poccnr

Which offense exactly are we speaking of? Besides, this person who "judged" her is exactly that. A judge! Ergo, this is an individual who has experience in dealing judgement, where the punishment fits the crime. Now, with me not being an attorney or a judge, I would state that the person behind the bench who is making the call, probably has access to files that we cannot see, to include the media. I would state that I would not go from speculation on comment on whether the imposition of sentencing is harsh or light... without seeing all the facts . What I do know is that this is not Ms. Hilton's first time in front of one of these public servants.

My friends and I were discussing how the media has taken to Paris Hilton's plight in jail overboard. The amazing thing is that she has been readmitted for 2 days now, I think, and all the media hype is over. My thinking behind it, is that now she is just another number. Do we care about whether or not she is in jail for breaking the law, or are we inquisitive as to what she is doing/ or is being done to her while she is behind bars? Food for thought, seeing that the hype has died down.

Will do, bella... I hope your transition to west coast life is a smooth and easy one.

Wow, trance taking over heh! That's cool, but I'm with you on the relating part. I'm still digging deeper into the darker sound but haven't had a chance to play anywhere other than radio stations. Just way too busy to go out and promote myself. Hence the reason why I'm always in Manhattan, got some good contacts at Pacha though, but feel uncomfortable in approaching them for a warm up since my visits are for business only outside the clubbing capacity. hope you have some luck finding a new "roomie". Guys can be wicked pains in the arse! I still h8 picking up my dirty undies Get better soon

Doing well, Dub, very well. Was in NYC last weekend. Spending more and more time in Manhattan it seems . How's things in LA LA land?

Hope you feel better, Dub!

Ibiza is "It's all gone"

This looks pretty cool! Wish I was still in LA for this.

This peace is a wee bit on the opposite of currenty events, but definitely worth a read. Promoting Global and Regional Security in the Post-Cold War World The post-cold War world presents an interesting paradox. Conflicts are becoming increasingly local while the world is becoming increasingly interconnected: although conflicts are on a smaller scale, their ramifications affect all nations. In addition, better technology means that the American public is better informed and more eager to intervene, yet at the same time, foreign aid is being drastically cut. The United States does not have the resources to intervene in every conflict or to solve all the problems in the conflicts it does intervene in. Therefore, the U.S. must set priorities, finding a balance between its national security interests and other concerns. In two cases, the drug-fueled civil war of Colombia and the withdrawal of North Korea from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. correctly intervened to promote regional and global security. However, in both cases, the U.S. mistakenly limited the effects of its efforts by putting humanitarian concerns before security. Prioritizing foreign policy objectives can be difficult because there are many to choose from. Many believe that the U.S. should act as the world's policeman, seek to stop human rights abuses, provide humanitarian aid, or work to build democracies. While these are certainly admirable goals, the truth is that the U.S. can often do little good, and sometimes aggravates the problem with intervention.1 The U.S. should instead work to promote both global and regional security. In the long run, this is the only way to achieve the goals mentioned above. It is the best way to promote U.S. interests. Although other domestic concerns, such as building democracies or promoting human rights, should be considered in every situation (and are often integral to the problem), when these concerns conflict with the promotion of global or regional security promoting security must come first. The U.S. must be careful not to jeopardize its attempts to promote global and regional security because of differing domestic concerns. There is much policy overlap between pursuing regional and global security. This makes sense; in order for there to be a stabilized world, there must be stability at all levels, and regional instability can quickly lead to global instability in the increasingly globalized world.2 The overlap can be most clearly seen in the objectives behind U.S. intervention in Colombia and North Korea, the fight against drugs and the fight to stop nuclear proliferation, respectively. No one doubts that drugs have negative effects on society, and when one country, such as Colombia, produces eighty percent of the world's cocaine, drugs are very destabilizing globally.3 Conflict associated with drug trade is also regionally destabilizing as refugees flee war-torn areas. Similarly, nuclear buildup threatens global security, because a country with nuclear weapons is a threat to all nations. It also leads to regional instability, as the neighbors of a nuclear country become nervous. Like many conflicts occurring today, the fighting in Colombia began during the Cold War. The two main guerilla groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), date back to the 1960s.4 These two groups underwent many changes, but when they entered into alliances with drug cartels, their attacks became particularly destabilizing to the region. The drug angle made the conflict more violent and complex.5 The U.S. grew interested in Colombia as part of its war on drugs, a domestic program sparked by the concerns of citizens. The U.S. was seeing rapid increases in drug-related crime, and it was believed that drug trafficking should be stopped at the source. In 1996, when Colombian President Ernest Samper was accused of taking drug money for his campaign, the United States "Decertified" Colombia. This meant that Colombia could no longer receive certain U.S. loans. Decertification is used to embarrass a country into increasing its anti-narcotic efforts. It was not effective in this case because the Colombian government was unable to handle the drug problem alone. Colombia's certification has recently been reinstated, making it easier for the U.S. to assist the Colombian government.6 Beginning in 1998, it became obvious that the conflict within Colombia was spreading to Panama, Equador, and Venezuela, threatening to destabilize the entire region. At least a million refugees had crossed the boarders of Colombia, adding to the instability.7 Fears of regional instability as well as the global impact of the continuing drug trade caused the U.S. to increase the anti-narcotic movement by about 70 percent, to $500 million a year.8 This aid was planned to be spent on radar systems, jets, helicopters, and anti-drug battalions. While the money would have been used to fight both the guerillas and the drug trade, it was restricted to the war on drugs because of fears that the Colombian army might repeat the human rights violations that it had been accused of in the past. This greatly handicapped the efforts to bring stability because of the close ties between the drug trade and the guerillas. The only way to fight one was to fight the other.9 The drug wars are still raging in Colombia today. While the United States was correct to intervene in the conflict in Colombia to promote global and regional security, it was wrong to subordinate that effort to human rights concerns. When the United States intervened in North Korea, it was not so much in response to a particular conflict as to prevent an impending one. There has been an animosity between North and South Korea for five decades, driven by differing ideologies and belief systems. There had already been war between the two countries, and in the early 1990s, North Korea began to build up a nuclear weapons arsenal. Little was known about it, which made people all over the world uncomfortable. In 1992, North Korea stopped allowing inspectors form the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear plants.10 Then, on March 13, 1993, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.11 This caused alarm throughout the region: Japan, China, and South Korea did not want a nuclear neighbor. There were many fears that the North Korean threat would provoke war in the area.12 The thought of a nuclear North Korea not abiding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was globally threatening as well, because of the fear of nuclear war. In response to both of these concerns, the U.S. began a series of talks with North Korea. In exchange for light-water reactors which the U.S. and South Korea agreed to provide, North Korea agreed to allow IAEA inspectors access to some sites and reaffirmed its commitment to denuclarizing the Korean peninsula. In addition, North Korea agreed to give up its main source of power, graphite moderate reactors, from which it was very easy to extract weapons grade plutonium.13 This tentative agreement was later finalized as the Framework Agreement of 1994, in which, in exchange for North Korean nuclear freeze, the U.S. and South Korea agreed to give food and oil to the starving North Korean people, as well as to build two light-water reactors.14 At the same time, many felt that this policy was too easy on the North Koreans who had already agreed to and broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty once. In fact, it later turned out that North Korea could not be trusted, as it continued to prevent IAEA inspectors from examining its sites to verify the nuclear freeze.15 This situation raises a very important question; why did the U.S. not take stronger measures to ensure the freeze before giving food to the people? Simply put, the U.S. choose to put humanitarian aid before the promotion of global and regional security. Feeding the people of North Korea was more important than ensuring North Korean compliance. While some will argue that the U.S. had to avoid taking a strong stance against North Korea because of the nuclear threat, the truth is that the U.S. threw away much needed leverage by giving aid without demand a greater guarantee that North Korean government would keep its promises. In both of these cases, the United States intervened at the insistence of its citizens, who recently listed stopping the flow of illegal drugs and nuclear proliferation as the two biggest foreign policy goals.16 At first, the U.S. pursued a reasonable policy to promote global and regional security and end these threats. However, as domestic concern began to focus on different objectives such as humanitarian ones, domestic pressure jeopardized the attempt to promote security. In the future, U.S. foreign policy work to promote global and regional stability before all else. While the government should be mindful of its citizens concerns, it must remember that its citizens are easily swayed by forces like the media. Citizens' decisions are often made merely by looking at the short-term effects. Yes, other objectives, such as human rights and humanitarian aid, are important, but if they jeopardize the long-term promotion of security and stability, they must put aside. There is a lesson to be learned form U.S. intervention in Colombia and North Korea. Listen to the people, but never loose sight of your goals. 2000 National Winner Elspeth Simpson Pulaski Academy Little Rock, AR Coordinators: Mr. William Topich and Ms. Ginger Kidd

Right, back to subject #1.... a person with no military experience should, in no way, be treated equal in a decision making process regarding the issue of tactics and military battle planning. Can you imagine hiring an attorney or investigative team with only the experience of waching CSI? Why would anyone want to have an representative on planning anything that has no involvement and simple speculative opinion. Should a person who has a job that involves life or death, i.e. a policeman, get directions from a person that has no experience in law enforcement? I don't tell the fry cook how best to heat up my burger on his/ her grill! As far as troop level and equipment is concerned, I can kind of see your point on that one.... yes we as a nation do need a checks and balances. Once again, I don't tell my accounting people how to do their jobs, only that they do it to the best of his/ her ability.

Right, I can kind of see your point on the first one, in a way... but I'll formulate an opinion on the next post. (got to get ready to hit the town before travelling back to New England). That is a call that needs to be left to people with more of a strategic battle planning background. Just suppose that subjectivity was not a part of this question. Now, given a set of circumstances, or as I like to call them, "circus dances" in which an individual that has no experience in combat operations and one whom does, should said individual, namely speaking executively, have some sort of militaristic background in order to make a "more educated" decision as opposed to one who is simply going off of a gut feeling?

Interesting comments. Should, then, a person in the administration with no military experience be valued, equally, with a person that has military experience? In this particular case, one that has to make a choice to send troops where they are needed around the globe in times of conflict?

Very interesting bx. Would you say then that lack of experience in dealing with wartime issues, should, or should not, be something that administrative members across the board be addressed in the next elections?

What do you expect?

Military experience rare among '08 field By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The 2008 presidential campaign is long on war rhetoric and short on warriors. Despite the high-profile roles of the battle against terrorism and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the presidential campaign, few of the candidates can claim military experience on their resumes. ADVERTISEMENT Of the top tier of 2008 candidates, only Republican John McCain (news, bio, voting record) has been to war and served in uniform. Yet, while the demand for a president with a military background might be expected to run high in the post-Sept. 11 era, few see that as a determining factor in the 2008 race. "It teaches you certain things, but I don't think it makes you a better candidate for higher office," said Navy veteran Edward Ferrari, 76, of Randolph, N.J. "It teaches you honor and duty. I guess you can get that in other places, too." Polls indicate that while having a military background can be helpful to presidential candidates, a majority of adults don't see it as essential. Many people say candidates who've served as a governor, member of Congress or business executive are better prepared for the Oval Office than a general or admiral. More broadly, an AP-Ipsos poll last month indicates leadership traits or experience are far less important to voters than character attributes such as honesty. The 2008 lineup of candidates also makes clear that a new generation of political leaders has stepped forward, some too young to have been eligible for the Vietnam-era draft. Beyond that, fatigue with the Iraq war may have dulled the appetite for a warrior in the White House. "We're sick and tired of war and I think that feeling is going to last for about a decade," said Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University. To some, like Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, a war record still counts. "When you're a war hero, you have less to prove on the character front," he said, comparing McCain with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the front-runner in national popularity polls, who did not serve in the military. And Vietnam veteran Audrey Birgstresser said presidents with military experience understand the sacrifices of deployed soldiers and how to deftly resolve conflicts. "They know how to make decisions under pressure because that's what their life is all about," said Birgstresser, 59, of Harrisburg, Pa. Yet Fred Greenstein, a political scientist at Princeton University, doubts that even the few veterans in the race will make much of their service given the situation in Iraq. "Now that we're in this period of an increasingly virulent insurgency, it would probably be more electorally effective, even for the people who have military experience, to say they are more suited to be peacemakers, not that they were suited to manage violent conflicts," he said. Since at least the 1992 election, being a war hero hasn't been a ticket to the White House. Former President Clinton, who was never in the armed forces, defeated two World War II combat veterans — former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996. President George W. Bush's National Guard duty helped keep him out of Vietnam, yet he defeated three veterans of that conflict — McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries, Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and Democrat John Kerry in 2004. Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft. Among the other candidates in the Democratic race, Sen. Chris Dodd, 62, of Connecticut, served in the Army Reserve from 1969 to 1975. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico received student and medical classifications that probably spared him from service in Vietnam, including one for a deviated septum. Richardson had a draft lottery number of 131 in 1970, a year when men with numbers as high as 195 were called. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 64, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 60, also had medical conditions that kept them from serving in Vietnam. Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 60, received a draft deferment while serving as a Mormon missionary in France during the war. He was eligible for the draft later, but was not selected. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), 50, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 51, came of age after the draft ended in 1973. Neither has military experience. Another Republican, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, received student deferments. He was available for service in 1969, but was reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety. On the other hand, longshot GOP hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), 58, who describes himself as "the national security candidate," was an Army paratrooper and Ranger in the Vietnam War and has a personal connection to the Iraq war. His son, a Marine, has completed two tours of duty there. Congress has also seen a drain in the number of members with military experience. Only 131 members have had some form of military service, according to a Congressional Research Service report. During the 93rd Congress from 1973 to 1975, 390 veterans served. Even if a military background isn't essential to voters, a sense that a candidate can handle the role of commander in chief remains important to most Americans. "I think that the voters in this post-9/11 era will take into account everything about candidates," said Dayton Duncan, who was an insider on the presidential campaigns of Democrats Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, "and part of that filter is, 'Are you capable of protecting us?'"

do you work for me?

I thought so, I remember the last time I was there was before I moved back east and seen Tomeii there. Awesome.

I was watching "night at the roxbury" the other night and seen the inside of what I thought was the mayan. The scene is when the Butabi bros, met the club owner. Is this the Mayan? It looks like it but want to be certain.

Now this is the pride I get from being an American!

The man behind the numbers By Michael Barone Posted 2/8/04 Ask just about anyone in the political world who the most controversial pollster is, and you'll get the same answer: John Zogby. Some in the political world swear by him; others swear at the mention of his name. Zogby admits that some of his methods are unorthodox. But his numbers have sometimes been far closer to election results than other pollsters', as when he showed the surge toward Al Gore in the last three days of the 2000 presidential campaign. Zogby, 55, did not start off to be a pollster. He grew up in a Lebanese-American family in gritty Utica, N.Y. He taught history and political science at area colleges and was, in his words, "a left-wing political activist." In 1981 he and his brother James, now head of the Arab-American Institute, started a political consulting firm. They parted in 1984, and John Zogby became a full-time consultant, making political ads, advising on strategy, helping fundraising, and conducting polls in campaigns in upstate New York. As the demand for polling grew, he dropped the other work. Zogby's controversial reputation among politicos has not prevented him from attracting commercial clients. He has conducted surveys for big corporations like Altria, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Cisco, and MCI on public attitudes, customer and employee satisfaction, and lobbying issues and for nonprofits like the United Way and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Zogby's breakthrough came in 1994, when he was polling for a group of upstate radio stations and the New York Post. In late October others showed New York Gov. Mario Cuomo leading in his race for re-election. Zogby showed Republican challenger George Pataki ahead. Pataki won, and Zogby became a nationally known pollster. In 1997, he showed New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman leading by 1 percentage point--the final margin--while others had her far ahead. His results drew contracts from Reuters in 1996 and MSNBC in 2000. In 2000 Zogby drew maximum attention. During much of October, George W. Bush had small leads over Al Gore in most polls. But after the news on the Thursday before the election of Bush's 1976 DUI, Zogby's tracking polls showed movement to Gore and ended with him in the lead. Gore did indeed win the popular vote, and in some quarters Zogby was hailed as a prophet. But not among many of his fellow pollsters. Zogby admits that some of his methods are unusual. Most pollsters use random digit dialing so they won't miss those with unlisted numbers. Zogby says there is no political difference between people with listed and unlisted phones, and his interviewers call only listed numbers. "It reduces caller fatigue and unproductive interviews," he says. Most pollsters place calls only in the evening, when most people are home; Zogby's interviewers call all day long and, he says, reach people who aren't reachable from 6 to 9 p.m. "Zogby is not a reputable pollster," opines Warren Mitofsky, head of Mitofsky International, one of the two firms conducting 2004 exit polls for the broadcast and cable news networks. "He is more a salesman and a self-promoter than a pollster." Source: US News Who is Warren Mitofsky: ....[Warren] Mitofsky started conducting exit polls in 1967 for CBS News and developed the projection system and analysis system used by CBS and later by a consortium of news organizations that conducted national exit polls. "He was the father of exit polling," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "And he pioneered exit polling overseas." Exit polling surveys voters from a random sample of precincts after they have cast their ballots to quickly determine which candidates voters supported and why they voted the way they did. With fellow researcher Joseph Waksberg, Mitofsky helped invent a way to sample households by telephone to efficiently reach people with unlisted as well as listed phone numbers. The random digit dial method now is a survey research standard. Waksberg died in January at age 90. Mitofsky was known for his willingness to share his strong opinions. Many colleagues have experienced "the creativity, passion and dedication that he has brought to his work and have the scars to prove it," said Murray Edelman, a pollster and longtime co-worker. Mitofsky directed the first network election pool, Voter Research & Surveys, in the 1990 and 1992 elections. In 1993, he founded Mitofsky International; its primary business was conducting exit polls in countries including Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. Since 2003 Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research have conducted U.S. exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks. Mitofsky's early survey work was for the U.S. Census Bureau, where he designed surveys that looked at poverty and other social concerns. He led several survey research organizations over his career, including as president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the National Council of Public Polls...." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/03/ap/politics/mainD8JT3UDO0.shtml

Need someone to pass out approximately 100 demo's at the upcoming event in Miami. Only truly interested parties should apply. Reply to mixburner@gmail.com Regards, Aaron

Washington Times February 7, 2007 Pg. 1 Pelosi's Push For Jet Remains Up In Air Murtha prods Pentagon to accede By Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt, Washington Times The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources. A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants. The congressional source said Pentagon officials complained that Mr. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is accusing them of sexism for not immediately heeding her request. Megan E. Grote, Mr. Murtha's press secretary, said, "Mr. Murtha absolutely never said anything about being 'sexist.' We have no further comment." Meanwhile, Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam of Florida said Mrs. Pelosi's request represents "an arrogance of office that just defies common sense" and called it "a major deviation from the previous speaker." Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri called it a "flying Lincoln Bedroom," and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, labeled the speaker's plane "Pelosi One." "This is a bullet point to a larger value -- Pelosi's abuse of power continues," Mr. McHenry said yesterday. "It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans, continued with her 'TunaGate' scandal, and now she's exploiting America's armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience." "TunaGate" was a reference to Democrats exempting American Samoa from legislation to increase the minimum wage. Star-Kist Tuna, whose parent company Del Monte Corp. is based in Mrs. Pelosi's district, had lobbied against the wage increase. An aide to Mrs. Pelosi, who is arguing she needs the jets for security reasons, yesterday referred questions to the Air Force, which is studying the California Democrat's request along with lawyers at the Pentagon and at the White House. "A lot of people are working this," an Air Force source said. The congressional source said government lawyers are trying to reconcile Mrs. Pelosi's request with Defense Department policy and congressional travel rules. The Washington Times first reported last week that Mrs. Pelosi's staff was pressing the administration for access to Air Force aircraft. Sources said the request went beyond what was offered to former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican. Mr. Hastert used an Air Force commuter-type jet to travel to and from his district. Mr. Hastert gained the access for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the House speaker, who is second in the line of succession to the presidency, used commercial flights for such trips. Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff. The speaker's request is being handled by her chief counsel, Bernard Raimo, a veteran Democratic lawyer on Capitol Hill. "Who she can take is being worked out, outside the Air Force," said Ed Gulick, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon. He said the Air Force is studying what types of planes are available for long, cross-country flights. Currently, three planes assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base can make such nonstop flights year-round -- the C-32, C-40B and C-37. Such VIP planes are in high demand. "She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car." The congressional source said the speaker's office requested an Air Force plane to take her to a weekend Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, but the Pentagon declined. The source said Mr. Hastert on one occasion used an Air Force plane for such an event. The Air Force later determined it was a mistake, and such flights were not repeated. The source said the Pentagon will likely give in to Mrs. Pelosi's requests for a large plane and travel entourage, given her and Mr. Murtha's power over defense spending. Mr. Raimo argues that Mrs. Pelosi needs a military aircraft, as opposed to commercial flights, for security reasons. The defense source, who asked not to be named, termed her request "carte blanche," saying she wanted a plane that could carry an entourage just like President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also always flies on military planes. Christina Bellantoni contributed to this report.

Ever have one of those days at the airport, when you're at the bar and some LAME-O just won't stop talking to you? Well, here is a sure way to get him/her away from you. Follow these instructions for the removal of the common Jetport Pest.... 1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case. 2. Remove your laptop. 3. Turn it on. 4. Make sure the guy who won't leave you alone can see the screen. 5. Open this email. 6. Close your eyes and tilt your head up to the sky, and maybe utter repeatedly "ALLAH AWAKHBAR!" 7. Then hit this link: http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf (Be prepared to speak with federal authorities at the next stop.) But the annoying person WILL leave you alone.