May 17th 2013 9:48PM I love that picture. Radical Barbie! Production starts in three weeks.
May 17th 2013 9:44PM It was not "tit-for-tat". The Soviets had a very active espionage system, and we were making collection of information on us as difficult as possible, just as they made collection of information against them as difficult as they could. This is not "tit-for-tat", some kind of petty nuisance game. It is a matter of intelligence and security. I was in the intelligence collection business in the 1970's. The Soviets had a military liaison mission in West Germany. There were restricted areas where that mission was not supposed to go. Similarly, they had restricted areas in East Germany where our military liaison mission in East Berlin was not supposed to go.
I really don't think the average American understands that we were in an intelligence war with Russia from 1945 until 1991, though things did relax somewhat after the Gorbachev-Reagan meeting. Invasion of western Europe was within the range of Soviet contingency planning, and there was information they needed to plan such an attack, and there was information we needed in order to anticipate such an attack and be ready.
Most wars are won or lost on having proper intelligence, and acting on that intelligence once one has it. For example, in the Civil War, Lee's invasion of Maryland failed after a copy of his operations order fell into Union hands. In the Cold War, a Soviet invasion of western Europe would require very large troop movements. Concentration of large forces in the major avenues of approach would be a warning. Obviously, we had an interest in seeing if Soviet troops were massing in the Fulda Gap or the Cheb Gap, and in keeping Soviet agents from reconnoitering the preparations we had in place across from those two gaps. Conversely, the Soviets had an interest in preventing us from gathering information on what they were doing in the approaches to those gaps and in gathering what they could about our preparations against a movement through the gaps.
It had certain similarities to a game, but it was nothing trivial or petty--the future of the world could have been decided on whether the Soviets could push tank columns through those two gaps and destroy US and allied forces in the way of those routes.
Make no mistake. It was a goal of the Soviet Union to make the whole world Communist. They failed, but it took a lot of work to make sure that they did.
Jul 8th 2012 2:50PM This happens all the time. All it takes is one NIMBY neighbor, and it's off to the races. If the city doesn't act, the NIMBY neighbor sues the city and may wind up collecting significant attorneys' fees. So the city acts. Because it's the left that, until recently, did almost all the suing, the city's concern is to avoid suits from the Left.
Jun 7th 2012 8:11PM If Mitt Romney is a polarizing political figure, who isn't? He was, from the first, the most moderate candidate available in either party. Evidently HuffPo thinks that the middle of the road is somewhere around Harry Reid.
Jun 28th 2011 12:00PM ridiculous to say Mariah's obese. No, she's not a slender 23-year-old any more, but all the proportions are still great; she's a gorgeous, sexy woman. That the rose in full bloom is no longer a bud is self-evident, but it is more beautiful than ever.
Jun 15th 2011 8:06PM There's no fool like an old fool. Hef played innumerable women; now he's been played.
Jun 15th 2011 1:32AM I had a 1996 Camaro. A Puerto Rican friend of mine called it my "Bajapanty"--panty dropper.
Jun 13th 2011 5:25PM The point is that McDonald's is an iconic American trade name, like Coca-Cola. Those doing this, like those demanding are political radicals intent on causing as much harm to America as possible.
May 15th 2011 12:02AM The problem is that absolutely everything you can eat has possible adverse effects. One thing no doctor and no nutrition expert will tell you until the problem actually emerges is that those green leafy vegetables that are supposed to be such a boon to health are the foods highest in oxalates--which cause kidney stones! I have had acne and I have had kidney stones, and thank you very much, I'd rather have acne.
May 14th 2011 11:40AM It is absurd to fix a certain age on wearing certain types of clothing. The time when a woman should stop wearing a certain type of clothing is when it no longer looks good on HER. It's fair to say that a woman who LOOKS over about 40 should skip the miniskirts; but that means that a woman who is about 35 but looks about 45 shouldn't wear them, while a woman who is 45 but looks in her 30's can still wear them and look good. Demi Moore was still dynamite in miniskirts going into her late 40's (but probably ought to let that go now).
I once watched a "mother and daughter makeover" show on TV. The mother was still wearing her hair long and wearing miniskirts, and the makeover put her into a more matronly hair and dress style. But that was stupid! This woman really did look twenty years younger than she was, a 45-year-old who really looked 25.
The only thing for women who look younger than they are is that they should know when the day has come. They will not look under 40 forever. When the crow's feet get too deep to erase with Oil of Olay or cover with makeup, when the little folds start appearing in the neck, etc.--it's time, even if you have a great figure.
Most Popular Posts
Most Commented Articles
- No Articles Found
- Photobombers -- Ruining Your Pictures, One Click at a Time
- Hot Weather Girls -- Vote For Your Favorite