudgy face, and that needs to change.
If "they" don't have the time or the inclination to write, why do they need a platform for comment? A check-box is hardly conducive to thoughtful debate and conversation, which I have been led to believe is your goal here. I'd have to select both "banal" and "beneath you" on the check-box issue.
And just out of curiosity, is John saying that he wants not to get chicks for reasons OTHER than(or in addition to) his pudgy face? :) But seriously, congratulations on taking the plunge and getting started. Best of luck with the weight loss and its ... ramifications.
That's why I grew my pudgy face...I needed a breather.
GG - am totally addicted to intervention. DH thinks I'm sick to enjoy watching folks in these situations. You're right to say it is compelling.
Post a Comment