rnc: i report - u decide.

* not surprisingly, its kinda hard to get details on the travel schedules of the concon crew. (and it wouldnt prove anything anyways, of course. looks like arnie will be outta town on thurs night tho. "he likely will opt to watch the president's speech from his home in Los Angeles." at the mo - the best measure that i can come up with is how lame (and ambiguous?) the given excuses/reasons are... "Stutzman chalked up his celebrity boss's inclination to skip the main event at Madison Square Garden to blahblah" ('chalking' is kinda lame). "He can get back to Los Angeles that evening, or he can stay in New York and essentially lose all of Friday to travel," Stutzman said in explaining the current plans for Arnold to duck out early." -hmm 'ducking out' sounds kinda lame.

"We're sure the president will give a spectacular speech whether we are there or not" and "Stutzman said, however, that the situation could always change." thnx for the ambiguity - sounds like the 43 thing - mebbe he'll go to a midnight rally in pa - but that might change. on what grounds?

"We've been wading through all of the e-mails from the national media wanting to do interviews, and if you do one then everyone else hates you," Stutzman said in his press secretary's lament." is this always true, or just for rnc in nyc?

"however, his dance card is virtually already full"

"Besides, he's not there to sit under the hot lights all day; that's no way to spend your time in New York." sure isnt. cept if u wanna pull the 'hot lights' excuse, arnies prolly not your guy. similarly, 43 wouldnt wanna 'sit around the waldorf watching the rnc on the teeve' - is he gonna watch it somewhere else?

"Stutzman said it was simply a matter of too many interview requests from too many newspapers and networks." surely not. i wonder whetehr he's come across this problem in the past? and as far as i can tell - the logic that 'arnie is trying to insulate himself from the anti-bush thing' is kinda undermined by the fact that he's speaking at rnc at all. its a pretty fukcing thin line he's trying to walk.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040825-074410-7365r.htm

heres jebs lamo line re charlie oops charley "My purpose to go to the convention would be to show my support and love for my brother and help him, and there are other ways I can do that," (and hows this for a delicious aside "We can't tell people to rebuild — that wouldn't be democratic." and as if he wasnt already out-doing himself "Bush shook his head when asked if Charley would define his tenure as governor of the fourth-largest state. He said his biggest challenge was the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.") http://www.palmbeachpost.com/health/content/news/epaper/2004/08/19/a18a_gov_0819.html

* "10PM-2AM: Post-convention party
Location: Water Club, 500 East 30th Street on the East River
Sponsored by: Novartis" if u hear/find anything about the attendees - can u lemme know?

* praps there are some tickets available for The DailyShow the following week? besides - i think the friday night in nyc will be a whole bunch safer than the thurs night.

* ftr - yesterday i sed that id be interested in taking 100/1 that there's an errorist attack on the 'midnight rally' nite in nyc - that doesnt mean that i think its a 100/1 chance that therell be an attack. it means that i think its *less than* 100/1 - cos im value-based and all that. the thing about dealing at this end of the probability spectrum is that its kinda difficult to differentiate between speculative 1%ers from 4%ers - so the diff between say 100/1 and 25/1 isnt great - specially if we are dealing with real consequences - like - say getting blown to bits - or even worse - having your gf/wife and/or kid being subject to same. especially if the cost of protecting them was near zero - if for example, wife doesnt have a job and a trip, say, upstate didnt carry any cost. its kinda easier to justify/manage than a mass evacuation. risk/reward and all that.

* i sed yesterday that 'im getting serious' - i praps shoulda sed that im getting 'seriouser' but my point is still valid. there is *nothing* that these people wouldnt do as far as im concerned. the good news is that if 43 is planning on being close (PA) then they dont plan on taking out the entire NE quadrant. yet. but lets not forget that theyve killed 40k+ peeps for yet-to-be-understood reasons - and from their rhetoric, theres not much difference in terms of the vilification of n/e liberals and arab scum (unless u r a stem cell). forty thousand murdered. and at least that many limbs on top of that again. they must laugh uproariously when the debate is about whether whether one person (jfk2) bled or not and whether he deserved a medal because of said bleeding. seriously. wtf????????

1000 ams dead (which, disgustingly, seems to be the metric) 'in combat' (which, disgustingly, seems to be the metric) - these people dont fukcing care. if they set off a breifcasenuke in nyc next week - its just more collateral damage - and abortionlovers besides. killing newyorkers would actually save yet-2-b-consummated innocent babies. this is how they (pretend to) 'think'.

super scifi writer william gibson says that he doesnt really write about the future - he simply 'makes the present larger' somehow. take a sec to imagine gwb but larger - at least, larger than the media's popular portrayal. given the medias apparent reticence to play ketchup - we are already at 43*heaps. we're already there - its just cognitive dissonance that prohibits us from seeing it.


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.



________________________________________________________________________________
four more tears. four more tears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com