Disqus - Latest Comments for Pauley

Re: The brain drizzle returns…

Pauley — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:30:51 -0000

Aww. :-D

-- Pauley

Re: Speedweeks

Pauley — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:57:54 -0000

Want to be shot on arrival to Rochester this July? :)

-- Pauley

Re: Speedweeks

Pauley — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:29:14 -0000

We'll see. :)

-- Pauley

Re: Agua

Pauley — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:14:56 -0000

Whoopsie. I'll fix that. :)

-- Pauley

Re: 0ld sk00l = teh cheap

Pauley — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:32:32 -0000

That's all I paid for Quake.

Truth be told, I used to have Quake III and Team Arena on a previous computer, but it wasn't exactly, um, legal. :-P

-- Pauley

Re: 0ld sk00l = teh cheap

Pauley — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:06:25 -0000

*giggle* Sowwy... I don't think Microsoft ever made a version for the Mac OS. :-/

-- Pauley

Re: 0ld sk00l = teh cheap

Pauley — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:59:48 -0000

W0rd, son. :)

I'm trying to get into the habit of playing just one game at a time... so I'll have to look around for Max Payne 2 when I finish Q3A.

-- Pauley

Re: Shooting to die

Pauley — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:39:00 -0000

No, there's absolutely a place for blind people in government -- and provided it's possible within the requirements of the job description, that place is right along side the seeing people. No one's really focusing on the blindness, really. It's mentioned in places, but it's not a big deal.

No, the real focus is on the absolute stupidity of trying to tell a police officer (or anyone legally permitted to carry a firearm) that, now that you've come to the point where you need to use your weapon to stop someone that's trying to kill you, you have to stop and think about where to shoot him. This is a situation that makes you DEAD. QUICKLY. In the time it takes to try to shoot an attacker in the arm or leg instead of the center of his body (the biggest and easiest of targets to hit), he's shot you three times already, or possibly come up close enough to beat you or stab you.

As always, the problem with sarcasm is that it's hard to realize it's happening in text-only. ;)

-- Pauley

Re: Bad Parenting

Pauley — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:48:48 -0000

That works too. But when the parents teach him that responsibility to begin with, it's less of an issue.

-- Pauley

Re: Treo part II

Pauley — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:38:23 -0000

Of course, Verizon needs to get in one last chuckle -- have a look.

-- Pauley

Re: Geeking Out

Pauley — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:17:14 -0000

Be sure to do your research first. If your camera isn't capable of communicating with the CF card at the higher speed, it may be a waste of money.

-- Pauley

Re: Take Three

Pauley — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:41:02 -0000

This is seriously the first problem I've ever had with them. I did just get confirmation about 20 minutes ago that it should be arriving at work sometime tomorrow.

-- Pauley

Re: Farewell, Top Gun

Pauley — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:07:01 -0000

Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

-- Pauley ;)

Re: Driving into history?

Pauley — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:31:19 -0000

True, but unfortunately (and it is unfortunate -- I like Champ Car, too), Champ Car isn't as high-profile in the United States as NASCAR, and it isn't as in-the-forefront when Average Joe American thinks of auto racing.

I've read about Catherine Legge, and look forward to hearing about how she does this year. With already having a history of winning in races she's entered, I think she's gonna do reeeeally well. By the same token, I also hope to hear good things from Erin Crocker, who Ray Evernham has running in the Craftsman Truck Series this year, and have read that, after seemingly being quietly abandoned by the IRL, Sarah Fisher may be attempting the 500 again this year.

-- Pauley

Re: Driving into history?

Pauley — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:49:48 -0000

You've been kicking my butt. You and Jeff have been ahead of me since Daytona. It was Jeff you were tied with after Vegas.

-- Pauley

Re: Thoughts on immigration - Prelude

Pauley — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:22:51 -0000

I can't speak to that, I hadn't heard that one. I don't know much about him overall, but I was suitably impressed by his comments on illegal immigration, which is what his column above covers.

-- Pauley

Re: Okay then…

Pauley — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:38:05 -0000

The idea was to have it be something I could post for everyone to read. I suppose it always depends on the question, and whether you're comfortable asking it.

-- Pauley

Re: Okay then…

Pauley — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:39:04 -0000

Polo shirt, khaki's, dress shoes. Try asking earlier next time. :-P

-- Pauley

Re: Okay then…

Pauley — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:39:22 -0000

Yup!

-- Pauley

Re: Okay then…

Pauley — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:44:17 -0000

Interesting... I'd read a survey that most folks, were Kitchner and Waterloo to combine, would prefer the name Waterloo for the new city. Interesting to hear some dissent. :)

-- Pauley

Re: Politically speaking, I’m…

Pauley — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:22:27 -0000

That's ok. I think socialism=teh wack. But that's the great thing about opinions. We're each welcome to our own, and free to disagree with others'. :)

-- Pauley

Re: Open Insubordination

Pauley — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:47:22 -0000

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, methinks. ;)

-- Pauley

Re: Freedom Tower: forgotten already?

Pauley — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:02:04 -0000

Here here. MSM's idea of "journalism" is a joke nowadays. Gone, it seems, are the days when the news companies and network news departments were in it to report news. The name of the game is ratings, which means the name of the game is money. They're telling us what (they think) we want to hear, so their ratings will go up.

-- Pauley

Re: Spinoff

Pauley — Thu, 04 May 2006 19:14:44 -0000

Privacy and customization weren't really concerns to me in this instance. Yvonne touched on it in her comment -- just keeping day-to-day stuff like "I woke up today, took a shower, and sat down to breakfast" separate from my other "this is something I just read or saw or watched and this is what I think about it" entries. My entries would likely be public anyway, and the appearance of that particular blog isn't a dealbreaker.

-- Pauley

Re: Seeing United 93 — our civic duty?

Pauley — Wed, 17 May 2006 22:14:04 -0000

I'm not sure yet that it's a money grab. And I know full well it's not going to be a relaxing movie -- it's going to be tense. Almost, as I've heard it described, like Titanic, in that you know what's going to happen, except without Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio humping in a car on the cargo deck. Like I said in the original post, I'll reserve further judgement until I've seen it, which I hope to do soon.

-- Pauley

Re: Seeing United 93 — our civic duty?

Pauley — Wed, 17 May 2006 22:17:51 -0000

Exactly. Only without the Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks/Matty Damon/Liam Neeson star power behind it.

-- Pauley

Re: Drip, drip, drip…

Pauley — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:15 -0000

There aren't anymore, no. However, in the time since the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam's regeime had had such weapons in his arsenal, had actively sought out more, had resisting efforts by the UN to disarm him, and had recruited. This does not sound to me like the kind of person who's going to hoard up all these weapons, then destroy them at the last minute and not tell someone who could ward off a pending attack that he didn't have them anymore. They may not be in Iraq, but they're out there somewhere.

-- Pauley

Re: Realization and Redefinition

Pauley — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:36:18 -0000

Libertarianism doesn't create corruption in and of itself. The people who were in charge of businesses in Russia would have been corrupt beforehand, and would have been corrupt if they'd chosen a different economic model. I can concede that it may not be the best way to start out... Russia was in bad shape anyway, libertarian system or no.

In a free market system, yes, a company's motivation for the bulk of what it does is profit. But the market will also correct itself if someone gets too greedy. If a company tries to charge too much for a good or a service, people won't buy it, and the company loses money. It must either reduce its price or go bankrupt as an organization. The same way, if it comes out that they're doing things they're not supposed to do, consumers get fed up and stop buying their product. The market regulates itself; government action isn't required.

-- Pauley

Re: Yes Virginia, There Will Be a Game 7.

Pauley — Wed, 31 May 2006 19:00:23 -0000

OHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! :-P

Re: Bunnies!

Pauley — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:23:54 -0000

NYEEAAAAAAAH.

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:52:29 -0000

Click the link; photos are included. They do look an awful lot alike.

ETA: They're in color pics now, too... they had black and white up earlier today.

-- Pauley

Re: [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 02:05:51 -0000

Yeah. Chonsky's pretty whack, from what I've read.

-- Pauley

Re: [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 02:28:16 -0000

He also seems to be one of the most anti-American American intellects in existence. He's prospered from the American way of life, but at the same time sees nothing in America but ugliness, greed, and moral corruption, and thinks that the Cold War, Castro's executions and special prisons, and Khmer Rouge's Cambodian holocaust were all somehow the fault of the United States. Kinda stretches the limits of sanity, he does.

-- Pauley

Re: [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 03:05:53 -0000

I'll quote my source:

For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence. (City Journal)

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:42:01 -0000

Thanks! :)

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:37:57 -0000

Wow. That is pretty bad.

I'm hopeful these are isolated incidents. I get the impression that things like this aren't happening throughout the country.

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:02:02 -0000

Is that your zombie growl?

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:14:15 -0000

You mean, "Ooooo!" as in surprise and alarm?

-- Pauley

Re: Mistaken Identity

Pauley — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:50:38 -0000

freekofnature wrote:

BTW, I have added you (Pauley) to my friends list.

BTW back to you -- click here to add a feed of this blog here to your LJ friends list, with links to the entries here -- saves you from having to go look to see if I've posted. :)

-- Pauley

Re: New wardrobe

Pauley — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:06:48 -0000

Stuck at the dry cleaner.

-- Pauley

Re: Abu el Banat

Pauley — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:32:00 -0000

"Son, I have no problem going back to prison."

-- Pauley

Re: Middle Ground

Pauley — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:32:53 -0000

I think Mexico's government should help Mexico develop their economy, instead of distributing pamphlets and information explaining how to sneak across the US border.

I like your analogy, but it doesn't quite work right... I have no problem figuring out why the roof is leaking, and patching the hole (securing the border) so rain can't get in. But what you seem to be suggesting would be the equivilent of trying to figure out why it's raining.

-- Pauley

Re: Can someone explain to me…

Pauley — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:45:39 -0000

Oh, it sounds like we got serviced alright, Dave -- of the bend-over-and-take-it variety of "being serviced."

-- Pauley

Re: Can someone explain to me…

Pauley — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:25:50 -0000

...aaaand Andy's brain a-splodes with unneeded visuals. :)

-- Pauley

Re: Can someone explain to me…

Pauley — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:31:49 -0000

Tempting, but against my better judgement, I'll keep you around for now.

-- Pauley

Re: Can someone explain to me…

Pauley — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:33:44 -0000

'sup D-Funk?

I used to use Brian's Threaded Comments, but had some difficulty (probably due to my own ineptness) making it work with the new theme. Currently running here is TinyThread.

-- Pauley

Re: FLICKR’D!

Pauley — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:07:31 -0000

Alex's post is open, so I'll link to where I used it.

-- Pauley

Re: Terrorist Threat Alert

Pauley — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:54:46 -0000

*snerk*

-- Pauley :-D

Re: Pennsylvania 500

Pauley — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:42:28 -0000

We did go, though the camera stayed in the car. No one stopped me from taking it, just kinda left it behind.

I'd been before, Yvonne hadn't. 'twas fun times, and Yvonne wants to go back to have more time to look around the glass market. :)

-- Pauley

Re: Brokeback Cassidy?

Pauley — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:43:36 -0000

IMG tags aren't permitted in comments. Links are, so you can link to the picture if you like.

-- Pauley

Re: A Note to the Media

Pauley — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:08:57 -0000

If I had to choose a dictatorship to live under...

Me, I'd just as soon stay here in the States, and not live under a dictatorship at all.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:25:25 -0000

No, I do not believe Iraq was directly responsible for 9-11.

I do believe that Hussein had connections to al Qaeda, and was in the process of gaining resources to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. I do believe that more Iraqi citizens were being killed by Hussein's government in a month/week/insert-time-period-here than are dying now as a result of terrorist actions. I do believe that even if Saddam's regime had no physical WMDs in stock, they had the technical know-how to make them, or provide info to terrorist groups on how to make them.

I believe that 26 million Iraqi citizens are now liberated from the oppression of a tyrant. And I believe that was a goal worth fighting for.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:31:36 -0000

The United States isn't trying to subjugate the Iraqi people. America has a successful record of nation-building (Germany, Japan, Panama...), and we never tried to make those countries colonies or the 51st state.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:29:35 -0000

The bulk of the ones that are blowing up US troops aren't Iraqi nationals, they're foreign fighters, allied with or members themselves of al Qaeda.

No, I don't believe that was the entire reason the US invaded Iraq, but it was a nice side effect. The primary reason for the invasion was to eliminate a threat of weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam's regime was known to have.

Weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam's government don't necessarily take the form of completed weapons. The knowledge of how to create such weapons isn't something that can be simply confiscated. Say we'd just taken all the weapons away and left them be. They still know how to make them, and just need to acquire more resources -- bam, fresh nuclear/biological/chemical weapons ready to point at Israel, or North America, or to sell to someone else more willing to destroy us.

We invaded Iraq to stop the threat of use and/or proliferation of weapons that could be used to attack us, and wound up with a newly liberated democratic nation. Tajikistan, Zimbabwe and Sudan don't pose military threats to the United States. I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, oppressed peoples like those of the countries you mentioned rise up against their leaders once Iraq starts to operate on its own, and demonstrate how much better a democratic system works.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:00:59 -0000

The invasion of Iraq was very much an attack on terror. Saddam's regime murdered anywhere from (depending where you check your numbers) 300,000 to 1,000,000 of his own citizens. He used poison gas both on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War, and on unarmed Iraqi Kurds.

Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism, compensating families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000 when the bombers murdered Israeli civilians on buses and in restaurants, and sheltering members of Abu Nidal and the Palestine Liberation Front -- the group headed by Abu Abbas, who led the group that hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, and killed a US citizen in a wheelchair.

The US hasn't abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. A large multi-national force is still in the region, working to track down and either capture or kill bin Laden. I think it's an advantage that we can task our military to perform two different operations simultaneously.

-- Pauley

Re: A Note to the Media

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:02:22 -0000

Show me the name.

I want to see the name of someone who's been thrown in prison unjustly because of the USA PATRIOT Act.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:42:57 -0000

Yes, and we already had a Gulf War in the early 90’s as a result. That is hardly justification for a post 9/11 conflict.

Yes. A Gulf War that was ended in part because Saddam agreed to give up his WMD programs and prove to the UN he had done so. He had over a decade to comply, and he failed to do so.

This was his attempt to keep the religious regimes off his back, but is harly any worse than the dozens of regimes in the ’stans nad Africa that do much of the same.

I fail to see any justification for supporting those who deliberately murder unarmed civilians.

the U.S. undermanned Afghanistan, and is forcing the limited resources of nations like Denmark and Canada to stabilize a region the U.S. should be focusing on.

No one is being forced to do anything. The United States isn't working alone in Afghanistan; many countries joined the coalition in an attempt to stop al Qaeda voluntarily. As far as undermanning... battle plans are fluid. They have to be, because it's impossible to absolutely know ahead of time what your enemy is going to do. If the Defense Department determines that the changing situation requires more troops there, then I would agree, more should be deployed. I'm not a military strategist, though, and I'll leave those decisions to those with more knowledge of how to run a war.

-- Pauley

Re: 911 Call

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:48:15 -0000

I have yet to see any solid evidence that he even had capable armaments. The only evidence of WMDs were spent mustard gas shells from the first gulf war.

The Interim Progress Report of October 2003 (issued after the invasion) had already indicated dozens of WMD-related activities and equipment related to them had been hidden from UN weapons inspectors. Former Iraqi Survey Group head David Kay testified before the US Senate in January 2004 that Saddam had a missile program capable of delivering WMDs as warheads, and was intent on restarting a nuclear weapons program, in defiance of UN resolutions.

Then why is Iraq so special? What about the Massacre in Sudan, Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, the unstable situation among the various ’stans, and the continued presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? ALl those seem to be as important, or more important, than Iraq pre-invasion.

Iraq was invaded because it posed an imminent threat, and had verifiable links to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And no, as I stated above, I'm not of the belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. He did, though, have have contacts and links to bin Laden and other senior members of al Qaeda.

The other countries you mentioned have not justified military action at this time, though diplomatic efforts are underway by a number of parties (not just the United States) in most of those theaters.

That's a poor dogde that fails to actually address the outright failure of the U.S.'s commitment to capture Bin Laden and properly liberate Afghanistan. It's clear to anyone that the U.S. has bungled in Afghanistan and has failed to properly supply coalition forces in the region to ensure that the Taliban were properly dealt with, and now those volunteer forces are stuck there for many more years, and are experiencing many more deaths than they should have. How can IRAQ be more important than the elimination of the forces that shielded the main perpetrator of 9-11? Is that nota greater goal in the war on terror? Saddam has a history of atrocities, but he was no immediate threat to the U.S., whereas there are many regimes that were, and still are, a major threat.

Saddam was indeed a threat. He had technology, knowledge, and funding to provide support to al Qaeda, as well as an intent to resume development of weapons of mass destruction.

It's impossible to know for a fact in advance how long an operation, especially one as large as the one in Afghanistan, is going to take. Like I said, battle is fluid, and things are constantly changing, and things take time. FDR in 1941 didn't propose a timetable to win WWII -- he simply proposed winning it.

Like I said before, I can't speak to specific highlights or shortcomings of the US strategy and battle plans in Afghanistan. People with access to more intelligence (as in information, not as in brainpower) than I can better determine the proper course of action. My impression, however, of our current military leaders does not lend them to a position wanting to see their operations fail, and I don't think they're going to just let Afghanistan crumble if there's something they can do about it.

Truth is, I haven't heard a lot about Afghanistan lately. Iraq is evidently a juicier news story.

-- Pauley

Re: Step back, diamonds…

Pauley — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:56:38 -0000

Indeed. Alternatively, your partner can get you your very own dime-in ring, too. ;)

(All kidding aside, I see right where you're coming from.)

-- Pauley

Re: Refusal to Disarm

Pauley — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:18:41 -0000

Here here. The impression I got from reading what happened at the end of the previous conflict was that the Israeli prime minister blinked first. The Israeli military was ready and willing to keep going, but Olmert balked under international pressure.

Meanwhile, as Israel reloads, Hezbollah's stockpiling rockets, too. From the same article:

Hezbollah is armed with thousands of rockets and Nasrallah has said his arsenal survived the Israeli onslaught. He boasted in a TV interview last week that the guerrillas — and their weapons — were still at the Israeli border in south Lebanon.

I'm all behind Israel on this one, 'cause I believe they've got the moral upper hand.

Re: Ask Me Weekend #3

Pauley — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:28:23 -0000

No idea, but did you know that Frank Oz was born there?

-- Pauley

Re: Ask Me Weekend #3

Pauley — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:59:43 -0000

Been there, done that.

-- Pauley

Re: Pink for October

Pauley — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:49:01 -0000

OH DAMMIT THIS ISN'T THE IM WINDOW

-- Pauley