A road trip?! I'm jealous.

Best wishes for a fantastic time! Can't wait to see the pictures.

What? You're coming HERE?

Damn. I'd better hose out the shed.

Congratulations on your plane. Happy birthday. And thanks for the essays, an invaluable aid for keeping one's sanity, for those who go in for that sort of thing.

Um, you misspelled "infallible" on purpose, right?

Looking forward to the new chapter, and have fun in Florida! (Now all the pressure is on you.)

Have a great trip!

BTW, you do know how richly ironic your infallible typo is, right?

{Doesn't it suck being such a rockstar that everyone pounces on you for spelling errors? ;) }

Is Whittle related to the jet engine inventer?

Good luck on your plane. Can you get a ballistic chute for it?

When you're in the Springs, go up to Will Roger's Shrine of the Sun. Besides all of the aviation related pics, including his crashed aircraft, to see Sunset from there is worth the price of admission itself. It is directly above the Colorado Springs Zoo, and it is a must see.

Sapper Mike

If you're stuck for things to write about, consider recent developments with the liberal radio network "Air America".

It was taken off the air in LA and Chicago for nonpayment of bills. Air America said Thursday it had obtained a temporary restraining order against Multicultural "forcing them to put us back on the air."

So liberals get to broadcast anything they want, anywhere they want, without having to pay their bills.

Kind of gives new meaning to the phrase "free speach"!

We'll be driving to Idaho the first week of May. If you happen to see a family in a gray Suburban, that looks remarkably like us, it IS US. Honk and we'll pull over.

Right, well, so much for pointing out infallible. I so wanted to be the one to kick someone off their pedastal! :D

Do yourself a favor Bill, if you haven't already, and check the gun laws for the states you'll be passing through. I had to take a bit of a winding path last time I crossed the continent to avoid some state and local laws that prohibited what I was carrying.

Be making a trip of my own before too long, out to Seattle and then San Fran. Into the heart of darkness and all that. And me with no Nuke the Moon T, because Frank J. won't do a reprint. See if you can lean on him to get more made, won't you?

Have a great trip.

Infalable?

I'll be at the sun'n'fun this weekend. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to run into ya guys.

Bill, call me, there's something you have to track down at Sun n fun, I'll give you all the details on the phone.

(we now return you to the comment thread already in progress)

Walter,

I emailed Mr. Whittle asking just that a few months ago and in his words... "Sir Frank is a spiritual relative only, I'm afraid".

Have fun on your trip Mr. Whittle. Oh, and don't take any crap off that Frank J. character.

I had the pleasure to meed Sir Frank a few years ago, he'd taken to spending the winters in Thousand Oaks, outside of LA, with a friend of a friend of mine.

One day his host was tinkering with a Gyro-copter, which he'd built. He had a new engine on it and was running it up in his driveway. He had it at full throttle for a few moments when the wooden prop shattered.

Sir Frank slowly emerged from inside, creeping along on his cane, looke over the scene and said "I never did like those things...."

Tampa? Stay away from the (Selmon) Crosstown Expressway! Bigtime "Charlie Foxtrot" there, sinkholes, collapse & all. I'm sure your brothers can fill you in (no pun intended). You'll need to bring your 'road show' this way and I'm dying to meet a celebrity that's not brain-dead. Go Gators! Snook On!

So what is the Western Disease, anyway? Belief in one's own infalability? :-) Thinking oneself morally and/or spiritually superior to everyone that has gone before? (That would explain the title of the essay...)

Actually, I'm thinking of something a friend of mine (who's currently working on his Master's degree in history) said the other day. He'd read Michael Crichton's book Timeline, in which part of the plot involves a group of late-twentieth-century Americans going back via time machine to the Middle Ages (circa 14th century, if I recall the conversation correctly). One of them is a historian who's bought into the myth that we are much smarter than our ancestors. Contact with actual 14th-century people quickly disabuses him of that notion. Sure, we've learned more about how the physical world works, and we've been able to take that knowledge and fashion handy gadgets that let us do things they could only dream of (like flying) -- but thinking that the we're simply smarter than they were is nothing more than pseudo-historical snobbery.

Another moment along the same lines occurs in Eric Flint's 1632, in which another group of Americans get displaced in time and end up in Germany in 1632. At one point, two 20th-century American doctors encounter a 17th-century doctor who invites them to look over a medical text of his and give their opinion:

"You do read Arabic?" Seeing the expressions on the faces of the two American doctors, Balthazar shrugged. "Well, no matter. I believe I have most of the Canon available in a Greek translation."

Nichols and Adams looked at each other. Adams coughed. Nichols looked like he was choking.

"Dr. Abrabanel," asked Adams, "just exactly how many languages can you read?"

"Fluently?" [Balthazar] wiggled his fingers. "Not more than eight, I'm afraid."

The American schoolteacher overhears the conversation:

"Well, of course!" Melissa snorted. "Americans are ignorant louts when it comes to language." The schoolteacher planted her arms akimbo and gave Nichols and Adams the same glare which had cowed thousands of students over the years. "What?" she demanded. "Did you think you were actually smarter than these people?"

I've debated this issue since pot-smoking college years (think-Animal HOuse)and although I still believe the combined intelligence of the human species has not increased, I think that the APPLICATION of such knowledge has, yes, become smarter.

I have a broken leg which, if I was living in 1650, would have made me a cripple or worse. By worse, I mean dead. Today, with the metal parts, antibiotics, and modern surgery, I can play hoops with the best of them on the local courts. And it only cost $4000 in 1987 money. A bargain at twice the price. Yet I digress.

Speaking multiple languages is great, if that's what it takes to further your situation. I've never bothered to study any foreign language, except machine.I consider myself an expert in Visual Basic, FORTRAN, and C. I dabble in about six others. But that does me no good unless I can apply it. And thats what I do.

OTOH, I know Christian priests who speak ten or more foreign languages fluently. Easily. This is their mission; to reach those people. Are they flaunting their talent? Not at all. They have a mission, a goal, and they are applying their talent.

But why is it that throuought history, it is only until NOW, that we can fly? It's been a dream since ancient times. Gallileo tried & failed. In the 17th century, no less. We fly today, based on principles he invented.

But why is it that syphillis was the scourge of society (it was the BIG-pox as opposed to the smallpox) for years and years, even as Lueevenhouk discovered microbes with his newly invented microscope? Antibiotics weren't invented until the 20th century.

We walked on the moon. And I was part of it.

And here is where Americans differ from the rest of the human race. When I am hungry, I walk 1/4 mile up the paved sidewalk to the grocery store and select from a mind-boggling array of foods, a third of which will go spoiled in five days. I pay cash from the earnings of my efforts.

When I am sick, I can call my physician to arrange an appointment, If there is an emergency, I can drive my own car (or my wife can drive me, because women are not only smart enough to drive but are allowed to do so in this country) to the local emergency-care facility and be attended to.

I am allowed by my government to have a second (actually, quite more than that) source of income.

If my ancestors were to travel by time-ship from the 17th century; rest assured, they would stay here. Even if we ARE a bunch of dumb-asses, since we can't speak seven languages.

Watch which way the boats go!!!!

p.s. Alternative reading: "Hunky" by Nick Karas, basically the story of my ancestors and their flight from eastern Europe and establishment in America in the 19th century.

Well, a fine fine visit was had by all. Two good days of roasting in the central Florida sun, peeking into cockpits, and shopping for avionics. I'm hoping THIS tan will hold out a little bit longer than its predecessors. Bill's currently looping through south Florida right now (Ft. Lauderdale during Spring Break ought to be insane), and will fly back to LA from here (Orlando) on Wednesday night.

And by the way, he got no sleep on the red-eye last Thursday night, so, whether he wanted to or not, he did in fact keep "... an eye out for brewing trouble."

Also, he seemed most pleased indeed about how many of his wiz-kid regulars caught the "infalable" joke. It's enough to give one hope in such troubled times.

And finally, he discussed his coming essay premises while we were driving between Orlando and Lakeland (the next 3 essays anyway), and I gotta' tell ya', they're worth waiting for.

And though I'm sworn to near-Masonic secrecy on this, I will say (a) sorry Robin, but I don't think that's where he's going with that one, and (b) on the essay AFTER that, suffice it to say "lawyers beware."

'Nuff said, and you didn't hear it from me.

Exciting times, folks.

GHS

Thanks for the update, GHS (c:

Darn it, I wish I had checked the site earlier.

I'd have invited you out for some good beer and music had I known. I'm in the dead center of Orlando myself. Us local bloggers could've made a rally out of it.

And GHS, I did not know you are from around these parts. Good to know there's a kindred spirit somewhere in this city.

Next time, Gadget.

JK

I think the crazy Perle guy is back...

Did you want to make a point, USAF, or just use up Bill's bandwith? Go away.

Sorry Mr. Archon and Ms. Liberal if I made it look like you were talking about/to a ghost poster (a "ghoster?") back there, but, the strangest thing happened... "purely by accident," as I sat down to the computer this evening, BLAM!, my skeet-shootin' clay-blaster went off. All on its own! Not my fault. The thing must be an auto-pilot now -- it just senses something inane or obnoxious or trollish and BLAM!, off it goes.

Sorry about that.

And to Mr. Kallini -- howdy!

To everyone else (or ANYone else who might be interested in the latest Bill News) -- he called me on the road today, enroute up to Orlando from Ft. Lauderdale, and invited me over to the little coastal burb of Sebastian (the home of the Velocity experimental aircraft builders) to join him on a spur-of-the-moment demo flight. I hopped right in my little PT, and drove the hour-and-a-half over there in about an hour.

We got a tour of the plant, and a flight up and down the coast. We buzzed the beach at 300', pulled a couple of "high-G" turns and climbs, and I got to experience my very first barrel-roll. Not bad for a guy who's prone to barfing at the mere thought of somebody reading in a moving vehicle. I took a bunch of digital pictures with Bill's camera, so I'm sure he'll be posting a few of them once he gets back home tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

I'll leave the rest of the storytelling to him.

Now, back to clay-watch.

GHS

Everyone, you have to get over to http://www.barking-moonbat.com/archives/000614.html and vote for Bill!

Vote early and often!!

Newsmax reports:

Monday Nov. 25, 2002; 10:34 a.m. EST

Reports: Prince Bandar Aided Bin Laden Clan's Escape

A member of the Saudi royal family, already under suspicion because of his wife's financial aide to a man who assisted two of the 9/11 hijackers, played a key role in spiriting dozens of Osama bin Laden's relatives out of the U.S. in the days following the 9/11 attacks, according to published news accounts at the time.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the royal kingdom's ambassador to the U.S., whose wife Princess Hafia al-Faisal directed at least $15,000 to Osama Bassnan, reportedly pressured U.S. authorities to allow two chartered airliners to collect up to 50 bin Laden relatives who lived around the U.S. and return them to Riyadh.

U.S. investigators are now probing whether any of the cash given to Bassnan by Prince Bandar's wife ended up bankrolling 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midar and Nawaq Alhazmi.

"In the first days after the terror attacks on New York and Washington, Saudi Arabia supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from the United States, fearing that they might be subjected to violence," the New York Times reported on Sept. 30, 2001.

In his first interview after the attacks, Prince Bandar told the Times that private planes carrying the kingdom's deputy defense minister and the governor of Mecca, both members of the royal family, were grounded - initially caught up in the FBI dragnet. Both planes were loaded up with bin Laden relatives and allowed to leave when airports reopened three days later.

Times columnist William Safire was more blunt about Prince Bandar's role in facilitating the bin Laden clan's escape, reporting on Oct. 4, 2001, "The swift extraction from the U.S. of the extended bin Laden family was testimony to the Washington influence of Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan."

"The F.B.I., informed of the flight by the F.A.A., searched the family's luggage and briefly interviewed those without diplomatic passports, and watched the bin Ladens depart," he wrote.

"The Saudis wanted their nationals out of American clutches in a hurry, and in Washington, what Bandar wants, Bandar gets," Safire contended.

The Saudi ambassador's efforts to help the bin Ladens came in the midst of the FBI's ongoing efforts to interrogate several family members who lived in Boston, seeking information on the al Qaeda chief's financial ties and whereabouts, according to that city's newspapers.

"Hours after hijackers crashed commercial jets into targets in New York and Washington, D.C., last Tuesday, FBI agents swept into the Charlestown condominium complex where relatives of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden live," reported the Boston Herald a week after the attacks.

"Word of the probe into bin Laden relatives follows the arrest of an unidentified man on Friday at John F. Kennedy Airport who reportedly knows one of Osama bin Laden's brothers," the paper added. "The man also reportedly gave authorities a Boston address linked to the hijackers."

"A source at Logan airport said the FBI was 'all over these planes' prior to takeoff, but the Saudi government said no one has been refused permission to leave," the Boston Globe reported two days later on Sept. 20, 2001.

"While the FBI has repeatedly searched Flagship Wharf, the Charlestown condominium complex where one of bin Laden's brothers, Mohammed, owns six luxury apartments, and where some of his relatives live, a Saudi diplomat said there is no indication that bin Laden's relatives are considered suspects," the Globe added.

Though bin Laden family members in both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have disavowed any ties to their notorious relative, reports in the fall of 2001 revealed that before the attacks the terrorist mastermind had tipped off a least one family member, telling his mother that trouble was coming that would force him to go underground.

As Prince Bandar was pressing U.S. authorities to let the bin Ladens leave the U.S., probers were also seeking documents about the family's financial empire. "The [FBI] has issued subpoenas to banks used by the bin Laden family seeking records of family dealings," the Wall Street Journal reported a week after the 9/11 mastermind's kin had escaped.

OK, so I realize that the preceding post will likely get zapped by Bildalf, or one of his Padawans. And I realize that I'm gene-splicing two disparate breeds of geekdom to make a working metaphor, but that's just the kind of guy (geek?) I am.

My point is simply this: What's the big deal about getting binLaden's family off US soil PDQ after 9-11? Aren't we a better nation without them befouling our continent? The fewer Islamofascists we have in this hemisphere, the better. And the BL family is a good place to start.

Yes, you are welcome to honor our neck of the woods (i.e., Colorado Springs) with your presence. Don't forget - this is also home to Steve Green, the VodkaPundit.

VRWC Man,

Thank Allah that kuffars such as yourself are not running the White House.

The House of Saud is a close ally of the United States, and I -- Prince Bandar bin Sultan-- am a close personal friend of President Bush.

Was I not given extraordinary access to the Iraq invasion war plans? Was I not briefed on said plans-- prior to your own Secretary of State Colin Powell? Indeed I was. (as told in Woodward's book) This is quite the opposite of "fewer Islamofascists in this hemisphere", as you so colorfully put it.

True, President Bush did me a favor by arranging special flights out of the US for bin Laden family members-- with no interregation or inconvenience-- at a time when your own citizens' flights were all still grounded after 9/11.

But as the Koran says: "A fair exchange is no robbery". And I have returned the favor by promising low oil prices before President Bush faces election. So still your tongue, lest the holy sword of Authority still it ~for~ you.

In my country, your insolence would be swiftly silenced, like the heretic Salman Rushdie.

And so it is in Fallujah, where the recent uprising was triggered by the provisional government shutting down a controversial newspaper. But those rabble-rousers and their insistance on a free press in Iraq-- will soon be crushed by the occupying coalition of American cannon fodder.

And so it is also in Dover Delaware: where photographs of those dead American servant boys have been likewise banned.

VRWC Man-- the sole exculpatory aspect of your sacriligious comment-- is your certainty that your betters can do wrong. Blessed is the subject who finds no fault with his master. Your eager kneeling pleases me. You are quite good at it.

Wow, what an honor. The REAL Prince Bandar bin Sultan von Abdul Aziz has deigned to pay homage to our humble little comment stream -- obviously since this particular comment stream (and the "essay" to which it is attached) is all about the saintliness, consistent wisdom, and general all-round perfection of President Bush and his administration. As deeply honored and privileged as I feel right now, I can see the mental wheels turning that must have led our esteemed guest (a.k.a.: "impending skeet-cannon fodder") to make such a worthy and coherent contribution to this comment section, all based on a note from Bill about him being away from his desk. Mm-hmm... timely, deep, AND relevant.

Yes, that kind of logical linkage is entirely consistent with the rest of the "Prince's" posting overall.

-- Apparently, being a "close ally" to the House of Saud -- as we've been through 3 or 4 administrations now -- is a sign of pure moral decadence. What scum we are, ONLY JUST NOW, for continuing that legacy.

-- Apparently merely evicting the bin Laden's from our soil was not good enough -- we should have incarcerated them, interrogated them, maybe even tortured them first... as productive and legal as that would have been.

-- Apparently the "Prince" being briefed on the impending invasion of Iraq is the "opposite" of "fewer Islamofascists in this hemisphere." (???) As if briefing a political ally -- particularly one directly bordering the impending conflagration -- is wrong, crazy, or unprecedented. As if preparing the leaders of the very country we'd just colluded with in the previous altercation -- with whom we'd co-planned operations, and from whose soil we'd staged those operations -- was a sign of corruption or treason. The "Prince" OUGHT to appreciate that kind of cooperation and consideration. Thank you so much, your "High-ness" for recognizing that and expressing your own thanks. Truly a sign of your own nobility.

-- Apparently though, Fallujah -- which has been THE hot-bed of unrest and resistance for the entire country since the war "ended" -- was actually just a happy little burb where all that the people wanted was a little free press. Oh Prince, if only you'd pointed that out sooner. Then maybe we wouldn't have misinterpreted all that shooting and sniping and suicide-bombing that's been going on consistently there for over a year now as being the signs of a last redoubt for the most incorrigible of the fundamentalists -- we would have seen it for the "simple prelude to a protest for free press" that it was. Dang.

-- Apparently supporting a large-scale and long-range objective, as well as the current administration's courageous and aggressive pursuit of those goals, is the same thing as "finding no fault with [our] 'master'." Wow, Prince, considering how ignorant that assertion was, you showed remarkable fortitude in publicly owning up to that kind of thinking.

-- And apparently, people (especially those in Dover) who've grown weary of the endless negative litanies, the one-sided horror-mongering, and the tiresome parading of the dead before their eyes, shouldn't be ALLOWED to say "enough!" It's okay and understandable that people should be outraged by the "tastelessness" of a handful of pictures of Lady Di's grizzly last moments on Earth, but it's NOT okay for those same people to tire of the near-DAILY morgue reviews from the war (that's "war," as in "an activity where people regularly get killed"), and call for it to be stopped.

Gosh Prince, your clarity of vision, the consistency and accuracy of your moral compass, and your unbiased perspective on events are an inspiration to us all I'm sure, not to mention refreshing and original and not at all timeworn or hackneyed.

Feel free to come back any time you're in the mood for being laughed at and ignored... and probably ultimately deleted.

GHS

The False Prince bloviated thusly:

Thank Allah that kuffars such as yourself are not running the White House.
Thank whoever you want, pally. I happen to like the people running the White House.

The House of Saud is a close ally of the United States, and I -- Prince Bandar bin Sultan-- am a close personal friend of President Bush.
You're a prince, as much as Rogers Nelson (driving his little red Corvette, wearing a raspberry beret in the purple rain) is a prince.

Was I not given extraordinary access to the Iraq invasion war plans? Was I not briefed on said plans-- prior to your own Secretary of State Colin Powell?
No, you weren't. You're just some jackoff perusing message boards of certain websites, suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Indeed I was.
I reiterate, you were not.

(as told in Woodward's book)
Woodward is a lying sack of onager excrement.

This is quite the opposite of "fewer Islamofascists in this hemisphere", as you so colorfully put it.
It is exactly as I have so colorfully put it.

True, President Bush did me a favor by arranging special flights out of the US for bin Laden family members
Good riddance! The country smells better without them.

with no interregation or inconvenience
You would prefer that we HAD interrogated them? Strip them naked and beat them with lead pipes? Chop off their hands in the same way that their fellow 7th century barbarians do? We don't do that because we are better people than our foes. Put down the Gnome Chimpsky and think for yourself. For a change.

at a time when your own citizens' flights were all still grounded after 9/11.
Didn't I just mention something about 7th Century barbarians?

But as the Koran says: "A fair exchange is no robbery". I'm not surprised; Mohammed (piss be upon him) was a merchant. Yes, a bona-fide pre-industrial capitalist before he went warmonger.

And I have returned the favor by promising low oil prices before President Bush faces election.
As the Saudis do before EVERY presidential election. They want stability. They KNOW Bush, Kerry is an unknown. If you really were who you delude yourself into being, you'd know this. It's one of the many facts that Woodworm left out of his turd-tome. (Oh, and that's not "election" that Bush faces, it's RE-ELECTION. You need to get over the fact that by EVERY POSSIBLE STANDARD, Bush won Florida and therefore the election.)

So still your tongue, lest the holy sword of Authority still it ~for~ you.
Typical raghead sympathizer, bringing a scimitar to this intellectual gunfight. Ever see "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? Anyday, boyo. Anyday.

In my country, your insolence would be swiftly silenced, like the heretic Salman Rushdie.
It's one of the many reasons OUR country is so vastly superior to the one from which you pretend to be. It's also one of the many reasons why I would never visit "your" ((snicker, snicker)) country. (And Mr. Rushdie is alive and well, fatwahs notwithstanding.)

And so it is in Fallujah, where the recent uprising was triggered by the provisional government shutting down a controversial newspaper.
The newspaper was shut down because it was calling for deaths of American soldiers. Freedom of speech does not cover the yelling of "Fire" in a crowded theater any more than freedom of the press allows for incitement to murder. The "uprising" in Fallujah has used the newspaper shutdown as a convenient excuse to make one last stand against "the invaders". It's a collection of the last remaining dregs of Saddam's loyalists. They will eventually fail, and Iraq will be irrevocably placed on the path of freedom. And THAT'S what really scares you. (And the REAL prince.)

But those rabble-rousers and their insistance on a free press in Iraq-- will soon be crushed by the occupying coalition of American cannon fodder.
You say that like it's a bad thing. (Oh, and nice reference to Senator/Klansman Byrd with that "cannon fodder" quip. Nice to know that you're at least trying to keep up to date on senatorial debate.)

And so it is also in Dover Delaware: where photographs of those dead American servant boys have been likewise banned.
So it has been for more than a dozen years. But I'll make a deal with you: keep showing the caskets at Dover, and start replaying footage of the Towers burning and collapsing. Just so we can get a little perspective, m'kay?

VRWC Man-- the sole exculpatory aspect of your sacriligious comment--
Damn, I'm sorry. I'll be sure to remove all such aspects from all future writings. My bad.

--is your certainty that your betters can do wrong.
Well, you're not my better, but I'm pretty certain that you can do PLENTY of wrong.

Blessed is the subject who finds no fault with his master.
No wonder Kerry's poll numbers are dwindling.

Your eager kneeling pleases me.
Sorry, my door doesn't swing that way. You'll have to settle for being fellated by Michael Moore-on and Al Franken. (Hey, the poor guy has to do SOMETHING to get people to listen.)

You are quite good at it.
You'd know.

On a lighter note: visit www.imao.us to read Frank's April 26 post -- The Wrath of Whitler. The photo of Bill is... well, see for yourself.

Bill Whittle scoffs at the use of the word "colonialism" to describe US policy. As evidence, Bill lists nations we have liberated, such as Germany and Japan — and notes that we did not make them into our colonies.

However. Last month, Jay Garner — who President Bush appointed the first U.S. administrator of Iraq — told the BBC that he was sacked in part because he wanted to hold quick elections in Iraq. His superiors wanted to privatize Iraqi industries first ; as part of a plan that, according to Mr. Garner, was drawn up in late 2001.

Make no mistake: the privatization did not place Iraq's industries into the private hands of Iraqis. But rather into foreign hands.

Here we have a clear case, where one faction within the Bush Administration favored democratic elections. And another faction favored continued political subjugation & economic plunder. The latter faction prevailed.

The course chosen was textbook colonialism:

http://www.web-dictionary.org/encyclopedia/co/Colonialism.html

Last week the Bush Administration reversed it's policy of "de-Baathification", now allowing Saddam's former ministers to return to power.

This, too, is classic colonialism; in which the occupying power is indifferent to local democracy; accepting whichever local thug can most easily keep the local citizenry suppressed. The priority is a smooth extraction of wealth; not freedom or democracy.

I could never really understand posts like the good prince's and the bride's on sites like this.

Is it purely to feed the ego with the attention they inevitably garner?

Do they truly think such one-dimensional and circular arguments could actually convince rational people?

Of course, I guess they are of the opinion that we are simpletons, and such arguments as they proffer must not be too complicated.

But damn, just once I'd like to be regaled with a comprehensive argument in favor of appeasing terrorists and voting for Kerry. They could at least deliver an argument that would make me think instead of inevitably making me just laugh at their rhetorical contortions.

Give me a little hope for the intelligence of the other 50%.

I don't know if I understand your complaint.

I do understand that you think I'm here "just looking for attention".

Why can't you believe that someone who disagrees with you has motives as patriotic as your own?

Even if your accusation were true-- you have only succeeded in finding fault with the messenger, not my message.

From the early 80's until the Gulf War, the Bush-Cheney crowd was content to let Saddam oppress his own people. Remember Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983? Remember Vice President Bush personally interceding to keep Saddam off the State Department's list of terrorist nations?

Watch "The Passion" for a picture of colonialist Romans turning a blind eye to oppressive localized corruption. That's how we dealt with Saddam. And you can't get much more colonialist than the Roman Empire!

Watch "Three Kings" for a picture of how Saddam was clearly ALLOWED to stay in power and keep oppressing his own people, even _after_ the Gulf War. (Yes, I know it's only a Hollywood movie. But the point remains valid.)

Getting rid of Saddam was a great achievement. But it will be a completely worthless, wasted gesture-- if Bush's current plan is allowed to culminate.

Because Bush's plan creates a neocolonial hotbed for discontent, with no real sovereign democratic state to channel Iraqi's righteous anger into non-violent civic progress.

I have no illusions that the generation of terrorists who have been created in Iraq post-Saddam-- are noble freedom-fighters.

However, Bush's bungling ensures that the Next generation of idealistic Iraqi youth will have plenty of LEGITIMATE complaints for which to take up arms against us.

If that day comes to pass, our Thousand Dollar A Day mercenaries won't be able to protect us from those sons' anger.

Then the flag-draped Bush Coffins will really start pouring in to Dover.

Just a factoid: Richard Clarke, he of the "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry" apology to the 9-11 victims at the 9-11 commission and the Bush-bashing book whose title I cannot remember, is the government official who cleared the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country after 9-11. Try to wrap your conspiracy theory around that one, pests.

Another factoid: People who nickname themselves using heroic fictional characters (Neo, The Bride, Indy, et cetera) are usually found to be low in intelligence and reasoning ability, but high in unearned self-esteem.

Final factoid: I have worked with many a prince of Middle Eastern countries. They sent their sons here to learn how to fly helicopters and I worked at Cairns Army Airfield in Alabama. These princes of arabia were incredibly stupid, arrogant, and very unattractive. (Inbreeding?) Oh, did I mention short, too? They were terrible pilots, because they refused to listen to the infidel who was trying to teach them how to fly. Intellectually they were vapid, and they weren't educated past a rudimentary level.

Frankly, any prince from that part of the world is the very bottom of the barrel in every sense of the word. That's one of the reasons they hate us -- pretty blonde American girls won't give these ugly cretins the time of day.

The Bride:

No, it's apparent that you do NOT understand. I was questioning your motivations for posting conclusions based on such flimsy evidence. I made no conclusion on your motivations, just posited theories.

And for the life of me, I cannot figure out how you thought I was questioning your patriotism. Maybe you could spell that out for me.

You use as evidence the machinations of world powers in the specific geo-political realities of the 70's and 80's. It is an intellectually vacant argument given the bi-polar power structure of those years.

I would grant you that their may have been a better way to deal with the middle east during the Cold War. I can guarantee you there were many WORSE ways of dealing with the middle east.

All in all, given the collapse of the Soviet Union due in no small part to their inability to dominate the oil fields of the middle east, I find no reason to demonize the actions that led to Cold War victory.

You use as evidence a Hollywood fictional movie, while trying to disarm the obvious rebuttal. Well it doesn't work that way. That movie was fiction no matter what tiny bit of truth was included. There is no time in a 2 hour feature film to comprehensively describe all that has happened in that society over the past few thousand years that brought it to where it is today. So yes, it IS just a movie, and adds no weight to your argument.

Finally, you use as evidence the words of people as reported by the BBC. Words are fine evidence, even when parotted by the BBC, but only when supported by FACTS.

So, where are the FACTS? Show me where the U.S. is somehow colonializing, neo- or otherwise, Iraq.

Weigh your evidence against the U.S. post WWII actions in Japan and Europe and prove to me how it is different.

Weigh your evidence against the actions of our so-called allies and their bald-faced money grabs via the U.N. and through private dealings with Saddam's regime, and prove to me how it is the same as the U.S.

Finally, give me a comprehensive argument that is built on defensible premises and comes to a rational conclusion based on all the evidence.

It is not impossible to convince me that I am wrong. It just takes much more than what you've given me so far.

And for the life of me, I cannot figure out how you thought I was questioning your patriotism. Maybe you could spell that out for me.

You didn't. But it seems to be a favorite "defense" by some people. Take any questioning of whatever Divine Truth(tm) as an attack on one's patriotism.

And for the life of me, I cannot figure out how you thought I was questioning your patriotism. Maybe you could spell that out for me.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775

Well this is OT, but I see that Chief Wiggles is auctioning himself off for the Spirit of America blogathon. My question (challenge) is when is Bill going to offer himself up? (Bidding for the Chief starts at $1000).

Bill,
Frank J's been talkin' smack about your lunch with him. You gonna let him get away with that?

"Bride;"

"Textbook" colonialism? As in "by the most literal translation possible" of the printed words in Webster's definition? Where I come from, that's called "mental masturbation" -- where you base your entire argument on a preposterously dissected sentence or two -- like lawyers getting their blatantly guilty red-handed clients off on "technicalities" because "if you really break down the specific wording of this law, then..."

How about HISTORICAL colonialism? How about the practical PRECEDENTED application of the colonial mindset. We've got a whole globe and not a few centuries to pick from -- the Spanish "colonization" of Central and South America, the French colonization of numerous African countries, and of course, the ever-popular British adventures in colonial empire-expanding, to name but a few. How do Bush's (as in "America's") methods in Iraq compare to those?

Are we there to "expand our empire?" To acquire new territory? Will we be governing them from Washington? Will we be leaving an "administrator" of some kind over there with ultimate vetoing / buck-stopping dictatorial powers over their own government? Will we be exacting taxes, or taking ANY kind of indemnity whatsoever, for that matter? Will the Iraqis be forced into American citizenship?

In case you haven't been jotting down your answers on this little quiz, the answers to all those questions is "NO." So by any conventional or historical definition, there is nothing even remotely "colonial" in what we're doing over there.

You said, "Make no mistake: the privatization did not place Iraq's industries into the private hands of Iraqis. But rather into foreign hands."

Well, (a) not ALL of them, maybe, (b) privatization (in just about any form) of certain key industries is still preferable to governmental control or ownership, particularly that of a struggling new and inexperienced government. And finally, (c) part of that "foreign privatization" (and this too is based on some historical precedent) stems from a need to jumpstart a brand new capitalistic system with experienced, accomplished corporations that actually have the fiscal and experiential capability (i.e.; "a friggin' chance") to hit the ground running, and not just create a self-destructive inbred failure that doesn't stand a chance of actually being competitive in a rapacious global market. In other words, STARTING with sharks gives you a better chance of surviving long enough to actually succeed in the long run.

But when you say something like, "This, too, is classic colonialism; in which the occupying power is indifferent to local democracy..." then I know you're just not paying attention. If you don't think that the installation -- and the successful germination -- of SOME form of democracy in the Middle East is at least PART of this overall plan, then you're just trying too hard not to get it.

Don't tell me: we're just there to steal their oil, right?

Then you say, "From the early 80's until the Gulf War, the Bush-Cheney crowd was content to let Saddam oppress his own people."

What would you have had them do BACK THEN? You know, back when Iraq WASN'T regarded as a threat to our national security, and wasn't a viable unilateral threat to our national "interests" (i.e.; oil) either, at least not while there was more than one voting voice in OPEC. As an anti-Bush anti-war vocalist (and therefore most likely someone who doesn't believe in the U.S. having a "world's policeman" role), what sort of intervention would you have had us apply to an uppity, self-destructive, Third World non-threat like 80s Iraq? Political pressure? Check. Did that. Threats of embargo or blockade? Did that. Both stunningly ineffective. How about something more effective, more direct... like assassination or even invasion? Would it have been more okay BACK THEN when they weren't even a direct threat to us? When is it EVER okay to forcibly intercede?

In other words, how was the "Bush-Cheney cabal" manifesting that "content" state of mind back then? By NOT forcibly intervening? By not verbally demanding and threatening ENOUGH? Man, you are tough to please.

They vigorously respond when the nation's security is threatened, and that's not okay. But when they DON'T take active steps during a time when the nation is NOT being threatened, that's not okay either. Jeezy Pete.

Or are you saying we should have responded militarily BACK THEN solely on the basis of human rights violations within their own borders? You know, like our highly successful forays into Somalia and Bosnia, where OUR national interests and security were not issues, but the tormented masses in those countries was.

You said (amazingly), "Getting rid of Saddam was a great achievement. But it will be a completely worthless, wasted gesture-- if Bush's current plan is allowed to culminate."

It's getting too late (and this posting too long) for me to get into WHY that's so ridiculous, so I'll just have to settle (for now) for simply saying that you've got that all wrong -- it'll be a "completely worthless and wasted gesture" if Bush's current plan ISN'T "allowed to culminate." Now that it's been set into motion (whether you agree with it or not), it CAN'T be derailed without creating a monumental disaster -- and not just for the Iraqi citizenry, its infrastructure, and its economy either. We fall back now, and we return to full Paper Tiger status again. We once again announce, in no uncertain terms, (a) our weakness in the face of even minimal casualties, (b) our inability to see a promise (or a threat) all the way through, and (c) our cultural vulnerability to cowardly sniping attacks. And you think they're "demonstrative" against us NOW, wait'll you see their "self-restraint" once they realize that merely plucking a few tender hairs from a few key regions of our national "body" is enough to send this monster packing.

Okay, now I AM rambling. It's just too late at night for me to keep this up right now.

But suffice it to say that doing things like calling our military a bunch of "Thousand Dollar A Day mercenaries" is a sure-fire way to not only show your own ignorance and thereby discredit every other point you attempt to make here, but to also insult a few million of this country's finest, AND get your ass thrown out of here, all at the same time.

And I suppose that's a feat in itself.

GHS

I think by "thousand dollar a day mercenaries" he meant the hired private security guards in the country, not the US servicemen.

Critizing the private security guards, many ex military, many private citizens who (for whatever reason) were not able to enlist, who want to do their part, should not be discredited either.

My hushand and I have a friend who is one his way to Iraq to be one of those "thousand dollar a day mercenaries" but he's not earning a thousand dollars a day--he's earning even less than he earns in the states as a security guard. He's going because he's willing to put his life where is principles are. He wants to HELP the Iraqis and stand up to terrorists--he's willing to take a cut in pay and replace the men who were tortured and murdered to MAKE A POINT that we will not be cowered by terrorists.

Disparaging those who serve, in private or in public uniform, is EQUALLY appalling.

Howdy Shiva. I just re-read "Bride's" latest, and it still sounds to me like a jab at the US military in general. I could be wrong, and I'll happily retract that particular part of my response if I am -- though, like Mrs. du Toit, I find disparaging comments about ANY American over there doing the hard and dangerous work on my (and "Bride's") behalf to be, at best, inflammatory.

I also re-read MY epic gut-spillage, and have now written it on a sticky-note and taped it right to my monitor -- "Don't post after midnight!" For me at least, posting anything that late means having my brain melt in mid-construct and my fingers taking off on autopilot.

I'll try to contain myself in the future to my far rarer moments of complete lucidity -- during daylight, preferably.

GHS

What about it Bride?

You complain that we attack the messenger instead of the message, but when pressed for the details of your message, you fold up and leave.

I've seen this exact tactic over and over again. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a drive-by shooting. Perhaps that kind of strategy works on people who really are as morally bankrupt as you seem to think people like me are. Perhaps a person with no firm convictions on morality and no concept of logic could be easily persuaded into today's version of liberalism, which seems to be wholly dependent upon emoting it's way to victory.

There's an interesting thing for you to consider.

Bush "...allowed Saddam to stay in power?"

I don't recall Saddam having asked our permission to hold his office. And I seem to have heard that the withdrawing of permission for Saddam to hold office was/is not a simple thing.

But get back to the important stuff - How's the plane?

I agree it is inflammatory to jab at anybody risking their lives over there. I tend to give opponents the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't blatantly disgracing US servicemen. I'm too nice a debater apparently.

Mrs. du Toit, I wasn't aware that many private guards over there took pay cuts to serve. Everything I'd read implied that they were damn well off, especially compared to the military grunts (a term of affection I assure you). Thanks for the clarification.

I've been reading a few of the comments regarding contractors in this thread, and I thought I'd offer my .02.

The American military should be self-contained - every function essential to it's ability to operate should be conducted by military personnel, not contractors. Soldiers have a minimum of training, a clear chain of command, rules of engagement for their own protection and the protection of civilians, and minimum safety requirements for all missions they undertake.

Contractors have none of those things - that's how four of them wound up driving through Fallujah in an unarmoured SUV without an armed escort.

Outsourcing any part of the military is a bad idea, as is sending cooks/truck drivers/bodyguards into a country which is basically still a warzone, regardless of their backgrounds. Where do their loyalties lie? The country or the company? Bear in mind that a lot of these people are not American citizens.

Krakatoa goes right to the heart of my argument (in which I said a colonialist faction within the Bush administration prevailed over another faction-- one that favored democracy in Iraq).

Krakatoa does so by questioning my source: the BBC. But the BBC was merely quoting Bush's own appointee: Jay Garner-- the former administrator of Iraq. Garner has not objected to the BBC's reporting of his words.

Garner stands by his claim that he was fired in part because he favored holding quick elections in Iraq. For what it's worth, the New York Times corroborates the "BBC" version.

It was not the intent of my previous post to say (nor is it my belief) that the United States is a monolith in our motives. Some of us have the most noble of intentions.

On the other hand, it is wrong to deny that among our motives has also been an intentional set of policies by President Bush's administration; in which democracy in Iraq was waylaid/ so that a huge extraction (a looting!) of wealth, could be put into place.

I feel that Bill Whittle's often-repeated claim that the US is CATEGORICALLY not-at-all colonialist (as demonstrated by Japan, Germany, etc.) is a propaganda attempt to deny an unpleasant reality. Bill's simplistic argument whitewashes the full, true nature of the Iraq invasion & occupation.
(And, by the way, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.)

Kudos to GreatHairySilverback for admitting that US policy toward Iraq in the 80's WAS colonialist. Instead of willfull-denial, GHS makes a much more reasonable argument: acknowledging that the Cold War was a bi-lateralized world, in which we & the Sovs scrambled to to obtain the "alignment" of the rest of the world/ and saying that such tactics were necessary at the time. I disagree with GHS. I think those tactics were not necessary, and that we would have achieved greater, healthier US influence had we stuck to exporting democracy. Without also exporting oppression in a colonialist fashion: by employing dictators such as Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, & Duvalier.

Other criticisms against my previous post have been...

silly.

For starters, there's an indignant denial that anybody here might question my patriotism. Followed immediately by an indignant claim that I don't support the troops. (The nature of the latter tarnishes the credibility of the former.)

Equally silly is Krakatoa lamenting that I have 'folded up & left', making a rhetorical "drive-by shooting" , only to disappear. Cheer up! I came back! I'll gladly consider your objections & defend my points in further depth.

Lachlan,

I was under the impression that the security contractors are employed by private companies and individuals and are meant to offer protection to those voluntarily in the country and outside the military's responsibility.

I'd prefer that the contractors focus on protecting the private companies and individuals and that the military focus on winning the war. I don't want soldiers to become personal bodyguards but to serve in their trained capacities.

I don't consider it outsourcing for the security contractors to supplement the soldiers' presence. Better that than the possibility that soldiers be doled out piecemeal to provide personal protection, reducing their units' morale and effectiveness.

You said a lot of the security contractors aren't American. What's your source?

GHS defined colonization when he asked:

Are we there to "expand our empire?" To acquire new territory? Will we be governing them from Washington? Will we be leaving an "administrator" of some kind over there with ultimate vetoing / buck-stopping dictatorial powers over their own government? Will we be exacting taxes, or taking ANY kind of indemnity whatsoever, for that matter? Will the Iraqis be forced into American citizenship?

And somehow The Bride has construed that into “Kudos to GreatHairySilverback for admitting that US policy toward Iraq in the 80's WAS colonialist.”

Please, please explain to me how you got from point A to point B. I just don’t see it. Perhaps I’m not as good at this reading comprehension thing as The Bride is...

Clancy,

GHS accurately quoted me as saying: "From the early 80's until the Gulf War, the Bush-Cheney crowd was content to let Saddam oppress his own people."

In this quote, GHS summarizes his reply:

"All in all, given the collapse of the Soviet Union due in no small part to their inability to dominate the oil fields of the middle east, I find no reason to demonize the actions that led to Cold War victory."

So-- Clancy-- GHS isn't disagreeing that Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle got in bed with anti-democratic dictatorships such as Saddam's... to expand the reach of our Cold War empire vs. the USSR.

Rather, GHS concludes our embrace of undemocratic client state was Worth It, because that led to the collapse of the USSR.

Contrast this against my own view: that the US would have won ~more~ lasting influence had we limited ourselves to exporting democracy & local sovereignty/ rather than imposing our neo-colonial will. I think that choosing oppressive partners instead of democracy -- profoundly damaged our noble cause.

A similar dynamic exists today. Today there are those-- including many who frequent this site-- who believe that it was Worth It that Bush thwarted elections in Iraq. Worth It, because it some somehow contributed to fighting terrorism worldwide.

I disagree with that formulation. I think it doesn't add up. I think Bush cheapened what America stands for, by embracing grand-scale looting, instead. There will be bloody long-term costs for Bush's shortsighted greed.

Get it?

So, “Our Cold War Empire” is the same as colonization? Or as you later back-pedaled, neo-colonization? Where/what is this empire you speak of? Was Europe part of this empire too? Puleeeze. There is and was no Empire.

It was simply a classic case of the good guys vs. the bad guys. Just as it is today. Those that value life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness are the good guys. Those to choose to oppress those values are the bad guys. It’s really not that hard to figure out.

Back in the 80’s, the bad guys were the USSR. The cold war was about trying to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. Yes, aligning ourselves with some third-world dictator who abused his people was wrong, but clearly it was favorable to nuclear annihilation. Sometimes, to win some battles, you have to side with the lesser bad guy. That’s life.

“...that the US would have won ~more~ lasting influence...” Would have, could have, should have. It’s so much easier from our perspective of the future, isn’t it? “I think that choosing oppressive partners instead of democracy -- profoundly damaged our noble cause.” I agree, but see the prior paragraph. It was a time of a different enemy with different stakes.

Quick question - Did Iraq have a constitution, or any semblance of an electoral college when these so-called elections were thwarted? Quick answer - No. So what would have happened had these elections taken place? I bet you’d be here criticizing Bush for allowing these elections to have taken place. And meanwhile there would be a mob rule and a civil war raging in Iraq today.

And what’s this “embracing grand-scale looting”? Are you referring to all the oil we’re stealing right now? I don’t know about you, but I sure am enjoying all the gas I’m getting for .50+ cents more per gallon than I was paying back in 2001...

Clancy says Are you referring to all the oil we’re stealing right now? I don’t know about you, but I sure am enjoying all the gas I’m getting for .50+ cents more per gallon than I was paying back in 2001...

Eggzackly. Premium gas costs $2.37/gallon in my neighborhood, and I'm guessin' that if "it was all about oil," then those oil facilities in Iraq woulda been the first thing up and running after the invasion and that it wouldn't cost more than $25 to fill up my little car's gas tank.

The Plane! The Plane! Show us your plane!
Next to your plane, very little else matters.

I would be happy with a J-3 or a Knocker. But, no! I had to be sensible.

Damn.

Live a little of my dream for me, will you?

Bride:

First, I want to apologize to you. I applaud the fact that you didn't cut and run at the first sign of rational debate as I had suspected, and will be more patient in the future.

I am however a little disappointed in your response.

You claim I am questioning your source. My backhanded comment towards the BBC was referring to it's well documented bias against the U.S. actions in Iraq. My qualifying remark was that as a source, it is fine if it is reporting the facts, and I mean specifically, all the pertinent facts about the situation being reported.

You take a report of Garner's claims that he was sacked because his vision for Iraq did not match those of the administration. My first response to that is "So What?". How this is somehow shocking is beyond me.

My second response would be about the relative value in quick elections in Iraq, but Clancy has succinctly outlined the vast problems, based on more detail than you probably got from the BBC, in insuring that a quick election could be fair to Iraquis.

You then make a tremendous leap in logic, saying that Democracy was waylaid so that we could loot Iraq.

This has absolutely no supporting evidence. If it did, the BBC and the NYT would be right out there leading the pack decrying this looting.

You misattributed the following:

""All in all, given the collapse of the Soviet Union due in no small part to their inability to dominate the oil fields of the middle east, I find no reason to demonize the actions that led to Cold War victory.""

That was me, not GHS.

Since it was me, I'll go ahead and respond to it.

If you check back, you will note that I admit things could have been handled better, with the certainty that things could have been handled far worse. And frankly the only counter proposals I heard had far more to do with simply coddling a different tyrant in the middle east and unilaterally disarming our nuclear arsenal. Not very nuanced stuff I think you'd admit.

The overall point being, given the specific geo-political realities of the Cold War, and the fact that it was won by the U.S. without plunging the world into a nuclear holocaust, I am really having a hard time demonizing actions that seem questionable under the illumination of hindsight.

I absolutely do not admit in any way shape or form that our actions in the Middle East have ever been colonialist. I will repeat my questions to you regarding colonialism:

*****
So, where are the FACTS? Show me where the U.S. is somehow colonializing, neo- or otherwise, Iraq.

Weigh your evidence against the U.S. post WWII actions in Japan and Europe and prove to me how it is different.

Weigh your evidence against the actions of our so-called allies and their bald-faced money grabs via the U.N. and through private dealings with Saddam's regime, and prove to me how it is the same as the U.S.
*****

Simply saying it over and over again absent any supporting evidence does not make your claim any more valid with me.

Finally, even if I were to ignore the greater threat we were dealing with (nuclear annhilation) while all the various political maneuverings were going on and blindly accept that the U.S. has done evil things in it's past, what is your solution? Because it finally comes down to the point where someone has to take action and do the right things. SO what are the right things? Walk from Iraq? Appease N. Korea? Support tyrants in the Middle East and in Africa, and in various other places?

How does the left propose to deal with Radical Islam? Bear in mind that the U.N. being involved in any way will carry very little wait considering the Oil for Food scandal, not to mention it's blind eyes on Rwanda among other atrocities.

Again I refer you back to my previous postings. It is not impossible to convince me of something counter to my current positions.

Just give me a comprehensive argument that is built on defensible premises and comes to a rational conclusion based on all the evidence.

Krakatoa,
Have you checked out thoseshirts.com recently? Frank's having a reprint of the NTM shirts.

NonyMouse: aye I have! One is already on order.

When it comes in, I will be submitting my pic for his Peace gallery. Just have to decide which tool to pose with.

Interesting. I've been out of town for two days on an overnight charter, so I haven't been around to immediately respond to my fellow commenters.

Thanks to Krakatoa and Clancy for saving me (and everyone else) from the need for me to reply at length... as well as the need for me to have to research who actually said those things that "Bride" attributed to me.

I didn't say it, but I would have if it hadn't already been said.

No "Bride," I said stuff like "... How about HISTORICAL colonialism? How about the practical PRECEDENTED application of the colonial mindset. We've got a whole globe and not a few centuries to pick from -- the Spanish "colonization" of Central and South America, the French colonization of numerous African countries, and of course, the ever-popular British adventures in colonial empire-expanding, to name but a few. How do Bush's (as in "America's") methods in Iraq compare to those?"

THAT'S colonialism. Not an "... occupying power [being] indifferent to local democracy; accepting whichever local thug can most easily keep the local citizenry suppressed." That's not even a STRETCH of the definition, according to Webster or anybody. And that was the gist of my point.

As for Bill and his plane -- by now both are back in LA and doing well. He had to trailer it in from Colorado, I believe, and should have finished the trip by Tuesday or Wednesday night. Then it was back to his regular day-job for the week. Hopefully now, as the weekend unfurls, he will finally have a moment or two to post an update with pictures.

I'm kinda' looking forward to it myself.

GHS

krakatoa and nony mouse -

i would buy one of imaos t shirts but im boycotting him. he wouldnt take my entry in his babe contest. i submitted it in plenty of time, i included my picture and essay, and he had the gaul (he's french, you know) to say that i'm too young!!

it doesn't matter if i win or loose, but if i live up to the rules he should let me compete. he didn't, so he's a poopy head.

so he can keep his t shirt. when i get my blog, i'm going to have a t shirt that's way better than his. my shirts will be particulate-shear kevlar, able to stop a round from an ak47 but still be soft and supple. they will be wifi enabled, with built in 3g and 256 bit encryption. my shirts will make his look like pitiful rags. frank, you think you're young and hot? look behind you, you're already yesterday's news. generation z is coming through, just as soon as we take a nap!!!

We're at gen Z already? After that what comes next? gen Aa?

Why couldn't it have all just stopped nicely at gen X. Then I would have been immortal. Now I'm just another over-the-hill square. :P

Sounds like a pretty nifty t-shirt you have in development. I'll be interested to see all the spec's once it's in production. ;)

yes, gen z started on the new millenium. people born on or after jan 1 2001. i don't know what comes after z, that's up to the next generation. i hope they go with greek letters. generation theta sounds good.

don't feel bad about being a gen-xer. my godfather is the last baby boomer. he was born at 11:55 pm, dec 31 1960, in hawaii. he's very cool.

the shear thickened kevlar is very trick, here's a link
http://www.che.udel.edu/research_groups/wagner/website/papers_files/fulltext.pdf

the wearable computers and wifi links should be available by the time i'm in the 1st or second grade, and the displays are pretty close http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3647437.stm

btw, bill is a pretty good pinball player, he beat everybody tonight, so he says we all have to bow down to him. he's funny.