From the NYT: Warning that Britain faced a “deadly” and “enduring” threat from terrorism, British authorities announced today that 11 of 23 people held in connection with a suspected plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners would be formally charged with offenses including possession of bomb-making equipment and conspiracy to commit murder. At a news conference, Susan Hemming, a lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service, said one person was being freed

To some, Philips is a scaremonger.  To others, she is a plain-spoken realist. Me, I’m getting my gear together for tomorrow’s heavily advertised day of infidel reckoning (situational optimism notwithstanding)—which, if all goes according to plan and western cities are reduced to dust and ash under a fiery nuclear sky, will thankfully delay the airing of my first ever lame attempt to do internet teevee—so I have no time to

Were one to be out much of today hypothetically filming the first of his hypothetical internet teevee shows, would it kill some of you to maybe hypothetically wish him luck? And mow his lawn? While we’re at it, his Jeep ain’t likely to wash itself, either.  Hypothetically speaking.

Evidently set for the 25th of this month, though I heard about it accidentally for the very first time today.  Details here. To borrow a phrase, I’m not very popular with Chicago police department. Still, maybe I’ll show up anyway just to piss off the hosts.  Because that’s what I do.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night / alive as you and me / and—ironically, working as a regional manager for about 40 Wal-Mart stores in the midwest. Which, I believe, easily trumps a “Dead Head sticker on a Cadillac.” So eat your deliciously fraught heart out, Mr Don Henley.

In response to yesterday’s post detailing the structural linguistic assertions that I believe inform (either consciously or unconsciously) the progressivist project—namely a post-structuralist attempt to conflate interpretation with meaning, and so therefore to validate interpretations that are dependent upon nothing more than the agreed assertions of a given interpretive community without respect to originary signification, creating the conditions for relativism and the will to power that are, in my estimation,

—Let me just stop you right there and tell you that yes, you’re right, he won’t be dancing tonight—though in his defense, this whole Israel / “Lebanon” cease fire thing has him quite rattled. Which, to hear him talk about it is a testament to his undying support for the Zionist state, who he believes suffered a major geopolitical setback—while to hear his bookie talk about it probably has more

Just for the sake of argument, say someone was planning on doing an internet tv show that featured man-on-the-street -type interviews.  Anything special you’d like to see?  In this hypothetical scenario? Would the calculus change if the hypothetical host was willing to put on hypothetical disguises?  Discuss. Meantime, I have to go out and find a hypothetical replacement battery for my GL-1.

Diggs Taylor: “Mustard asserts that it cannot defend its case as premier hot dog condiment without recourse to citing historical and cultural precedent. This plump and delicious Nathan’s hot dog disagrees. Mustard has, since the advent of consumerist manipulation, repeatedly been shown in advertisements for hot dogs.  Similarly, mustard is contained in the ‘street’ expression, ‘put some mustard on that hot dog, bitch.’ Consequently, the court finds Defendants’ argument that