Diebold!

Remind me how paper and a pencil fails us? Or am I being duped into acting as the mouthpiece of the pulp and paper industry...again.

As far as our municipal electon goes next week.. get ready with the insults.

I AM NOT VOTING.

Yes, me, the one that is always yacking on to people about "if you don't vote don't complain" but seriously, I am living in rural a hades, I care not a whit about what happens once I leave in the new year, everyone that is running is in my opinion, one molecule away from being a chimpanzee.. I just don't care. :) And I'm good with that!

I love to vote. I take my cats to watch me vote to instill in them a deep sense of democratic purpose.

Gorthos is a weird dude. I heard that there is a state offering a million dollar lottery prize to a random voter, as incentive to turn out. Prize is from unclaimed prizes.
Me and my cat are HEADED OUT to flick that lever and God Bless America ya'll.

Well, I have never missed a vote ever for anything but living where I do, in exile, its like being abducted by aliens and told "we're taking you back to earth, but would you please help us pick our next space ship crew first?"

My wife and I always make it a trip together to vote. I love being excessively friendly to the people working the polls especially when there is some grumpy gus yacking on and complinaing in front of me. I might vote afetr all as spouse is implying that we should to please her dad. Is so, I will just pick names that sound funny when you mix the letters up.

Just remember, this election is an <i>even numbered</i> year so Democrats vote on Wednesday.

LOKI!!!

Jaysus Flea, thanks for saving me the trouble!!!!!! Wednesday bright and early you know I'm gonna go down and make my vote count.
Actually, I have done my civic duty and written all about it, with photos, so go check it out at my blog, you slackers
http://grpottersblog.blogspot.com/

LOL! LOL!

(human code, btw, is "quoshy" -- I'll have to work that into my vocab).

I am befuddled by three of the last four comments.

I'm still trying to figure out how to get my nine-year-old OFF the stupid voter's list. He got a notice last time, too and they were supposed to have taken care of it. We've had some fun filling in the jury-duty questionnaires, though ... :-D

Gary,

Stoke City Football Club are nicknamed The Potters (due to pottery industry on Stoke-on-Trent). Just thought you should know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke_City_F.C.

Mike you are about the coolest guy on earth. That particular team, no doubt, is at the bottom of its division. 'Potters' does not speak of speed, agression, skill, winningness, like, say, 'Stoke City Tigers' would. We must only look at, for example, 'Chicago Cubs' to see that certain names are not exactly the names of winners.
I bet the 'Potters' know how to have a damn good after-game party though.

Feel free to check out DemocraticSPACE's seat-by-seat predictions - we are predicting the Democrats to take control of the House and the Republicans to hold the Senate:<br/>
http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/usa2006

Fancy graphics cannot hide an absence of election related haiku, Greg.

An Election Haiku for Alan

Oh my democrats!
Republicans are squirming
with flick of wrist, change

or

It matters not son
if you vote blue, or red
for Bush can change it

Did someone say party?

I follow the Gorthos Method for municipal elections. Except that I don't go through the exactitude of anagramming surnames for funny phrases. I take the lazy man's route and select the ward and school board trustee candidates with the most humourous-sounding surname (un-anagrammed).

Not exactly the most responsible approach to civil governance but the way I see it... If I were to impregnate a woman today, the notional offspring won't enter the public school system until the <i>next</i> election, so in the meantime I can enjoy messing with other people's education.

I knew there was a repressed anarchist in there somewhere, Mr. Taylor.

I miss the Natural Law Party. The Rhinos were just before my time, unfortunately.

I know people are complaining about compute glitches today. But there wasn't a single problem where I was an observer today in Indiana. even the blind were able to use the computer system with ease today(no, I'm not kidding. we had three people legally blind use the touch screen system---mega enlarged print with their faces in real close).
I don't know what the farq happened in the rest of Indiana(or even Battle Ground, which is just up the road), but FF28 and FF29 went spendidly.

At least we are rid of Rick Santorum.

Maybe you are. He's on my phone now, going on and on...

Good to see JC Watts, the man who led in both Ottawa and Washington, on CNN.

I have probably typed too soon. I expect we will see Santorum make a strong bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in only a few months' time.

Hopefully not, or it will demonstrate that the American public that the Republicans still have not become serious about what it needs to be serious about. GWOT: important; shoving morality down a free-citizenry's throats: not important; Limited but effective government: important; War on Drugs: insane.

IMHO, of course.

A <i>strong</i> bid by Santorum for Pres, Flea? Not likely. If he does try I presict he's after the New Hampshire primary. The dude will get dumped on incessantly in the news. He can't even carry his own state.<p>Not with guys like Guilliani thinking about running. Not with rumors of Gingrinch running. That's people to the left of Santorum and to the right of Santorum who are far more popular than Santorum. Santorum gets nadda.

Of course, there is always the prospect of Santorum for SCOTUS.

I do not believe the Republicans are serious about the Long War and have little hope they will get it any time soon. As for the Democrats, we have a lot of Blue Dogs in there now. So, no fiscal discipline, no border security, surrender and retreat and social "conservative" morality shoved down the public's throat as a cherry on top.

The worst possible scenario, in other words. Meantime, our enemies scramble for nuclear weapons. Enjoy!

I dunno. I'm a bit more optimistic than Flea. I think that we may yet see some as-yet-unseen seriousness from the Dems now that they have a share of power.

And the GOP might have to give up procrastinating and take things seriously for a change...

I agree with Ben. In particular, the degree of response to terrorism is a non-partisan matter just as it was before 9/11 despite what Rovian spin might have us think.

Scotus? No way. Is this a 'goth/not goth' quiz? He'll be Borked(You remember Robert Bork, don't you(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork)? for sure, if not worse, if nominated for SCOTUS. WIth this COngress you can't get anything even remotely close to an Originalist. The best to hope for is something like a Justice Kennedy--which is exactly how we got Justice Kennedy.

How are the republicans be unserious about the Long War? They're the party that wanted to shake up the region, where a stable region was a breeding ground for things like the two attacks on the WTC, and now you claim they are unserious? I don't follow. Is it because they lost that they are unserious? Leading means doing things that are unpopular, while elections are all about being for what is popular.
Simply put: I don't follow you on the 'republicans are unserious about the LOng War.' Care to clue me in Herr Flea?
If you were to say that the American people, in general, were unserious about the Long War(GWOT) i would be in agreement. We aren't. But the republican party? I don't follow and need to have that path illuminated for me. (and, as stated elsewhere, voting for dems isn't pro-surrender or pro-terrorist. It's just such a vote that ultimately leads that way. Intention. There's no intention to surender even though that's where the path they want to take leads. I think Carl Sagan was right: most people are completely short term thinkers and that's dangerous.)

Very few democratic reps are as progressive as I would like, not even Nancy Pelosi. HOWEVER, Flea, in practical terms, Nancy Pelosi and the dems can begin to turn the tide in a slightly different direction. It is the SHIFT, I think, that starts the ball rolling, the first step.
And yes, the annoying Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs run for the presidential nomination has officially begun, and if dems think Hillary has a chance we should just hand the presidency to McCain and not waste everybody's time.
I am making puppies this morning.

If the Republicans were as serious as many of us would like, they wouldn't be in their present pickle.

If the Democrats are as unserious as some of us fear, it's best to find that out while George W. Bush is still president, with the powers of the executive and an uncapped veto pen. The Long War, or the War on Terror, or the long struggle against evil people, or whatever we call it, is going to take a darned long time, and we're not going to be able to have Republican administrations throughout -- especially not ones of the competency level of the 2004-06 vintage.

So we'll get to see how the Dems do with the training wheels on. We can watch, and decide where our loyalties should lie in the next election.

With any luck, they won't screw too too many things up.

The weird thing about the characterization of this "long war" stuff is that is cannot be defined by 9/11 if it is to mean anything. The removal of dictators in central and South America in the 80's and 90's as well as the collapse of communism in 1989 - not to mention to partial reform of China - are all part of the same thing that the Taliban and Al Queda are part of. Frame it that way, who could be against it? But frame it that way, and you have to ask what the hell is the US still in Iraq for again? Who thought up the "half the troops, twice the time" policy? That is why the definition must be forced and the alleged profound change of yesterday is claimed.

<i>If you were to say that the American people, in general, were unserious about the Long War(GWOT) i would be in agreement. We aren't. But the republican party? I don't follow and need to have that path illuminated for me.</i>

I quite agree the American people are, as a whole, no more serious about the Long War than either major political party (the same is even more true of the Canadian people(s)). Much of the Republican party seems more concerned about "social issues" than fighting the people who make our every disagreement about social issues a nonsense (the same, of course, is true of the Democrats). Much of the Republican party seems more concerned about pandering for votes and working in the interests of corporate America than defending the border (the same, of course, is true of the Democrats).

A Republican party that was serious about the Long War would have long ago demanded we* kick in the doors of the Syrian, Iranian and Saudi dictatorships. Taking Iraq was a start but leaving it at that is no more serious than would have been to "liberate" Bavaria while leaving every Nazi allied dictatorship intact. How there can be any surprise at the continued "insurgency" when those maniacs are manned, armed and funded by various surrounding theocracies and petty princelings - some of whom are our supposed allies - is quite beyond me.

I also agree with Alan that the Long War is not defined by 9/11. This goes back at least to the fascist revolution in Iran of 1979. That one was aided and abetted by all the usual suspects amongst the democracies and continues to be so by Canadian government and business, to our continuing shame.

* I am using the term "we" very loosely indeed. By "we" I mean civilization and the light. Canada has been doing a piss-poor job standing up for either for all the heroism a bold few have shown in Afghanistan.

"I agree with Ben. In particular, the degree of response to terrorism is a non-partisan matter just as it was before 9/11 despite what Rovian spin might have us think." ACtually, no it was partisan then too. Just the other way. Remember how the reps attacked the Clinton anti-terror plans with similar boogeymen(Big Brother! They're erroding your freedoms! Fear! Look! A monkey!)? Same-same. The problem is the tribalism that robs us of rationality(and blaming Rove is part of that problem, since it makes more of Rove than the terrorists and forces of disconnectedness. It makes Rove more of a problem.)

Al, as I see it you're doing something in your noon-ish post that you've said you don't believe: making this a 'war on a tactic'. It's not a war 'on tanks'. It's a war against the forces of disconnectedness. A war against people who will attack us for cultural bleedover(you tempt us with images of girls in bikinis on the Playstation? FOr this you will die!). A war against those who want to blow up children because we send the Peace Corps abroad and cause cultural contamination(make their women uppity, dontchaknow).
That is most assuredly not the same thing as using Dirty Tricks and Dishonorable Methods while opposing World Communism in the third world(unless you're going to claim now that you were really of a mind to go with the policy of Roll Back instead of Containment?). Ours is/was defensive. Theirs is/was(in the case of the Soviets) offensive. Ours, ultimately, is about bringing the Liberalism. Theirs is about killing enough that we tire of teaching their women to be uppity and demand equality(along with other issues) to the point that we just firewall them off(until they decide they want something else). There's was about violent revolution that would generate a a Global Soviet(the policy of Wars of National Liberation---see Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala, Nicaragua, The Sandanistas in particular, Cuba,.......). In studying Japanese culture one learns that personal honor is subjective to a larger honor. One can live thru a personal affront if it serves a purpose(like Oishi living for years with the scorn heaped upon him, the loss of his wife as she left him in disgust, so he could avenge Lord Asano.). Sure, fighting dirty back then was unsavory, Al. But a) did it serve a good purpose; b) were you really willing to try another path that didn't lead to a world run on the tenets of Marxism-Lenninism out of Moscow(like going head up against the Sov Union by actually deploying Canadian and US forces directly?) at the time?

You ask what the US is in Iraq for. It's been explained many times, once even in this thread I believe in my reply to Herr Flea, but I'll do it again. We're there because we wanted to 'drain the swamp'. We wanted to radically alter the political and cultural landscape of Arabia such that something like international terrorism was impossible(we can live with something like the Basque and the IRA, but not something like al Queda---and if you don't understand the difference you're woefully ill prepared to have an opinion of worth on this subject). The whole region was set to make war on the West(for taking their oil, for emberassing them, for the Crusades, for the partitioning of the region by the Colonialists, for making their women uppity, for 'making them infertile with our immunization programs'(okay, that's actually out of N. Africa and not Arabia, but Egypt is usually lumped into the Arab world and so I think the nation I'm using here(it ain't Egypt) is also fair game.), for the temerity of women like MoDo to criticize their policies regarding the treatment of women, because many of the ideologies behind the gov'ts(ARab Nationalism, Ba'athism, and the various Moslem theocracies) all called for violent revolution and the destruction of the infidel West(doubt me? Read the Green Book by Kaddafi. Read the tracts written by the French born Arab who founded Baathism(can't remember his name). Read the works of the Arab Brotherhood. Read the words of the Iyatollahs.), and worse each other(with the attendant economic problems for us that that would create---fine no oil for cars, and we use soybeans for biodesiel. What do you plan on using for lubricants of that ICE engine? Even synthetics use distilled crude to make the oil for that engine.), and they're prefered method is not the chivalric method but instead crashing planes in to buildings, or blowing up discoteques, or cars packed with explosives(Khobar Towers), or blowing up planes loaded full of people(Lockerbie, some plane in Greece when I was a child while it sat on the tarmac), suicide bombers, kidnapping, and blowing up hotels. You know, waging war against civilians without remorse with the purpose of attaining what they can't get thru discussion, which would be total isolation from the rest of the world(at best) or a growing ideological empire(theocratic in some cases, and more like Marxist-Lenninism with a racial component in the rest). We, well, the US anyways, also went into Iraq for a list of 25+ grievances, of which WMD was only one. So, there you go Al. That's why we're there. Can I have a cookie now?
"That is why the definition must be forced and the alleged profound change of yesterday is claimed."
Huh? 'Splain what you mean please.
"The weird thing about the characterization of this "long war" stuff is that is cannot be defined by 9/11 if it is to mean anything." You've hit the bullseye without even knowing it. Stop thinking of it as a retributive act(I know, you're a barrister and it's hard to do that. But try thinking of it more like aggressively going after a tumor before it metasticizes, preventitive medicine if you will, more than a reprisal.). It wasn't about revenge(Afghanistan, was but not GWOT on the whole). It was about generating conditions to push history in a chosen direction--- a less bloody and more liberal history, one where the ME was connected to the global economy as full partners(not just the gas tank) and fully engaged in the global village(since being cut off generated the conditions upon which are often cited the reasons for terrorism:poverty, dejection, belief in no future, stagnant economies providing no oppurtunity for the young). Proactice and not reactive. It's a war FOR something instead of AGAINST something. It's a war for the creation of something instead of the suppression of something.
GWOT isn't the bombing of Libya in an attempt to kill Qaddafi for funding the terrorists/training the terrorists. It isn't kicking someone after they kicked you first. It's seeing that they're about to kick you and delving into their grey matter to make them not want to anymore by changing how they percieve.
Can I have another cookie?
"The removal of dictators in central and South America in the 80's and 90's as well as the collapse of communism in 1989 - not to mention to partial reform of China - are all part of the same thing that the Taliban and Al Queda are part of. Frame it that way, who could be against it?"
Well, how can you be against it, Al, because that's exactly what it is Because that is what it is about. Same goal. Similar enemy(read what Baathism is about, particularly the parts about the need to perpetual and violent revolution to create something very akin to what the Sovs dreamed of, except it tacked on something about Arabism into it) in that it wants to overthrow a global capitalism and liberal democracies in the name of a Utopic World founded on either Marxist-Lenninist or theocratic grounds. Similar enemy. Similar goals they have. Except this time rollback is a viable strategy and we can forgoe 50 years of death, destruction, and woe in uncalcuable amounts.
Seriously, read up on Baathism. You'll see Lennin. Read the Iyatollahs, and you'll see an enemy bent on world domination as well. They were all linked together at one time using the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle---relying on John Keegan here---and the fact that their world views were somewhat compatible(essentially socialist). Like the differences between Coke Classic, Cherry Coke, Black Cherry and Vanilla Coke, and Vanilla Coke. Very distinct and yet so not.

Of course, you know saying what you did('How can you be against that?') makes you sound like a neocon, don't you? Not the perjoritive form as it's come to be used, but the old school academic form. INterventionist. Do-gooder spreading justice and liberty for all. And you see why JOA and his crowd pound on me too since I'm not as isolationist as they.
You too can be a neocon and not feel guilty about it, Al. You realize that what really seperated the NeoCons from the Paleos was social issues and gov't spending while what brought them together was anti-Communism? You realize that what seperated the Neos from the progressives was anti-Communism and Communist appologism by the progressives? Come, come to Butthead.(May I have another cookie?)

Flea:
So, acting as if there are other issues in the world is a bad thing? The will of the people, the desires of the people, other day to day issues just get sublimated? I don't get that. Yeah, the public kind of messed up in that they haven't quite prioritized as you and I think they should, but these other issues are still on the list(if not issue #1) and so they do matter. A politician does the people's business, all of it, and has to be working at all of it. Not just one issue. Santorum took stands you didn't like. Stem cell research and abortion issues are being handled in modes you don't like. I get it. But saying taking stances opposed by you is a bit disengenious don't you think. Wouldn't you be being more honest saying that you detested their positions? Yeah, I get your dellima though. Dems don't share your support of the war while reps share the war support but those who don't share your social views really don't share those views. Almost to the point that your revulsion overpowers your war sympathy. Not fun. BUt who said life wasn't about compromising? This is why I've always been drawn to certain elements of Bushido and Japanese culture. Personal honor sometimes has to be sublimated for something higher, and personal desires(ninjo) have to be weighed against duty(giri). Like Oishi in the 47 Ronin suffers, serious cost to his honor, to trully serve Lord Asano.
Sure, compromising some part of yourself is never fun, never easy, and not something to be done on for some small purpose. Integrity is no laughing manner. But, if the war matters to you that much, can't you suck it up just a little? Oishi died for his commitment. I'm just asking you to tolerate people you think of as jagoffs until the war is decided. You can do that, can't you Mr. Flea?
Can I have another cookie for the road?

Short responses:<ul><li>para #1: Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush were the same I meant. Neither saw it coming.</li><li>para #2: no idea but just don't parse others that closely. This isn't philosophy, it's a blog.</li><li>para #3: Soviets and West were equals with equal interest in evangelizing. Add US actions in C./S. America.</li><li>para #4: "drain the swamp"? Don't just bring a bucket then. And "the Muslim World was about to strike" is a novel one but, unfortunately, it is a novel one. Check the UN transcript - it was WMD.</li><li>para #5: see para #3. The US was not fighting for anything as it could not articulate anything like that. This differs from the Cold War. With any luck something will now be articulated.</li><li>para #6: Don't be so vain. Presuming others are not aware of what Ba'athism is is just rude.</li><li>para #7: I am not a neocon but I did advocate for a long time before blogging for democracies to fight dictators rather than propping them up. I'd like them to start doing that now, too. Neocons have no real interest in it. They though they would use "sock and awe" and be welcomed with flowers. Fools.</li></ul>The Flea can talk for himself. But you should study highland Scots more. Created the western world and gleefully slaughter fascism wherever they are able. Less fretting about it, too.

Ry, to be immature: nanny nanny ha-ha: Repubs washed out of New Hampshire house seats and the NY 24th, and a whole lotta other places. My summation: politicians lied, young people were sent to war in Iraq, and because of those lies, many have died and been killed, and Americans are getting tired of all that crap.

Whew, got a little carried away there, hope I am forgiven. Please ignore what I say before 'my summation'. Let's just say that things in this commie pinko town are somewhat celebratory, and I was carried along on a wave of good cheer and a pint or 2.
Looks like the senate is drifting toward.....

"But you should study highland Scots more. Created the western world and gleefully slaughter fascism wherever they are able. Less fretting about it, too."
Ah, but the Irish saved civilization.;)
"Neocons have no real interest in it. They though they would use "sock and awe" and be welcomed with flowers. Fools." Actually, no. That's what some have done. Not the entire movement. And let's not pretend that budget cuts after the Wall Fell had no effect on this. If we all had what we had pre-1993, manpower and amount of equipment wise, would people be studying concepts like 'swarming' and effects based operations/entropy based warfare that place premiums on minimal manpower(because we have minimal manpower)? I doubt it. I think you're arguing this as if it exists in a box, disconnected from other events and actions. Arguing that actions outside the box don't have ramifications on what goes on in the box. I don't think that's entirely fair or accurate.
Also, I'm a neocon in the academic sense. International and interventionist. Traditionalist in some respects, not rabidly so, and not opposed to social welfare spending(just critical of how it is done often). Hawkish. Often accused of cultural imperialist for wanting a handful of ideas/cultural aspects to be adopted by other nations that don't currently have them so that they can enjoy the success and prosperity we do here in N. America.
Don't confuse Bush for a neo-con. The Kristols, for instance, were some of the first to want to go to Darfur. We're very interested in taking down regimes like that of Sudan and Somalia. We're very worried about what Hugo Chavez has done in creating a seperate and secret militia he can use to make himself Presidente for Life if the people decide he sucks. China's record on human rights(and imperial ambitions) have us wanting to beef up Pacific forces to check them(though I do look at the possibility of a soft-kill by integrating them into our economy instead of a muscular approach), and possibly take them down if needed. We actually are very interested in these things. Take F.Fukuyama as the prime example of what a neocon is---even if he's repudated the movement. Or even Tom Barnett(who denies it despite fitting into the def'n fairly well).
"Don't be so vain. Presuming others are not aware of what Ba'athism is is just rude." I didn't mean to be rude, but only accept that most people don't know what Ba'athism is or what it is about. It's just a word that means 'Saddam wasn't a theocrat and ergo a warm, fuzzy teddybear'(okay, that was a bit gratuitous, but you get the point?) to about 90% of the world's population. And, seeing what Ba'athism is you don't think a muscular opposition, or flat out erradication, was something to be pursued?(Not a grandstanding question. Just an honest one of mild bafflement.)
"Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush were the same I meant. Neither saw it coming." Oh. Well that's a lot different then. Yes. Nobody is prescient. Agreed.
But the fight over what to do in the aftermath of each WTC attack was a highly partisan affair governed more the internecine fighting than the fighting of the outer enemy both times. Dumb. On this front there is no Nixon who can go to China.
" Soviets and West were equals with equal interest in evangelizing. Add US actions in C./S. America." I'll cede the equal interest in evangelizing, but not equal 'goodness' in evangelizing. The world they sought to create was an un-free, illiberal one and needed to be opposed and defeated. Sure, they had a right to try to convince people that their way was better, and we had a right to counter. When they started using dirty tricks to get their way we had the right to counter.
Do you accpet that if we played by Chivalric Rules that a worse set up(you can do a lot worse than Emo Morales, Hugo Chavez, and Ortega down there. Even if Bolivarism(but not Bolivar himself) is a pretty scary thing in itself)) than what ultimately resulted would be the case? That losing C. and S. America mattered as much as how it was fought?

I thought I had added or admitted use of less-than-chivalrous and not-to-be-proud-of tactics by the West in C/S America in this already? But, again, with Allende having a KGB handler/advisor on how to manipulate the elections and taking KGB money can one really complain that the US did the same with Pinochet, having equal interest in the region? Sometimes pragmatism has to be included in the decision making process. A Global Soviet, as it actually existed and operated instead of the illusion of what it could or should've been here in the West, would've been a catastrophic thing, yes?
"The US was not fighting for anything as it could not articulate anything like that. This differs from the Cold War. With any luck something will now be articulated." I disagree. I've seen exactly what I put down in books/articles extant from the era that make exactly that case. That isn't a new creation from my mind, but a case laid out in the past by those who fought it at the time.)Ooops, re-read. I get what you're saying now is not about the CW but The Long War/Iraq. Diregard all that. I thought you were saying nothing like that was said about the CW. My bad.).
I still disagree. Maybe that wasn't what was put into the general media, percieved, or accepted. But yet, it was. The Axis of Evil and talk of a group that hates us because of our freedoms(and that was most definitely put into the press, where many poo-pooed it and called it BS.). It was never fully fleshed out, a failure of strategic communincations of the first order, but it was made(it just wasn't as juicy as WMD, which makes for good tv since it's so dang scary people are riveted to it.).
"no idea but just don't parse others that closely. This isn't philosophy, it's a blog." Here I protest strongly. You asked a philosophical/ethical question. I answered. No fair kicking me for doing what you wanted!
Oh, and we may be numbering differently. i wasn't consistent in my breaks. That could be causing some confusion here.
gr: no harm no foul. I do hyperbole too. It's still Silly Season and some excesses, without real malice behind them, are to be expected as a result. And the only thing I find sensible about Speaker Pelosi are her choice in shoes.;)

ry, I have been a goofball and you are a mensch.

I think "ry" stands for "rites yots".

Hmmm. Could be, Al. Or it could just be a contraction of my given name. Not sure which anymore.

gr: Ich? Ein mensch? nein. Kinder, gross kinder.(fine, my German sucks)
And you're being to hard on yourself here. I remember how friends acted in 2000. No harm no foul.

This Bud's for you, ry, but I am a goofball 90% of the time. Gorthos is a goofball 99% of the time. Tipping the balance, yessir, into blather and silliness.

Ein Gross Kinder? Nein, du bist einen klein Maedchenmensch! :-)

I think I got the agreements right there. It might be "kleinen".

Human code: kxkqxl -- awesome for scrabble.