We have a Texan as President, and a Wyomite as VP. Montana voted for them something like 60% to 39%.

Wyomite? That's confidence. I would have written "A guy from Wyoming."

Um, I think you and Hank are taking the side details of a mirrored post too literally.

But if you'd prefer to ignore the forest of "bi-partisan cooperation" to focus instead on the individual leaves of voting patterns for Prez in Montana, I can certainly understand that.

I'm sorry. To you the important part was the Dems promised to work together with Republicans? You may remember Bush did that in DC until the Dems realized it was time to run someone for President.

It takes a lot of leaves to get to 60% - almost enough for a forest by itself.

(Have you ever watched the parties in the Montana legislature and guv's office . . . umm . . . "cooperate"? This will either be funny, or groundbreaking.)

I was working within the confines of your material, Hank. Try as I might, there was only so much I could do.

We've had this argument before on this board, and as I recall it seemed to revolve around Republican pride in the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. I'll grant you, repeating and rinsing apparently leads to electoral success, but let's not confuse it with the topic at hand.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

If "well, at least we caught him this time" is your first reaction to hearing that the guy who headed up Iraq's oil coupon sales during the heyday of the oil-for-food program is making large untraceable deposits of Iraqi food money, then Ty must really be getting under your skin. Especially with you being so incensed about the oil-for-food program, and all.

Well, not in Montana*.











*with races that involve no more than 3,200 aggregate votes, that is.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

I don't get it. Chalabi supposedly fired someone because he didn't play ball with SH? I realize I don't trust Chalabi as far as I can throw him, so there was probably some other dynamic going on here besides his side of the story, but I don't see any benefit to Chalabi for settling SH's scores.

Yeah. I'd have gone with "A guy from Dallas."

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

Nice tie-in.

Yesterday, I posted satire about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

Today, the NYT runs a serious article about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/op...pagewanted=all

The reality-based community. Uh huh.

You need to up the meds, my man. Or else that link's broke.

Naw, I just get a kick out of stuff like this:

"In recent decades, thanks largely to the controversial Gaia Theory developed by the British scientists James Lovelock, it has become ever more respectable to consider the planet as one immense and eternally interacting living system--the living planet, floating in space, every part of its great engine affecting every other, for good or for ill.

Mr. Lovelock's notion, which he named after the earth goddess of the Ancient Greeks, makes much of the delicacy of the balance that mankind's environmental carelessness increasingly threatens. But his theory also acknowledges the somber necessity of natural happenings, many of which seem in human terms so tragically unjust, as part of a vast system of checks and balances. The events that this week destroyed the shores of the Indian Ocean, and which leveled the city of Bam [Iran] a year ago, were of unmitigated horror: but they may also serve some deeper planetary purpose, one quite hidden to our own beliefs."

It helps that I see the global warming movement as being mostly Wiccan. I suppose.

Aside to Hank and bilmore: