Johnny Coli

The title of your thread made me chuckle. I'm a microbiologist, and a few of my fellow 'ologists wanted to get us into a pharma/biotech bowling league. We were going to go with the "E-bollah's" as the team name. No one in Massachusetts pronounces their "r"s at the end of words (chowdah, hahvahd yahd, etc) so it made regional sense. The Hiz-bollah's would probably work as well, if not better. "There's another strike by the Hiz-bollah's!" "It's like he's on a mission from God!" "Osama pin laden" You get the drift.

Richard

schmuck

Just another day at the office for the 6th most accurate passer in the NFL.

My favorite letter has always been "n" because of that haunting Sesame Street song: Lower-case "n" lyrics There's a couple more stanza's where an alien "n" lands on the hill. The two n's become an "m" when they merge. Like I said, haunting. That's the kind of thing that will stay with you for a lifetime.

Just like it's spelled....Wojeciehowicz. That's a cool story, though. Makes you wonder why the hacks keep writing the hatchet-jobs about JP's character. Seems like somebody with a bone to pick floated that out there early on and the lazy journalists just run with the same tired tripe. Fug'em, I wear my Losman throw-back with pride.

Good morning, Mr. Sunshine!

Actually, wasn't it the hardline stance that the Bush admin took a year after ascending to the throne when NK walked away from the table and booted the inspectors? So, had Bush not labled them a terrorist state, refused to negotiate, and lumped them in with Iraq (who we invaded a short while later...for having wmds) and Iran (who we'll be invading next year), then perhaps there might ne some oversight. Whether that would have made a difference we'll never know, because no one is there, and hasn't been for half a decade now. So, what you are also saying is that it's a good thing for the region that NK fired off some missiles, because it will force Japan, SK and China to do something...something that Bush isn't doing. So, in essence, his plan is to do nothing and let someone else deal with it?

And what good, exactly, are the multiparty talks if NK won't come to the table? And why won't they come to the table? Because the US won't enter into bilateral talks. So, there really aren't any talks. Some might say that playing chicken with an insane person is pretty foolish. Add in the fact that the only bargaining chip KJI has is that he's crazy and has nukes. So, by not talking to him, who's the bigger nut? KJI or The Unitary Executive? A more pessimistic person might draw the conclusion that the Bush admin really has no idea what to do, and is using this tactic hoping that KJI doesn't come to the multi-party table...maybe hoping that their "stern" waiting game forces someone else to solve the problem, or that NK implodes, or that nothing happens until after 1/21/2009. So, they strategically do nothing (Is doing nothing a plan? Where oh where have I heard that ridiculed before?) while a certifiably insane megalomaniac makes more WMDs.

Bilateral talks. The Bush position of waiting for NK to blink isn't working, and waiting around to see who loses the staring contest means more time without inspectors in NK. What's the harm in it? It seems that all the other major parties in the multi-lat talks want the US to sit down in a one-to-one with NK. In Bush-speak you'd call it appeasement, but in the real world outside of Texas most would call it actual diplomacy.

He's too much woman for one man to handle.

I will not liberally apply sunscreen or drink liberally on vacation. I plan on coming back with a ghostly complexion, and a ghastly liver.

A hell of a lot longer than five hours. Other than Isreal holding off on the bombing until she skeedaddled, what did she accomplish? They've had two weeks to set up something, and instead they wave a check and mention humanitarian aid. A handshake and a bribe to make the Lebonese think the Bush admin gives a damn about them? A photo op to reassure the world that they're willing to burn the midnight oil two weeks later and not call for a cease-fire? 20,000 blankets? Laughable. You guys are always going on about shiney things and distractions. Oooh! Condi makes a surprise visit to Beirut! Oooh! Rummy makes a surprise visit to Baghdad! Oooh! Bush makes a surprise visit to Afganistan! They're really working hard! Diplomacy is on the March! Unbelievable. I never said that. Like you, I try to back my opinions up more often than not. Sometimes, though, you've just got to call a turd a turd. I think the Bush policy wrt NK qualifies as a turd. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine. They've got me from 6AM to 4PM. Plus, I'm salary, so no OT anyway. I haven't posted much because I'm trying to get stuff done before heading out for vacation next week. So you won't have Coli to kick around for two weeks.

My point is that she didn't need to go directly to Beirut at all if she had no intention of doing anything. If she is going on to Jerusalem etc then what was the point? She showed up, promised them $30 million and some blankets, didn't call for a cease-fire, and bolted for Jerusalem. I'd call that a PR move. Others may even call it a bribe. The DPRK we've already established I'm not qualified to comment on. But I am entitled to an opinion, right, Ken? In my opinion North Korea is a disaster, based solely on the fact that they !@#$ing fired 7 missiles off and have nukes. Edit: It's 4:00. Can I leave work and head home, Ken, or will that be considered pouting?

Yeah, that's it Ken. I'm always avoiding conflict by disappearing. The media didn't forget about anything. A "trip to the mideast" is not specific, and they wouldn't have known about that save for the butter-roll incident. A five hour drive-by of Beirut is not diplomacy. It's a photo op, although that may pass for diplomacy in the eyes of this admin.

What would a day on the GOPPP be without the "smartest guys in the room" patting themselves on the back?

There is "traveling to the Mideast" and there is "surprise visit to Beirut." Why play up the five-hour Beirut drive-by? In fact, the majority of the articles reporting it used "surprise." So, she was there to hand them a check for humanitarian aid, and to shake the Lebanese official's hand...PR op. Not much diplomacy getting done in a five-hour check-and-a-hand shake visit.

Why did she go to Beirut then, if her intentions were to talk to the Isrealis and the Palestinians? EDIT: Also, why does Rummy have to sneak into Bahgdad under the cover of darkness like a rat if everything is going so swell in Iraq?

I'd say the Lebanese civillians got their asses kicked. Hezbollah is still in southern Lebanon. So the Isrealis were totally successful in getting rid of everyone in Southern Lebanon that might have been partial to their view. Sounds like it will add real stability to the region.

Time magazine 7-24: The Message Behind Rice's Surprise Visit to Beirut Chicago Trib 7-25: Rice makes surprise visit to Beirut Bloomberg 7-24: Rice Makes Surprise Lebanon Visit and many more..... Why must everything this administration does be done as a "surprise" visit, sneaking in for a PR op, then scurrying away?

Kerry's quote came on Sunday, the day before Rice's surprise PR sham, er diplomatic mission, two weeks after the conflict started and a full week after the administration gave the Isrealis the green light to do whatever they wanted to southern Lebanon.

Not entirely true. Many capital crime cases are given to public defenders because (surprise!) a good deal of these cases involve someone too poor to fund their own defense. Public defenders get paid very little to do their job, and often have to juggle multiple cases with very little resources. Anyone wealthy enough to mount a defense in a case involving the death penalty probably has a lawyer adequate enough to get a plea offer to take death off the table. I'm not saying that public defenders aren't savy enough in this aspect, it's often the case of being overburdened, or not having any clout to bargin with, ie let's plead this one and I won't fight you on this motion in this other case. I'm sure some of the lawyers that post on this board could adress this better than I...well, all the ones that haven't been banned.

I vote for the King of the Trolls, Hogboy the Slob. We're about due for a volunteer fireman/arson thread. Where art thou, Slob?

When they came for the triangle player, I did not speak, because I play the xylophone...

Jesus. The performer has a right to say what he/she wants...free speech. You have the right to leave, or just not go. If enough people choose to not go to the shows, there won't be any...ie voting with feet and/or wallet. You do not have the right to dictate what a performer says, or does on stage, within the bounds of the law. It does not matter a damn bit if you are mad that someone on stage says Bush Sucks!, or if I get mad that someone on stage says Bush is God!. I would leave (probably after giving that person the finger), as you should if you were offended. The only reason you even heard about what the Dixie Chicks said in London was because the Right Wing Media plastered it all over the news. The Dixie Chicks weren't forcing their views on you, and to suggest that artists should also take into consideration the views of people who aren't even at the event is frightening. EDIT: I see The Fabulous One so eloquently beat me to my last point.