June 10, 2004

PETER BEATER

If her US voting intentions are any guide, John Howard should parachute Rachel Hunter into the celebrity-driven Kingsford Smith election:

The New Zealander model - based in Los Angeles - is not eligible to vote in America's Presidential elections but is a fierce Republican and desperately wants to support her idol, Bush Junior.

Hunter explains, "If I could, I would vote for Bush. He has done what needed to be done because if Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had their way, none of us would be around in 10 years.

"Clinton had a lot of tea parties with celebrities, but [right after] his term, somebody flew two planes into the Twin Towers. What do you want - somebody who keeps your children safe or somebody who throws nice tea parties?"

UPDATE:

Environmentalist and former rock star Peter Garrett today rejected claims he had not voted in elections for 10 years, saying he had cast his vote but was not aware he was not on electoral rolls.

The former Midnight Oil frontman confirmed today he would stand for Labor preselection for the Sydney federal seat of Kingsford Smith, saying he had accepted Labor leader Mark Latham's invitation to join the party.

Latham adds a chilling comment:

I'd be surprised that if at some time in the future Peter wasn't a frontline minister in a Labor government.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 10, 2004 01:20 PM
Comments

Rachel Hunter vs Cheryl Garrett. I'd pay to see that!

Posted by: EvilPundit at June 10, 2004 at 01:21 PM

I'm in love. Sorry Rod.

Posted by: currencylad at June 10, 2004 at 01:34 PM

Will Howard use Don't Ya Think I'm Sexy as his campaign theme song? Short Memory will do for Latham. Greens : I Talk To The Trees. Democrats : Lil Ol' Wine Drinker Me.

Posted by: Hoges at June 10, 2004 at 01:39 PM

bugger you aussies..she should come back to NZ and become Prime Minister

Posted by: Mike. A. at June 10, 2004 at 01:40 PM

Tim's Update shows Garrett apparently doesn't know how to register as a voter. Suuure, give him a ministry!

If he does become a frontbencher, the Liberals should recruit another musical Green to match him - only someone with superior brains and class.

Posted by: currencylad at June 10, 2004 at 01:50 PM

Garrett didn't know he wasn't on the Electoral Roll as he did cast his vote.

Now you don't get a ballot paper unless you are on the roll. If you find that you are not on the roll when you front to vote, you can take out a "section vote" but you have to go through hoops to do so and inevitably the enrolment is followed up to ensure that the vote is valid.

Sommething tells me that Peter is clutching at straws here.

Posted by: amortiser at June 10, 2004 at 01:51 PM

If Garrett wasn't on the roll, how was he able to vote? What happened when he showed up at the local school hall? And what's this about the 'silent' electoral roll? I had never heard of this until this morning. Perhaps it's only for Stonecutters.

Posted by: cuckoo at June 10, 2004 at 01:53 PM

Q: "If Garrett wasn't on the roll, how was he able to vote?"

A: Simple. Garrett is a liar.

Posted by: George at June 10, 2004 at 01:59 PM

Peter Garrett "wasn't aware he wasn't on the Electoral Roll"? Crap.
When you move you are supposed to register with the Australian Electoral Commission. When you attend a polling place you have your name marked off the Electoral Roll so that they know you have voted. If his name wasn't on the Electoral Roll he would have found out when he went to vote. If he is not prepared to take his responsibility, obligation and right to vote seriously, how can he possibly take being an elected member of the government seriously?

Posted by: kae at June 10, 2004 at 02:01 PM

I'm with George!

Posted by: kae at June 10, 2004 at 02:03 PM

As I mentioned before they may be grooming him for the environment ministry *shudder*- heaven forbid keep him away from mining - we are just on the verge of a major boom here for god's sake!

Posted by: Rob at June 10, 2004 at 02:03 PM

How intelligent can he be if he came up with such a ridiculously implausible lie about his electoral roll status.

Surely liars have to be better than this to hope for a successful career in parliament.

Posted by: Russell at June 10, 2004 at 02:10 PM

What a crock! You cant vote if you are not on the roll. They look you up on the list then hand you your ballot papers after they have ticked you off the list. For the love of god! does this man think we are fucking morons?

Good article in the Aussie today by Greg Sheridan he fair nails this bald headed goose.

I went to an Oil's concert in Kuranda in 1990 and I have never seen a singer push his merchanising (tee shirts etc) on the crowd as much as Garrett. As a young (& pissed) reveler I thought it was a bit strange at the time as I thought he was anti capitalist. Now I know the answer. Garrett is an opportunistic, lieing, hypocritical and extremist sack of shit and a pox on him I say.

Posted by: Dog at June 10, 2004 at 02:14 PM

CurrencyLad, you may be in love, but I live closer to Rachel Hunter than you do!

BUWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 10, 2004 at 02:21 PM

If any Australian musicians should be in government, it should be AC/DC.

Posted by: JeremyR at June 10, 2004 at 02:22 PM

Actually, if Garrett voted absentee in every election since 1994 (I guess that would be a dozen or so including local) it's possible that he wouldn't know he wasn't on the roll. I don't know what procedures the AEC has to notify people in such circumstances.

Does anybody know if you have to provide your current address with an absentee vote? If he was providing his old Northern Beaches address that might even be an offence.

Pretty sloppy for someone with political aspirations.

Posted by: James at June 10, 2004 at 02:25 PM

Just to head off any Garrett defender's who might try to claim that he wasn't on the publicly available roll because of his "silent elector" status, here is a copy of the relevant details from the AEC site on "silent electors"

Eligibility

Electors who believe that having their address printed on the publicly available electoral roll could put their personal safety, or their familyís safety, at risk, can apply for silent elector status.

Being a Silent Elector means that the personís address will not be shown on the publicly available roll.

You will note that silent electors still have their names listed, it is only their address that is kept off of the public rolls.

Garrett is not on the rolls because he is not enrolled to vote - the lying about it is just a demonstration of his contempt for the punters.

Posted by: Russell at June 10, 2004 at 02:25 PM

Rachel Hunter was a kiwi?
Cool. What can we do about getting rid of Helen Clarke and replacing her with Rachel?

Posted by: RhikoR at June 10, 2004 at 02:27 PM

Im with you Dog. I went to an Oil's concert at Seagulls and it was nothing but a political soap box, hence I got pissed and shouted shit at the bald arselicker all night.

As to your first paragraph, yes he apparently does think we are all morons, that's why he's joining Labor. He'll turn 'em all into bigger lefto pinkies in no time, just wait as the timber industry sheds thousands of jobs in the near future because of him.

He'll fit in well at labor, he's already lying so no training will be needed.

But the biggest hurdle is getting into power and I very seriously doubt Labor have a hope in hell.
The fear of massive jobs shedding by the Resources sector as a result of labor policy will weigh heavily on labor prospects as will the inevitable rise in interest rates. People won't want to risk losing their homes.

Fear not, Baldy and Lath Daddy are not "In Da House"

Posted by: scott at June 10, 2004 at 02:32 PM

Do'h! You're a ruthless man Real JeffS.

JeremyR: AC/DC - right on! Now they would sort out the world's terrorist scumbags. Three letters:

T.N.T.

Oi! Oi!

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 10, 2004 at 02:36 PM

Dog: "Garrett is an opportunistic, lieing, hypocritical and extremist sack of shit and a pox on him I say".

So he'll make a perfect ALP politican! He'll probably become the next leader.

Posted by: narkynark at June 10, 2004 at 02:41 PM

Ex-PM Paul Keating failed to put in a tax return for some years - I don't remember him getting too much flak over that.

Might that have been because he was Labour?

Posted by: ilibcc at June 10, 2004 at 02:42 PM

Rachel Hunter is in LA and speaks up for Bush and the WoT? She is as brave and sensible as she is beautiful.

My daughter does the lucrative model thing and leans Republican. She encounters very few in LA and NY who would speak up as Rachel does. The industry is full of loveable liberals who don't view their politics as anything other than a must-have style to wear with their friends. Good for Rachel and the very few others we know about-- (It's almost like a secret society, and how sad is that?!)

Posted by: (not smitten) admirer at June 10, 2004 at 02:43 PM

If we are talking AC/DC for political leadership in Australia (a great idea!), how about their hit single, "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 10, 2004 at 03:01 PM

I thought this was a little harsh when I first read it, but after this little gem of commentary...it seems wholly deserved.
"New Zealander model - based in Los Angeles - is not eligible to vote in America's Presidential elections".....congratulations on a perfect flip-flop in what constitutes grounds for a character assasination in the wee world of Blair.

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at June 10, 2004 at 03:24 PM

This was posted to my commments a while back when Crikey's Hillary Bray suggested Garrett was chasing a safe Labor seat.
BTW I live not too far from PG in the Southern Highlands. His house is a very handsome hybrid of faux Colonial homestead / Cape Dutch (well something like it) and the grounds are notable by the existence of many exotic species. I've never seen encampments of bruvvers or cuzzies in the grounds and his daughter attends nearby Frensham (exclusive girls school).

Posted by: Craig G at May 6, 2004 06:29 PM

AND

Years ago I knew a family that were part of a popular Australian/NZ band. One night the conversation turned to Garrett.
I asked what he was like. The response was not a popular one. It seemed that he had the habit, when finding himself in other peoples' homes of using thier phones for long calls to New York, etc.
They argued (and this is in the days before cheaper O/seas calls) that Garrett had no respect for others wealth or lack thereof, he just took without realising that others had to actually pay

Posted by: nic at May 8, 2004 01:33 PM

Posted by: slatts at June 10, 2004 at 03:27 PM

Is Garrett still chasing the F'n idiot vote?

Anyone who has voted in this country knows that they will not give you the ballot papers till they mark you off the rolls.

Any other way would mean that you could just keep strolling back in and voting again and again until the ballots close.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at June 10, 2004 at 05:45 PM

Well well - my first visit to this blog, and my last - I am repulsed. You people are not human. Why don't you all just move to the USA where your hatred and bile will fit in with the general populations ideals? You know racist, homophobe, war mongering, small minded, lying little people. And you are even championing a model as having anything relevant to say about anything. If she loves the USA so much and the grand daddy of all liars, why not move there permanately?

Posted by: Stuart Hickson at June 10, 2004 at 06:03 PM

Whats up Stuart Hicksons arse?? Come on mate are you stereotyping all models as dumb!? That's not very PC, but oh I forgot, the left have always been a bunch of fascist drongo's.

Posted by: Dog at June 10, 2004 at 07:05 PM

Well well - my first visit to this blog, and my last - I am repulsed. You people are not human. Why don't you all just move to the USA where your hatred and bile will fit in with the general populations ideals? You know racist, homophobe, war mongering, small minded, lying little people. And you are even championing a model as having anything relevant to say about anything. If she loves the USA so much and the grand daddy of all liars, why not move there permanately?

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Posted by: david at June 10, 2004 at 07:23 PM

Geez Stuey boy, that looks a lot like stereotyping (Why don't you all just move to the USA where your hatred and bile will fit in with the general populations ideals) small mindedness to me.

And the ageism (grand daddy of all liars) is certainly not welcome here.

The sheer sexism of assuming that a persons looks dictate the value of their opinions is also unacceptable. particulary when she is hot.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at June 10, 2004 at 07:44 PM

Harry: in the other thread - up to 100 now - I referred to you as Harry Hutton. Apologies. I have no idea who Harry Hutton is. And he has no idea he is an ex-para.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 10, 2004 at 08:01 PM

No problem Currency, I've been called far worse.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at June 10, 2004 at 08:07 PM

Stuart, switch to decaf.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 10, 2004 at 08:18 PM

"Aging rocker Rod Stewart's ex-wife, Rachel Hunter, has controversially slammed former President Bill Clinton and praised President George W. Bush."

funny how when a celeb supports Bush it's 'controversial'

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 10, 2004 at 10:34 PM

I love the insults that trolls toss around here.

Especially "Homophobe"

Eh? Has anyone in this thread even mentioned homosexuals, let alone dissed them?

Posted by: Quentin George at June 10, 2004 at 10:40 PM

Commenters on this site are inhuman? "Hatred and bile" fit in with American ideals? Models are all idiots? Talk about vicious, hate-mongering, small minded, lying little people, Stuart. Your "humanity" is no recommendation for the species.

Posted by: definitely not smitten at June 10, 2004 at 11:36 PM

Blogs really are a throwback.

'It's my first and last visit to such-and-such. The language! The vile behaviour! And I so didn't expect it!'

And - typically - from those who would have the entire west and its carefully developed values - which are so demonstrably valuable to human life everywhere - deconstructed.

I'm not given to profanities, but to those professed 'shocked' once-only posters, I say either - fuck off to a country which more suits your sensibilities; or just ... fuck off.

Posted by: ilibcc at June 10, 2004 at 11:37 PM

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 104.

It seems unlikely that he was on the silent rolls, disappeared from it and wasn't informed, given that the act requires that he be informed if he is removed.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at June 10, 2004 at 11:58 PM

Time to start a Rachel Hunter fan page.

Posted by: Sergio at June 11, 2004 at 12:21 AM

No problem Currency, I've been called far worse. - Harry Tuttle

Tuttle, Buttle, whatever.

Posted by: R C Dean at June 11, 2004 at 12:25 AM

""Clinton had a lot of tea parties with celebrities, but [right after] his term, somebody flew two planes into the Twin Towers. What do you want - somebody who keeps your children safe or somebody who throws nice tea parties?""

Guess it didn't occur to the lovely Rachel that, all the way up to 9/11, Bush's counter-terrorism policy was, at best, an exact continuation of Clinton's.

Posted by: blacker64 at June 11, 2004 at 12:44 AM

Seven and a half months of a new administration working with the information, rules and bureaucratic holdovers bequeathed it from the previous administration that had EIGHT YEARS in office to get it right is not a very apt comparison, especially when it is well-known that Bush's people were in the process of revising Clinton's policy re al Qaeda and national security.

That was my run-on sentence for the day.

Posted by: c at June 11, 2004 at 12:57 AM

Stuart hickson, no-one mentioned homosexuals so it seems you must be one. Don't blame us coz your arse continually hurts...

You have just generalised a whole nation, the US, based on your pius missgivings of what the world should beleive, in the world according to Stuart.
PG is a fucking nut gobbler and so are you, now fuck off..
Tell me Yoda, i mean Stuart, do any Muslim country's fit under the "War monger" persona or do you have that reserved for the US only???

Fuck off and vote Latham, then you can be a loser just like him...

Posted by: scott at June 11, 2004 at 01:24 AM

c,

It was a long sentence, but not a run-on sentence, as it happens.

I see you've opted for the old don't-blame-Bush-cos-he-just-got-there excuse. So how long does it take to prioritize a matter of national security? Eight months, seriously? If Bush had seen it as a priority, he would have come up with some initiative earlier. Instead, his counter-terrorism guys were scheduled to have their first meeting a week before 9/11.

Posted by: blacker64 at June 11, 2004 at 01:45 AM

"Garrett had no respect for others wealth or lack thereof, he just took without realising that others had to actually pay."

So, he's a Leftist?

Posted by: Dave S. at June 11, 2004 at 01:46 AM

What's with that 'Bush junior' crap, anyway? The man's nearly 60 ferchrissakes. No-one refers to Gore as Albert Gore III unless they're being sarcastic.

Posted by: David Gillies at June 11, 2004 at 03:03 AM

Blacker 64,

Here's a longer sentence:

If Bush had stepped into office and immediately requested that Congress begin large appropriations bills for ramping up the CIA, FBI, NSA, and military intelligence services whose abilities to gather and evaluate intell had been vastly degraded in the 90's due to budget cuts and bungled policies,

immediately had directed the Attorney General to begin tearing down the legal wall blocking information sharing between the CIA and FBI, a wall the Clinton administration had felt necessary to build up further, even after terrorist acts against the WTC in '93 and US interests elsewhere,

immediately had asked the Congress and Attorney General to draft and enact a Patriot Act -like piece of legislation that would give authorities better access to info and ability to act upon it,

immediately had planned and begun a preemptive war against the Taliban in Afghanistan to take out bin Laden's base of support,

immediately had persuaded the world to give the US unprecedented cooperation in sharing intell and private information on its citizens and financial institutions,

immediately had instructed the FAA to allow "racial profiling" at airline check-in counters and for the FBI to share its terrorist list with airlines,

immediately had convinced Congress and the airlines that beefed up security at terminals was needed and to appropriate alot of money and overhaul the system,

immediately had insisted upon more funds, personnel and stringent security at our borders and Immigration checkponts in airports and ports,

and, immediately had done some or all of these things in a few months while still trying to set up his administration and simultaneously govern the country in the countless other ways required,

then, maybe, just maybe, the plot for 9-11 could have been discovered and foiled. But most of these if's are impossible to implement in a few short months, and each of these if's is politically implausible to be implemented in "peacetime" without the political groundwork laid. Clinton's team had time on their watch; had Bush tried to implement any of these measures on short notice and with seemingly no cause, he would have been denounced as a paranoid, reactionary, racist and fascist nut. Even post 9-11 that's what alot of detractors say. Pre 9-11 we were all snoozing, and I believe we have Clinton, Clarke, Tenet, Reno and Albright Not-too-Bright to thank for that.

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush was planning to enhance national security through better funded intelligence, netting Osama and his mafia and putting an end to the Saddam threat, once and for all. Neither the Clinton people nor the CIA had told the incoming admin that terrorism was a national emergency, but at least Bush had these items on the agenda, unlike Clinton in his two terms in office.

Another difference between the two and their policies is that Bush reacted to 9-11 comprehensively and globally. Isn't it telling that a week or two after the hideous attacks on 9-11 that Albright was telling her interviewers that this should be considered a criminal matter for law enforcement and the courts to handle? That, I'm afraid, sums up Clinton's national security policy re al Qaeda, with the addition of a lobbed missile or two that missed their targets.

Posted by: c at June 11, 2004 at 05:22 AM

Actually, c, you forgot to mention that Clinton lobbed those missiles during the scandal over Monica Lewinsky's, ummmm, executive support, as something of a misdirection, rather than a bona fide policy against terrorism.

I don't care that Monica paid "lip service" to Clinton's ego. I do care that Clinton paid lip service to the office he held. Blacker64 can whinge all he wants to about "Dubya" -- I knoe that Bush takes the job seriously.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 11, 2004 at 05:40 AM

Yes, The Real JeffS, "Wag the Dog", no doubt. But mentioning that always brings up silly bouts of righteousness. "How dare you imply that Clinton would use military fireworks to distract from his domestic problems! How craven and vile a suggestion!", said by those who now chant "No War for Oil" and that Halliburton and Cheney planned the Afghan and Iraqi wars for their fun and profit.

BTW, what has been Garrett's position on both of those wars and on the War on Terror, in general?

Posted by: c at June 11, 2004 at 06:41 AM

I dunno, c, it seems to me that blacker64 is already a silly, whining fool. You made it clear that Bush couldn't have made much of a difference in a few months, even if the country was 100% behind him. Nice job, I must say!

This, of course, is after the same facts have been paraded over and over and over and over and over again to pompous narrowminded little twits like blacker64, who just can't accept reality, and promptly swallow another dose of Prozac to stave off the world for another few hours.

So I figured that adding an itsy bitsy little fact about Bill and his "priorities" (which seem to focus on his reproductive organs) could hardly hurt. That the phallic symbology of Clinton launching missiles during a sex scandal drives leftoids bonkers is but frosting on the cake.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 11, 2004 at 10:12 AM

PS: I don't know what Garrett's position on those wars, and the war on terrorism, has been. I'm a Yank, I am! :-)

But judging from the news reports and posts here, I'd guess whatever position helps Latham get Garrett appointed to that seat in the Australian Parliment. Latham, Garrett, and Kerry all seem to be birds of a feather.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 11, 2004 at 10:15 AM

re blacker64: Consider yourself ally-ooped.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 11, 2004 at 10:53 AM

How can you have a post about Rachel Hunter and not post pics? Unbelievable.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rachel+hunter

Posted by: Jabba the Nutt at June 11, 2004 at 01:59 PM

"...not another dim-witted celebrity who thinks that being on a few magazine covers makes them entitled to shove their ill-informed political opinions down our...

...oh, wait! She's pro-Bush! I take it all back! Brains and beauty! Make her PM of New Zealand blah, blah etc."

I'm starting to think that Tim Blair is really an alter-ego for John Clarke (for our American friends, think John Stewart). Surely this blog is actually an elaborate satire on right-wing commentary in Australia and the US. No-one who wants to be taken seriously would pump out so much comically hypocritical blather.

Posted by: tim g at June 11, 2004 at 10:42 PM

Rachel Hunter expressed an opinion. There is a world of difference between actors and singers, etc. expressing opinions and those engaging in strident political activism/posturing/whining. While Streisand, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen and that crowd shrilly denounce Bush and all Republicans with impunity, they claim they are less "free" to do so. What acting! But the sad truth is that it is the moderate and conservative in Hollywood who scarcely dare speak up because of industry PC pressure. So, Hunter is showing a bit more backbone than those in Tinseltown who parrot the party for attention and effect.

Posted by: c at June 12, 2004 at 01:13 AM

whoops! try: "the party line for attention and effect"

Posted by: c at June 12, 2004 at 01:15 AM

Tim G, I guess you don't recall Sean Penn flying to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein before the invasion. Or Alec Baldwin and his "March to Washington" SNL skit? Barbara Streisand? Al Franken? As well as others who use their "celebrity" status to push their agenda while grabbing some publicity at the same time? Perhaps you supported them? Perhaps not. But others certainly did.

But now Rachel Hunter offers her opinion in a forthright and honest matter, and supports something that I agree with, and decide to comment on. As c points out, she shows backbone instead of toeing the party line.

And here you come, whinging that "No-one who wants to be taken seriously would pump out so much comically hypocritical blather."

You haven't defined where the hypocrisy is, and "blather" is strictly a matter of opinion. Therefore, your post is nothing but sneering drivel, an emotional response to something you don't like but can't define.

You usually post semi-coherent statements, better than this tripe. Perhaps you are tired of faking it?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 12, 2004 at 02:19 AM

Why is it that all the hot chicks are republican?

Posted by: Oktober at June 12, 2004 at 02:51 AM

Bo Derek is a Republican: 'nuff said.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2004 at 03:06 PM

And to answer your question: good-looking women may initially be drawn to pitiful victims, but soon find out that failures are not only not attractive, living with losers, whiners, and professional sufferers often means having to take a lot of abuse. As leftist theory is based on fostering envy, any characteristic that brings out envy, such as good looks, wealth, or an independent and optimistic outlook on life, is anathema to leftists. Leftists hate beautiful women because they believe that they have an unfair advantage over less physically attractive people. And they do: beauty is a blow to their ideas of equality.

Even leftists who happen to be beautiful women -- and there are some -- hate them, which means they hate themselves. They deal with this conundrum by either defiling their own appearance (letting their hair get greasy and unkempt, letting their complexion go bad, wearing ugly, shapeless, figure-hiding clothing) or attacking any other woman who dares dress nicely and wear makeup. That's why they say things that seem to contradict all their blather about oppression of women and equal rights, such as "bikinis are as bad as burkas." After all, under the burka no one can tell if you're a dog.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2004 at 03:18 PM

I read a science fiction story in middle school (forget title and author) that postulated a totalitarian state that forced equality by legislation.

How? The story focused on beauty and strength. People had to wear a mask opposite of their beauty; beautiful people wore ugly masks, ugly people wore beautiful masks. For strength, they had to carry weights; the stronger had to carry very heavy weights. Even the moderately strong had to wear weights.

I remember this story because it really disturbed me. At that naive age, I couldn't believe people would force such humilation on each other. I had not yet heard of burkas or similar measures. Since then I have learned.

And now Andrea points out how the left disdains physical beauty. When I read her post, I remembered that story. And was disturbed again. The story has become more than just a short science fiction story.

Does the extreme left really understand where they are going? Or should the question be, "Does the extreme left really care where they are going?"

It seems not for both questions. For those people, the journey is more important than the destination.....if they are the ones driving the car.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 12, 2004 at 04:27 PM