Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism

[billvon 3,118]

>Quade, if it weren't for Fox News, the safety concerns for NYC might
>never have been broadcast to the public.

If it weren't for FOX News, too many people might be exposed to actual . . . news. And we can't have that; it's a scary world out there.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So I'm confused, to get a Tribunal you have to be caught by U.S. forces?

No, to get a tribunal you have to be a towel-head.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

If it weren't for FOX News, too many people might be exposed to actual . . . news. And we can't have that; it's a scary world out there.

Off topic but this frustrates me:

Being critical of FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, AirAmerica, or any other news organization's ability to convey the news is ok. But why is it always defined by the network?

For instance, I like:
Neil Cavuto (Fox)
Megan Kelly (Fox)
Morning Joe (msnbc)
Situation Report (CNN)

Want some contrast?
I don't like
Hannity (Fox)
Huckabeee (Fox)
Chris Mathews (msnbc)
Rachel Maddow (msnbc)

I think that the FOX news network does as good a job as any contending news organization at delivering the news.

If you disagree than you disagree.

I'm 5 beers in from the pitt/cinci game so forgive me if this makes no sense,,,

[billvon 3,118]

>I think that the FOX news network does as good a job as any contending
>news organization at delivering the news.

I agree they do a good job at delivering news. If your criterion is _accurate_ news though you may want to reconsider them as a news source.

=============
From IPS:

The Hazards of Watching Fox News

A study shows that patrons of Rupert Murdoch's brand of journalism are most likely to be misinformed about key facts of the Iraq war.

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.
=============

[loumeinhart 0]

From IPS:

The Hazards of Watching Fox News

A study shows that patrons of Rupert Murdoch's brand of journalism are most likely to be misinformed about key facts of the Iraq war.

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

Quote

All three are misperceptions

Ok. So what is the correct perception?

[billvon 3,118]

>So what is the correct perception?

Well, that's the problem. You have facts and you have perceptions. There's nothing wrong with reporting on perceptions, but FOX viewers, more often than viewers of any other network, believe erroneous perceptions to be facts.

We did not, in fact, find WMD's in Iraq, and the CIA weapons inspectors confirmed this.

There was, in fact, no credible link between Iraq and 9/11, and the 9/11 commission confirmed this.

In fact, Gallup found that no country supported an invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies. The most supportive country had 11% of respondents support such an action.

Now, you may believe that we did find WMD's, that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and that the world supported the invasion. In that case, FOX may be an excellent network to lend support to those misconceptions.

====================
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
updated 6:24 p.m. PT, Mon., April 25, 2005

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
========================

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report

Staff members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States testify as the independent panel opens its final public hearing on the attacks Wednesday in Washington.

updated 3:48 p.m. PT, Wed., June 16, 2004

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.
=============================

Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country.

===============

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

We did not, in fact, find WMD's in Iraq, and the CIA weapons inspectors confirmed this.

This is true and a discussion that belongs in another topic.

I reserve the right to believe that any WMD's were flown to Syria. I also reserve the right to believe that there weren't any WMD's to begin with.

I take FOX news with a grain of salt just as I do CNN and MSNBC.

I feel sorry for people that blindy watch cable news (any network) and believe 100% of what they hear/see.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Being critical of FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, AirAmerica, or any other news organization's ability to convey the news is ok. But why is it always defined by the network?

If you know anything about neoconservatism and the New American century then you will understand the answer to your question.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[loumeinhart 0]

I'm sorry, that website you mentioned didn't help me. I glanced at the front page though and saw it had something to do with American leadership, military strength, diplomacy, and commitment to moral principal.

Terrible idea

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

All of the Army personnel I know that have been in Pakistan say the situation is "kinetic", and that was being kind. In fact, one of them had just walked out of the lobby of the Marriott before the bomb went off (2008 attack). Given the number of engagements US forces have made along the border of Pakistan, and indeed, inside of Pakistan, it is clearly a combat zone.

KSM was apprehended during the predawn hours while sleeping; it was more “somnolentic” than kinetic.

In March 2003, where I was in Nepal -- due to Nepal’s domestic insurgency -- was more kinetic than Rawalpindi.


Your own criteria in opposition to announced policy decision and in favor of military tribunal was “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets.” You later amended/expanded that criteria to “kinetic situations.”

In the case of Omar Khadr, who was captured in theater (Afghanistan), by military assets (US Army), and while in a kinetic situation (firefight) – all of your criteria – the Obama administration plans to try him under the Military Commissions Act in a military tribunal. In the case that fits your criteria, the Obama administration policy and your recommendation are the same. What you called “the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea” is following your own criteria.

Now to be fair, Khadr is a clear(er) case. In a case that is not as clear-cut *w/r/t your 3 criteria,* al-Nashiri, who was apprehended outside of theater by UAE, is also being tried in a military tribunal. (The al-Nishiri/USS Cole bombing case may be clear-cut under *other* criteria.)

Otoh, the 5 detainees announced to be tried in federal court on international terrorism charges were not apprehended in theater, were not apprehended by military assets, and in 3 of 5 cases (I don’t know w/r/t the latter two, so I’m not making an assertion), were not apprehended in kinetic situations. (If someone is interested in investigating the latter two cases, I enthusiastically invite it!) They do not satisfy even 1 out of 3 of your own criteria.


Back to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ you came to your conclusion. If your earlier assertions and conclusions – “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle [sic] by military tribunal. ” – were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

All of the Army personnel I know that have been in Pakistan say the situation is "kinetic", and that was being kind. In fact, one of them had just walked out of the lobby of the Marriott before the bomb went off (2008 attack). Given the number of engagements US forces have made along the border of Pakistan, and indeed, inside of Pakistan, it is clearly a combat zone.

KSM was apprehended during the predawn hours while sleeping; it was more “somnolentic” than kinetic.

In March 2003, where I was in Nepal -- due to Nepal’s domestic insurgency -- was more kinetic than Rawalpindi.


Your own criteria in opposition to announced policy decision and in favor of military tribunal was “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets.” You later amended/expanded that criteria to “kinetic situations.”

In the case of Omar Khadr, who was captured in theater (Afghanistan), by military assets (US Army), and while in a kinetic situation (firefight) – all of your criteria – the Obama administration plans to try him under the Military Commissions Act in a military tribunal. In the case that fits your criteria, the Obama administration policy and your recommendation are the same. What you called “the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea” is following your own criteria.

Now to be fair, Khadr is a clear(er) case. In a case that is not as clear-cut *w/r/t your 3 criteria,* al-Nashiri, who was apprehended outside of theater by UAE, is also being tried in a military tribunal. (The al-Nishiri/USS Cole bombing case may be clear-cut under *other* criteria.)

Otoh, the 5 detainees announced to be tried in federal court on international terrorism charges were not apprehended in theater, were not apprehended by military assets, and in 3 of 5 cases (I don’t know w/r/t the latter two, so I’m not making an assertion), were not apprehended in kinetic situations. (If someone is interested in investigating the latter two cases, I enthusiastically invite it!) They do not satisfy even 1 out of 3 of your own criteria.


Back to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ you came to your conclusion. If your earlier assertions and conclusions – “Bottom line, these guys were caught in theater, by military assets. These should be settle [sic] by military tribunal. ” – were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not?

/Marg

I've already stated a framework where I felt civilian authorities should get involved, in the context of the FBI being the agency gaining custody of individuals. For whatever reason, the FBI was deemed unable, or not ready to process such people, and as such, they were handed over to the military. You have displayed twice my change in verbiage (which I didn't catch at the time), with disregard to my meaning. Despite that, I've answered your question.

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I've already stated a framework where I felt civilian authorities should get involved,

Okay … & it’s been shown that your framework (apprehended in theater, by military assets, in a kinetic situation) does not apply to the 5 detainees to be tried to federal court on international terrorism charges.

In the case that your framework does apply, Khadr, the Obama administration is doing what you recommend, i.e., military tribunal.

Quote

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it.

A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets.

Quote

… I've answered your question.

I guess I’ve missed it. As your original assertions and conclusions were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or is that what you are claiming you are doing? I guess I’m not seeing that. Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Marg,

I think you might be overthinking what the deciding factors were in deciding who gets a civilian trial and who gets a military tribunal.

Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it.

A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets.

Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about...sorry to disturb your serene intelligent bubble...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Marg,

I think you might be overthinking what the deciding factors were in deciding who gets a civilian trial and who gets a military tribunal.

Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.

When US justice becomes "heads I win, tails you lose" we're all in trouble.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

And that should that make a difference to how he gets put on trial?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it.

A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets.

Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about...sorry to disturb your serene intelligent bubble...

Max, my apologies if something came across like that. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but do accept responsibility for the things I write. And I apologize if my words were seen as hurtful.

Communicating via internet is challenging. I'm trying to have a calm, non-emotionally-driven, fact-based conversation with you w/r/t some assertions that were not factual and how you got to those conclusions. You haven't distrubed anything with me. Ad hominems at me don't help with communication.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.

Which cases are you thinking of?

The al-Nishiri case and Khadr cases are pretty sound, imo.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As to kinetic situations, breaching a door and clearing a house, or a room, only to capture a guy in "bed" is still a kinetic situation. A non-kinetic situation would have been the ISI knocking on the door and asking him to give up.

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it.

A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets.

Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about...sorry to disturb your serene intelligent bubble...

Max, my apologies if something came across like that. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but do accept responsibility for the things I write. And I apologize if my words were seen as hurtful.

Communicating via internet is challenging. I'm trying to have a calm, non-emotionally-driven, fact-based conversation with you w/r/t some assertions that were not factual and how you got to those conclusions. You haven't distrubed anything with me. Ad hominems at me don't help with communication.

/Marg

Your words aren't hurtful Marg, they're wrong. Ask any SWAT guy how they view clearing an area during an operation. Ask any cop in just about any circumstance. Ask any soldier or operator that is in the field whether in a "declared" combat zone or not.

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

I'm just going to leave aside the whole kinetic issue since that one seems to be problematic to discuss with you.

Quote

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

So what conclusion do you then take from that?
Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value?
Is more "us" versus "them" of benefit?
Is that the most effective strategy?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Marg,

I think you might be overthinking what the deciding factors were in deciding who gets a civilian trial and who gets a military tribunal.

Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.

Ding ding ding.
We have a winner.

[nerdgirl 0]

Your anecdote reminds me of one of the young guys I currently have working for me. He spent time working as a contractor in northern Virginia for AFRICOM. Along the way he had some interaction with guys from Special Forces that really impacted him. His answer to everything is now SF. He's a really smart guy, but the work he's doing now has a wider perspective. At first, it could be quite frustrating for me and other folks. Now I usually challenge him to find the best non-SF solution. He's smart - he knows what I'm doing. It was much more effective tho' than trying to convince him that his enamoration -- at times it's like a 'man-crush' -- with SF is not valuable, (which isn't something I want to do anyway).

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I'm just going to leave aside the whole kinetic issue since that one seems to be problematic to discuss with you.

Quote

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

So what conclusion do you then take from that?

Which conclusion do I take from what? What my friend told me? He elaborated with me, and I will not share that here, but I have drawn my conclusion. I have no power over yours. Bottom line, officers get taken out of the field too early. Many don't make it to the field at all.

Quote

Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value?

I've done none of that to you. I have attempted to answer your questions as frankly as possible. How you choose to respond is certainly up to you. You ask lots of questions, which I certainly don't fault. Having you describe to me what you "think" a kinetic situation in southwest Asia/Middle East/combat zone is...well, I know, what I know. You may accept it or not. If you want to keep that in your paradigm great, if not, I can't help you. Don't turn passive just because it's something you don't want to hear/read. It's still akin to me trying to describe labor pains to a woman, even if I've read through volumes of information on the subject. I may have a grasp, but again, a pregnant woman would likely rather hear it from another mother if given the choice.

Quote

Is more "us" versus "them" of benefit?

I'm not sure who you're talking about here. But if you mean us, versus the Islamic radicals, they've made their choice. I've made mine and I wish to God in Heaven the rest of the country would stick to its principles.

Quote

Is that the most effective strategy?

In terms of what?

Quote

Re: [nerdgirl] valueing different experiences

It's not a value call, Marg. It's experience. I've seen enough (and it doesn't qualify as much) and heard more...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value?

I've done none of that to you.

Um, actually you have. In this thread and in others with multiple ad hominems. Even this whole tangent is directed at me. Because in your view, I don’t/can’t know what I’m talking about.

You chose to make the thread about me rather than addressing the problems with your assertions.

You were called out previously in this thread for ‘playing the player’ rather than playing the ball.


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

Quote

As hard as some may try to convey this to people that shape policy, or find deterrents to keep the country safe, they'll never get it if they've not seen anything other than a desk. I have a friend who works with some pretty interesting levels with the "2-shops" (intel) at the Pentagon. Were it not for his previous work with DIA he told me, he'd fit right in...

This was a slam on me for anyone who might be slightly confused reading this.

Max knows that I was a political appointee in President Bush’s admin because I had told him via a PM. I was the lowliest category of appointees (Class C), something that Max characterizes/dismisses/belittles as “not seen anything other than a desk” therefore not having the authority he does or experience he does to speak on the issue. Can't dispute the argument, so he argues based on the person, i.e., playing the player.

He’s trying to use something he knows that most folks don’t against me. But it’s not a secret. If you’re ever in my office, the center of my ‘wall of me’ is a framed picture of the Pentagon. Even have a pic of Rumsfeld that was a gift from a retired Army Colonel who worked with me; it's a lttle bit of an inside joke but I like it anyways. My service in OSD is just not something I feel the need to advertise. It is part of me; it doesn’t define or circumscribe me, my experiences, or how I think.

I’ve made a choice to construct arguments based on facts and logic rather than appealing to any supposed (or lack thereof) authority. No pretense of altruism or anything like that: there’s also a selfish motive – it’s fun for me. My ego is healthy enough that I don’t need to invoke the OSD-thing.

Because Max knows that I served in the Bush admin, he knows that it’s hard to assert with any integrity that I’m partisan. I was part of Rumsfeld’s OSD. Been there, still have the snowflakes. Only Ranger Tab I got was “PowerPoint Ranger.” Always been explicit about that. I was asked to serve and I did proudly. Was asked to stay on as an SES, but I declined for lots of reasons. Was an Army HQE for a year after leaving. I would, in time, like to go back to the Pentagon. I am one a very small number of folks who genuinely loved my time in The Building. I was asked to serve because some folks in the DoD thought I had valuable knowledge, skills, and experience (including uniformed folks, since those are the only ones Max seems to value - the rest in his words "never get it."). Those latter two are the parts Max chooses to ignore or wants to suggest I don’t have as a way to invalidate my “serene intelligent bubble” challenges to his assertions. I don’t get mad and I don’t get emotional. Usually neither generate very little productive, imo … especially on the internet.

But I don’t like it being about me … & prefer to be semi-anonymous ‘nerdgirl’/Marg. I am genuinely curious as to what people think and how/why they got to that thinking. I like the challenge of constructing arguments & remaining civil even when sworn at or called a communist or whatever. I’m always nice. Ask tough questions … but am nice. And I sure as heck don’t want to be viewed as speaking for the entire Bush administration or OSD (Rumsfeld’s or Gates’ - I served under both SecDefs). When I showed Max’s assertions to be false and challenged his authority, his response was first to yell at me “Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about" and then to make ad hominems. One outright and one wrapped in that slam quoted above. So yeah, I probably could have ignored it … but as I wrote, it’s not a secret. Some things aren’t other people’s business.

I get to do, see, and experience some really neat things. At the same time I value listening to others' experiences because as an idealist I think the opinions of everyday Americans matter.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,148]

Excellent response, Nerdgirl.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.