January 26, 2006

Jonah Goldberg to speak in Madison.

February 1st, 7 pm, Grainger Hall. (And there's WiFi!)

If you don't know who Jonah Goldberg is, read some of his columns.

47 comments:

Brad V said...

Welcome to Ninevah, Jonah!

You saw it here first:

http://lettersinbottles.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-reviews-jonah-goldberg-coming.html

Jacques Cuze said...

f you don't know who Jonah Goldberg is just google for doughy pantload.

Here's a sort of best of collection:



"In the weeks prior to the war to liberate Afghanistan, a good friend of mine would ask me almost every day, "Why aren't we killing people yet?" And I never had a good answer for him. Because one of the most important and vital things the United States could do after 9/11 was to kill people. Call it a "forceful response," "decisive action" — whatever. Those are all nice euphemisms for killing people. And the world is a better place because America saw the necessity of putting steel beneath the velvet of those euphemisms."

-- Jonah Goldberg

I think that war with Iraq is necessary to save lives in the long run. I think that those who are opposed to toppling Saddam are risking American (and Arab and Israeli) lives too.

Soldiers will die in any war, that's why they call it war.

-- Jonah Goldberg

As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.

-- Jonah Goldberg


verification word: Chck3nh4wk

Joan said...

Do you think he'll be allowed to speak, or will he be pelted with pies or salad dressing? I'm curious to see how it goes.

reader_iam said...

Jonah's prolific, all right, and some stuff is over the top. (I myself really despised the "Because one of the most important and vital things the United States could do after 9/11 was to kill people" comment that Quxxo cites.)

But a lot isn't.

I'll bet he's an interesting speaker.

Madison's a relatively short drive away (and if it weren't freakin' February a beautifu one, going the "back" way, which we've done a number of times).

I think I may drive up--assuming DH isn't going to out of town on business.

Flame away, flame away, Quxxo! For today, you're lower than a gnat (because of what you did earlier on another thread).

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Perhaps he'll coin another masthead quote for you that day.

He calls the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." He didn't coin it, he just circulated it. A lot.

miklos rosza said...

quxxo you really lower yourself by using the word chickenhawk. that ship has sailed.

BrianOfAtlanta said...

Somehow, despite their professed beliefs, I doubt many of the chickenhawk meme club would really feel better in Heinlein's Starship Troopers world.

Uncle Jimbo said...

Thx for the mention Ann,

CFACT who is bringing him and madison.com will be hosting a soiree afterwards either at the Union or nearby with some local journalistic luminaries to show up from both Progressive and Conservative viewpoints. We are hoping for an engaging discussion rather than an argument and it helps that Jonah is funny.

Cordially,

Uncle J

brylin said...

Quxxo, Do you believe in viewpoint diversity?

Stacy said...

I am not a big jonah fan. I kind of think he comes across as uninformed, and at times, purposely over-the-top.

Also, I find his credentials for conservative pundit stardom interesting- the son of a clinton-hater who used the Lewinsky scandal to become the poster boy for conservative 30-somethings. How far can you take the "I really hate Hillary" meme? I don't doubt there are liberal pundits who have similar backgrounds, I'm just sayin'.

Hey Ann- I'm glad to see you listed as one of the blogher board of advisors!

Blog on!

ShadyCharacter said...

Stacy, if you think Jonah's thing is 24/7 "I Really Hate Hillary", you're simply ignorant.

I say that to be descriptive, not to insult you.

First of all, as to his credentials, he's lauded by conservatives based on his work at National Review (Large Editor) and as a syndicated columnist over the past decade or so (not because his mom is the conservative provocateur of your imaginings).

Second, if you had bothered to follow Ann's link and read 4 or 5 of his articles picked at random before commenting (and not simply imagined what he must be like based on who his mom is and your own biases) you wouldn't, I don't think, have written this way.

Try a couple of his articles on the intellectual tradition of the Left. Fascinating stuff!

ChrisO said...

One thing I can say in Jonah Goldberg's favor is that he's not the most repulsive member of his family.

I think it's amusing that quxxo is castigated for using the chickenhawk meme, but Goldberg is celebrated for using "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," despite the fact that he didn't even originate it. How au courant.

And by the way, I don't agree that everyone who supports the war has an obligation to sign up. However, I do think the chickenhawk appelation is appropriate for those fighting keyboardists who go out of their way to say things like "why aren't we killing people?" or who denigrate a Viet Nam veteran because in their judgement when he got wounded fighting in the jungle he didn't bleed enough.

Goatwhacker said...

Boy, I actually kind of agree with quxxo on something. I don't like Goldberg and don't think he's a particularly good spokesman for conservatives. He comes across not as thoughtful but as a knee-jerk conservative, which is no more desirable than a knee-jerk liberal.

Elizabeth said...

Brylin,

On this blog, viewpoint diversity includes saying what a pantload Jonah Goldberg is.

As far as the chickenhawk boat having sailed, I still have no respect for urgent young men saying "let's you and him go fight!" and "I had other priorities" than military service. We all have a right to an opinion on this war, regardless of service, but there's no shame in noting that the biggest cheerleaders include too many who didn't just coincidentally miss out on serving, but energetically sought to avoid it. Jonah and Derb like to paint themselves as warriors. They're not.

RogerA said...

Let's face it--the days of the Alsops, Scotty Reston, and yeah, grudgingly, Tony Lewis are gone forever--we are stuck with the Goldbers and Dowds (ewwww, Dick Cheny, dont oogle my google)--Now THERE is journalism at its finest.

Elizabeth said...

Roger! That's a good pairing--Goldberg and Dowd. Ha!

ShadyCharacter said...

Elizabeth,

Uh, Derb did serve in the army, but does not think the Iraq war will turn out well at all (something about certain people being uninclined towards democracy).

Would that make him a hawk-chicken like Murtha?

Pastor_Jeff said...

And FDR intentionally aggravated Germany and Japan to draw the US into WWII, against widespread isolationist public opinion. And how convenient that he was unable to serve.

Bonus points - as Ass't Sec. of the Navy in WWI, he sent men to die fighting an enemy who hadn't declared war on us.

Two world wars.
1.4 million casualties.
No military service.

Was FDR a chickenhawk?

Gothamimage said...

Should be an interesting speech.

Joan said...

"Chickenhawk" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" have about the same amounts of accuracy and relevancy, but "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" wins because it's funny.

Elizabeth said...

Shady:

My bad. I meant the other kind of chickenhawk, to wit, Derb's comments on the sexual appeal of pubescent girls. Dunno how I confused that.

Jeff, FDR "aggravated Japan and Germany"? I guess they wouldn't have been on that whole take over the planet thing without his provocation. Are you actually seeking to compare Iraq 2002 with Hitler's expanisionist Reich? Wacky.

I'll give FDR a pass on the military thing, what with the wheelchair and all.

On WWI, though, there are fair criticisms to be made.

Pastor_Jeff said...

Liz,

FDR intentionally and illegally subverted US laws forbidding giving material aid to the Allies (I thought only Republican Presidents subverted law for a greater good?). And he cut off oil to Japan. So yeah, he pretty much goaded the Axis into attacking us. Germany didn't invade New Jersey.

As late as December 1940 (6 motnhs after the fall of France), 90% of Americans didn't want to send troops to Europe. We were happy to let Europe fall under Nazi control as long as we were safe. So yes, the Axis were trying to take over the world - destroy freedom and deomcracy, as it were (wacky!) - but strangely enough, only the President seemed to care when they didn't yet pose a direct threat to us. Huh.

US News has a handy primer on the long history of US Presidents proactively attacking other nations. I think you'd find some helpful comparisons and historical perspective.

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Jeff,

I'm not questioning that FDR acted against the polls, nor have I offered polls as argument against our action in Iraq. I'm wondering how you manage to compare the Axis and Iraq.

Thanks for the history link, but that's not what I'm questioning. Your analogy is weak, not your grasp of history.

ShadyCharacter said...

Elizabeth,

As to Derb, I'm not sure how pubescent girls fit into the picture, but I'll take your word for it that it does somehow...

You say Jeff's analogy is weak. Let me try to explain it in case it's simply a matter of misinterpretation.

Liberals like you and quxxo* throw out a charge of "chickenhawk" at the supporters of the war in Iraq. The point of the insult is that you have people (jonah goldberg, the president, condi rice etc...) who will not actually be fighting on the ground in Iraq arguing for the war. It's an application of the "conservatives are hypocrites so we don't need to debate them on substance" rule from the leftist debate handbook :)

Jeff's analogy is as follows:

As Bush and Jonah are to the Iraq War [supporting the war while not actually serving], so FDR is to WWI and WWII [supporting (and even precipitating - that's the point Jeff was making with his history link) a war he wasn't going to have to fight in].

Of course the whole analogy breaks down if we introduce the "FDR was in a wheelchair" exception [an interesting proviso - I guess in the Liberal's dream world the only people able to speak out on foreign policy without drawing the Chickenhawk charge would be those currently serving military and the physically disabled - Starship Troopers with a twist!].

However, Jonah at least should fall under this "Chickenhawk Wheelchair Exception" as he is a self-admitted Overly-Large Man and thus, like FDR, is probably not physically suited to combat.



* I'm only pairing you with quxxo on this one "chickenhawk" issue! Quxxo is in all ways a negative force in these comment sections (petty, generally off-topic and altogether nasty) while you are one of the more reliably positive posters on this board.

ChrisO said...

It's an application of the "conservatives are hypocrites so we don't need to debate them on substance" rule from the leftist debate handbook

Right, unlike the "anyone who questions the war is a deranged Bush-hater who's helping the enemy" rule.

And for the sake of accuracy, I'm not sure where you get the idea that liberals are insisting that Bush should join the military. The whole comparison with FDR is based on a fallacy.

ShadyCharacter said...

ChrisO,

Apparently you never lerned to reed gud.

The immediate discussion is on the use of FDR in an analogy exposing the basic idiocy of the "chickenhawk" charge made incessantly by people like you and quxxo (no asterisk because I don't think you are arguing in good faith).

In what sense was FDR not a chickenhawk? Please explain! What does that tell us about the cogency or relevance of the insult in a reasoned debate on the war in Iraq?

You write: "And for the sake of accuracy, I'm not sure where you get the idea that liberals are insisting that Bush should join the military."

No, you bozos are simply arguing that because he (and other sinister neo-conservatives) is not in the military it is somehow incorrect for him to support a war and any argument he makes in support of the war should be discounted. You oppose the war regardless of whether Bush, Jonah Goldberg, Paul Wolfovitz (and so on and so on) is or has served in the military. This is evident because you guys gladly disregard the overwhelming support for the war among our actual fighting soldiers, but of course, you still SUPPORT THE TROOPS ™!

Let me take it down a level for you (though as I'm planning to use an analogy, it will probably be lost on you!)

Say we're having a debate on soft-wood lumber tariffs on Canadian wood. Say Bush and his sinister Jewish advisors (I’m sorry, “neo-conservative” is the euphemism you guys like to use, right?) support tariffs and liberals such as yourself oppose them. Say all you leftists started shouting “LumberChicken!” anytime the topic came up (“Bush imposes tariffs on wood that his is too wussy to chop down himself!!!”) : ) What relevance would it have to the debate that Bush is not currently a lumberjack (though to make this imperfect analogy more perfect, we’d have to posit that he was in the Lumberjack reserves back in the day…)?

In screaming “LumberChicken”, no rational person would think it was because you wanted Bush to BECOME a lumberjack and continue in his support for tariffs, just as when screaming “ChickenHawk” no one believes that you would debate more honestly on the war if Bush enlisted as a private in 2008.

The point of the slur is to shut down debate. That is to avoid discussing the war on substantive grounds.

Am I wrong in my analysis of the ChickenHawk slur? If so, please explain it to me with real small words! :)

Finally, you write: “Right, unlike the "anyone who questions the war is a deranged Bush-hater who's helping the enemy" rule.”

Point of fact, the only time this rule is exercised is when some deranged Bush-hater like yourself is trying to shut down substantive debate by accusing the supporters of the war of trying to shut down debate. And yes I’m questioning your patriotism (no, not really).

It’s all deliciously Orwellian!

Abraham said...

It's an application of the "conservatives are hypocrites so we don't need to debate them on substance" rule

To me, that is what is so offensive about this rhetorical tactic. As any Vulcan would tell you, it's simply not relevant in any logical way. It's an anti-intellectual appeal to emotion.

Pastor_Jeff said...

Elizabeth,

Yes, of course the situations are different. But I think there's enough similarity to suggest a parallel.

By late 1940, all of continental Europe was controlled by Nazis or Communists. The President saw an indirect threat to American safety and democracy. He illegally did what he thought was in our best interest, even though his actions led to war. Roosevelt intentionally put US Navy and merchant ships in harm's way, knowing it would ramp up US anger at Germany. History later proved him right.

Is Iraq the Axis? Obviously not. But we aren't fighting people who wear uniforms and march in nice rows. We're facing a very different kind of threat.

Was invading Iraq the right thing to do? I don't know. I'm not sure it fits the traditional Christian definition of a just war. But the accusations of "chickenhawk" are illogical and historically naive.

We're in a war now. You can argue with how Bush is prosecuting that war. But if you want to be consistent, nobody who is opposed to the war has a right to complain unless they've served, too.

There's plenty of historical precedent for Presidents with no military experience making significant decisions that at the time seem wrong-headed and dangerous.

How about cutting the President some slack, instead of relentlessly beating the drum of folly, arrogance, error, and illegality? - unless you're willing to make the same charges of Bush's predecessors.

ChrisO said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Shady and Jeff, if you've read my comments you'd see I say clearly that everyone, regardless of service, has a right to support or oppose the war. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with judging how a person's service or lack of it might affect their individual judgment. Cheney and Bush, along with some other members of the administration deeply involved in getting us into Iraq, were of age to serve when our country was in a war. Most chose not to do so. Cheney "had other priorities," a comment which smacks of so much arrogance and disdain that it makes me want to vomit when I think about it. And yet he is a chief architect of our conflict in Iraq. Bush did serve, but actively sought not to serve overseas. That strikes me as a purely political move, to keep his ass safe at home but covered politically in the future. I don't have a lot of respect for these social elites who want to lead, but don't want to sacrifice. And then to watch as their campaign dons little bandaids to make fun of John Kerry's actual service injuries, well, chickenhawk is about as nice a word as I can come up with. They're despicable elitists. No, I don't give Bush a pass. He's a big boy, in an important job. He's been given way too many passes, all his life.

Jeff, you say it's fair game to criticize how this war is being waged. I submit that the lack of military background among its architects has something to do with its multitudinous problems.

In making an analogy of WWII to Iraq, you attempt to compare Bush's descision to invade Iraq with FDR's decision to enter WWII. There is no moral basis for that comparison, chickenhawk analogy aside.

Shady, thanks for the quxxo disclaimer.

ShadyCharacter said...

ChrisO writes: "The religion of the people who got us into Iraq may be of importance to you, but it means nothing to me. And your attempting to inject it into this debate for the purpose of smearing me is vile."

Fine, Chris, I'm the anti-Semite for pointing out the vile anti-semitic rhetoric used by many supposedly progressive leftists opposed to the war... Surely you’re aware of the whole left wing “neo-con = Jewish” controversy that has been brewing over the last 3 years. You liberals have been deploying this tactic against conservatives for decades - now that we conservatives are able to deploy it effectively against you all of a sudden you don’t like the rhetoric of guilt by association. Fair enough, I’m willing to concede that you are probably not anti-Semitic.

However, you've provided evidence of your inability to make a coherent argument with the following: "As I said, however, I think it is apprpriate to apply it to people who never served, yet insist on talking tough and denigrating the service of those who did see battle, like Kerry or Murtha."

So in your formulation, a woman in the 19th century had no standing to support the Civil War, a parapalegic has no standing to "talk tough" and argue for the use of force (those wusses, right?), and let's not even talk about the effect the don't-ask-don't-tell policy has on the authority of an openly gay man to dare express an opinion on foreign affairs (as you might tell him, "nyah-nyah-nyah you never served so shut up, I can't hear you I'm not even listening)."

BTW, I love how you leftists are so quick to assert the “absolute moral authority” (a la Dowd) of left-wing peacenik former soldiers while ignoring absolutely the opinions of pro-war current soldiers. Can you logically reconcile that?

Another question (clearly rhetorical as you don’t show any inclination to engage any substantive points) - do you concede that it could be possible to be an anti-war “war-hero™” and still be wrong when predicting that a war is lost or does that not compute? Is it acceptable in your world-view to simply disagree with as august a figure as a Max Cleland or Murtha?

If so, why do you not extend the courtesy of infallibility on John McCain who has a completely different take on the status of the Iraq war?

Finally, a concession. I am a jackass. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. If I am, why don’t you advance some actual arguments this time?

ShadyCharacter said...

Elizabeth, two points.

First, you write: "Jeff, you say it's fair game to criticize how this war is being waged. I submit that the lack of military background among its architects has something to do with its multitudinous problems." I could be wrong, but haven't you self-identified as a college English professor? Now I may be wrong about that, but do you have any independent expertise to support a conclusion that this war (with the historically atypically low casualty rate) is being waged incorrectly? Or are you basing that on a hunch informed by your general dislike for George and Dick? Among the left-wing opion makers who may have shaped your perception of a war being incompetently waged, what are their qualifications for such an assessment?

I'd posit that if you surveyed the opinions of those with actual first-hand experience waging and fighting this war, you'd see a lot more support than criticism. This is not to say the war is being perfectly waged (an impossibility), but really, what is your basis for saying it is being horribly waged?

Also, George is presumably no LBJ, micromanaging individual engagements (as LBJ supposedly did during Vietnam) and butting in where he has no business doing so. Surely you’d concede he doesn’t have the mental horsepower to handle such an undertaking (though I wouldn’t). Why in the world then would it matter whether an 18 year-old Bush had pulled the trigger in some Vietnamese jungle and killed some 15 year old Viet Cong soldier? Why in the world would you be more willing to accept his judgment 30 years later on whether or not a war was in the best interests of our country? Fighting as a private, or even a colonel, in a war does not a military genius make. You appear to have two points to support the whole ChickenHawk argument (which you apparently see as an argument and not simply a slur):

1) By not serving, Bush doesn’t have the basic experience necessary to develop a foreign policy.
Response: Bush has advisors with such experience. Also, it has to be apparent to you just how freaky it would be if we really set up a fascist (fits in this case) system where military service was a pre-requisite to command. You do accept the notion of civilian control over our military and not vice versa, right?

2) Bush exhibited immaturity and elitist privilege as an 18 year old.
Response: So freaking what? I was incredibly immature at 18 and as much as I respect the service of all our servicemen, I would posit that there might be one or two dramatically immature 18 year olds in service right now. I wouldn’t hold that against them 30 years from now. The question is, why would you?

Sorry for the length, but you make one additional point I’d like to address: “In making an analogy of WWII to Iraq, you attempt to compare Bush's descision to invade Iraq with FDR's decision to enter WWII. There is no moral basis for that comparison, chickenhawk analogy aside.”
Response: This is simply missing, entirely, the point. An analogy does not have to be (and indeed can not be) perfect in every way. The point of the analogy that sparked this whole mess is that FDR advocated a war he did not serve in. He is, by definition, a ChickenHawk. It follows that “ChickenHawk” is an essentially meaningless slur.

If the war in Iraq is wrong, it’s because it is wrong, not because it’s proponents are cowards/Finnish/bible-thumpers/any other category of person. Can you see the distinction?

Abraham said...

Elizabeth:
Bush did serve, but actively sought not to serve overseas. That strikes me as a purely political move, to keep his ass safe at home but covered politically in the future.

Perhaps you are not aware that he did in fact volunteer for a Vietnam tour, but was denied. But whether you were or not, it's irrelevant. If you really want to argue that his lack of combat experience calls their judgment into question, I expect you to apply that standard equally; that is, to those opposed to the use of force who have no combat experience. Is not their judgment on the matter equally impaired?

ShadyCharacter said...

Abraham,

The term of art for that which you describe is "ChickenDove"!

Jacques Cuze said...

Surely you’re aware of the whole left wing “neo-con = Jewish” controversy that has been brewing over the last 3 years.

There is no controversy there. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Condoleeza Rice, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbug, Ann Althouse. Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Matthew Yglesias, Josh Micah Marshall, Mark Kleiman, Al Franken, Most Jews, Quxxo.

There is no controversy. NO ONE EXCEPT THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS CLAIM THAT NEO-CON == JEW.

It is demonstrably not so. It is demonstrably true that the vast majority of American Jews, whether Orthodox, Conservative or Reform are against the war in Iraq.

ShadyCharacter said...

I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with something quxxo wrote: "It is demonstrably not so [that neo-con = Jewis]."

However, the point stands that there is a virulent strain of that thinking infecting the Left. To deny it and to stick one's head in the sand hoping it goes away is not constructive...

Jacques Cuze said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jacques Cuze said...

However, the point stands that there is a virulent strain of that thinking infecting the Left.

If the point is that the left says that neocon == Jew, then I call nonsense. Show us the quotes from leaders of the left that make that claim.

You're full of it, there are tons of Jewish leaders on the left that are against Bush's war. If there were leftists on the left saying neocon == Jew we would all be hearing of it.

Find some quotes from leaders and representatives or shut up.

verification word: bullsh*t

Stacy said...

Shady, thanks for your response above.

Actually, I've read quite a few of Jonah's articles and used to see him on CNN quite frequently (he was part of some weekend roundtable with donna brazille and some others) and I still am not a Jonah fan. You like him, I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree. And no, he is not a hillary basher 24/7, but Clinton bashing seems to be how he got his start - but then so did a lot of people.

Have you read this? I have. Actually, I read most of it- it wasn't worth finishing.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841/qid=1138403514/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8451586-1052153?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

I found it over-the-top and quite frankly, insulting. Of course, its a sin when some blowhard on the left calls Bush or the right fascists and it never fails to make the news.

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Shady,

Are you really trying to argue that my job has anything to do with my ability as a citizen to make a judgment about the success of our venture in Iraq? I have no clue what you do for a living, and it's not relevant to the point.

Further, you can't be so disingenuous as to pretend that there is no history of criticism from military officers, Pentagon strategists of the Rumsfeld approach of a lean military in fighting an occupation-style war. Get real. We brought the battle to Iraq, we put the Iraqi people in the middle of us and the terrorists from outside and the insurgents inside, without sufficient troop strength to put down and keep down the insurgency long enough for Iraqis to train and equip themselves to keep peace.

Yeah, I think a Bush that didn't drink and party his way through his cushy stateside service might be a bit more in tune to the needs of the troops in harm's way. I'm not alone in thinking that, and I've talked to veterans who agree with me. But I admit I have disdain for pretty much everyone that used privilige and connections to get around the draft, when the men in my family were not so lucky. I don't think Bush is fit to shine my brother's boots.

When Bush applied for the Guard, one of the questions on the application asked if he wanted to go overseas. He checked the "do not want to volunteer" box. Perhaps you were unaware of that, Abraham. Nobody kept the young W. from yelling "Bring 'em on!" in Vietnam. He does that here, from the safety of U.S. soil. Your hero is a paper tiger. Is that nicer than chickenhawk?

Elizabeth said...

Shady, I have done the research and discovered a good plan for progressing in our war on terror. My noted source is Chris Rose, a columnist in my local New Orleans paper. I have no idea as to his degree holdings or military experience.

My thinking is that if Donald Rumsfeld gathered up the remaining refrigerators in New Orleans -- those that have now sat perspiring, fetid, stinking and warm for five months -- and dropped them in the mountains of Pakistan, then this Osama thing would be over.

Of course, I realize this makes no sense to anyone not living in New Orleans. Imagine, if you can, several hundred thousand refrigerators losing power August 29, 2005, in 98 degree heat. They are full of seafood, chicken, ribs, beef, dairy goods, champagne and margarita mix, lettuce and potatoes and veggies galore, (all that was in just MY fridge, okay?), mayo and all the usual condiments.

About 150,000 have been hauled away, emptied of contents, refrigerant and oil, and squashed into little metal cubes. But the rest are standing, stinky and full, on our sidewalks and corners.

This would work, but we'd be comdemned for using biological weapons.

Ernst Blofeld said...

"Have you read this? I have. Actually, I read most of it- it wasn't worth finishing."

That would be rather surprising, seeing as how the release date for the book isn't until late August 2006.

Ann Althouse said...

Ernst: LOL! Oh, that's rich! Not many gotchas are that perfect.

Matt O. said...

I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter...

So all of those men and women fighting overseas are under 35, not income-earners at home and do not have kids?

Please. They are all of those things Jonah listed. He's just scared to go, plain and simple.

scottynx said...

How do join the US military when you are over the age of 27? I always thought they didn't let anyone new in at that age.
-pjgoober