Bin Ladin's website expired on 9/11/01

Now this is just weird. Apparently the domain name for the Bin Ladin family construction business expired on sept, 11 2001, that's a rather odd coincidence.

read all about it...
http://www.saudi-binladin-group.com/

Marx Cafe tonight!!

Hey everybody! Looking for something to do tonight? Come and check out the sounds at the Marx tonight. I'm going on @ 10pm. be there!



Marx Cafe
3203 Mt. Pleasant St. NW

Today in history!

1896 - Chop suey is invented in New York City.
1833 - The United Kingdom legislates the abolition of slavery in its empire.
1885 - Gottlieb Daimler patents the world's first motorcycle.
1831 - Michael Faraday discovers electromagnetic induction.
1898 - The Goodyear tire company is founded.
1991 - Supreme Soviet suspends all activities of the Soviet Communist Party.

birthdays' of note..

1958 - Michael Jackson, American singer.
1941 - Robin Leach, English television host.
1936 - John McCain, American politician.
1962 - Rebecca De Mornay, American actress.
1920 - Charlie Parker, American musician.

an important day in history for sure.

About time, FAMS gets new duds

Wow, this is what 5 years late?! Maybe they can now begin to work on the high visibility created when these "air cops" walk around the metal detectors and board the plane before even the first class passengers. So now the person avoiding metal detectors and boarding early might be wearing "civilian" clothes. These guys will still be easy to spot. Hell of an outfit they are running over there.

Air Marshals Get New Dress Code Policy

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 24, 2006; 5:30 PM

On your next flight to the tropics, the person sitting next to you in a Hawaiian shirt might be armed. At least that's the implication of a new dress code policy announced today in memo sent to air marshals by Dana Brown, director of the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service. The dress code will take effect Sept. 1 and will replace a more controversial policy that some air marshals criticized for being so strict that they stood out on some flights.

Brown told air marshals in the memo that the dress code was being amended to "allow you to dress at your discretion." He added that the new policy is designed to let air marshals blend into their environment while still being able to conceal their weapons. "It's not about the clothing," said Conan Bruce, a spokesman for the service. "It's the ability to blend into wherever you are going."

The service, part of the Transportation Security Administration, had been criticized in the past for having too strict a dress code. Accounts of the dress code vary, but generally air marshals were required to wear collared shirts, sport coats and dress shoes. A year ago, the service loosened some of the restrictions, officials said.

However, some air marshals felt that was still too strict a dress code. Those complaints led the service to issue the new policy, officials said.

Why are pets illegal in Saudi Arabia?

Ohh.. Yeah, because they spread diseases and can frighten small children and families. gotcha.

Ban on Sale of Pet Cats, Dogs
Saeed Al-Abyad, Arab News

JEDDAH, 24 August 2006 — The Makkah governorate, acting on a request from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, has decided to prohibit the sale of pet cats and dogs. The commission made the request after it noticed many young Saudis going out in streets with their pet dogs in violation of the Kingdom’s culture and traditions. Saudi authorities in Jeddah have begun enforcing the decision.

The commission complained of Saudi youth, apparently influenced by Western culture, bringing their pets into public places, allegedly causing distress especially to families with young children. Arab News learned that the Jeddah Municipality had received a letter from the Makkah governorate banning sales of pet dogs and cats in the city.

The municipality is in the process of dispatching special squads to close down such shops. The growing trend in purchasing domestic pets has encouraged businessmen to open shops and clinics for such animals in Jeddah. Veterinary clinics charge SR100 to SR200 for diagnosing sick animals and the amount can increase if the animal requires special treatment or surgery.

The popularity of pets has increased the demand for breeds that are popular among pet lovers, such as Dobermans, boxers, pit bulls, Yorkshire terriers, etc. Pet cats, too, aren’t relegated to the countless street felines, but rather fancier breeds. These breeds of dogs and cats have increasingly been imported from the United States, Russia, Hungary, Ukraine and some other European countries.

Prices of dogs vary from one breed to another. Prices for boxers, pit bulls or other popular breeds can run into thousands of riyals. According to a veterinarian doctor, the danger of spreading diseases among humans through cats and dogs is limited, as most diseases spread through them are minor and can be easily treated, except for rabies, for which a vaccine is available and which can be treated.

However, diseases for which pets can be vectors could dangerously affect newborn babies, the elderly or persons with immune system deficiencies.

Snakes on Plane

I'm hoping to get a chance to see this over the weekend. If you go see it be sure to print up several dozen copies of this, http://snakeplay.pbwiki.com/script, and pass them out to people in the audience so that they will know what to say out loud during the movie. It's neat seeing audiene participation making its way back into mainstream movie theaters.
lol.good stuff.

Joe Leiberman = Sore Looser

Joe should really pack it up and support Lamont. This article is hilarious and does a lot to illustrate the problems that are endemic of politics in our nation. Lieberman campaigns for the sake of his own glorious self aggrandizement and not for the good of his constituents. In fact that's common to most politicians. People who naturally excel at politics are the very last people who should ever be in positions of authority.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...t_going_away/1

THE LOW POST: Dead Man Coming
Don't hold your breath waiting for Joe Lieberman to go away.
MATT TAIBBI

Late at night in Hartford's Goodwin Hotel last Tuesday -- I'm not even sure what time it was -- Joe Lieberman made his way to the podium for his much-anticipated "concession" speech.

I'd been joking with another reporter that en route to his capitulation Joe would leave fingernail tracks in the carpet leading all the way back to his private room upstairs, but surprisingly he did not have to be dragged onstage at all, and his little elfin nails looked unbloodied and intact as he spoke. I was looking over a crowd of reporters and Joe staffers, off to the right and to the rear of the hall, as he announced his determination to press on:

"If the people of Connecticut are good enough to send me back to Washington . . . " he began, "I promise them I will keep fighting for the same progressive new ideas and for stronger national security . . . "

At the words progressive new ideas I couldn't help myself and let out a little laugh, recalling Lieberman's determination to yank funding from public schools that counseled suicidal teens that it was OK to be gay. Was that the kind of progressive idea he was talking about? I really did try to muffle it, but it was too late -- a middle-aged woman with big dangly earrings in a Lieberman T-shirt whipped around and glared at me.

"Yes?" I said.

"Have some respect!" she snapped.

"What?" I shouted.

"You should be ashamed of yourself!" she hissed.

I shrugged. A few minutes later, Lieberman ended his speech with an impassioned promise to fight on: "I believe tonight, more than ever, in America's greatness in its values . . . Will you join me? "

Roars, cheers from the crowd; the sneering lady in front of me jumped up and down; and then, weirdly, Joe descended from the stage to the strains of the Tattoo You-era Rolling Stones anthem "Start Me Up." As the defeated Democrat (now officially an insurgent candidate) hugged his family and shook hands with his supporters, the familiar but suddenly unpleasant lyrics shot out through the ballroom:

If you start me up

If you start me up I'll never stop . . .

Slide it up!

As I listened to this, another Joe supporter -- a somewhat older woman in horn-rimmed glasses -- came over and cornered me.

"You know what?" she said. "You reporters are all alike. You won't admit it, but you're all anti-Semites . . . "

I scratched my head. Anti-Semites? The song rattled on creepily:

If you rough it up

If you like it you can slide it up, slide it up

I shuddered at this, trying to keep my wits, but Horn-Rimmed Glasses was still whaling away at me. "You people really do have no respect," she went on. "Joe is such a wonderful man . . . "

"Listen," I exploded, interrupting her. "Do you know what this song is about?"

She froze.

"It's about a guy who gets an erection that doesn't go away," I said. "Can you explain to me why this song is playing now? What the hell is wrong with you people?"

Horn-Rimmed frowned and listened. At that exact moment Mick Jagger was wrapping the song up:

You, you make a dead man come . . .

You, you make a dead man come . . .

The woman recoiled, briefly assumed a quizzical expression, then walked away shaking her head, like the song was my fault.

My experience at the Lieberman event was not unique. A number of other reporters were accosted by a man who showed up at the Goodwin dressed in a Hillary Clinton T-shirt and proceeded to cruise the periphery of the ballroom accusing the indifferently boozing crowd of journalists of being pro-Hezbollah, anti-Semitic terrorist supporters. In a few cases fistfights were narrowly avoided. Apparently the post-electoral talking points had been issued in advance, because almost from the moment that Lieberman "conceded," a wave of politicians and commentators began similarly hammering home the theme that Lamont's victory was a comfort to terrorists and Al Qaeda, his supporters de facto collaborators.

Lieberman himself was the most shameless: speaking on the day the British terror-plot story broke, which came just 36 hours after his loss, he said that if Lamont's Iraq plan is implemented, "it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes." Dick Cheney held a press teleconference to comment upon the Lamont election -- an incredible step for a vice president to take on the occasion of an opposition-party primary result -- and suggested that "Al Qaeda types" were encouraged by the Lamont election. And Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, quickly reacted to the Lamont win by calling the Democrats the "party of defeat and retreat."

It should be noted that both Cheney and Mehlman pointedly referred to the Lamont win as a "purge," echoing the seminal anti-Lamont editorial by the Democratic Leadership Council from two months ago which used the term eight times. They were joined in that effort last week by virtually the entire conservative punditry establishment, with everyone from Cal Thomas ("Purge by Taliban Democrats" was his clever innovation) to American Conservative Union chief Patrick Keene ("The purge that began with the McGovernite seizure of the party . . . ") to Foundation for Defense of Democracies president Clifford May ("The August Purge of Lieberman," a funny historical malapropism; May was trying to echo Soviet Russia, which had an August putsch, not a purge) to Fox's John McIntyre to a whole host of others decrying Lamont's supporters as rich, elitist, neo-commie liberals bent on softening us all up for a terrorist attack, apparently just for the pure, America-hating thrill of it.

There is something perversely exhilarating about watching the American political establishment in action, especially now, when -- with the Middle East in flames, the front pages filled with news of jarring electoral surprises, and the poll numbers of its once-brightest stars falling through the floor -- it has begun behaving like a cornered animal, lashing out incoherently at anything that comes near.

Lieberman himself has been stumbling around like a deer that has just been hit and thrown 200 yards by an F-150, taking the utterly insane position that his candidacy -- his, Joe Lieberman's candidacy -- somehow represents a fight against the "same old" Washington politics. You have Dick Cheney and a whole host of conservative talking heads, all pretense of two-party politics gone now, openly parroting the talking points of the supposed other side, the Democratic Leadership Council. And then you have Times columnist David Brooks, acting like a man high on laughing gas, committing to print that positively amazing assertion that "polarized primary voters should not be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

(That one might be my all-time favorite; flailing around in search of a new group on the margins to demonize, this yutz accidentally argues that voters shouldn't be allowed to decide elections. I thought it was funny, but Brooks this time nearly gave Dave Sirota an aneurysm.)

The reason the Lamont election has all of Washington so badly freaked out and dug in is that it's revealed a crack in the long-dependable mechanism of mainstream American politics. For almost four decades now conservatives in both parties have been governing according to a very simple formula. You run against Jane Fonda and George McGovern in election season, then you spend the next four years playing golf, shooting flightless birds, and taking $25,000 speaking gigs in Aspen while you let your fundraisers run things around the office.

But their problem now is that they've fucked up Iraq and everything else so badly that they've practically made "McGovernism" mainstream. A whole generation of hacks has reached office running against George McGovern, and now Joe Lieberman is threatening to ruin things for everybody, just like Jimmy Carter wrecked the Barry Goldwater gravy train for the last generation by falling on his face against Ronald Reagan. If there is such a thing as a principle in Washington, avoiding such a catastrophe as that is it. That's why they won't let Joe die easy -- no matter how much he seems to deserve it.

NASA looses orginal moon landing recordings

I'm shocked and very angry. This is a national disgrace. I really hope these tapes turn up. Unfortunately this will only serve to fuel conspiracy theorists who claim no human has ever walked the surface of the moon. It's very likely these tapes now are a part of some eccentric billionaires’ private collection.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong's famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," a NASA spokesman said on Monday.

Armstrong's famous space walk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaloma said.

"We haven't seen them for quite a while. We've been looking for over a year and they haven't turned up," Hautaloma said.

The tapes also contain data about the health of the astronauts and the condition of the spacecraft. In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing, he said. (Watch the first moon landing -- 2:47)

"I wouldn't say we're worried -- we've got all the data. Everything on the tapes we have in one form or another," Hautaloma said.

NASA has retained copies of the television broadcasts and offers several clips on its Web site.

But those images are of lower quality than the originals stored on the missing magnetic tapes.

Because NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.

Hautaloma said it is possible the tapes will be unplayable even if they are found, because they have degraded significantly over the years -- a problem common to magnetic tape and other types of recordable media.

The material was held by the National Archives but returned to NASA sometime in the late 1970s, he said.

"We're looking for paperwork to see where they last were," he said.

Gove Vs. Bush

Wow, this interpretation could ultimately form the basis for a complete overhaul of our election system. Doing away with the current ability of each prescient to choose the method of counting votes and standardize the voting process for the whole country. It's inexcusable that there are voting 'errors' at all. How fucking hard is it to count votes flawlessly, it should be a simple matter to design electronic voting systems that make dirty tricks such as ballot stuffing and dead people voting impossible to pull off.

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
By ADAM COHEN
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”

There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.

Bush v. Gore’s lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.

The heart of Bush v. Gore’s analysis was its holding that the recount was unacceptable because the standards for vote counting varied from county to county. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,” the court declared, “the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” If this equal protection principle is taken seriously, if it was not just a pretext to put a preferred candidate in the White House, it should mean that states cannot provide some voters better voting machines, shorter lines, or more lenient standards for when their provisional ballots get counted — precisely the system that exists across the country right now.

The first major judicial test of Bush v. Gore’s legacy came in California in 2003. The N.A.A.C.P., among others, argued that it violated equal protection to make nearly half the state’s voters use old punch-card machines, which, because of problems like dimpled chads, had a significantly higher error rate than more modern machines. A liberal three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. But that decision was quickly reconsidered en banc —that is, reheard by a larger group of judges on the same court — and reversed. The new panel dispensed with Bush v. Gore in three unilluminating sentences of analysis, clearly finding the whole subject distasteful.

The dispute in the Sixth Circuit is even sharper. Ohio voters are also challenging a disparity in voting machines, arguing that it violates what the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor, calls Bush v. Gore’s “broad principle of equal dignity for each voter.” Two of the three judges who heard the case ruled that Ohio’s election system was unconstitutional. But the dissenting judge protested that “we should heed the Supreme Court’s own warning and limit the reach of Bush v. Gore to the peculiar and extraordinary facts of that case.”

The state of Ohio asked for a rehearing en banc, arguing that Bush v. Gore cannot be used as precedent, and the full Sixth Circuit granted the rehearing. It is likely that the panel decision applying Bush v. Gore to elections will, like the first California decision, soon be undone.

There are several problems with trying to airbrush Bush v. Gore from the law. It undermines the courts’ legitimacy when they depart sharply from the rules of precedent, and it gives support to those who have said that Bush v. Gore was not a legal decision but a raw assertion of power.

The courts should also stand by Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis for the simple reason that it was right (even if the remedy of stopping the recount was not). Elections that systematically make it less likely that some voters will get to cast a vote that is counted are a denial of equal protection of the law. The conservative justices may have been able to see this unfairness only when they looked at the problem from Mr. Bush’s perspective, but it is just as true when the N.A.A.C.P. and groups like it raise the objection.

There is a final reason Bush v. Gore should survive. In deciding cases, courts should be attentive not only to the Constitution and other laws, but to whether they are acting in ways that promote an overall sense of justice. The Supreme Court’s highly partisan resolution of the 2000 election was a severe blow to American democracy, and to the court’s own standing. The courts could start to undo the damage by deciding that, rather than disappearing down the memory hole, Bush v. Gore will stand for the principle that elections need to be as fair as we can possibly make them.

(nytimes)

MARX CAFE TONIGHT!!

3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW

yeah.

Drunk mom calls cops.

No that's a bad parent.

Allegedly drunk, mother calls police to say son is missing

He was asleep in the same room

By Deborah Sederberg

The News-Dispatch

A drunk mother reported her son missing when the boy was sleeping on a sofa just across from the one on which the mother had passed out, according to a report at the LaPorte County Sheriff's Police.

Police received a call at just after 9 p.m. Thursday from a woman in the 9800 block of U.S. 12, Michigan City, who said her 11-year-old son was missing.

When an officer arrived, he found the boy sleeping in the living room. The report indicates the mother had passed out and had been sleeping for about 7 1/2 hours. When she awoke, police said, she failed to notice her son.

The woman at first became angry when the officer pressed to enter the residence. She repeatedly asked the officer why he wasn't searching for the boy (away from the home) instead of walking through the home.

The officer found just the one sleeping child in the residence and that child turned out to be the one the mother had reported him missing.

Police called the county's Child Protective Services and a CPS representative placed the boy with a neighbor for the night. Police officer ran a background check on the neighbor and the man had been convicted of theft, but CPS placed the child with him anyway. The reasoning: The man's background did not include any crimes against children, the report said.

After police left the mother's residence, the neighbor who had the boy called the police to report that the mother was at his home demanding to see the boy.

Police then arrested the mother on charges of trespassing and public intoxication.

According to police, the mother's blood-alcohol of .257 percent, more than three times the state .08 threshold for intoxication.

q

Contact reporter Deborah Sederberg at dsederberg@thenewsdispatch.com.

Refuse to be terrorized!!

I'm flying to florida next friday, and I'm rather upset to find out that I'll not be able to take my hip flask with me to keep myself entertained. An excellent article from Reason magazine describing our best response to terrorism is to ignore it so that it'll go away. the thing I never got about all this chicken little response; how is this 'threat' a danger to our nation's long term survival? So what if terrorists kill a thousand americans a year, does that mean we all pack up shop and cease to exist as a nation? i don't think so...

Yesterday, British authorities broke up an alleged terror plot to blow up as many as ten commercial airliners as they flew to the United States. In response, the Department of Homeland Security upped the alert level on commercial flights from Britain to "red" and boosted the alert to "orange" for all other flights. In a completely unscientific poll, AOL asked subscribers: "Are you changing your travel plans because of the raised threat level?" At mid-afternoon about a quarter of the respondents had said yes. Such polls do reflect the kinds of anxieties terrorist attacks, even those that have been stymied, provoke in the public.

But how afraid should Americans be of terrorist attacks? Not very, as some quick comparisons with other risks that we regularly run in our daily lives indicate. Your odds of dying of a specific cause in any year are calculated by dividing that year's population by the number of deaths by that cause in that year. Your lifetime odds of dying of a particular cause are calculated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in that year. For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.

So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

So do these numbers comfort you? If not, that's a problem. Already, security measures—pervasive ID checkpoints, metal detectors, and phalanxes of security guards—increasingly clot the pathways of our public lives. It's easy to overreact when an atrocity takes place—to heed those who promise safety if only we will give the authorities the "tools" they want by surrendering to them some of our liberty. As President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural speech said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter—because it doesn't really matter. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Israel vs. Lebanon - It's about Water!

So in doing a little reading about the current problems in the Middle East I have come to the conclusion that it's all about water. Access to water for farming, drinking and industrial applications is critical for the survival of any nation, especially one that happens to be located in a barren desert. Here's what I have been reading.

Initially I read this, http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/07/you_cant...

Which lead me to this, http://web.macam.ac.il/%7Earnon/Int-ME/wa...

and then in turn I found this, http://www.mideastnews.com/WaterWars.htm

and then I read this, http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks...

and then I found what might be called a smoking gun of sorts, the Jordan river is drying up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_e...

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

And this seals it.. Israel has bombed irragation channels and pumping stations. jeez...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwor...

yeah.

Well, I'm really letting this blog go to shit here...

ummm.. Marx cafe tonight. you know.

and I'm playig with one arm tonight, skateboarding accident, spent shoulder. you know.

how we do.

be there.

Tom Hanks on the Tonight Show

If you have seen 'Who killed the electric car', in it there were some clips from Tom Hank's apperance on the Tonight Show . Here's the whole segment where he talks about his RAV-4 EV.

MARX CAFE TONIGHT

OHHH YEEAHHH!

you know how we do, and stuff.

3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW