Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Party 'til the pundits puke

The election night party went fairly well, with the caveats that we never did get a decent Internet connection and the room turned out not to have a radio in it - so we spent most of the night watching Channel 9 (FOX) and marveling at how incredibly hot Robyne Robinson is while cursing the networks for not calling various states as we thought appropriate. Occasionally we got bored and watched The Mark of Zorro or just channel-surfed.

Attendance was good: qob, danae, phoenixalpha, jamestrainor and a couple other folks showed up, and the last of us called it quits about 1 AM. Much cheese was consumed, along with most of danae's excellent cranberry bread, cookies, and pop, and there weren't a lot of leftovers to drag home. Yay.

Even though I only got four hours of sleep last night, I managed to make it in on time and feel somewhat better now after eating breakfast-like food and drinking about half a mug (the large plastic kind) of Caribou Sumatra. Ohhhhh yeahhhh.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 3rd, 2004 09:45 am (UTC)

thank you bush, for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people while saving zygotes.
Nov. 3rd, 2004 10:01 am (UTC)
More like 8000. It's still not good, but it's not even a blip in the body count Saddam Hussein was racking up before we sacked him. Most Iraqis will tell you that, even if the mainstream media won't.

Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:00 pm (UTC)
no, it's 100,000

the lancet is a journal put out by medical professionals.

these numbers are coming from the hospitals in iraq
Nov. 4th, 2004 04:48 am (UTC)
Yes, but even medical professionals play politics and do stupid things with studies. The link goes to an Instapundit post that links to a Slate article harshly critical of the study...which turns out to have sampled only hospitals in the zones with heaviest fighting and rely on self-reporting to boot. You can read the article yourself, but the bottom line is that it's not 100,000, it's not even close.
Nov. 4th, 2004 05:18 am (UTC)
hey... it's your option to believe a propaganda site over a scholarly journal.

I suppose the New England Journal of Medicine is suspect too, right?

Whatever... you can choose to see things how you like. We've both seen what war is like.
Nov. 5th, 2004 07:37 pm (UTC)
I thought you would find Slate a little more persuasive since it's not exactly a conservative propaganda site. Oh well...the facts are what they are.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )