I am in full support of the Olbermann agenda. I am ag'in' allowing the NSA the ability to purchase phone records through free market means, but I want the government to regulate trans-fatty foods. Although paradoxical, I want the government to have less information than telemarketers about calling patterns for terrorism, but I do want it to prevent me from eating a Fatty Burger. When the day comes, I want the chip inserted in my brain that prevents me from eating foods that the government determines to be bad for me, but it must ensure that the chip does not know that someone at a telephone number somewhere called someone at another telephone number somewhere about something that no one knows--save for the unidentified callers because the records do not include transcripts or the names of the callers.

I am in full support of the Olbermann agenda. I am ag'in' allowing the NSA the ability to purchase phone records through free market means, but I want the government to regulate trans-fatty foods. Although paradoxical, I want the government to have less information than telemarketers about calling patterns for terrorism, but I do want it to prevent me from eating a Fatty Burger. When the day comes, I want the chip inserted in my brain that prevents me from eating foods that the government determines to be bad for me, but it must ensure that the chip does not know that someone at a telephone number somewhere called someone at another telephone number somewhere about something that no one knows--save for the unidentified callers because the records do not include transcripts or the names of the callers.

I brought up this idea a few days back, and now seems a perfect time to discuss it.

No matter who is in the anchor chair, Countdown seems to have similar themes, similar styles, etc etc etc.

To me, this indicates a producer-driven product, rather than an anchor-driven one.

What do the masses think?

B

Johnny Dollar, your right hand and forearm must have been screaming for joy when you saw that Olbermann was taking the night off. How difficult is it to type when you have one hand on the keyboard and the other hand strokin' it to Olbermann?

A procedure, by the way, authorized and encouraged by the Justice Department of one Janet Reno.

Johnny! You have on numerous occasions accused me of a Tu Quoque fallacy. Shame on you.

Krazy Keith recieving an Edward R. Murrow award is akin to Michael Moore recieving an award from " Appreciative Fat Guys Everywhere" . It's a Liberal prize bequeathed by liberals.

Or Michael Moore winning an Oscar.

Oh crap he did!

-cs™

"No matter who is in the anchor chair, Countdown seems to have similar themes, similar styles, etc etc etc.

To me, this indicates a producer-driven product, rather than an anchor-driven one.

What do the masses think?"

Plausible and probably partially true; however, I think it fails to explain completely for these reasons.

1. He supposedly left MSNBC before because he was forced to cover the Lewinsky scandal. Either he is seeking credit for something he won't do now (resign for lack of control) or he contributes to the filtering of the stories, now.
2. Many of the more Bolshie aspects of the show result from his (apparently) off-the-cuff questions to guests. Unless, the producers know what the responses will be, he asks the stupid questions.
3. If Olbermann didn't have much say in who the producers would be, the producers of the show likely chose the anchor based upon their knowledge of the anchor's leanings. Olbermann at least tacitly agrees for reasons stated above. Unger either was selected by Olbermann or producers because of his similar leanings. Therefore, similarity of themes does not absolve the Olber(wo)man.

Dear Mr. Dollar,
I am wondering why, since today is June 6th you did not even mention that today is the 62nd year since the Americans landed on Normandy and gave their lives. I am not trying to brow beat you or anything. But I don't think I heard anything about it on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or whatever. I guess were all to involved in the real issues like gays getting married and the like......

Did Countdown do a story on it? If you look very closely, you'll see that this is a blog called Olbermann Watch. It's about Keith Olbermann, not military history. It would have been nice if comedian Brian Unger had devoted one of his segments to the story, but he didn't.

You raise an excellent point, in your own way. Olbermann, Unger, Countdown, and its producers, obviously only care about the reputation of US troops when they can use it to attack a more successful competitor. On the anniversary of D-Day, if remembering the troops can't be used to create an uptick in the ratings, they couldn't care less about it.

You forgot to mention that Dubya has used signing statements to challenge legislation 750 times in 5 and a half years. Clinton used it 140 times in 8 years.

Dubya uses it to challenge stuff he doesn't like, Clinton used it to challenge stuff he didn't think would hold up to a Supreme Court challenge.

In other words, Clinton was a check and balance on the republican congress. Dubya is trying to become a unitary executive or king.

Dubya, not now, not ever, do you deserve this much power.

O'Reilly and Scarborough both mentioned D-Day. In fact, Scarborough ran a segment of an interview he did two years ago with a D-Day vet at Omaha Beach. I don't know if Scarborough's Show is getting better or Hannity & Colmes is just unwatchable since it became the Duke Lacrosse Hous.

He's the host that most viewers hate
He refuses to engage in debate
He's cowardly and weak
A chicken with a beak
Opposing views make his ego deflate

Ms. Coulter,

Prepare yourself for "WPITW" honors on tonight's "Meltdown." You see, you criticized women whose husbands died in a terrorist attack, and that is VERBOTEN! Sure, your point was that these women politicized their husband's deaths and claimed privileged status, so the fact that you are attacked for criticizing them proves your point, but nonetheless . . .

I'd bet that Ann could care less about WPITW. If it lands her a few seconds on CD, and the obligatory video posting on mediamatters, as long as they mention the title of her new book, well as they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

WTF is with all this time off KO's been taking the last couple weeks. Does even he realize the shows so bad it doesn't matter if he's there or not? Or is Yankees/Sox more important the Tom Cruise and Bill O'Reilly? Doesn't KO know the evil Republican Senate could pass a gay marriage ban if he's not here to tell us how unpassable it is? Or worse, there could be a terror alert issued.

Or maybe after 2 days of reporting the proven false before he reported it Kat McPhee story, he neded to run off for a day or too to let the air clear before he had to issue a hated correction.

"these women politicized their husband's deaths and claimed privileged status"

Annonymous, how cna you agree with this woman? She is the most hate-spewing person on either side of the aisle.

And, she's not right. It's like Lauer said, these women are not beyond criticism, because Coulter is clearly criticizing them.

She said in teh segment, she has no problem with these women having their points of view... but, don't use your husbands death as an excuse to have that point of view.

Well, I'm sorry, but the death of a spouse is plenty enough for me to have my opinion changed on something. What more reason could someone have.

There are ways to criticize the points of view of these widows. Ann's way is not it.

What good has Ann Coulter done in this world? She's a racist, pure and simple.

In a Feb. 23, 2005 essay at anncoulter.com ,
Ann Coulter refers to Helen Thomas... "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."

Like or dislike Helen Thomas, this is racism.

The CONSERVATIVE NATIONAL REVIEW dropped her column after she responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by stating that America should "invade their [terrorists'] countries, kill their leaders and CONVERT them to Christianity."

That's racism.

I'm a liberal, obviously, but I don't hate conservatives. I don't care what the political leanings of my friends are... and they are many points of view at our poker nights. Hate begets only more hate. That's all this woman does, with mostly irrational lines of thought.

This will, hopefully, be my only post wasting time on her.

Johnny, nice job. Spaghettilegs teed it up for you and you drove it down the fairway. Spaghettilegs, cudos to you too.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4892717258

Who the hell would want to buy KO's tie?

Johnny, nice job. Spaghettilegs teed it up for you and you drove it down the fairway. Spaghettilegs, cudos to you too.

From Ann Coulter's new book (see below) - seems to be right on target with Opie and Kaplan. I mean their obsession with O'Reilly (& his huge success compared to Opie's dismal failure) isn't normal human behavior - is definately driving Opie & Kaplan insane - you don't mention O'Reilly 98 times trying to dig up dirt on a fellow reporter - a sports reporter trying every day to bash a proven journalist. Name a time when some knucklehead portraying himself as a journalist - for a once respected News organization - criticized another fellow journalist every night. Kaplan is setting news standards - and Opie is his pawn

"Coulter traces the rout of the so-called mainstream media to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News channel, which "nearly drove liberals berserk: they were supposed to control 100 percent of news dissemination . . . the mere existence of one solitary network that doesn't toe the party line has driven the Left insane"

Say what you want about Coulter - but look not further to Meltdown to see it is proven exactly true

I think Coulter is funny and less partisan than Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. If people don't like what she says, they don't have to read her book. And if the "Jersey Girls" wanted to stay anonymous instead of attacking Bush and campaigning for Kerry, they could have.

These "grieving" people who jump into the National spotlight and bask like whales are very annoying. Cindy Sheehan is their leader, and the most despicable user in the history of mankind.

`Sure, your point was that these women politicized their husband`s deaths and claimed privileged status, so the fact that you are attacked for criticizing them proves your point`

-----------------

nonsense.

Ann Coulter is being attacked because she is criticizing WIDOWS, not because she is criticizing `privledged` 9/11 widows -- whatever the hell that is. there is no such thing as a privledged 9/11 widow. a widow can criticize the president same as you and me. and you and i can criticize a 9/11 widow same as anybody.

this is just another vacuous, divisive, fabricated right-wing talking point (like the non-existent liberal attack on Christmas, and the non-existent liberal attack on flags, etc.) Ann Coulter and The Right simply don`t like what the widows said -- that Bush is an incompetant. and they think there should be a backlash against the widows for criticizing Bush, and they think the reason there is no backlash is because the widows are `privledged`. nonsense.

the reason there is no backlash is because most people agree with them that Bush *IS* an incompetant. as evidenced by his dismal approval ratings and wrong direction poll numbers. but The Right can`t handle that truth -- just like events on the ground in Iraq, just like global warming -- so they have to mash their teeth and rail against some fabricated nutjob notion, like `privledged` widows.

Hit Escape writes:

"You forgot to mention that Dubya has used signing statements to challenge legislation 750 times in 5 and a half years. Clinton used it 140 times in 8 years. Dubya uses it to challenge stuff he doesn't like, Clinton used it to challenge stuff he didn't think would hold up to a Supreme Court challenge."

Once again, in Olbermann like fashion, you swallow hook, line, and sinker the swill that passes for informed editorial opinion in liberal land (including the bogus "750 times in 5 and a half years" that you cite). Here is the real story regarding the use of signing statements by President George W. Bush (courtesy of National Review Online):

"In recent presidencies, the use of the constitutional signing statement has become more common. While the task of counting signing statements is inexact because of difficulties in characterizing some statements, both President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton issued constitutional signing statements with respect to similar numbers of laws. President Clinton issued constitutional signing statements with respect to 80 laws, and President Bush has issued such statements with respect to 104 laws as of January of this year. The Boston Globe's Charles Savage has consistently misstated the number of signing statements issued by President Bush — Savage says the President has "reserv[ed] the right to ignore more than 750 laws" — by counting multiple provisions within laws as if each constituted a separate signing statement.

Most of President Bush’s constitutional signing statements have sought to preserve three specific constitutional provisions that are, unfortunately, increasingly overlooked in the legislative process: the Recommendations Clause (Art. II, § 3, cl. 1: prescribing that the President “shall from time to time . . . recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”); the Presentment Clauses (Art. I, § 7, requiring that bills and resolutions pass both Houses before being presented to the President); and the Appointments Clause (Art. II, § 2, providing that the President shall appoint various officers of the Executive Branch). While critics claim that the President has used signing statements in “unprecedented fashion,” his constitutional signing statements are, in my view, for the most part fairly unremarkable. 55 of President Bush’s signing statements raised Recommendations Clause objections; 44 raised Presentment Clause or so-called Chadha issues; and 19 raised Appointments Clauses issues. The President has also frequently used signing statements to preserve the confidentiality of national security information (in 60 instances) — just as his predecessors have.

It is fair to say that President Bush has issued more signing statements than his predecessors touching on foreign affairs and wartime powers, but there is an unremarkable reason for that — we are a Nation that has been involved in an unprecedented war during his watch. Having said that, Bush's predecessors, including President Clinton, have also used signing statements to assert Commander in Chief powers. To cite just one example, consider President Clinton's Statement on Signing the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Oct. 23, 1998), where he said the following:

“Section 610 of the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations provision prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the participation of U.S. armed forces in a U.N. peacekeeping mission under foreign command unless the President's military advisers have recommended such involvement and the President has submitted such recommendations to the Congress. The “Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities” provision requires a report to the Congress prior to voting for a U.N. peacekeeping mission. These provisions unconstitutionally constrain my diplomatic authority and my authority as Commander in Chief, and I will apply them consistent with my constitutional responsibilities.”

"These "grieving" people who jump into the National spotlight and bask like whales are very annoying. Cindy Sheehan is their leader, and the most despicable user in the history of mankind."

No one is beyond criticism for their ideas and views. But, no one has the right to question whether or not these people are grieving, as you seem to be doing.

These peoples' loved one died in the war conservatives seem so just. When they were fighting that war,"SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMIES." When they get back (or are killed) and they (or the family they've left behind) speak out against the president/war... "OOPS, WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING YOU ANYMORE. YOU'RE A LIBERAL WHO'S USING YOUR LOVED ONE'S DEATH AS AN EXCUSE TO GET YOUR OPINION OUT."

Conservatives like Coulter are condemning these people for their opinions of a war based on their service (or that of their loved ones) those very conservatives WERE supporting.

Does no one else see the hypocrisy of this? These people (soldiers and widows) have more expertise and insight into what's really going on over there than ANYONE. Especially Coulter - where has she been? What posts has she manned?

Criticize their points of view if you want. But, only their points of view. The First Amendments states a 'free open exchange of IDEAS.' Attacking these widows for simply being widows isn't debating ideas.

And, yes, she IS attacking them for being widows. She says they're exploiting that fact (being widows) to criticize the war. How the HELL does she know? Has she been in the bedroom when these wives had to tell their kids 'daddy isn't coming home"? Was she at the funerals? No. Ann Coulter needs to take her hate speach and disappear.

You'd think a reputable news organization like FOX wouldn't give a racist like Coulter a pulpit to speak from.

James, actually, and just to keep you informed, the Ann Coulter controversy took off after her appearance on TODAY with Matt Lauer. James, the TODAY show is on a network named "NBC" it's different from the cable news network " FOX NEWS" . Got it? Good.

`These `grieving` people who jump into the National spotlight and bask like whales are very annoying. Cindy Sheehan is their leader, and the most despicable user in the history of mankind.`

oh yes, just as gays threaten the institution of marriage, grievers threaten the institution of political discourse. you fucking moron.

I don't think conservatives need to defend Ann Coulter.She's an intemperate ass.

What the Hell? Gays? Grievers?

Let's go through this again. If someone dies and you use his/her death for political gain (i.e. the "Jersey Girls" who are the Cindy Sheehans' of 9/11), then you are a public figure and you can be criticized. Coulter wants to call them on their behavior and as a result all the lefties are crying. Reminds me of when the grotesque Mo Dowd claimed Cindy Sheehan had "absolute moral authority" to say whatever the Hell she wanted without being criticized. That may be true in the lib media, but it ain't true everywhere.

Try to read this before posting goobers.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

Read about PEOPLE'S HEROES THE JERSEY GIRLS! Learn how the Islamists are not to blame for 9/11. Instead it was Condi's fault! Learn how leftists cheered for the "Jersey Girls" and aided them in their efforts! Learn how all other 9/11 families were ignored in favor of the "Jersey Girls"!

Viva Coulter! WPITW is a badge of honor!

" the TODAY show is on a network named "NBC" it's different from the cable news network " FOX NEWS" . Got it? Good."

Actually, I was trying to point out that that racist, hate-mongerer Ann Coulter is listed as a FOX News contributor and regularly appears on both Hanntity and Colmes and O'Reilly.

And why not... she has just the type of opinion FOX likes to promote.

she appears everywhere you dopey airhead.

How bout that Duke Cunningham seat in CA? Looks like the "Avalanche of Democrat Wins" hasn't taken off as expected. Pity.

> Ann Coulter is listed as a FOX News contributor and regularly appears on both Hanntity and Colmes and O'Reilly.

James doesn't know what he's talking about. Coulter is not a Fox contributor and never has been. And she doesn't appear regularly on Fox either.

This is, what, the third, fourth, fifth time I've had to shoot down this lie, that keeps reappearing? it was Olbermann who walked into a subway wall and hit his head. That doesn't mean that all his apologists also have to have short-term memory loss.

`If someone dies and you use his/her death for political gain (i.e. the `Jersey Girls` who are the Cindy Sheehans` of 9/11), then you are a public figure and you can be criticized. Coulter wants to call them on their behavior and as a result all the lefties are crying.`

------------

by that reasoning, MADDs (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) who have lost a child should be criticized for lobbying in favor of tougher drunk driving laws. And John Walsh, creater of America`s Most Wanted should be called on his politicizing of his son`s death to create the Amber Alert system.

the Right simply does not like what the Sheehans and 9/11 Widows of the world have to say, so you create an air-headed complaint against their right to speak out. what a contrived crock of shit.

`James doesn`t know what he`s talking about. Coulter is not a Fox contributor and never has been. And she doesn`t appear regularly on Fox either.`

This is, what, the third, fourth, fifth time I`ve had to shoot down this lie, that keeps reappearing? it was Olbermann who walked into a subway wall and hit his head. That doesn`t mean that all his apologists also have to have short-term memory loss.`

. . . . .

HANNITY: But is he back co-opting the Republican agenda once again? We`re joined by the author of the best-selling book -- no, it`s not Al Gore`s book -- `Slander` by Ann Coulter, also a Fox News contributor.

You notice the word, politics, Ann, of personal destruction from the man that hired investigators to look into the critics -- any critic, basically, that came down the road against him?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR: Right. And one of the witnesses against him, Kathleen Willey, had her cat killed, her tires slashed. All of them viciously slandered.

. . . . .

and this is from the FoxNews transcripts. but since it`s on Fox, i guess you can just assume it`s a lie, so maybe you are correct, J$, instead of being your usual horse`s ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72230,00.html

You are citing Sean Hannity as your source, anon? Very good. How about going to the Fox News bios page and show me where Ann Coulter appears as a Fox News contributor?

You'll notice the transcript identifies Ellis Henican as a "contributor", but Coulter simply as "author". There's a reason for that: Henican is a contributor, and Coulter is not.

Final nail: when qando.net described Coulter as a Fox news contributor, FNC objected, saying she is not one, and the website published their correction, along with "regret" for the "confusion".

Now Ann Coulter was a cable news channel contributor for years. For MSNBC.

gee, J$, what part of Hannity`s sentence -- `by Ann Coulter, also a Fox News contributor` -- don`t you understand, you moron.

kind of like reading the fourth amendment and not being able to understand that either. you are a fool`s fool.

Anon thoughtfully stated:

"oh yes, just as gays threaten the institution of marriage, grievers threaten the institution of political discourse. you fucking moron."

Nicely said....NOT.

I don't think gays threaten the institution of marriage. And they don't have any reason to - it is perfectly legal for them to be married whenever they want and always has been. There are certainly many millions of examples of a women with homosexual proclivities taking a man as her husband and a homosexual man taking a woman as his wife. And many have produced and successfully raised offspring. No question about that.

You see, throughout modern history a government endorsed marriage has been the legal union of one man with one woman - nothing ever stated regarding one's sexual proclivities that I know of. I do think some people are attempting to revise history claiming that marriage is not a cultural institution specific to heterosexual (and thus potentially offspring producing) relationships.

I'm sorry, but a wife is by definition a female and a husband is a male. Men can love other men and even lust after them. But they can't be wives to them. Only women can be that - by defnition.

If you would like to invent some new type of legally recognized relationship, go right ahead. Obviously, it will not carry the exact same set of social implications that marriage does though...

What part don't you understand? Hannity was wrong. Fox itself said she wasn't a contributor. Websites have published retractions for claiming otherwise. And she's not on the bios page of Fox contributors, is she?

Of course, if you want to assert that any sentence Hannity speaks is automatically true, I'll hold you to that.

"if you want to assert that any sentence Hannity speaks is automatically true, I'll hold you to that."

No. I'd rather go by what you said earlier as a constant truth.

"Hannity was wrong." - johnny dollar

Hannity was wrong. Yeah, right. Guess we`ll just have to wait for Fox to change the transcript from `Ann Coulter, also a Fox News contributor` to `Ann Coulter, Normandy`.

I don't think so. The transcript appears to be correct. It identifies Henican as "contributor", Coulter as "author".

talk about a perfect example of tortured logic. so, J$, this must be what goes on regularly in your tiny little confused mind. tortured logic, tortured prisoners. makes perfect sense.

Rick Kaplan Resigns: "He Has Led MSNBC Through A Period Of Impressive Growth"

And Down goes Opie, Down goes Opie, Down gopes Opie

Opie's time is measured in hours... meltdown is meeeeelllltttiiinnnnggg

"I want to thank Rick for his service to MSNBC," NBC News president Steve Capus said in a message to MSNBC employees at 4pm. "Over the last two and a half years, Rick has been a tireless champion for the network and all the hard work you do each and every day. He has led MSNBC through a period of impressive growth especially in primetime. You, the staff at MSNBC, are enormously dedicated and have built a rock-solid foundation for our future growth. MSNBC has been and continues to be an enormously important asset in the NBC News portfolio.

"If you would like to invent some new type of legally recognized relationship, go right ahead. Obviously, it will not carry the exact same set of social implications that marriage does though

As long as it demonstrates to society that a gay couple have entered into some kind of matrimony in which they are legally and socially recoginized as a couple with the same rights as a husband and wife, then I am find with that. We can call it, "Gay Marriage" However i doubt that many who were urging the amenment through would accept that.

'If someone dies and you use his/her death for political gain (i.e. the "Jersey Girls" who are the Cindy Sheehans' of 9/11), then you are a public figure and you can be criticized.'

Interesting...

And what 'political gain' were the Jersey Girls attempting to capitalize on?

Oh, that's right, they were trying to force the Bush Administration to investigate 9/11, something they clearly did not want to do until public pressure (which includes the Jersey Girls) forced them to. One can hardly call that 'political gain' as 9/11 should've been investigated as a matter of course, and not ignored until there was no way around it.

So, if a true investigation had been undertaken of 9/11 instead of the sham 'Commission' that finally got under way over a year afterwards (and still managed to publish a report that has more omissions and distortions than actual analysis) we may never have heard of the Jersey Girls.

So those who don't like to hear from these women have none other than the Bush Administration to thank for them 'politicizing their husband's deaths' (using that retard Coulter's words, not mine).

Isn't cause and effect an amazing thing?

Meltdown's ruling czar said "I quit"
The host of the show said "Oh shit!"
Without the czar's backing
The host will be packing
His "news show" was never worth spit

The Bushiad
Chapter I: The Rage of George

The Bushiad

December's rosy-fingered dawn gently
Brushes sleep from his dream-soaked eyes,
But Resolute George wakes up royally pissed,
Roiling with rage, his insides scorched
By a hot and furious furnace, welding
Purpose ever tighter to his heart.

What insult, humiliation or disgrace
Could cast his soul so completely in revenge?
His pain and family’s lust for vengeance
Are hidden under wraps of stately words, yet
Placed before a world transfixed by
Calls for guts and glory in the kingdom
Over breakfast, Sly Ashcroft, who taps into
George’s mind much as he does his phone,
Lays down his counsel to this Prince, this
Leader risen through his family’s honor to
Take his place in hallowed history,
And wield the presidential scepter.

Sly Ashcroft, whose panoptic plan
Seduces hearts and minds through fear,
Waits eagerly for Armageddon when
Saved souls will reign with God above. His
Inner vision colors all he sees with
An impenetrable, opaque shroud of faith.

Sly Ashcroft whispers, "Hold fast,
My Prince, the moment approaches. Our path
Is through strength. Power is manifest and
He who weakens falls behind, will lose the race
To promised land where victory brings acclaim
And legends of leadership are carved in stone. Hold fast!"

But Resolute George is also Simple,
Distracted, he looks through the curtained window,
Daydreams of Crawford, Texas...trees to prune,
Littered footpaths to be raked, Creeks
That should be cleared before the rains;
Then Resolute again, he shakes his head.

"Mark my words," he says pale-faced, "Saddam
Has breathed his last, and only when
He’s rot or ashes, stinking - better yet
Dismembered before a crowd and fed to dogs - then
Will I enjoy some peaceful sleep, undisturbed
By my family’s cries for vengeance."

He kneels, Oval Office now his chapel,
Prays for strength. Eyes clenched tight,
He asks God to bless his holy mission. "Dear Lord,
Restore my family’s honor cruelly taken by Saddam.
Help me to prevail and with your strength,
Vanquish opposition in heat of righteous battle."

Sly Ashcroft, counsel given, satisfied
George is held in sway, takes his leave
Not looking back, afraid that Simple George
Might be turned towards him, trance broken,
Baseball stats, chili dogs and dreams of ice-cold beer
Replacing waves of vengeful thought.

Meanwhile Stealthy Saddam sleeps soundly,
Surrounded by dogs and loyal men.
He dreams of portraits of himself, great
Murals filling public spaces, titanic statues
Towering in vast halls, hands raised in salutation
Welcoming his subjects inside the palace walls.

In his dreams, he provides his only counsel,
All others dreamt reflect his face and voice
And offer their concurrence as a chorus. He need
Not breathe, nor beat his heart, nor churn his gut.
Dreaming Saddam is stillness, a portrait
Patient, waiting for the old king’s son to strike.

Twelve years of stalemate, why not twelve more,
He asks in sleep. Why not twenty more, not much
By Babylonian standards. This cradle of civilization endures.
If Allah’s protecting anyone it’s me, and why not? I'm
Strong, good-looking and can get the girls, he dreams,
A scud missile rising in his groin.

Eyes opening in the darkness, his hand
Brushes his pillow, Egyptian cotton, from Mubarak
For his birthday, used this very night, then discarded,
Burned and ashes scattered. His head has lain upon it;
Royalty must be safeguarded, even flakes of skin
And orphaned strands of hair and sweat.

I’m glad I’m me, he thinks, and strokes his body,
Halting at his loins where stands his mighty minaret,
Symbol of his manhood, and his power over men,
An inspiration to himself and all who love him -
His guide, his mentor, counsel and
Adviser second to none.

No astrologer casts charts for Stealthy Saddam,
He leans on no family honor, like Simple George.
"I am the chosen one", he whispers to himself,
While in his hand his erection strains at the cloth,
And counsel comes that he should move again
For safety’s sake, and a fresh pillow.

And in that posture, hand ‘round its head,
Saddam falls back to sleep till dawn, when
Birdsong lightly lifts him from his slumber, and
Rising he relieves himself in a golden bowl,
Filled with perfumed water and fresh rose petals,
Picked by loyal subjects during Baghdad’s silent night.

Next >

The Bushiad and The Idyossey - Copyright 2004 by Victor Littlebear - All rights reserved

"James doesn't know what he's talking about. Coulter is not a Fox contributor and never has been."

James may have made an error but it is a reasonable error when Sean Hannity introduces her that way. Don't blame him for the misinformation blame Sean. I mean really why should anyone bother to check up on Hannity's facts? Oh right nevermind that one.

Anonymous replied:

"As long as it demonstrates to society that a gay couple have entered into some kind of matrimony in which they are legally and socially recoginized as a couple with the same rights as a husband and wife, then I am find with that. We can call it, "Gay Marriage" However i doubt that many who were urging the amenment through would accept that."

Why should a gay relationship be regarded in the same category as marriage by the general population [i.e., the government]? Let's assume that a gay "marriage" promotes a stable home life for some subset of citizens. Fine. Now, what does it do to promote the propagation of the human race and if anything how does that compare to the contribution of conventional marriage?

Right, whatever your notion of 'gay marriage' incorporates, it does not include as a primary objective, the proliferation of the human race. In other words, it is some other kind of relationship with differnt implications and thus a different value to mankind.

Give it up, pal. The most important civil union by far is the one that promotes the propagation of the race and in a natural [i.e, heterogeneous] environment. Anything else takes back seat.

-eauman

" it does not include as a primary objective, the proliferation of the human race. In other words, it is some other kind of relationship with differnt implications and thus a different value to mankind."

Does this mean that a married man and woman who are unable to have children are a 'different value to mankind'?

"Does this mean that a married man and woman who are unable to have children are a 'different value to mankind'?"

Yes, though still more valuable than the same-sex union since its still represents an affirmation of the procreative process involving a man and a woman. Now, what technology do you have that provides incontrovertible proof of that disability and is it worth making that distinction in the very small number of cases where it might apply?

Right, I didn't think so.

-eauman

I just love how some conservatives think that by stopping gays from getting married it will somehow magically affect MY marriage. Guess what... my marriage will be fine no matter who else gets married out there.

As for 'protecting marriage in America'... it's already broke. Divorce rate is over 50%. Maybe people should worry about whats going on in their own homes and bedrooms rather than someone elses. Might save your marriage.

Here's a shocker -- I agree that marriage in America is in trouble! Who would've thunk it?

Actually, I despise the "licensing" of marriage by our Nanny state. Not only do I have to tell them everything about myself and pony up cash for crap I don't want, I have to traipse down to city hall for a license every time I get an additional wife!

The Government has no business sanctioning marriages, and should not be in charge of licensing them, nor should the absurd divorce laws be in effect where you have to somehow prove you deserve a divorce. You can all thank the divorce lawyers for that. In fact, the marriage industry benefits those leeches the most.

If gays want to buy into this corrupt and abusive system, more power to them. A divorce or two later and they'll all be staring in the mirror asking, "what have I done?"

KfK is absolutely right.

James opined:

"As for 'protecting marriage in America'... it's already broke. Divorce rate is over 50%. Maybe people should worry about whats going on in their own homes and bedrooms rather than someone elses. Might save your marriage."

Although I could dispute your figures, I will simply point out the non-sequitur - fairly little about what 'specifically' is going on in somebody's bedroom has anything to do with the institution of marriage. Marriage has to do with the robust propagation of the human race. And time has proven that goal is best attained through the promotion of persistent heterosexual unions.

Go ahead and form a 'persistent' bond with your gay buddy, if you are so inclined - I won't stop you. I'm even willing to support shared property and divorce laws for such unions. Just don't ask for any of the conventional 'marital' tax breaks.

-eauman

Hey I have a little known secret. This is gonna blow people's minds!! I don't know if I'm even allowed to tell this or not. "robust propagation" happens all the time without marriage. You don't want me to point out the statistics on that. Marriage doesen't promote sex, infact I don't think it really needs any promoting. You are willing to recoginize every legegal aspect of a homosexual relationship except marriage tax breaks. O.K. so marriage is so rightious that the only thing you want to protect about it is tax breaks. That is a robust hunk of crap.

eauman said:
"Why should a gay relationship be regarded in the same category as marriage by the general population [i.e., the government]?

Well frankly the government should stay completely out of it. It is none of their business. Marriage, whether gay or straight should be just a private contract between two individuals. Also I don't see any difference between two homosexuals who love each other entering into a union and two straight people entering one, other than the straight ones can have children. That hardly should prevent a union from happening however.

"Let's assume that a gay "marriage" promotes a stable home life for some subset of citizens. Fine. Now, what does it do to promote the propagation of the human race and if anything how does that compare to the contribution of conventional marriage?"
So you are saying essentially that Gay marriage should not happen because they can't have children, which is the primary function of marriage?
If propagating the human race is the function of marriage then should we stop granting equal protection under the law to couples that cannot have children or choose not to? Not to mention I completely reject the notion that marriage is something done to benefit society. I am not marrying my girlfriend because it benefits society and frankly I don't believe it does. I think it benefits me and I will be quite happy as a result. If it makes anyone else either uncomfortable or wildly happy, I don't give a shit.
"Right, whatever your notion of 'gay marriage' incorporates, it does not include as a primary objective, the proliferation of the human race. In other words, it is some other kind of relationship with different implications and thus a different value to mankind."
again I know lots of married childless couples. My sister is one because of cancer. But I take it she is not married to the man she loves because she is not doing the primary purpose of a marriage.

"The most important civil union by far is the one that promotes the propagation of the race and in a natural [i.e, heterogeneous] environment".
Why? The world is over populated

The Government has no business sanctioning marriages, and should not be in charge of licensing them, nor should the absurd divorce laws be in effect where you have to somehow prove you deserve a divorce.

Well said KFK. I usually disagree with you. But that was well said.

Dannyboy uttered:

"You don't want me to point out the statistics on that. Marriage doesen't promote sex, infact I don't think it really needs any promoting."

No argument regarding sex. Instead marriage promotes (though it certainly doesn't guarantee) a stable environment for producing and raising children into healthy well adjusted adults. That is "robust" propagation of the species - its more that just an issue of sexual contact.

"You are willing to recoginize every legegal aspect of a homosexual relationship except marriage tax breaks. O.K. so marriage is so rightious that the only thing you want to protect about it is tax breaks. That is a robust hunk of crap."

Lighten up, friend. Tax breaks and other benefits are primary ways that a government can promote the wellbeing of the society that it serves. Its not about protecting tax breaks for married couples. Its about not automatically giving the same tax breaks to every other adhoc grouping of individuals.

One you have never demonstrated that marriage serves society. Two who cares if it does the govemrnet has no right to be involved. three by your logic childess couples should recieve the same rights as gay couples that wish o Marry.

I'm going to take a stab and you can correct me if I am wrong, that your religion is driving this beleif of yours that somehow the main goal of marriage is to produce a child.

Another point to be made here (I'm liking this thread by the way, we aren't tearing into one another)... marriage is a union between two people and their God. If a priest/pastor/rabbi, etc. decides to marry two people (gay or straight) before God... so be it. I agree with earlier thoughts that the government shouldn't even recognize marriage, as it's a religious union.

When two consenting adults (gay or straight) want marriage benefits (i.e. tax breaks), they apply to the gov't for some kind of a union license. Only two people can enter into it at once... gay or straight.

This policy will do two things...

First, everyone is on an equal playing field. Gov't is blind to the religious institution of marriage, which the (it can be argued) the framers wanted in the separation of church and state.

Second, you will probably eliminate gay marriage (for those who want that to happen). Remember, under this idea, the only ones with the power to marry people are priests/rabbi's etc... who usually WILL NOT marry gays/lesbiens.

But, while they can't get married in the religious aspect... they are still eligbile for the same benefits of hetero couples under the law.

I'm no expert, but I suspect most gay couples could care less about being married or not... they just want to be treated the same as hetero's.

I may be wrong in all this... just an idea for people to kick around (don't kick to hard, though.)

The main goal of marriage is tax breaks. I mean if every homosexual couple gets gets tax breaks whos goining to pay for this war.

P.S. Kudos to U.S. military for catching that rat bas%^$ Abu Musab. Thanks to Jordan also.

UPDATE: John Amato has the Laurer-Coulter video and the Olbermann-Coulter video

what a vile woman!

Some anonymous person wrote:

"One you have never demonstrated that marriage serves society."

Some exercises, I leave to the reader. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate the benefits of a stable home life.

"Two who cares if it does the govemrnet has no right to be involved."

The a democratic government has every right to do whatever it is that its citizens deem helpful for society in general. It is not a shapeless blob - it serves its citizens.

"three by your logic childess couples should recieve the same rights as gay couples that wish o Marry."

Absolutely! A woman in a gay relationship has every right to take a husband (though I don't recommend continuing the gay relationship).

"I'm going to take a stab and you can correct me if I am wrong, that your religion is driving this beleif of yours that somehow the main goal of marriage is to produce a child."

Sorry, Pal. I have no formal religion. I don't accept Bible based nor any other conventional religious beliefs. I simply choose to recognize the fundamental nature of human culture and the development of social conventions.

eauman wrote:

"Some exercises, I leave to the reader. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate the benefits of a stable home life.'

Great well since homosexuals are just as capable of being stable at home as straight people I guess you won't have any objection to them marrying each other.

"The a democratic government has every right to do whatever it is that its citizens deem helpful for society in general."

Not at the expense of the rights of the individual, then it becomes a tyranny of the masses. Four wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner is not a free society.

"Absolutely! A woman in a gay relationship has every right to take a husband (though I don't recommend continuing the gay relationship)."

I was typing quickly there and didn't check for clarity. What I meant to say was by your logic Childless couples should recive no tax breaks or equal protection from the goverment because they are unable to fullfill what you deem to be the primary purpose of marriage. i assume you are ok with that line of reasoing then? We could pass laws requiring marriages to break up if they don't produce any offspring in a certain amount of time.

"Sorry, Pal. I have no formal religion. I don't accept Bible based nor any other conventional religious beliefs. "

Fair enough.

"I simply choose to recognize the fundamental nature of human culture and the development of social conventions."

Well I disagree that human culture has a fundamnetal nature. At least not in regards to marriage. In india marriages are still often arranged. In the 1800s they were often nothing more than alliances to increase property. In the middle ages, marriages often happend for political reasons. just because that is the way it was dosen't mean it equals some law pertaining to culture as a whole. To reiterate my position of before Marraige should be a private contract between two adults and the govemrent should have no part in it and frankly it is none of societies business regardless of whatever social convention exists.

Posted by: at June 8, 2006 04:40 PM

I said: "The a democratic government has every right to do whatever it is that its citizens deem helpful for society in general."

You replied: "Not at the expense of the rights of the individual, then it becomes a tyranny of the masses. Four wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner is not a free society."

Hardly a relevant example. No one here is threatening anybody's rights nor their life. The insistence that some small fraction of the population has a right to invent a new type of social contract and then is somehow justified in demanding an official endorsement and subsidizing of that contract by the democratically elected government of 'all the people' is outrageous, not to mention most likely doomed.

"To reiterate my position of before Marraige should be a private contract between two adults and the govemrent should have no part in it and frankly it is none of societies business regardless of whatever social convention exists. "

Sadly, what you think marriage "should be" is irrelevant.

The insistence that some small fraction of the population has a right to invent a new type of social contract and then is somehow justified in demanding an official endorsement and subsidizing of that contract by the democratically elected government of 'all the people' is outrageous, not to mention most likely doomed.

Funny, segregationists made the same argument 50 years ago when the issue was integrated marriage...

eauman wrote:

>>You replied: "Not at the expense of the rights >>of the individual, then it becomes a tyranny >>of the masses. Four wolves and a lamb voting >>on what's for dinner is not a free society."

"Hardly a relevant example. No one here is threatening anybody's rights nor their life."

You're wrong. Two people have the the right to enter into a contract with each other in which they agree to form a family. They have this right whether straight or gay. If society interferes with that then we have a case of a tyranny of the masses. There was a time, I think, when it is reasonsable to assume that in parts of the south voters would have outlawed a marriage betwen a black man and a white women. Is that right? Is that a free society where individual rights are protected?

"and then is somehow justified in demanding an official endorsement and subsidizing of that contract by the democratically elected government of 'all the people' is outrageous, not to mention most likely doomed."

I don't think anyone should receive a subsidy for forming a family because any idiot can and has done so. The forming of a family should be recognized as a legitamete contract however.

Let me put a scenario in front of you. Two gay men have been living together for 20 years and love each other and support each other and consider each other the most important person in each of their lives for the last 20 years and one day one of them ends up in a coma and his partner is told by the mother of his lover that he is not allowed to make a visit into the hospital to see the person he cares about more than anyone in the world. Knowing that that person would want him to be there how can you argue that keeping him out is not a discriminitory act? These two men have formed a family they are consenting adults. if society gets invovled in that is is interfering with their rights.

>"To reiterate my position of before Marraige >should be a private contract between two adults >and the govemrent should have no part in it and >frankly it is none of societies business >regardless of whatever social convention >exists. "

"Sadly, what you think marriage "should be" is irrelevant."

not a very bright answer. basically you are completly rejecting the notion of individual rights which is the foundation of our Republic and you refuse to defend that. Your opiniion on what should be is not only irrelevant it is unamerican.

Society does not have the right, whether it does it or not, to dictate who is allowed to enter into matrimony. if a Hindu from a differnt caste wants to enter into marriage and society prevents it - that is tyranny. If a black man and white women wish to enter into matrimony and society prevents it - that is tyranny if two women choose to enter into matrimony and society prevents it - that is tyranny. basically you seem to be pro-tyranny.

I said:

"The insistence that some small fraction of the population has a right to invent a new type of social contract and then is somehow justified in demanding an official endorsement and subsidizing of that contract by the democratically elected government of 'all the people' is outrageous, not to mention most likely doomed."

Some anonymous person replied:

"Funny, segregationists made the same argument 50 years ago when the issue was integrated marriage..."

Certainly not an argument that I would support within the context of racial differences. Note that race and gender have distinctly different social implications. Mixing races is a good thing since it serves to enrich the gene pool. Not mixing genders has a very different effect.

eauman wrote:

"Note that race and gender have distinctly different social implications."

true, however you arguing from the presumption that society has the right to dictate under what conditions people are allowed to marry, whether it be gender or race. Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your argument but it seems you could care less about the rights of interacial couples to marry. it seems you are ok with their marriage not because they have the right to chose their own partner whoever that may be, but because it is benifical to society that they mate. meaning if it wasn't and society wanted to outlaw it you would be ok with that.

"Mixing races is a good thing since it serves to enrich the gene pool. Not mixing genders has a very different effect."

yes it reduces the amount of people vying for resources in an over populated world.
Although noone is asking straight people not to mate. So if gays do marry this benefit or disadvantage is not lost.

Some anonymous person wrote: "Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your argument but it seems you could care less about the rights of interacial couples to marry. it seems you are ok with their marriage not because they have the right to chose their own partner whoever that may be, but because it is benifical to society that they mate. meaning if it wasn't and society wanted to outlaw it you would be ok with that."

Yes, you are misrepresenting my position. My making a statement pointing out a given benefit does not exclude the possibility of my recognizing and valuing other benefits. Do us all a favor and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Fair enough?

Eauman wrote the following:

"Yes, you are misrepresenting my position. My making a statement pointing out a given benefit does not exclude the possibility of my recognizing and valuing other benefits. Do us all a favor and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Fair enough?"

I am not putting words in your mouth I am trying to understand your position so that I might respond to it. That is why i said forgive me if I am misrespresenting you.

now perhaps you can explain your position more clearly so that the debate is more accurate. Feel free to ask me to do the same if you don't feel I am stating my position clearly.

Here is what I am getting from what you have written. You have argued that gay marriages should not either happen or at the least should not receive the same rights and protections as a straight marriage because it has no benefit to society. Is that correct? That seems to imply that Society has a right to stop any marriage it does not deem valuable. Whether it be gay or straight or inte-racial or inter-religion.

when pressed on the difference between society votring down a gay marriage versus an inter-racial marriage you replied with the following

"Note that race and gender have distinctly different social implications. Mixing races is a good thing since it serves to enrich the gene pool. Not mixing genders has a very different effect."

This seems to be demonstrating that the benefit of a straight inter-racial marriage to society is the difference that allows them to marry but not gays to each other. No where do you seem to imply that inter-racial couples have a right to marry. You simply point out that one helps society and the other doesn't. That is why I came to my conclusion from what you have written. If you can explain to me why society has the right to stop a gay marriage and not an inter-racial one, other than a benefit society recieves from it, that would clear up my understanding of your position.

Becuase lets be honest, if all you have is that racial marriage improves the gene pool, you would be demonstrating that my charactorization of your argument is correct.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED MAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK7PFG62di4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyearlykos%2Eorg%2F

Some anonymous person wrote:

"If you can explain to me why society has the right to stop a gay marriage and not an inter-racial one, other than a benefit society recieves from it, that would clear up my understanding of your position."

There is no such precedent for the notion of "gay marriage". Society (the human race, in general) has no precedent nor motivation for supporting this concept. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of interracial and inter-cultural marriages through the ages and for good reason.

In contrast, I view the gay marriage agenda in the same class as the agenda of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). They want unconventional (in this case, pedophilic) relationships to be promoted to status as an accepted and legally observed mainstream social convention. If you can make a compelling argument for them, I'll seriously reconsider my position regarding officialy sanctioned and subsidized homosexual unions.

If you can't, then this discussion has reached its logical conclusion.

If you can make a compelling argument for them, I'll seriously reconsider my position regarding officialy sanctioned and subsidized homosexual unions.

The comparison of gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd - simply put, under the laws of this country a child cannot consent to have sex (this is a "brightline" test). Gay marriage, on the other hand, is two consenting adults reaching the logical positive conclusion for where their relationship goes.

I thought NAMBLA was a lobbying group started by Tom Delay and jack Abramoff? No , I'm sorry they were consenting adults who were screwing the nation.

"The comparison of gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd - simply put, under the laws of this country a child cannot consent to have sex (this is a "brightline" test). Gay marriage, on the other hand, is two consenting adults reaching the logical positive conclusion for where their relationship goes."

Unfortunately, you are talking about what marriage "should" or should not be according to your personal 'beliefs'. You claim that gay couples "should" be given legal recognition of a sexual union. The position of NAMBLA is that men and male children "should" legally be allowed to have sexual relations.

These are remarkably similar assertions and neither is founded on any natural principal nor line of reasoning other than unsubstantiated declarations of how their respective proponents think things "should be" in their very subjective view of the world.

Conversation over (at least for me).

"gay marriage....is two consenting adults reaching the logical positive conclusion for where their relationship goes."

Well, there's the rub, isn't it. So far our society has not judged marriage between two members of the same sex as having the same societal benefit as heterosexual unions.

The number of people who are strictly attracted to the same sex is very small compared to the percentage of people who are bisexual. It can be arged that with the stigma against homosexual unions, these people are encouraged into conventional marriages, with offspring--- a scenario that traditionally HAS been defined as being good for society.

Then there's the little problem of the church, and it's having to jeittison ancient doctrine about chastity, procreation within the confines of marriage, sexual expression/procreation-- that utterly contradicts any endorsement of gay unions.

I think gay civil unions could be an answer. What I don't do is try to persuade people by calling them bigots.

If liberals-- within the church or out-- want to persuade society and the churchy sorts within this country, about the benefits of gay marriage...they are going to have to start articulating a coherent doctrinal and socialogical stance. "Because we're good liberals and you're bigots" will not win them any adherents. Of course...there's always judges...but that avenue may take a longer than the one of actual persuasion...

I"think gay civil unions could be an answer. What I don't do is try to persuade people by calling them bigots."

That's a reasonable answer. By the way I have been the liberal arguing with Eauman, and while I don't buy his logic at all, I think our discussion was fairly civil and neither of us called the other anything..

"eauman wrote: Conversation over (at least for me"

I will make this my last one as well.

"Unfortunately, you are talking about what marriage "should" or should not be according to your personal 'beliefs'. You claim that gay couples "should" be given legal recognition of a sexual union. The position of NAMBLA is that men and male children "should" legally be allowed to have sexual relations.

There is a world of diiference between the two and I have to say, and I'm not name calling here, but I think your argument is absurd. you are using a false analogy. A child is not capable of making decsions about sex and a predophile is preying on a child. in the case of homosexuality we are talkng about two consenting adults.

"These are remarkably similar assertions and neither is founded on any natural principal nor line of reasoning other than unsubstantiated declarations of how their respective proponents think things "should be" in their very subjective view of the world.

There is absolutely nothing similar between an adult taking advantage of a child and two grown indviduals making a mutual decsion about who they want to spend their lives with, nothing.

Society has the right to protect a child 6 years old from a pedophile. A 6 year old boy is not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough, to deal with a 28 year old man who is determined to have sex with him. With two adults who are consenting, this is not a problem.

"eauman wrote: Conversation over (at least for me"

I will make this my last one as well.

"Unfortunately, you are talking about what marriage "should" or should not be according to your personal 'beliefs'. You claim that gay couples "should" be given legal recognition of a sexual union. The position of NAMBLA is that men and male children "should" legally be allowed to have sexual relations.

There is a world of diiference between the two and I have to say, and I'm not name calling here, but I think your argument is absurd. you are using a false analogy. A child is not capable of making decsions about sex and a predophile is preying on a child. in the case of homosexuality we are talkng about two consenting adults.

"These are remarkably similar assertions and neither is founded on any natural principal nor line of reasoning other than unsubstantiated declarations of how their respective proponents think things "should be" in their very subjective view of the world.

There is absolutely nothing similar between an adult taking advantage of a child and two grown indviduals making a mutual decsion about who they want to spend their lives with, nothing.

Society has the right to protect a child 6 years old from a pedophile. A 6 year old boy is not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough, to deal with a 28 year old man who is determined to have sex with him. With two adults who are consenting, this is not a problem.

Just saw an ad about Keith Olbermann's book, "The Worst People in the World". Interestingly, Keith's picture is the most prominent on the cover. Does that mean HE is the worst person in the World?