Friday, February 28, 2003 :::
 
Yes, the argument was extrapolated from some of your previous arguments, as well as my general sense of your moral and political beliefs. I wasn't going to mention you in that particular rant, actually, but then it occurred to me that you provided a great means for which to discuss real conservatives and the current image of the conservatve, which I see as being extreemly different. I see one as a logically defensible viewpoint with which I partially disagree, and the other as a tack-on dogma for hypocritical rich fundamentalist Christians involved in politics.

The voulentary tax code is more of a fantasy of mine, I'll admit, but I still assert the minimum wage thing- My logic in it is that it might just promt officials to RAISE it to a reasonable level. I think if you're going to tell people that they have to live with a certain income, you should be able to do it yourself. They could always get a second job, if it's too low. Then they'd see how unfair it is too make people have to do that. I don't think this practice would scare people off. It doesn't scare people off from army service that the pay id so low. (Of course they get benefits, which I'd support for elected officials under this idea.) All It would do is keep people who only wish to make money the hell away.

By enlarging the coffers, I meant the habit of government pograms setting their beurocracies up in such a way that they actually fnction less like a service amnd more like a business,in that they exist not so much for the providing of their service, but to sustain their own existence. Like you said, more money going into upkeep than benefit. Or, in more extreem examples, certain government programs, especially military ones, produce a profit for the members involved. The tax money doesn't directly go to the profiteers, but the programs do benefit business interests of the participants, and pretty much only them, and so they make money that way. There's an essay called "War is a Racket", written by the most decorated Marine ever in the srvice, which I should link to. It describes this process wonderfully.

I would like to hear you elaborate more on which times you think it would be apppropriate for the government to bail a failing business out, as I can't think of any.

I also need clairification on this "Burden to accumulate wealth" thing. How is being more wealthy than others, and increasing that wealth, a burden to THEM?

And finally, while Bill and His ilk are not the majority of america, their viewpoint is fast becoming the most publicly accepted, the most publicized, the most acceptable view. And even a minority, if it's crazy enough, can do alot of damage. Just remember, all those crazy Limbaugh, Ollie, Liddy,Robertson, Fallwell, Coulter, and O'riley fans are the ones who are getting their way right now, not the majority you speak of.

-Matt, I'm glad it feels good, and DUH, it's because you're not evil.


::: posted by Comic Tools at 10:27 AM



Thursday, February 27, 2003 :::
 
Our good ol' buddy Bill O Riley speaks again:

"Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up.

"Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.

Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well. Let's just say you will be spotlighted.

Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in."

"Enemies of the state?" "You will be spotlighted?" Jesus christ, all Bill's missing is a fucking swastika and some nerve gas. It's like Bill read those posters I linked to awhile agao, but inserted the slogans into his script. Well I need hardly say that Bill can go fuck himself with a cactus, and that I will speak as freely as he seems to feel that only those with his opinion are free to do.

And let me start by asking what the fuck he means by "supporting the troops." I went to a pro-con forum about the war, sponsored by SVA. A mixture of students and highly distinguished speakers spoke, reading prepared speeches. The moderator of the speech was a vietnam veteran, as well as a philosophy teacher at SVA. (I really want to have him now.) Here's what he said about "supporting the troops:"

"Supporting the troops? What the hell does that mean? Does that mean you wave the flag while you send them off to die and kill? ...I remember one day when I was sitting in some goddamn rice paddy, freezing my ass off, and someone told me that there was a group of people who were putting yellow ribbons under a tree to show their support for the troops. I thought 'ribbons under a tree?! GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!!! That's how you can fucking help the troops! Flowers?! Jesus Christ!"

Lemme tell you something Bill, you support out troops by placing them at risk to die as little as possible. Sending them to war is not supporting the troops. Bill's words remind me of a line from a cartoon I read earlier-

"Remember- those affected adversely by war are the faceless rabble, not you and your golf buddies. "

And, continuing on Nick's theme of the difference between being conservative in a political sense and being conservative in the sense it is meant now, I.E. right wing fundamentalist nut, allow me to present Bill as a prime example, a living charicature, of the hoardes of "conservatves" around nowdays who don't know what the fuck conservative means.

First of all, being politically conservative and socially conservative are not the same. In fact, logically speaking, they are polar opposites, which is why only stupid people are both. Social conservativism, which in application is no differnt than liberalism, is when you dictate a specific morality to people, a fundamentalist Christian one, and you use laws to force it on them. (Liberals do the same thing, except they pass laws forcing their own agenda on people- hate speech laws and record labeling laws and the like.) The reason this is diametrically opposed to the political conservative belief is that political conservativism demands as little government involvement, especially in terms of law, in the lives of it's citezens. It says that the government should only be responsible for defense, forign policy, andmail service, basically. (There's some variation here, but that's basically it. ) Nick's actually a bit on the left, as he feels that the government has some responsibility to act in the interest, or "defense" of it's citezens in other ways, such as health care, the environment, and certain restrictions on the powers of business, which is a collective entity, not an individual. Nick's primary concern, as I read it, is is government power to spy on people, search people, and control people's lives. Republican's called this "big brother" when liberals wanted to do it- they call it "our patriotic duty" now that a republican wants it. Nick, as a conservative, would also be against uneccecary taxation on people. This means any taxation which the people do not ask to be subjected to- in other words, taxation without representation. Do you pay taxes for something, that you don't want your money to pay for? Well, a conservative would be against that. A conservative would also be against the government taxing people only to fill it's coffers. To put it another way, do you think a senator does enough work for you to be worth his pay? Well, if you don't, you're still paying for it. (I personally think senators should get whatever the minimum wage is, and that taxes should be voulentary- you don't support a program, you don't pay. Any program the people didn't support enough would therefore lack the money to continue. ) A conservative wopuld not suppot a government which can form taxes on it's own, without consulting the people. (Or at least elected officials.)

I'm unclear on how Nick feels about wellfare, unemployment, social security, educational grants, bailouts for companies in economic trouble, and porportionate taxation for wealth, and I'm eager to discuss his views on these subjects. But, basically, conservative means a federal government which is small and limited in power to the extent that the people tell it what to do, not the other way around.

That's why Bill and his ilk are not conservative. They're just liberal witch hunters. They want, and are suceeding in getting, powers for the government which they neither need to work in our defense, nor do they deserve. They want a government which will shoulder voiceless poor peopel with a huge tax burden. They want a government that tells the people what to do, acts without their conscent, decides what they can see or say, and can even decide what citezens it wants to keep or discard, based on their opinion of itself. They want a government with more rights than the individual people under it. That's not conservative- it's not even democratic. It's a dictatorship, that's what the fuck it is. The government shouldn't be able to tell it's citezens they're going to war- the citezens shoudl tell the government that they're going to war, and then the government provides. THAT's conservative pholosophy in action. The government doesn't control your life. I may be a liberal, Bill, but you're a fucking wanna-be tyrant.

That's my combination response to Bill and Nick, two polar opposites of the "conservative" political spectrum.

-Matt

::: posted by Comic Tools at 7:11 PM



Tuesday, February 25, 2003 :::
 
On a much lighter note, here's an excerpt of my reply to an e-mail Greg just sent me:

I don't envy that model. Must be hard when you can't fuck a girl without bursting through her diaphragm. And just think of the nicknames: Mr. Girl on a stick, Mike the impaler, Jack the labia ripper, Mike "the tunnel doesn't have enough clearence for you" (whatever his last name is), Mr. chunnel machine, Mr. "Is that a full-size replica of an H.R. Giger alien in your pants or are you happy to see me?", etc.

And yeah Greg, you should post that site for people.

To clarify, Greg and I were discussing (don't keep reading unless you wish to gain more knowledge of my penis than you already have. I think Molly , Jason and Christy are already up on this.) a problem with my wee-wee. No, it's not gargantuanly huge, it's a different problem. It has to do with "nocturnal emissions", and the fact that the damn thing won't do any other kind of emission. Believe me, I've made several valiant, epic attempts, but I just can't get my penis to ejeculate manually. It seems to run fine on automatic at night, however. So it seems I really will have to sleep with a girl to get her pregnant. Sleep with her attached, that is.

Greg has discovered an amusing site which he hopes will help me out. I unfortunately can't look at it here, since I really don't want to revew masturbation tachniques in public.

-Matt

::: posted by Comic Tools at 7:06 PM


 
Three things-

Remember the convincing report Powell made about weapons in Iraq?

Powell claimed that one photo was of a lab for chemical and biological weapons -- a "poison factory" he called it, run by "al Qaeda affiliates" in northern Iraq. Three days later reporters found their way to that camp and saw "structures that did not have plumbing and had only the limited electricity supplied by a generator" (The New York Times, Feb. 9). Can an effective laboratory (much less a factory) be managed without running water? Ask your local druggist or high school chemistry teacher.


The day after his testimony, a congressional committee asked Powell why a supposedly known al Qaeda camp was still operating in northern Iraq, where American jets have pummeled other sites? "Neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question," (NY Times, Feb. 7). But Fox News is not about to repeat that fact over and over and over.

On Feb. 7 it was revealed that the British report Powell had quoted to the UN (praising it as "a fine paper," an "up-to-date and unsettling assessment") was actually a pastiche culled from academic journals, two of which were published in 1997, "about the activities of Iraqi intelligence in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991" (NY Times, Feb. 8). The author who'd been plagiarized, Al-Marishi, noted, "Had they consulted me, I could have provided them with more up-dated information."

Did you catch the last part there? Much of his information was from a British intelligence report which they now not only admit they faked, but which they actually plagarized from a student paper.

Second, look at all of these pictures: http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/

Third: "You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."

article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62438-2003Feb24?language=printer

Matt, Bush is a wanker, Dick's name is descriptive.



::: posted by Comic Tools at 2:56 PM


 
Oh what fun. Mine is called APTERYX, in the Neopopulists.

::: posted by Jeff at 11:32 AM



Friday, February 21, 2003 :::
 
The model was especially the president's worst nightmare because he was an arab man. Peter selected him specifically for a series of drawings in which we would do as the Japaneese do, "eroticizing or demonizing" the enemy. You know, either making them seem far away, alluring, and exotic, or making them out to be bloodthirsty animals. He was a cool model, aactually, and Peter's costumes, as always, were great fun. But an arab man threatening the dick-size integrity of the white man? It's like George Carlin said: "War is a prick-waving dick fight. America's forign policy is "What?! They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!"

Here'show it works: Chps are thick-cut fries, and are from england. Frites are thin, and from belgium. French fries are really thin, and are done in a french julienne style. But they were popularized in america. Flat chips came from america, I think, I'm not sure on that one. Freedom fries come from bullshit , xenophbia, and stupidity. Good day,

-Matt

::: posted by Comic Tools at 10:20 AM



Thursday, February 20, 2003 :::
 
tinglyelectriceelunderpants@hotmail.com. And, on what I suspect is a related note, the model in class today had the hugest freakin' dick I've ever seen in my life. Bigger than Mr. Hung like a horse from earlier in the year. Huge. I don't know if he can even fit into a woman. If any of the women feel like taking the trouble, would anything 2 and 1/2 inches in diameter fit into you? This is him FLACCID, keep in mind. Jesus christ.

And on a more disgusting note:

BEAUFORT, North Carolina (AP) -- You can get fries with your burger at a restaurant here, but just don't ask for french fries.


Neal Rowland, the owner of Cubbie's, now only sells his fried potato strips as "freedom fries" -- a decision that comes as Americans watch French officials back away from support for possible war in Iraq.

"Because of Cubbie's support for our troops, we no longer serve french fries. We now serve freedom fries," says a sign in the restaurant's window.

--snip--

Rowland said the switch from french fries to freedom fries came to mind after a conversation about World War I when anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename German foods like sauerkraut and hamburger to liberty cabbage and liberty steak.

Everyone vomiting now? Good. Toodles.

::: posted by Comic Tools at 6:50 PM



Wednesday, February 19, 2003 :::
 
I still want to know what happened to the archives from October, November, December, and January.

::: posted by Jeff at 7:45 PM


 
And here in New York, these idiots can't handle a foot of snow properly. School was closed for two days becuase of a snowfall which would have been dealt with by morning in Maine. And they're still digging out of it.

::: posted by Comic Tools at 3:51 PM



Thursday, February 13, 2003 :::
 
Since Ben has said he'd post our responses to Who Cares? articles, I'll post this, on his article about religion:

If the only reason you can give for being good is that you'll go to hell if you aren't, then you deserve to go to hell. Religion may reccomend morals, but religion isn't morals, it's morals illustrated through stories. Your belief and following of those stories does not make you a good person. Your heartfelt, sincere commitment to the values within them does. Paint your tongue gold all you want, Bush, your heart is still black.

::: posted by Comic Tools at 7:13 PM



Wednesday, February 12, 2003 :::
 
On a lighter note, one of our essay choices was to write a Canterbury tale (not in rhyme) instead of an essay. So here it is. You might wanna skip the prologue, as it's a bit boring, but it doesn connect the tale to the Reeve's tale, which was part of the assignment. By the way, Ben, excellent story. Well done, really. But I was promised an elevator adventure. Where's my goddamn elevator adventure?! I will remove one finger for each day I do not reccieve the story. One of your fingers, I mean. After all, there'd be very little puruasive power in cutting mine off, wouldn't there?

"…I heard this proverb when I was a kid,
‘Do evil and be done by as you did.’
Tricksters will get a tricking, so say I;
And God that sits on majesty on high
Bring all this company, great and small, to glory!
Thus I’ve paid out the Miller with my story!

The cartoonist’s prologue

Fascinating morality your tale has, Reeve.
Immorality is used to pay back immorality.
It’s as they say, fight fire with fire, I suppose.
Personally, my philosophy’s to fight it with water,
preferably with some black pigment in it.
When applied to a flaming idiot
By means of pen and paper, black water
Will make him grow red with anger,
but it’ll change his roaring for a sputter.
There was something in your tale that made me think
More upon a subject I’ve been pondering lately.
That it often happens that a person will make a plan,
and work towards a certain goal. It happens, though, that
either by fate or poor planning, their work does nothing
to accomplish their goal. Yet, it happens sometimes that
the desired result will happen anyway, for reasons apart from them.
The person will then assume it was their hard work that did it,
And will congratulate themselves for achieving their goal.
I was gotten onto this line of thinking by the plan of the two students
To have corn ground by the miller and not be stolen from.
Of course, their smarts were no use to them, and their plan failed.
Their corn was stolen. But because of the Miller’s helpful (and grateful)
daughter, they got back their stolen corn.
Now, I know it’s true that you never exactly said that the boys fancied themselves
clever for retrieving their corn, but my mind assumed it.
Anyway, the premise was close enough to get me thinking on the theme, and
besides, thoughts, like people, may associate themselves though they are not identical.
I’m afraid I’ve not made my idea clear. Perhaps I should illustrate it with a story.
We are, after all, supposed to be telling tales.

The Cartoonist’s tale

There once was a lad named Eugine, who was a foul fellow. Whether his mother’s milk was sour, or whether it later spoiled inside him, no one knows. But however he became that way, nurture or nature, he was a rotten, rotten boy. He slept only with the foulest whores, drank only in the seediest bars, and ate only the flesh of animals who had died in unnecessary and excruciating pain. He also prepared all of his own food.

Eugine’s only love was the field of medical science. He was completely fascinated on the subject, and read all the latest medical literature. His fascination wasn’t so much for a desire to heal people as it was a way of learning more precise, efficient ways of injuring and killing people. Eugine would read all about how to make a proper incision, and he would carefully study the exact placement and function of each organ and tissue within. But he would always get so excited that he’d rush out to try out what he’d learned before he got to the pert about how to sew the person back up again. Which was fine, since he had no intention of doing anything of the kind.

Eugine’s intense medical fascination prompted him to register to have his body donated to medical use in the event of his death. It was this action which is the actual cause of the result in our story that the main character will think was due to their actions.

I’ve given it away now- Eugine is not the main character of this story. That’s because he is dead. He was hit in the head by a combination of bird poop and a penny expelled to the great relief of a passing pigeon flying overhead at exactly the height of the empire state building. The poo-covered penny dropped through his brain like an Olympic diver, killing him instantly.

As he requested, Eugine’s body was sent to be applied to a variety of medical purposes. His heart was put into formaldehyde and set on a shelf of a third grade science classroom, where it was removed only by young boys who ran around the room with it scaring the girls. His kidneys were given to an elderly transplant recipient, who celebrated with a nice, long pee. His scalp went to the Hair Club for Men, where the follicles were removed and implanted into the pointy, shiny heads of vain rich men. But his finger- that’s the pert of him whose use will advance the plot of this tale- his finger went to a Miss Heather Pepperdril, who had just lost hers to what was certainly the most severe paper cut ever.

Heather liked rings. She bought rings of all sorts- nice gold ones, cheap plastic ones, tin rings, those rings that you use to pull the seal out of juice cartons, jeweled rings, decoder rings, she even unwittingly wore a cock ring on her thumb. But one ring she lacked- a mood ring. In celebration of her new finger, she bought a mood ring and put it on.

Back to Eugine for a second. As unlikely as it seems, all that outlandish nonsense Christians are always yammering about is right. There is a heaven and a hell. Eugine went to the latter. As a result, he was, is, and will forevermore be, in a profoundly rotten mood.

As soon as Heather put the ring on his finger, The ring made a sound that seemed vaguely like the sort of scream a man might make if he was sitting on a gigantic grill, impaled through the testicles with an enormous grilling fork, ripped off, leaving bits of burnt flesh sticking to the grill beams, flipped over, and pressed back onto the grill. Then the ring turned blood red, which indicated, according to the box, that the wearer was in a state of "extreme ungroovy uberstress." It stayed that way.

Heather was a nice girl. She was kind, compassionate, and hard working. And she was, for the most part, reasonably intelligent. But she believed in all that stupid new-age garbage that anyone with half a brain knows is the real solution to all the universe’s profound mysteries. Anyone with a whole brain, on the other hand, knows it’s all a bunch of bullshit. But for some reason, Heather did take all this crap seriously, and, on seeing her ring report her mood as being extremely stressed and unhappy, she assumed that she must, indeed, be under immense stress, and somehow just hadn’t noticed.

She decided to immediately undertake measures to reduce her stress, for fear that her circulatory system might suddenly give way and burst like an ancient sewer mane under the high stress-induced blood pressure. She went on a strict garlic and oatmeal diet. She took scented baths. She did yoga. She meditated. Despite her efforts, the ring continued to hover at the "extreme ungroovy uberstress" level. Heather could now believe she was stressed, however, because she grew so anxious over the terrible stress indicated on the ring that she really was stressed. Soon Heather began to look an emotional wreck, despite her most valiant efforts at chilling out.

One day Heather was drinking a glass of water. She was gripping the glass tightly. It was made of cheap glass. It broke, severing Eugine’s finger from her hand. "Shit" said Heather. Then she went to the emergency room to get another one.

Only an hour earlier, a reverend died in the ER He went to heaven Like Eugine, he donated his physical shell to medical use. Heather walked into the ER, clutching her bleeding stump of a finger. "Got a finger?" She asked. "Yup, here ya go." Said the Doctor, who proceeded to cheerfully sew it on for her. Heather thanked the doctor and went back home. She did some yoga to calm down. Then she remembered her mood ring, which was still on Eugine’s finger. She slid it off and put it on the reverend’s finger. The ring went white, indicating the "It’s like you’re in heaven" state.

"Wow," thought Heather, "I must have over compensated. I’m completely stress free now. Groovy."

Both Heather and the Reverend lived happily ever after.

The end.





::: posted by Comic Tools at 6:26 PM


 
And now, the president's state of the union speech,as transcripted by an illuminated discordian. Spells have been cast on it so that the blinded and converted may see the words. If you have any trouble viewing it, try turkey-cursing the screen a few times.

"Good evening. Lies lies lies fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord War will make the fnords go awayfnord fnord fnord bomb Iraq, there's no other way fnord fnord FNORDs'll eat you in your sleep, eat you, have to bomb Iraq or the fnords'll eat your eyes out or your sleeping face fear fear fear fnear fnoar fnorr fnord fnord fnord fnord. Thank you, may the Isrealite god of cultural conquest envelop and destroy the Goddess and make her believers tame sheep with credit cards before him, and good fnording night. "

::: posted by Comic Tools at 5:12 PM



Saturday, February 08, 2003 :::
 
I'm still thanking the sun.

::: posted by Jeff at 5:35 PM


 
It wasn't a satellite. If you checked the site, it was the Swedish solar telescope in the Canary islands.

-Matt

::: posted by Comic Tools at 5:20 PM



Friday, February 07, 2003 :::
 
Don't thank me, thank...THE SUN!

::: posted by Comic Tools at 10:58 PM



Thursday, February 06, 2003 :::
 
On a happier note, on a place thousands of miles from Earth, Here ( http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/NatureNov2002/images/np1_fig1_columnwidth_color.jpeg )is the closest picture ever taken of a sunspot. Note that you can actually see channels of hydrogen flowing in magnetic fields. Fucking. A. mazing.

::: posted by Comic Tools at 7:08 PM


 
Now children,

This is NOT the place to be attacking people just because they... oh wait, yeah it is.
Please continue.


::: posted by Jeff at 1:10 PM



Wednesday, February 05, 2003 :::
 
You know Bill O'Riley, from the O'Riley factor on Fox news? "Fair and balanced"? "We report, you decide"? Yeah, well here's how he handles a guest who disagrees with him and his hard-right ideology. He threatens to cut their mike off. Read this, and see what kind of man Billy boy is.

Bill can kiss my ass, by the way. Transcript and accompanying text pulled from This Modern World.

I caught a bit of the O'Reilly Factor during dinner last night, during which Bill berated Jeremy Glick, a signatory of the Not in Our Name ad whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. I couldn't find a transcript on the Fox site, but happily, one came in over the transom (probably pulled off Lexis, so no link available).

This is how Bill O'Reilly behaves when faced with genuine disagreement:


O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.


GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

::: posted by Comic Tools at 6:00 PM



Tuesday, February 04, 2003 :::
 
Or how about a George Bush dildo and an American people inflatable doll, so you can fuck the amarican public up the ass, just like in real life? You could also have an American economy doll, and a nature goddess doll! The Nature goddess doll would also come with an oil drill. In combination with the bush doll, you could have hours of fun double penetration action!

-Matt, what, me, angry?

::: posted by Comic Tools at 12:17 PM



Sunday, February 02, 2003 :::
 
The facts as they are known so far:

-Durung launch, a piece of insulatory foam fell off the external liquid fuel tank and collided with the left wing of the shuttle. Damage was caused, but there was no way to know how much. However, as little damage as a chip of tile being removed is more than enough.

-There being no way to investigate damage in space (The bottom of the shuttle has no hand holds, and rocket manuvering units were banned as unsafe) , the crew had no idea how little or much damage may have been caused. Furthermore, there is no way to repair a lost or broken tile in space, so it was a moot point anyway. No technical failures in the wing were reported in space.

-Sixteen minutes before landing, the shuttle is travelling eighteen times the speed of sound, and it's heat tiles are shedding off temperatures of 3000 degrees. Houston reports that a wing sensor has gone offline. Shortly after, they report that the ship's left wing tire sensor has gone out. A crew member has time to reply "Roger that. Um...buh-" Before the shuttle presumably succumbs to immense force and heat stresses on the wing and breaks apart.

-NASA doesn't not yet know for certain the cause of the accident, but if it was the foam, then it means the shuttle itself experienced no technical failure. It was damage, in other words, not old age.

-Charred wreckage and even human body parts have been found scattered all over Texas.

-Columbia was the oldest shuttle in the fleet, the flagship for the shuttles. On top of this, the first Isreili astronaut was abaord, along with a beloved Indian female astronaut. Both countries mourn this accident with ours. The shuttle carried in it results from eighty different medical and scientific experiments, none of which are possible except in space.

Finally, on Greg's piece on the Apollo mission: Apollo thirteen's concern was not only if they'd have enough oxygen to return. They also thought their heat shield, which was in proximity to the blast, might have been damaged. In that case, being in a seperate module wouldn't have saved them; they woulkd have perished in the heat of reentry like Columbia. Although you're right: Like the difference between planes and cars, even though modules are more unsafe, shuttles take alot of people with them when they blow, and disaters are seldom unfatal.

-Matt


::: posted by Comic Tools at 1:32 PM

ARCHIVES :::

Ben, Nick, Molly, Matt, Carter, Maria, Christy, Jason, Greg, Eric, and UNCLE JEFF!! We are truly honored to have someone among us who is over 20 and claims to have some sort of responsibility. It won't last long.