NationStates Jolt Archive

It's Tuesday! Congratulations to the University of Connecticut (UConn) Huskies, champions of the 2004 NCAA men's basketball tournament. Tonight, the UConn ladies' team plays for the championship, in New Orleans. Also, the 2004 Major League Baseball season kicked off yesterday for a vast majority of the teams. Another season has been already underway for almost a year...nevermind, it never really ends. Here we go.

- George Neumayr, writing in the American Spectator, wonders why the American Roman Catholic Church doesn't take action against its current most notorious member, John Kerry, for violating church law.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6389

- What was that? Bush can't even speak without committing some verbal gaffe, while Kerry has a gifted intellect? I guess his intellect doesn't extend to his knowledge of the Catholic Church...you know, the one he is a member of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/national/06KERR.html?ex=1396670400&en=d9a95440b27acbc2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

- Jacob Laskin, also on the American Spectator, shows us why appeasement is the wrong approach to take when confronted by Islamic terror. Just ask Spain.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6388

- Still on the American Spectator, David Hogberg examines the issue of the media's liberal bias, this time when we look at outsourcing.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6384

- Jed Babbin, writing on, you guessed it, the American Spectator, previews the upcoming testimony by Condoleeza Rice before the 9/11 Commission.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6381

- Brandon Miniter, in OpinionJournal.com, has two questions that Condi Rice should ask the 9/11 Commission.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110004913

- For those of you who think that Bill O'Reilly is just another conservative automaton (that means robot, Red Arrow,) here he is, taking on ALL of talk radio in a really good column.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/180538p-156836c.html

- Remember the Richard Clarke testimony? You know, "terrorism was the primary focus of the Clinton White House," "we gave the Bush team a complete plan for dealing with al-Qaeda," "Condi Rice was clueless about al-Qaeda," blah-blah-blah. Oops, seems like Mister Clarke was caught in a tiny, itsy, bitsy lie. You see, the Clinton administration prepared a final report on National Security, in December of 2000, for the Bush team. This report was prepared by the team led by, guess who...Dick Clarke, that's who! This is a 45,000 word report, roughly 200 pages, and it mentions al-Qaeda, exactly...NEVER. Osama bin-Laden gets mentioned FOUR times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

Don't believe me about the report? You can find it and read it at:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

- Isn't the US economy supposed to be in the tank? I guess no one told the business community. More bad news for Kerry.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079420166252&p=1012571727085

- Speaking of the economy, John Kerry greeted the great news about job growth in March, by releasing a statement whereby he proposes to create 10 million new jobs during four years, if elected.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&u=/usnw/20040402/pl_usnw/kerry_statement_on_job_numbers_released_today115_xml

But, wait...according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force in the US stands at 146 million, of which 138 million (an all-time record high number) are employed. The 5.7 percent unemployment rate yields a total of 8.6 million unemployed people. Are we to somehow believe that a President will create more jobs than there are people available to fill them? Nevermind the fact that Presidents don't create jobs, the economy creates jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

- P.J. O'Rourke has been holding a grudge against John Kerry for 18 years. Read why, and learn something more about Kerry.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/947nzczv.asp?pg=1

- Whether you like it or not, Israel's war on Hamas is just another battle in the War against Terror. Jonathan Rauch, writing on Reason.com, explains why.
http://www.reason.com/rauch/040504.shtml

- Have you noticed something? In "Palestine", how many of the suicide bombers are Christian? That's right, none. Dennis Prager explores this issue.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040406.shtml

- Joel Mowbray wonders why the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been silent about the brutalities committed by Shiite Iraqis in Fallujah this past weekend.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20040406.shtml

- So, since we're closing in on Tax Day (April 15th), do you ever wonder just who pays what portion of the US tax burden? Did the "top 1 percent" really get that huge break the liberals claim they did? Bruce Bartlett will surprise you with the answers.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040406.shtml

And now that we have spent so much time with serious stuff, tonight you get two...yes, two!...light-hearted specials.

- First of all, Day by Day, drawn by Chris Muir.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

- Now, guys, I have to warn you, this one is going to make you cringe. Don't try this at home!!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004160424,00.html

Have fun. Remember, the time you spend reading these articles counts towards your anti-liberalism therapy.

And now for the first shot in the target rich zone of Panhandlia's post.

- What was that? Bush can't even speak without committing some verbal gaffe, while Kerry has a gifted intellect? I guess his intellect doesn't extend to his knowledge of the Catholic Church...you know, the one he is a member of.
link snipped


Here's the huge gaffe in Church knowledge: Kerry said
'My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

So he mixed up the names John and Pius, but got the freaking number right. I'd like to propose a little poll--go out on the street and ask the average Catholic if they know which pope presided over Vatican II and give partial credit if they get either the name or the number right. I wonder what percentage will come close on either count?

Do you even read these, Panhandlia?

Considering how you libs get on Bush's case for similar, let alone less significant, gaffes, Kerry's error is fair game. If he is going to call himself a Catholic and preach about how his views are in accordance with church teachings, he should at least make an attempt to get it right. And no, saying "he got the freaking number right" does not get him partial credit.

And this one is just too easy:
But, wait...according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force in the US stands at 146 million, of which 138 million (an all-time record high number) are employed. The 5.7 percent unemployment rate yields a total of 8.6 million unemployed people. Are we to somehow believe that a President will create more jobs than there are people available to fill them? Nevermind the fact that Presidents don't create jobs, the economy creates jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Silly, Panhandlia--the unemployment rate doesn't cite how many people are out of work--it estimates how many people are looking for work. And yes, there's an important difference. There are a ton of people who have given up hope of finding work or who are what is known as "underemployed," making far less than their skills and education would normally allow for. Those folks aren't figured into the unemployment rate either. Therefore--still with me--there's plenty of room in this economy for another 10 million jobs, especially when you factor in those people entering the job market for the first time.

Considering how you libs get on Bush's case for similar, let alone less significant, gaffes, Kerry's error is fair game. If he is going to call himself a Catholic and preach about how his views are in accordance with church teachings, he should at least make an attempt to get it right. And no, saying "he got the freaking number right" does not get him partial credit.I would say that getting the names John and Pius mixed up is more than a bit less significant than say, saying there were WMD in Iraq (even if we assume that was a mistake and not a deliberate fabrication, an assumption I am not willing to make).

And this one is just too easy:
But, wait...according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force in the US stands at 146 million, of which 138 million (an all-time record high number) are employed. The 5.7 percent unemployment rate yields a total of 8.6 million unemployed people. Are we to somehow believe that a President will create more jobs than there are people available to fill them? Nevermind the fact that Presidents don't create jobs, the economy creates jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Silly, Panhandlia--the unemployment rate doesn't cite how many people are out of work--it estimates how many people are looking for work. And yes, there's an important difference. There are a ton of people who have given up hope of finding work or who are what is known as "underemployed," making far less than their skills and education would normally allow for. Those folks aren't figured into the unemployment rate either. Therefore--still with me--there's plenty of room in this economy for another 10 million jobs, especially when you factor in those people entering the job market for the first time.

I guess you know more than the folks at the BLS...now I ask, do you even bother reading this?

- Remember the Richard Clarke testimony? You know, "terrorism was the primary focus of the Clinton White House," "we gave the Bush team a complete plan for dealing with al-Qaeda," "Condi Rice was clueless about al-Qaeda," blah-blah-blah. Oops, seems like Mister Clarke was caught in a tiny, itsy, bitsy lie. You see, the Clinton administration prepared a final report on National Security, in December of 2000, for the Bush team. This report was prepared by the team led by, guess who...Dick Clarke, that's who! This is a 45,000 word report, roughly 200 pages, and it mentions al-Qaeda, exactly...NEVER. Osama bin-Laden gets mentioned FOUR times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

Don't believe me about the report? You can find it and read it at:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

i don't know man, that seems like a pretty weak point. that paper talks an awful lot about terrorism, but it generally stays away from specifics except a few examples. but it does say
Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis.

you might as well fault them for not mentioning farc by name in the section about columbia.

- Remember the Richard Clarke testimony? You know, "terrorism was the primary focus of the Clinton White House," "we gave the Bush team a complete plan for dealing with al-Qaeda," "Condi Rice was clueless about al-Qaeda," blah-blah-blah. Oops, seems like Mister Clarke was caught in a tiny, itsy, bitsy lie. You see, the Clinton administration prepared a final report on National Security, in December of 2000, for the Bush team. This report was prepared by the team led by, guess who...Dick Clarke, that's who! This is a 45,000 word report, roughly 200 pages, and it mentions al-Qaeda, exactly...NEVER. Osama bin-Laden gets mentioned FOUR times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

Don't believe me about the report? You can find it and read it at:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

i don't know man, that seems like a pretty weak point. that paper talks an awful lot about terrorism, but it generally stays away from specifics except a few examples. but it does say
Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis.

you might as well fault them for not mentioning farc by name in the section about columbia.Here's another reply (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003627.php) to Panhandlia's pathetic point.

A couple of comments:

The full report is here. If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.

On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."

It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":

We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

As far as I know, Clarke never suggested that counterterrorism was the Clinton administration's highest priority, merely one of several high priorities. His complaint isn't that Bush didn't make it Job 1, but that he didn't give it even as much attention as Clinton did.

- Remember the Richard Clarke testimony? You know, "terrorism was the primary focus of the Clinton White House," "we gave the Bush team a complete plan for dealing with al-Qaeda," "Condi Rice was clueless about al-Qaeda," blah-blah-blah. Oops, seems like Mister Clarke was caught in a tiny, itsy, bitsy lie. You see, the Clinton administration prepared a final report on National Security, in December of 2000, for the Bush team. This report was prepared by the team led by, guess who...Dick Clarke, that's who! This is a 45,000 word report, roughly 200 pages, and it mentions al-Qaeda, exactly...NEVER. Osama bin-Laden gets mentioned FOUR times.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

Don't believe me about the report? You can find it and read it at:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

i don't know man, that seems like a pretty weak point. that paper talks an awful lot about terrorism, but it generally stays away from specifics except a few examples. but it does say
Afghanistan remains a serious threat to U.S. worldwide interests because of the Taliban's continued sheltering of international terrorists and its increasing export of illicit drugs. Afghanistan remains the primary safehaven for terrorists threatening the United States, including Usama bin Ladin. The United Nations and the United States have levied sanctions against the Taliban for harboring Usama bin Ladin and other terrorists, and will continue to pressure the Taliban until it complies with international requests to bring bin Ladin to justice. The United States remains concerned about those countries, including Pakistan, that support the Taliban and allow it to continue to harbor such radical elements. We are engaged in energetic diplomatic efforts, including through the United Nations and with Russia and other concerned countries, to address these concerns on an urgent basis.

you might as well fault them for not mentioning farc by name in the section about columbia.Here's another reply (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003627.php) to Panhandlia's pathetic point.

A couple of comments:

The full report is here. If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.

On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."

It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":

We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

As far as I know, Clarke never suggested that counterterrorism was the Clinton administration's highest priority, merely one of several high priorities. His complaint isn't that Bush didn't make it Job 1, but that he didn't give it even as much attention as Clinton did.

Yeah, Cllinton gave al-Qaeda a lot of attention. Maybe that is why they felt they could attack US targets without fear of retaliation. What would have given them that idea? The lack of response to the bombings in Saudi Arabia? Maybe the lack of response to the USS Cole bombing. Could it have been the lack of response to the first WTC bombing?

Nah, couldn't be, right? After all, the Clinton team was oh so busy fighting terrorism.

The link-king returns!

Panhandlia. I answered your question. Why didn't you answer mine? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137034&highlight=)

To repeat: Please explain why you feel that having Saddam (the guy that didn't atttack you) in custody is so great when the war has resulted in the guy that DID attack you (Osama) is still walking free.

Because your president got sidetracked from the primary issue of the war on terror - getting the terrorists.


-Z-

eh whatever. i'm not a clinton fan either. i'm with chomsky on this one. if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.

Yeah, Cllinton gave al-Qaeda a lot of attention. Maybe that is why they felt they could attack US targets without fear of retaliation. What would have given them that idea? The lack of response to the bombings in Saudi Arabia? Maybe the lack of response to the USS Cole bombing. Could it have been the lack of response to the first WTC bombing?

Nah, couldn't be, right? After all, the Clinton team was oh so busy fighting terrorism.

You know - I never wa that fond of Clinton. but that sort of revisionist statement annoys me.

Convenient of you to forget that when Clinton DID start military actions against Al Qaeda (blowing up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan), the Republicans accused him of just trying to take the focus away from his penis - which they had an unnatural interest in.

Put up such a fuss about it as far as it being unwarranted and an invasion of Afghani soverignty that he was compelled to stop. It wasn't seen as important enough to them when he did try and preemptively take Osama out.

But that would be his fault too I guess. Everything is right? Will we still be blaming everything on him in four more years? Or will it be the current president's problem by then?

OF course, if republicans had stuck to only caring about penises maybe 500+ families would still have their children....


-Z-

Yeah, Cllinton gave al-Qaeda a lot of attention. Maybe that is why they felt they could attack US targets without fear of retaliation. What would have given them that idea? The lack of response to the bombings in Saudi Arabia? Maybe the lack of response to the USS Cole bombing. Could it have been the lack of response to the first WTC bombing?

Nah, couldn't be, right? After all, the Clinton team was oh so busy fighting terrorism.Point one--we did retaliate for the Khobar towers attack. That was the attack that basically announced Bin Laden's emergence on the world stage as a player and not just a financier. Secondly, there was no actionable evidence to link the Cole to Bin Laden until April 2001 when Bush was president--so why didn't we retaliate? Might want to ask your boy about that. And we most certainly did respond to the first WTC bombing--there are people in jail for it and there were a number of terrorist camps destroyed.

One last point--every time Clinton tried to take military action from 1998 on, the Republicans accused him of launching missiles to divert attention from the bullshit investigations they were constantly hammering him with. Do you think that maybe if they'd have let him do his job that he might have been able tomake some more headway against Bin Laden? Hmmmmmm?

eh whatever. i'm not a clinton fan either. i'm with chomsky on this one. if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.

He also fails to mention that when Clinton did respond to it he was accused of "wagging the dog" by the Republicans in order to distract the public from his blow jobs..

:roll:

And this one is just too easy:
But, wait...according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force in the US stands at 146 million, of which 138 million (an all-time record high number) are employed. The 5.7 percent unemployment rate yields a total of 8.6 million unemployed people. Are we to somehow believe that a President will create more jobs than there are people available to fill them? Nevermind the fact that Presidents don't create jobs, the economy creates jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Silly, Panhandlia--the unemployment rate doesn't cite how many people are out of work--it estimates how many people are looking for work. And yes, there's an important difference. There are a ton of people who have given up hope of finding work or who are what is known as "underemployed," making far less than their skills and education would normally allow for. Those folks aren't figured into the unemployment rate either. Therefore--still with me--there's plenty of room in this economy for another 10 million jobs, especially when you factor in those people entering the job market for the first time.

I guess you know more than the folks at the BLS...now I ask, do you even bother reading this?I'm starting to understand why you support Bush. The math issue you brought up isn't supported by the article. The article also doesn't say anything that contradicts Incertonia's post. Then you, who either didn't read the article or ignored what it said, accused Incertonia of not reading it

And this one is just too easy:
But, wait...according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the civilian labor force in the US stands at 146 million, of which 138 million (an all-time record high number) are employed. The 5.7 percent unemployment rate yields a total of 8.6 million unemployed people. Are we to somehow believe that a President will create more jobs than there are people available to fill them? Nevermind the fact that Presidents don't create jobs, the economy creates jobs.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Silly, Panhandlia--the unemployment rate doesn't cite how many people are out of work--it estimates how many people are looking for work. And yes, there's an important difference. There are a ton of people who have given up hope of finding work or who are what is known as "underemployed," making far less than their skills and education would normally allow for. Those folks aren't figured into the unemployment rate either. Therefore--still with me--there's plenty of room in this economy for another 10 million jobs, especially when you factor in those people entering the job market for the first time.

I guess you know more than the folks at the BLS...now I ask, do you even bother reading this?I'm starting to understand why you support Bush. The math issue you brought up isn't supported by the article. The article also doesn't say anything that contradicts Incertonia's post. Then you, who either didn't read the article or ignored what it said, accused Incertonia of not reading it

Hahaha Panhandlia busted again!

You are the second person in two weeks to catch Panhandlia posting articles he didn't even read.. I think that's too funny!

*I'm starting to wonder though if this shouldn't really be under the same category of copy/paste all the time.. I don't let Red Arrow do it.. maybe .. hmm

*I will think about it for a bit*

Let him do it Steph--every time one of us discredits him, we also discredit his sources, and so perhaps we help another lurker or two to realize just how full of crap most of these people are. They're not all full of it--there are some honest conservatives that I merely disagree with over matters of policy and those are honest disagreements. These people that Panhandlia continually cuts and pastes from are just tools, whores collecting a paycheck, and the more we discredit them, the better off we all are.

Let him do it Steph--every time one of us discredits him, we also discredit his sources, and so perhaps we help another lurker or two to realize just how full of crap most of these people are. They're not all full of it--there are some honest conservatives that I merely disagree with over matters of policy and those are honest disagreements. These people that Panhandlia continually cuts and pastes from are just tools, whores collecting a paycheck, and the more we discredit them, the better off we all are.

No, I agree.. but I'm thinking like a moderator on this one.. I do come down pretty hard on Red Arrow for doing the same thing. In fact I've even issued a warning to Red Arrow acting as a moderator..

I suppose he does given comments... but it's weak. As long as Red Arrow doesn't complain.. because I can't expect to make a ruling towards one person that doesn't include every one. Tough call. I hadn't really thought about it till my husband pointed it out to me.

I've been looking around to see if he's ripping off those comments on the articles, if he's cutting and pasting a right-wing blog or something and so far I haven't found it. I suspect he is because his normal writing style is nothing like the little smart-ass comments that come with the links and he's obviously not reading the articles that he links to, but so far I haven't found it.

I've been looking around to see if he's ripping off those comments on the articles, if he's cutting and pasting a right-wing blog or something and so far I haven't found it. I suspect he is because his normal writing style is nothing like the little smart-ass comments that come with the links and he's obviously not reading the articles that he links to, but so far I haven't found it.

Hmm that makes me wonder if he's not just ripping off the whole thing then? Maybe some where in some one's blog or some thing they do this daily dose thing.. and he's just copying it all.. we know he doesn't read the articles.. I had not thought of that either.. jeeze, my brain is just not working today..

(baby has been sick for three days.. Zep & I haven't been getting a whole bunch of sleep)