I can maybe see not wanting them there if you were celebrating Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, or the anniversary of the DH. Robbins and Sarandon have no real connection to those, and then it may be seen as a political statement. They both are a part of this movie. If you keep them away you're politicizing it. Baseball is the national pasttime, it's an escape. Let it be a celebration free of the politics.
President, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, is a special place. The Game’s greatest players, managers, umpires, and executives are honored here, and it’s where The Game’s rich history is preserved. Those who have served in the U.S. military are also honored here. Active duty and retired military personnel receive free admission, and last Memorial Day, a plaque was dedicated to honor the 64 Hall of Fame members who have served this country in the armed forces during wartime.
As much as The Hall of Fame honors our armed forces, this institution should never be used as a platform for public pro-war sentiments – nor public anti-war sentiments. Given the track record of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and the timing – with our troops committed in Iraq – a strong possibility existed that they could have used The Hall of Fame as a backdrop for their views. Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon have every right to express their opinions. But The Baseball Hall of Fame is not the proper venue for highly-charged political expressions, whatever they may be.
Rick: Seems to me, he was speaking to a specific group here, veterans.
<b/>
Catching up on the strangeness I found that the head of the Hall of Fame chose to cancel the 15th year celebration of the release of "Bull Durham" because he doesn't like the politics of Tim Robbins and Susan Serandon.
Why would anyone want to celebrate the anniversary of a movie anyway?
I think it just could have been resolved if Petrosky called Robbins and Sarandon, and just discussed things with them. Got an idea for what they may do, discuss the Hall's desire not to make it a political event. I am sure things could have worked themselves out.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter much. The game goes on. Petroskey is popular with the people he wants to be popular with. But to who is the door to the Hall of Fame open? That's a new question.
I think it just could have been resolved if Petrosky called Robbins and Sarandon, and just discussed things with them. Got an idea for what they may do, discuss the Hall's desire not to make it a political event. I am sure things could have worked themselves out.
I agree but I don't think they were wanted there, no matter if they tried to make it a soapbox or not.
First of all why shouldn't Petrosky be able to say if either one should be allowed to speak?
Should an awards show be allowed to decide who they put on stage?
Next do you honestly think that even if asked not to that they wouldn't have turned it into a political display in some manner?
I don't see a problem with them not being allowed to speak, their outspokeness on their beliefs (hey I have no problem with what they believe.) has set them aside and I think that the American public is tiring of such stances, because it tends to appear as an Anti-Military, Anti-American view.
What I fond really funny is all the people yelling freedom of speech. Yet they think they should be free from the results or opinions of others when they use it. What they want is to be able to say whatever they want and then run and hide. They do not like being taken to task for what they say or being proven wrong. Actions do have consequences. Hypocrisy at its best.
"Yet they think they should be free from the results or opinions of others when they use it. "
That goes to the heart of PC. No one who is shrewd enough politically would ever admit to denying somone the right to express their opinion. That would be counterproductive. Especially when there's so many other ways to exact retribution.
But what should be the "results" of expressing the opinion? Taken to task? Why?
I've heard the protesters called traitors. People guilty of sedition. And that's by people whose opinions are sought out by major news outlets. People on the payroll of major news outlets.Is that the result of them holding an opinion? Treason is a serious crime. A capital crime. And they throw the charge around pretty freely.
Much more serious than being politically incorrect.
Iraqi prisoners celebrate their release as one of them holds a photo of Mostafa, father of Masoud Barzani, leader of Kurdistan Democratic Party, at a camp in Ashkawtawan, 80 kms north of Irbil in northern Iraq, Saturday, April 19, 2003.
Some of the world's fastest and most exotic cars tore out of San Francisco on Thursday night for the start of a mad cross-country caper that's as much about hard driving as hedonistic partying.
But the West Coast debut of the Gumball Rally, a notorious European road race marked by eye-popping speeding tickets, five-digit bar bills and the champagne-soaked antics of the effortlessly wealthy, resulted almost immediately in a police crackdown.
Several drivers were arrested, others were cited, and many exotic vehicles were impounded after the California Highway Patrol received dozens of calls of reckless driving from San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Solano counties.
The race began Wednesday with a party in the penthouse suite of the Fairmont Hotel. A disc jockey had been flown in from London.
By midday Thursday, bleary-eyed gumballers nursing Bloody Marys were polishing and revving their high-octane speed machines for the beginning of a five-day, 3,000-mile fete on wheels from San Francisco to Miami, with black- tie bashes along the way.
The race began just after 8 p.m. Before long, drivers on Bay Area highways began spotting the racers in Ferraris, Porsches, BMWs and other expensive fast cars. The race cars -- with large numbers painted on the doors -- swerved in and out of traffic, along shoulders and center dividers while exceeding speeds of 100 mph, according to the CHP.
And then, the 911 calls began pouring in.
CHP responded by sending out patrol units and aircraft to put a halt to the madness.
By 9:30 p.m., two racers had been arrested in Marin County, four racers were arrested in Solano County, and several others elsewhere were cited, the CHP said. Some racers also were detained in Yolo County, outside Sacramento.
"There is absolutely no place for this kind of activity on our public roadways," the CHP stated in a written news statement. "There were thirteen 911 calls alone from motorists on one small stretch of I-80 in Solano County."
Maximillion Cooper, a raffish 30-year-old Londoner, came up with the idea of a public road race five years ago. Fifty-five of his closest friends poured into fast cars and supple driving shoes and set out from London for the Adriatic Coast in Northern Italy. They camped out in castles and palaces along the way.
"It started as a private party for friends," Cooper said before the race began. "After the first rally, we ended up being mentioned in about 600 magazines around the world. All through word of mouth."
The event, inspired by the classic Burt Reynolds road flick "Cannonball Run, " is not for the faint of heart, shallow of pocket or early to bed. First-time gumballers pay about $12,000, which includes breakfast, dinner and lodging, but doesn't cover gas, speeding tickets, bail or beverages.
Driving the Ferraris, Porsches, Aston Martins, Morgans, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Jaguars, a Koenigsegg (one of the world's fastest cars) and vintage muscle cars were a motley mix of British royalty, tipsy bon vivants, models, corporate chieftains and the simply motor-obsessed.
Those racers who did make it beyond the Bay Area were headed to Las Vegas, Tucson, San Antonio and New Orleans. The gumball express is scheduled to reach Miami on Tuesday. The official gumball policy, repeated several times by Cooper before the group left San Francisco, is safety and staying within the speed limit. But the words were met with more than a few knowing chuckles.
Last year's gumball adventure began in New York and ended at the Playboy Mansion in Beverly Hills. The year before, gumballers raced from London to Moscow and back.
Wild tales are as abundant as shiny chrome and plush leather.
Outside Las Vegas last year, one gumballer did doughnuts, hitting a Ferrari 360 Spyder, which hit a Porsche 911, which hit an Audi RS4. The drivers hired a helicopter to take them to the Playboy mansion. On another rally, a socialite was caught speeding, topless, on the French autoroute. Exceeding 150 mph is not uncommon; tickets are plastered on the windshield like badges of honor.
"We are trying to get across America without being arrested," said Ben Garratt, a 31-year-old model from London. "It's all about the fun."
The CHP, however, wasn't amused. Thursday night, the agency issued an alert to its other field offices and air operations as well as the Nevada Highway Patrol to be on the lookout for the racers.
Garratt was planning to make the journey in a Jaguar with his friend Abi, who goes by first name only. Abi, who describes himself as a retired soccer player in his early 30s, attended last year's rally from New York to Los Angeles. He and his buddy drove a Dodge Viper, which reached speeds of 165 mph, he said. A Ferrari F50 clocked 209 mph, he added.
"My co-driver got arrested going 158 mph in Tennessee," Abi said. "He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. I couldn't stop laughing."
They got 28 tickets in six days, he said.
The racers say their "good fun" has a good cause: Some of the proceeds will go to benefit cancer research. While there are female gumballers (including model Jodie Kidd, who drives a Maserati Spyder), most of the drivers are men.
Shane Slevin, who is from Dublin, Ireland, and lives in London, said he attended every rally since its inception. He owns several cars and chose a Mini Cooper for this year's rally.
Sitting on the hood of a Porsche parked in front of the Fairmont before the race, Slevin sipped a glass of wine. He was hoping to win the coveted "Spirit of the Gumball Award," bequeathed at the end of the race to the zaniest, kindest gumballer.
"It comes down to who is the craziest and who has the most fun," he said.
A Koenigsegg CC 85, a Swedish car that cost $600,000.
4.6 liter supercharged V8, 655 hp, 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds, Top Speed of 240 mph. Chassis-Carbonfiber semi-monocoque, Body-Carbonfiber, Kevlar.
I liked that pic of Robbins and Sarandon holding up two fingers(instead of one, which is what some right-wingers deserve),
That would be intolerant of a different viewpoint though.
and I especially like how certain people in here have made it a point to make fun of these two,
I don't know who made fun of them. Disagreed absolutely, perhaps we did. Can you honestly tell me you've never made fun of someone you disagreed with ?
just like the Hawks in the Vietnam Era bemoaned, decried, belittled and accused legions of people who protested that War, and who, in the end, were proven to be right, and who played a HUGE part in history, by stopping that war.
Could you clarify that ? How can you say the people who spit on the soilders were right ? How can you say that Hanoi Jane was right ? If you listen to the North Vietnamese who were in charge at the time they knew their only hope was discension at home. Well after tet in 68' they got it and it ended the war alright, but it also dragged it out and demoralized our troops along the way. Many top Vietnamese leaders freely admit now that right after the failure militarily in 68' they were considering trying to arrange a deal. They knew they wouldn't win militarily. Then they saw the reaction after tet and decided to hang on and see what happened. What happened was the war movement grew, they decided they could win because of that action at home. I'm not saying they didn't have that right but I would have hoped we've learned some lessons from then. It seems so we have when 80% of the country agrees on Iraq. I think they are vastly different conflicts. The same people who spit on our soilders were also absolutely MUM when communism in that region flared up and killed thousands. When Pol Pot when on his killing thousands wholesale they were pretty quiet. Were they right ? We'll probably never agree on that. Did they have an effect on that war ? Absolutely, but wether it was good or bad we probably wouldn't agree on either. I wouldn't say all bad either and protesting was and is certainly their right. There's also a way to go about it IMO.
The Hawks were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Well 250,000 fled South Vietnam so I don't know how great it was. Thousands more were killed by the communists as sympathizers. We were hogtied politically to stop the Khmer Rouge. It also sent the message that we were willing to do alot to stop the spread of communism which thankfully ended for the most part.
The Hawks are wrong now ?
Huh ? You mean how we heard from the left that Iraqi's weren't going to welcome us ? You mean how they also said it would cost hundreds of allied troops dying ? Some said thousands. Like when they also said it would cause 100,000 civilian casualties ? You mean like when they said how poorly we'd handle it ? How Israel would get attacked, how it would start WW3. And one of my favorites "it will destabalize the middle east." Like it's been stable for 50 years.
And of course you also must be referring to my all time favorite. One week into the war and "some" were claiming how it was a bad plan, we were bogged down, it was a quagmire, reminiscient of Vietnam. Franks and Rumsfeld were popular targets if I recall as well. The "hawks" were wrong ? Huh ?
(Columbia) - South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlianproudly announces Dem Weekend 2003, May 2-4, that will play a major role in the nomination for the party's 2004 candidate for President of the United States.
In conjunction with the Party's Dem Weekend 2003, ABC News will host the first televised debate of the 2004 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination featuring all nine of the contenders who have formally established campaigns. The nine candidates are: Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun, Governor Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dick Gephardt, Senator Bob Graham, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joseph Lieberman and Reverend Al Sharpton.
The debate will be held Saturday night, May 3, from 8:30-10:00 pm EDT at theLongstreet Theateron the campus of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. The debate will be made available to C-SPAN, South Carolina Educational Television and ABC network affiliates around the country.
Oh please tell me they are not proud to be bringing their debates to a theater honoring a staunch secessionist who strongly advocated for slavery.
ABC News has apparently saved the nine Democratic presidential candidates from the embarrassment of holding their South Carolina debate in a theater named after a staunch defender of slavery.
The South Carolina Democratic Party had announced that the first televised debate of the 2004 presidential campaign would be held in Columbia from 8:30 to 10 p.m. Saturday at the Longstreet Theater, which is named after a secessionist and slavery supporter.
However, ABC, which is sponsoring the debate, announced late Friday that it will be held at a different site, cyber-gossip Matt Drudge reports at his Web site (www.drudgereport.com). It was Mr. Drudge who first reported the potential embarrassment for the Democrats, who have denounced such symbols as the Confederate flag.
ABC planned to announce a new site today, Mr. Drudge said. Â Â Â Â Â The Longstreet Theater's namesake, Augustus B. Longstreet, was president of South Carolina College. His rigorous support of secession caused a fervor that led the student body to enlist en masse when the Civil War began. He argued that the right to hold slaves was determined by the Bible.
You need to look at people within the context of their times, JT. Today's "moral" standards can't be applied to the past if you want to have an accurate understanding of history.
The judiciary, however, was designed to be a passive branch, deciding legal disputes (cases and controversies) among people and interpreting the laws, including the Constitution, not making the laws or creating new constitutional rights, such as privacy. Judicial activism occurs when the judiciary makes rather than interprets laws.
You need to look at people within the context of their times, JT. Today's "moral" standards can't be applied to the past if you want to have an accurate understanding of history.
I have that ability.
Obviously slavery was as immoral to enlightened people then, as it is today.
Why else the need to be a secessionist and supporter of slavery?
Slavery was as immoral to enlightened people af the time, as it is today
By "enlightened people of the time" you mean an extremist minority. It must be nice to condemn most everyone that has lived throughout history and put yourself on a moral pedestal. You and your beliefs may well be morally reprehensible in the future. You can see that effort being made now.
Obviously slavery was as immoral to enlightened people then, as it is today.
Why else the need to be a secessionist and supporter of slavery?
Obviously the majority didn't see slavery as immoral nor did they see the abolitionists as enlightened. Otherwise everyone would have freed their slaves and given them full rights.
You speak as if everyone at the time owned slaves and thought it perfectly natural behavior.
That obviously wasn't the case.
I am not making a statement that everyone thought slavery was fine. Is anything unanimous? No there is always some dissent almost on any issue. Obviously not everyone owned slaves just like not everyone owns an airplane today. Many couldn't afford it and others had very little use for slaves if they could. But if you don't believe that many people thought it perfectly natural you would be mistaken. That is why slavery existed in the first place. And if you believe abolitionism was an overpowering cause you would be wrong again.
But Petroskey is not actiing as a private citizen as head of the Hall of Fame.
First off, you can't consider celebrity's in the same light as the average Joe private citizen.
Also, as head of the Hall of Fame, he's probably being wise not wanting Robbins/Sarandon there.
Does the Hall of Fame really want to associate themselves with the likes of those two?
Many groups are distancing themselves from the celebrity anti-war nuts.
It's an unfair use of the power he has as the head of the Hall of Fame.
And it's not an unfair use of their celebrity?
I can maybe see not wanting them there if you were celebrating Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, or the anniversary of the DH. Robbins and Sarandon have no real connection to those, and then it may be seen as a political statement. They both are a part of this movie. If you keep them away you're politicizing it. Baseball is the national pasttime, it's an escape. Let it be a celebration free of the politics.
"First off, you can't consider celebrity's in the same light as the average Joe private citizen."
The only difference is that they get covered by the media. That's media choices. As citizens, they can be active in any way they choose.
"Does the Hall of Fame really want to associate themselves with the likes of those two?"
What do you mean by that?
STATEMENT BY
Dale Petroskey
President, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, is a special place. The Game’s greatest players, managers, umpires, and executives are honored here, and it’s where The Game’s rich history is preserved. Those who have served in the U.S. military are also honored here. Active duty and retired military personnel receive free admission, and last Memorial Day, a plaque was dedicated to honor the 64 Hall of Fame members who have served this country in the armed forces during wartime.
As much as The Hall of Fame honors our armed forces, this institution should never be used as a platform for public pro-war sentiments – nor public anti-war sentiments. Given the track record of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, and the timing – with our troops committed in Iraq – a strong possibility existed that they could have used The Hall of Fame as a backdrop for their views. Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon have every right to express their opinions. But The Baseball Hall of Fame is not the proper venue for highly-charged political expressions, whatever they may be.
Rick: Seems to me, he was speaking to a specific group here, veterans.
<b/>
What do you mean by that?
They hold a very unpopular opinion about a very emotional issue.
Does the Hall of Fame want to associate themselves with people that are very much disliked right now?
...a strong possibility existed that they could have used The Hall of Fame as a backdrop for their views...
That's a valid point.
So the moral is: Hold popular opinions. Get with the program, dammit!?
If that's what you want to believe, more power to ya.
Catching up on the strangeness I found that the head of the Hall of Fame chose to cancel the 15th year celebration of the release of "Bull Durham" because he doesn't like the politics of Tim Robbins and Susan Serandon.
Why would anyone want to celebrate the anniversary of a movie anyway?
I think it just could have been resolved if Petrosky called Robbins and Sarandon, and just discussed things with them. Got an idea for what they may do, discuss the Hall's desire not to make it a political event. I am sure things could have worked themselves out.
It's an unfair use of the power he has as the head of the Hall of Fame.
Unfair? What utter nonsense.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter much. The game goes on. Petroskey is popular with the people he wants to be popular with. But to who is the door to the Hall of Fame open? That's a new question.
Deuces wild joe.
I think it just could have been resolved if Petrosky called Robbins and Sarandon, and just discussed things with them. Got an idea for what they may do, discuss the Hall's desire not to make it a political event. I am sure things could have worked themselves out.
I agree but I don't think they were wanted there, no matter if they tried to make it a soapbox or not.
but I think Petroskey is the one who really screwed up here.
I think he did the right thing.
So the moral is: Hold popular opinions. Get with the program, dammit!?
Yes. Or if you want to espouse unpopular opinion be prepared to pay the costs.
First of all why shouldn't Petrosky be able to say if either one should be allowed to speak?
Should an awards show be allowed to decide who they put on stage?
Next do you honestly think that even if asked not to that they wouldn't have turned it into a political display in some manner?
I don't see a problem with them not being allowed to speak, their outspokeness on their beliefs (hey I have no problem with what they believe.) has set them aside and I think that the American public is tiring of such stances, because it tends to appear as an Anti-Military, Anti-American view.
So who would be the people pitching the fit if the tribute to Bull Durham went on and the Robbins/Serandon duo were allowed into Cooperstown?
And/or:
Who is jerking Dale Petroskey's chain? Is the answer between the lines of his statement?
Is it the Forces of All that is Good and Decent in America? What do they have to fear from a couple flakey Hollywood types?
Maybe they thought that if these 2 hunyucks would be there they would get less of a turn out. Meaning making less money.
I'm thinking someone leaned on Petroskey.
Political correctness doesn't just come from the left. There's right-wing political correctness, too. Maybe even more these days.
I have no doubt that Robbins/Sarandon would have used the HOF as another pulpit.
the left has started leaning on Petroskey: http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0418/1541133.html
Political correctness doesn't just come from the left.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What I fond really funny is all the people yelling freedom of speech. Yet they think they should be free from the results or opinions of others when they use it. What they want is to be able to say whatever they want and then run and hide. They do not like being taken to task for what they say or being proven wrong. Actions do have consequences. Hypocrisy at its best.
"Yet they think they should be free from the results or opinions of others when they use it. "
That goes to the heart of PC. No one who is shrewd enough politically would ever admit to denying somone the right to express their opinion. That would be counterproductive. Especially when there's so many other ways to exact retribution.
But what should be the "results" of expressing the opinion? Taken to task? Why?
I've heard the protesters called traitors. People guilty of sedition. And that's by people whose opinions are sought out by major news outlets. People on the payroll of major news outlets.Is that the result of them holding an opinion? Treason is a serious crime. A capital crime. And they throw the charge around pretty freely.
Much more serious than being politically incorrect.
Funny, huh, Wolvie? Good laugh at that.
WHY?
Because no one in their right mind would want to consort with those two right now.
The 'Likes" of these two? Meaning what, exactly?
Meaning a couple of "Peace at any cost" nutballs, that a majority of Americans are disgusted with.
(HA!!!!!!!) Many right-wing groups, you mean?
Yeah, that United Way & the Academy of Motion Pictures are sure Rightwing.
400,000. In One Week.
Just so you know. Claims are down from this same time last year.
Iraqi prisoners celebrate their release as one of them holds a photo of Mostafa, father of Masoud Barzani, leader of Kurdistan Democratic Party, at a camp in Ashkawtawan, 80 kms north of Irbil in northern Iraq, Saturday, April 19, 2003.
Not in our name.
Cops put brakes on high rollers
Arrests, tickets mark start of notorious coast-to-coast race
Some of the world's fastest and most exotic cars tore out of San Francisco on Thursday night for the start of a mad cross-country caper that's as much about hard driving as hedonistic partying.
But the West Coast debut of the Gumball Rally, a notorious European road race marked by eye-popping speeding tickets, five-digit bar bills and the champagne-soaked antics of the effortlessly wealthy, resulted almost immediately in a police crackdown.
Several drivers were arrested, others were cited, and many exotic vehicles were impounded after the California Highway Patrol received dozens of calls of reckless driving from San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Solano counties.
The race began Wednesday with a party in the penthouse suite of the Fairmont Hotel. A disc jockey had been flown in from London.
By midday Thursday, bleary-eyed gumballers nursing Bloody Marys were polishing and revving their high-octane speed machines for the beginning of a five-day, 3,000-mile fete on wheels from San Francisco to Miami, with black- tie bashes along the way.
The race began just after 8 p.m. Before long, drivers on Bay Area highways began spotting the racers in Ferraris, Porsches, BMWs and other expensive fast cars. The race cars -- with large numbers painted on the doors -- swerved in and out of traffic, along shoulders and center dividers while exceeding speeds of 100 mph, according to the CHP.
And then, the 911 calls began pouring in.
CHP responded by sending out patrol units and aircraft to put a halt to the madness.
By 9:30 p.m., two racers had been arrested in Marin County, four racers were arrested in Solano County, and several others elsewhere were cited, the CHP said. Some racers also were detained in Yolo County, outside Sacramento.
"There is absolutely no place for this kind of activity on our public roadways," the CHP stated in a written news statement. "There were thirteen 911 calls alone from motorists on one small stretch of I-80 in Solano County."
Maximillion Cooper, a raffish 30-year-old Londoner, came up with the idea of a public road race five years ago. Fifty-five of his closest friends poured into fast cars and supple driving shoes and set out from London for the Adriatic Coast in Northern Italy. They camped out in castles and palaces along the way.
"It started as a private party for friends," Cooper said before the race began. "After the first rally, we ended up being mentioned in about 600 magazines around the world. All through word of mouth."
The event, inspired by the classic Burt Reynolds road flick "Cannonball Run, " is not for the faint of heart, shallow of pocket or early to bed. First-time gumballers pay about $12,000, which includes breakfast, dinner and lodging, but doesn't cover gas, speeding tickets, bail or beverages.
Driving the Ferraris, Porsches, Aston Martins, Morgans, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Jaguars, a Koenigsegg (one of the world's fastest cars) and vintage muscle cars were a motley mix of British royalty, tipsy bon vivants, models, corporate chieftains and the simply motor-obsessed.
Those racers who did make it beyond the Bay Area were headed to Las Vegas, Tucson, San Antonio and New Orleans. The gumball express is scheduled to reach Miami on Tuesday. The official gumball policy, repeated several times by Cooper before the group left San Francisco, is safety and staying within the speed limit. But the words were met with more than a few knowing chuckles.
Last year's gumball adventure began in New York and ended at the Playboy Mansion in Beverly Hills. The year before, gumballers raced from London to Moscow and back.
Wild tales are as abundant as shiny chrome and plush leather.
Outside Las Vegas last year, one gumballer did doughnuts, hitting a Ferrari 360 Spyder, which hit a Porsche 911, which hit an Audi RS4. The drivers hired a helicopter to take them to the Playboy mansion. On another rally, a socialite was caught speeding, topless, on the French autoroute. Exceeding 150 mph is not uncommon; tickets are plastered on the windshield like badges of honor.
"We are trying to get across America without being arrested," said Ben Garratt, a 31-year-old model from London. "It's all about the fun."
The CHP, however, wasn't amused. Thursday night, the agency issued an alert to its other field offices and air operations as well as the Nevada Highway Patrol to be on the lookout for the racers.
Garratt was planning to make the journey in a Jaguar with his friend Abi, who goes by first name only. Abi, who describes himself as a retired soccer player in his early 30s, attended last year's rally from New York to Los Angeles. He and his buddy drove a Dodge Viper, which reached speeds of 165 mph, he said. A Ferrari F50 clocked 209 mph, he added.
"My co-driver got arrested going 158 mph in Tennessee," Abi said. "He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. I couldn't stop laughing."
They got 28 tickets in six days, he said.
The racers say their "good fun" has a good cause: Some of the proceeds will go to benefit cancer research. While there are female gumballers (including model Jodie Kidd, who drives a Maserati Spyder), most of the drivers are men.
Shane Slevin, who is from Dublin, Ireland, and lives in London, said he attended every rally since its inception. He owns several cars and chose a Mini Cooper for this year's rally.
Sitting on the hood of a Porsche parked in front of the Fairmont before the race, Slevin sipped a glass of wine. He was hoping to win the coveted "Spirit of the Gumball Award," bequeathed at the end of the race to the zaniest, kindest gumballer.
"It comes down to who is the craziest and who has the most fun," he said.
A Koenigsegg CC 85, a Swedish car that cost $600,000.
4.6 liter supercharged V8, 655 hp, 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds, Top Speed of 240 mph. Chassis-Carbonfiber semi-monocoque, Body-Carbonfiber, Kevlar.
Unbelievable!
Nothing is unbelieveable?
These last 2 posts come close.
fold wrote: Wolvie isn't listening to reason right now.
correct, he was was listening TO fold!!!!!!
Van der Graaf is an extremist who killed a human being to protest bacon.
 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20030421.shtml
Bill,
That would be intolerant of a different viewpoint though.
I don't know who made fun of them. Disagreed absolutely, perhaps we did. Can you honestly tell me you've never made fun of someone you disagreed with ?
Could you clarify that ? How can you say the people who spit on the soilders were right ? How can you say that Hanoi Jane was right ? If you listen to the North Vietnamese who were in charge at the time they knew their only hope was discension at home. Well after tet in 68' they got it and it ended the war alright, but it also dragged it out and demoralized our troops along the way. Many top Vietnamese leaders freely admit now that right after the failure militarily in 68' they were considering trying to arrange a deal. They knew they wouldn't win militarily. Then they saw the reaction after tet and decided to hang on and see what happened. What happened was the war movement grew, they decided they could win because of that action at home. I'm not saying they didn't have that right but I would have hoped we've learned some lessons from then. It seems so we have when 80% of the country agrees on Iraq. I think they are vastly different conflicts.
The same people who spit on our soilders were also absolutely MUM when communism in that region flared up and killed thousands. When Pol Pot when on his killing thousands wholesale they were pretty quiet. Were they right ? We'll probably never agree on that. Did they have an effect on that war ? Absolutely, but wether it was good or bad we probably wouldn't agree on either. I wouldn't say all bad either and protesting was and is certainly their right. There's also a way to go about it IMO.
Well 250,000 fled South Vietnam so I don't know how great it was. Thousands more were killed by the communists as sympathizers. We were hogtied politically to stop the Khmer Rouge. It also sent the message that we were willing to do alot to stop the spread of communism which thankfully ended for the most part.
The Hawks are wrong now ?
Huh ? You mean how we heard from the left that Iraqi's weren't going to welcome us ? You mean how they also said it would cost hundreds of allied troops dying ? Some said thousands. Like when they also said it would cause 100,000 civilian casualties ? You mean like when they said how poorly we'd handle it ? How Israel would get attacked, how it would start WW3. And one of my favorites "it will destabalize the middle east." Like it's been stable for 50 years.
And of course you also must be referring to my all time favorite. One week into the war and "some" were claiming how it was a bad plan, we were bogged down, it was a quagmire, reminiscient of Vietnam. Franks and Rumsfeld were popular targets if I recall as well. The "hawks" were wrong ? Huh ?
OK fold. Here's a FACT...You are delusional on some topics.
Luv2Fly 4/21/03 4:11pm
Luv, I think I'm non sexually in love with you.
Nonetheless, there were those right here on this very board who criticized the plan in the first week.
Oh please tell me they are not proud to be bringing their debates to a theater honoring a staunch secessionist who strongly advocated for slavery.
The place of the debates has been changed.
Hmmm... Let's see. GDubbya has been a favored speaker at some other south of the Mason-Dixon "Campus"...
And the Dems had a major fit over that, which makes it odd that they chose this site for a debate, unless they are hypocritics.
The place of the debates has been changed.
I heard the site has been changed by ABC (due to logistics), not the DNC. What have you heard?
ABC News has apparently saved the nine Democratic presidential candidates from the embarrassment of holding their South Carolina debate in a theater named after a staunch defender of slavery.
The South Carolina Democratic Party had announced that the first televised debate of the 2004 presidential campaign would be held in Columbia from 8:30 to 10 p.m. Saturday at the Longstreet Theater, which is named after a secessionist and slavery supporter.
However, ABC, which is sponsoring the debate, announced late Friday that it will be held at a different site, cyber-gossip Matt Drudge reports at his Web site (www.drudgereport.com). It was Mr. Drudge who first reported the potential embarrassment for the Democrats, who have denounced such symbols as the Confederate flag.
ABC planned to announce a new site today, Mr. Drudge said.
     The Longstreet Theater's namesake, Augustus B. Longstreet, was president of South Carolina College. His rigorous support of secession caused a fervor that led the student body to enlist en masse when the Civil War began. He argued that the right to hold slaves was determined by the Bible.
Augustus Longstreet more than a secessionist and supporter of slavery
http://wymple.gs.net/~longstrt/1163-b.html
http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/english/ms-writers/dir/longstreet_a_b/
http://web.csd.sc.edu/uscmap/bldg/longstreet.html
Yea, what a guy.
more than a secessionist and supporter of slavery
That's all I need to know.
more than a secessionist and supporter of slavery
That's all I need to know.
You need to look at people within the context of their times, JT. Today's "moral" standards can't be applied to the past if you want to have an accurate understanding of history.
The judiciary, however, was designed to be a passive branch, deciding legal disputes (cases and controversies) among people and interpreting the laws, including the Constitution, not making the laws or creating new constitutional rights, such as privacy. Judicial activism occurs when the judiciary makes rather than interprets laws.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20030430.shtml
You need to look at people within the context of their times, JT. Today's "moral" standards can't be applied to the past if you want to have an accurate understanding of history.
I have that ability.
Obviously slavery was as immoral to enlightened people then, as it is today.
Why else the need to be a secessionist and supporter of slavery?
Slavery was as immoral to enlightened people af the time, as it is today
By "enlightened people of the time" you mean an extremist minority. It must be nice to condemn most everyone that has lived throughout history and put yourself on a moral pedestal. You and your beliefs may well be morally reprehensible in the future. You can see that effort being made now.
Obviously slavery was as immoral to enlightened people then, as it is today.
Why else the need to be a secessionist and supporter of slavery?
Obviously the majority didn't see slavery as immoral nor did they see the abolitionists as enlightened. Otherwise everyone would have freed their slaves and given them full rights.
You speak as if everyone at the time owned slaves and thought it perfectly natural behavior.
That obviously wasn't the case.
Here comes the "States Rights" argument.
I can feel it...
"It had nothing to do with slavery, it was about States Rights".
You speak as if everyone at the time owned slaves and thought it perfectly natural behavior.
That obviously wasn't the case.
I am not making a statement that everyone thought slavery was fine. Is anything unanimous? No there is always some dissent almost on any issue. Obviously not everyone owned slaves just like not everyone owns an airplane today. Many couldn't afford it and others had very little use for slaves if they could. But if you don't believe that many people thought it perfectly natural you would be mistaken. That is why slavery existed in the first place. And if you believe abolitionism was an overpowering cause you would be wrong again.