47 thoughts on “The Moscow Storm”

  1. Nothing to fear about those clouds. They are called “shelf clouds” and appear at the edge of a cold front. This type of stormcloud is quite common out in the American Midwest.

    Google Image Search: Shelf Clouds.

    • Yes Sedgwick, you are right. Such cloud formations often preceed thunderstorms and can bring a marked change in local weather.


    no, I think it was god trying to metaphorically show the people of Russia how they are being overushed by a big wave of KGB-time all over.



      Comrade, you misspelled the line ‘never ever oppose a russian president, who speaks German’.

  3. You know , when the wind is like that its because it is full of everyones woes and bad stuff…thats all the wind is, the carrier of negativity.

    I cannot stand the wind when it is like that !

    • That’s very profound chicken!We’ve had gusts of ninety miles an hour across the midlands today,but if I ever saw some of these rolling across the sky I think I’d probably hide.
      sedgewick,john and cigar jack-you three must be used to all this sort of thing but extreme weather would scare the beejeezuz out of me!
      Good photographs though…Is it very noisy?

  4. No worries–this was part of the steam from a VIP bath and sauna shared by Putin and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in celebration of the trouble they stirred in the Republic of Georgia this week.

    My sources tell me they whipped each other with tree branches and screamed in pain and delight (things like “Oh please, Pooty, whip me again,” and “Take that, my little Persian Pleasure Pet”).

    Unfortunately for the residents of Moscow, much of the steam escaped and rolled over the city, causing “bad hair day” for many.

    • Stop this!! I demand this lie from western spy be stopped! Take him to Red Square and do the xecution like we do in Tehran. Head on block and choppy choppy!!

      What will my good sexy friend Lukashenko in Belarus think when he reads this? OMG.

  5. Make that the upper (start in central Iowa and go north) midwest and stopping at the border (except Quebec, natch) with Canada.

    Also, it is not so that it’s harmless. The birds and pilots can tell you it makes takeoff/landing issues (shear layers down at 1,300-3,000 feet?) Harsher winds make for more troubled construction than on the coasts (but not compared to on the ocean) and it does not much attract homeowners, farmers, even wind farmers, etc. You got one o’ those there too, eh? Don’t let them reelect Bush.

    • We can’t. The U.S. Constitution states that a president can only serve two terms. He’s on his second (and last) term, which will end January 20, 2009.

      • True, in the U.S. Constitution the CIC can only serve two terms. There is an exception where a president can serve more than 2 terms. That is during a war. FDR served more than two terms because of that exception. Technically, Bush can serve another term because America is at war with radical Islam. I hope that doesn’t happen!

        • Are you sure about a war exception? The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution became law in 1951. Prior to that, there were no legal term limit for President.

          • John,

            The “law of the land” is littered with 5-4 decisions from our Supreme Court. If something is so contentious and controversial that the highest court agrees to hear it, then it’s highly unlikely they will all decide the same way.

            The “Founders” realized that, and that’s why the court consists of an odd number of people. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but the fact that a court ruled 5-4 for something carries as much legal weight as a 9-0 ruling. A close decision may embolden proponents of change to push for new case law in a later session of the court, especially if members have changed, but 5-4 is still the law.

            As for Justice Stevens’s dissent–with all due respect to him, he can word it as strongly as he wants, and make all the insulting remarks he wants, but it is still “dissent,” meaning he is in the minority.

            And with due respect to you, citing a dissenting opinion is usually the act of a desperate lawyer who knows he has no real legal ground to stand on. ;).

            • The law of the land is also littered with flawed decisions. And yes, this one stands. I don’t know what lawyers cite out of desperation but I know that a flawed decision subverted the law and democracy itself in this case.

              • Just because you don’t agree with the opinion of the court does not mean it “subverted the law and democracy itself.”

                If you are correct, then apparently all the American Bar Association “grades” given to Supreme Court nominees, the US Senate confirmation hearings, and the Senate votes that put the sitting judges on the Supreme Court . . . were for naught.

                Keep your law license updated, or, if you don’t have one, try to get one ASAP, and we’ll lobby to get you nominated to the Court if a Democrat wins in 2008. I think your confirmation hearing would be lots of fun. 🙂

                • It’s not just my opinion, many people believe it was a bad decision. As I originally stated, G. W. Bush was not elected President of the United States. And as you have pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush President. By the way, who is this “we”?

            • We will never know for sure who won that election, because the court stopped the legitimate recount process.

              Ultimately, the judicial branch made a partisan decision to choose the leader of the executive branch. Talk about a lack of “separation of powers”.

              Gore was a bigger person and conceded to allow the country to move on. If the court had ruled in Gore’s favor, how much longer do you think the Republicans would have dragged it out? Certainly into the next year, at the very least. They don’t care who they hurt or what they force upon the American people, as long as they “win”.

              • How many “legitimate” recounts do you need before you’re satisfied?

                And yes, I can talk about a “separation of powers,” because that’s what we have. The court acted well within their mandate, whether you like their decision or not, and despite all the Democratic talking-point hyperbole to the contrary.

                If you want to believe that Gore didn’t continue to challenge the opinion because he was a “bigger person,” then more power to you–I’m not here to attack Gore on a personal level or dispute his honor or integrity. However, I suspect the reason he didn’t pursue yet another recount beyond the Court ruleing was simply because his legal team, and others around him who deal in facts and reality, made him realize he had lost.

                Democrats will have a much better chance at taking the White House when they start acting like winners, instead of whiners.

  6. Visitor you are so correct if gore had won his home state he would have won the election. if the setting president had delivered his home state gore would have won. did the residents of these states know something the rest of the liberal media didnt know or would not admit to

    • What they did not know was that Republicans in swing states like Ohio and Florida were busy disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts. And what you do not know is that the so-called liberal media is a figment of your imagination.

  7. it looks like weather engineering to me

    ever hear of weather wars,directed huricanes,directed flood rains and general mahem caused by man controlling weather

    who ever did this one had big bark but no bite i guess

  8. i took this photos last summer, but not “a few days ago”!

    the original photos (14 but not 6) are here: http://users.livejournal.com/bagira_/207658.html

Leave a Comment