foraker

no, but when i was growing up alaska was invaded by texans and oklahomans during the pipeline building days. so i know what texas freaks are like. never met a liberal one.

isn't 'texan liberal freaks' an oxymoron?

Next up: Bill Frist

I just thought it was funny because: a) all democracies, et al are 'developing' and b) it sounds like we are in the same pigeonhole as Iraq.

i think maybe that's a gross oversimplification. there are plenty of sheep to go around. unless you're a lonely polish alpinist.

If you want pathetic, just witness the hand-wringing non-response from the Democrats.

They may be exempt from the study since 'hockey' and 'poutine' aren't really considered, 'religions', per se.

I guess he didn't read Arno's book.

I like how he refers to us as a 'developing democracy'.

Write your representive NOW and ask them to support the Endangered Species Act. Any easy way to do this is to go some place like www.nrdc.org and use their automatic means of doing so.

You hit the nail on the head.

Exactly

Now, Dru, don't go bringing pesky facts into it.

So was Dubya and look how well that's turned out.

then, well, i guess i can live with it. love what you 've done with the place! it's just fab!

You will when you're past 65. Ask my dad.

I'm having trouble giving you specific answers to your questions because I had to give myself a mental enema to get rid of the new-age tripe that movie was pushing. meditation + crime rates: difference between correlation and causality anyone? if you do the experiment once, and it happes to work out, that's called correlation. statistically, your error bars are huge. now, if you'd done that experiment 100 times and got the same result, I might be inclined to be a bit more curious about it.

And some like their "science" in a paticularly dumbed-down and flakey form.

If you want to talk about really fascinating shit that goes on in the universe, why not stick to the facts and do a Nature or Nova documentary? Those are infinitely more interesting and wondrous than this new-agey POS.

I didn't watch more than 5 minutes of it. Piece of shite and not worthy of the hype.

the guy's comments on clouds are a riot. i feel like writing him and saying 'i see hebrew letters and words in your cloud pics!'

is that the flouride in the water doesn't protect your teeth from decay, it's to keep you from going insane.... Idaho weatherman quits, says he wants to pursue hurricane theory The Associated Press Idaho weatherman's Katrina theory labeled ridiculous IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – A Pocatello weatherman who gained attention for an unusual theory that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the Japanese mafia using a Russian electromagnetic generator has quit the television station. Scott Stevens' last appearance on KPVI-TV was Thursday. His departure comes after station officials learned a link labeled "Make a Donation" on Stevens' Web site, www.weatherwars.info, where he expounds on his theory, opened a payment form connected to Stevens' KPVI e-mail address. Still, station manager Bill Fouch, who'd told Stevens he should keep his views separate from his TV role, insisted his former employee wasn't forced out. "Scott advised me several months ago that he wouldn't renew his contract so he could devote full time to this," Fouch said. "He wants to get right at it." Stevens believes a little-known oversight in physical laws makes it possible to create and control storms using a Cold War-era weapon allegedly made by the Russians in 1976. The nine-year KPVI weatherman said he's received 120,000 hits on his Web site in two days, now gets about 100 e-mails a day and has 15 radio bookings in the next five days. "I needed more time to do everything that's been put in front of me," said Stevens, 39. "I have not been able to dedicate the 40 hours a week to this place." Earlier this week, scientists told the Idaho Falls Post Register the theory was bogus. "It's laughable to think it (Hurricane Katrina) could have been manmade," said Rob Young, a hurricane expert at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C.

you don't need to leave the camera there.

If I were to do this, what I would do is to: a) take a picture of the scene without the sun in the image. taking pictures directly into the sun often results in a fair deal of flare and also creates deep shadow areas. clearly, from this picture, the sun is above and to the right of the building. b) take a series of pictures of the sun, exposing it to be about zone viii using the and the shortest exposure time possible. this should keep the amount of additional exposure from the building and any surrounding scenery, esp clouds, from building up any density on the negative. a similar sort of procedure is done with evening shots with a properly exposed moon in the sky.

this being America, it could be a bullet.