Day: August 20, 2005

When it seems like so many people are doing the wrong thing, here’s an example of the right thing to do.

The gowns are freshly pressed and ready to be discovered by a future bride. We should also mention: La Belle Elaine’s Salon is giving them away!

“It’s our way of showing that we do appreciate the sacrifices they make,” said Heidi Van Dyken, the store manager.

 

Van Dyken is talking about the sacrifices made by military brides. Last year, dozens of women lined up at the salon’s old store in Kirkland — some for more than 24 hours. The bridal salon offered 100 free bridal gowns to brides in the military or brides who are marrying someone in the military.

All 64 women who showed up, left with a dress.

And if a bride lives overseas? Not to worry.

This year, the salon’s new store in Fisher Plaza in downtown Seattle offers a high-tech way to find a military bride a dress. Even if the bride is overseas, her friends and family can show her the dress with a live online feed right from the store. Many of the dresses are fresh out of the box and have never been worn. The average price is $1,200.

And the best part? La Belle Elaine’s Salon made lots of people happy.

http://www.militarygiveaway.com

John Kerry was in Seattle yesterday.

“We have to go out and fight for the real issues that make a difference in the lives of the American people and we don’t need some great lurch to the right or lurch to the left or redefinition of the Democratic Party.

“The last thing America needs is a second Republican Party.”

Kerry said Bush and the Republicans have used the terrorism issue to divert attention from issues that favored the Democrats.

A second Republican Party? Mmmm, I like the sound of that.

The reason you’re not president John is because you think terrorism is just an issue, a thought, a debate, a nuance.

I’m so glad you’re not the president.

PREVIOUSLY: Pt. 1

Boom…Boom…Boom…

Oooh…Aahh…Oooh…Aahh

34 times.

These are the sounds of Hunter S. Thompson, who was packed into firework casings and shot from a gun barrel mounted on top of a 150-foot high monument today.

Freakin. Freaks.

I’m so glad John Kerry isn’t our president.

SEE: Pt. 2

I remember my parents talking to me about how things will be different in the future, but back then (late 60’s – early 70’s) it all sounded like an episode of Star Trek. You know…we’ll all be wearing funky spaceship clothes, driving hover-craft like cars, etc.

Around my house, I’ve done the same thing, but mine start off like this.

“Someday in the future, you won’t have to type on a keyboard and use a mouse to browse the web…”

My kids stare at me wide-eyed, like I’m some mystic opening up the mysteries of tomorrow. Well today, one of my predictions became reality.

This is very cool, and I want one…now.

<sarcasm on>If there’s ever been a reason not to confirm a nominee for the Supreme Court, this is it. Aint it great that Dana Milbank is getting back to reporting hard news?</sarcasm off>

Last week, researchers found several memos from the summer and fall of 1984 in which future Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, working as a Reagan White House lawyer, argued against sending presidential thank-you notes to Michael Jackson for his charitable works. But it turns out this was just the beginning of what appears to be the young lawyer’s concerns about the star. Three new memos uncovered by Post reporters show Roberts described Jackson as “androgynous,” “mono-gloved” and a balladeer of illegitimacy.

On April 30, 1984, Roberts wrote to oppose a presidential award that was to have been given to Jackson for his efforts against drunk driving. Roberts particularly objected to award wording that described Jackson as an “outstanding example” for American youth.

Roberts wrote: “If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose ‘Michael,’ as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson’s androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President.”

“A presidential award to Jackson would be perceived as a shallow effort by the president to exploit the constant publicity surrounding Jackson, particularly since other celebrities have done as much for worthy causes as Jackson but have not been singled out by the President.”

<sarcasm on>Wow, he really is an insensitive cad isn’t he? How can we trust John Roberts on the bench of the highest court in the land when he hates a true American…our Gloved-One…Our Michael!</sarcasm off>

After months of unsuccessful fishing and dumpster diving, the Left lobs this dud to the press. They’re completely out of oxygen on Roberts.