Fahrenheit 911 Opening

Went to the Fahrenheit 911 opening last night. Despite PABAAH's encouraging Conservatives to protest the movie theater, I didn't see any conservatives there. Instead I saw a very festive attitude among the local Liberal population.

Billionaires for Bush were in attendance, standing out on the sidewalk holding their signs (as witnessed by the following picture).



This is a good concept. There's a picture (created by the "Liberal" media) that all protesters are humorless and angry. I have to say this doesn't square with my observations.

Anyway there was also this gentleman who was passing out literature.



He was standing behind that fence because if he crossed the line he could be thrown in jail (according to him), but he was passing out a flyer that Michael Moore wanted film goers to have (again, according to him). It is an interesting flyer though, and it makes five general suggestions for film goers.

1. Get Behind the National Voter Registration Effort
2. Raise Hell About Halliburton's War Profiteering.
3. Buy a Ticket to New York City to Protest the Republican National Convention on August 29.
4. Join a Peace Group and Help End the Occupation of Iraq.
5. Educate your Family and Friends.

Personally I really like the first suggestion and the second suggestion. The third suggestion is a bit ambitious, but if you can, why not? The fourth suggestion I can see where reasonable people could disagree on the timing (some want us to leave immediately, some want us to clean up the mess we made, both views have good and bad points). The fifth suggestion is very good.

The movie seemed to be doing brisk business; I've never seen that theater so packed. It's the Miracle 5 here in town, and it was busier than I've ever seen it. This picture shows people waiting to get in the theater (despite the reflection from the window, which I don't know how to correct for).



I didn't end up seeing it myself (for various reasons), but I will go see it next week (probably).

What Women Want

Now normally I think purporting to divine the desires of an entire group of people based on their gender would be a foolish pursuit. I mean women come in all sorts of varieties, which implies all sorts of opinions and ideas on various subjects. But then I read, over at Media Matters for America, Michael Savage's discussion of what women want.

"But women in America don't really like anger. They don't even like the news, I don't know if you know that. They just want it to be calm, and safe -- and they want girl talk all the time. So I'll talk in a quiet, soothing voice today so that women don't get scared and run away. I'll make it friendly for women."

Hmmmmmm.

I don't know, but I'll bet there are some women reading that statement who really want to drive over Michael Savage with a tank.

Achtung Baby!

As many of you know the Bush Campaign has put together a internet commercial. It's not the sort of thing they could get on TV, but they can show it on the internet. Starts out with a black screen and white letters "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party: The Coalition of the Wild Eyed." It then shows clips from speeches by Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, Michael Moore and John Kerry. It also uses those two Nazi ads from MoveOn.Org.

For those of you who don't remember, MoveOn ran a contest called Bush in 30 Seconds which gave people the chance to do ads critical of President Bush. So far so good, but two ads used Nazi Imagery to equate Bush with Hitler. This created a controversy and MoveOn polled the videos from the site and disowned them, saying they were in bad taste (they were).

But there they are right in the middle of all these images of Democrats speaking. I wonder why they are there? I suppose the official reason is that they are another form of Democratic Wild-Eyed-ness. But the real reason might be closer to Salon's analysis.

". . . why resuscitate the Hitler/Nazi imagery if it's so harmful to the national discourse? One can only wonder, and a cynic is left to think that splicing the face of Adolf Hitler between images of leading Democrats was too irresistible for the creators of this web video, no matter how misleading and offensive the end result may be."

Those Darned Memos

While investigating some of the websites from Chenkoff (discussed yesterday), came across this article that presumably Chernkoff would rather I didn't read.

It's about those Memos we've all been discussing for weeks. You know the ones that we inevitably end up talking about in the context of the Geneva Convention? Well this article took a different tack. I particularly liked this section.

"What makes this memo disturbing is how it uses law and legal reasoning in a dishonest fashion to undermine core principles of the American legal and political systems. This includes the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Fifth Amendment's protection of due process, and the system of checks and balances built into the constitution to prevent any one branch of government from becoming dominant.

These values have been part of the US since its inception. Moreover, they are the basis for other US statutes such as the federal anti-torture statue enacted in 1994, which provides for the prosecution of an American national or anyone present in the US who, while outside the country, commits or attempts to commit torture. A person found guilty under the act can even receive the death penalty if the violence results in a victim's death.

By extending the jurisdiction of the prohibition on torture in such a way, but also by ratifying major international treaties forbidding torture under any circumstance and by regularly issuing statements against torture, the US has shown a commitment to the value that torture is absolutely forbidden and prosecutable. The Pentagon memo argues, in essence, that there are loopholes in this ban and, therefore, loopholes in American values."

The whole article is well worth reading.

One counter argument that I can hear some making is that the Constitution only applies to United States citizens, which is technically accurate. But I would argue that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence reflect American principles and Ideals that exist independently of the Documents themselves. While the 8th Amendment may only protect American Citizens it is a reflection of our belief that such techniques are immoral and un-American.

Right in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." All men.

Something to consider.

Round the Horn Part 1,334,002: Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting

T. Rex's Guide to life has provided a list of the last 256 service men and women killed in Iraq.

Kick the Leftist has the scoop on a recent affront by the "liberal" media.

Sooner Thought has a post on a more analytical approach to "Bush-isms."

The Gotham City 13 has an article on who might really get help from the terrorists in the fall election.

blogAmy has some rather strong, but well deserved language for those Republican Congresspeople who are complaining about the 9/11 commission.

Dohiyi Mir has a story on Farenheit 9/11 that I missed. Apparently some of those opposed to the movie are trying to use the Federal Election Commission to shut it down.

Congratulations to Pen-Elayne on the Web for getting what looks like a pretty nice car.

Bloggg has a piece on how some people have too much money and vindictiveness. Not recommended for extreme cat lovers.

And that concludes this episode. Tune in next time when we almost guarentee someone will have explosive amnesia.

Good News From Iraq

Was directed to Chernkoff today, who has provided a list of positive stories coming out of Iraq, along with the argument that these stories aren't being reported in the news. Of them, 22 or 43.1% come from American Media Sources (National Papers, Local Papers, TV Websites, Yahoo News and so on).

13 (or 25.5%) come from Middle Eastern Media sources, mostly Iraq Press and the Daily Star.

5 stories (or 9.8%) came from the British press and another 5 (or 9.8%) from the American Conservative Press. Separated out the Conservative Press (i.e. Fox News and the Washington Post as well as an editorial from National Review) because the point is that the liberal media is hiding the truth, and to mix them in would skew the numbers.

4 stories (7.8%) came from US Governmental stories, and 2 of the links (3.92%) were to websites that didn't fit into any easy category (specifically a link to the Iraqi Stock Exchange and another to a project to help Iraqi Children).

As far as content, 40 of the articles, or 70.4%, are straight news articles. There were 7 editorials (13.7%) 1 interview (2.0%), and 3 that I couldn't classify (5.88%). Overwhelmingly they were published since the beginning of June, the majority being put out in the last week.

There are a few questions that this analysis raises, that I don't have solid answers for.

1. Is he cherrypicking? A number of articles are Reuters articles or AP articles that might very well appear in the New York Times. Is he looking for those articles at local papers, so as to promote his story that the New York Times (bastion of the so called "Liberal Media") is ignoring good stories coming out of Iraq? For a lark I might go through and see if I can find some of these stories on Iraq.

2. How do you weigh these stories? Among others we see stories on how Baghdad Policemen are cracking down on Traffic Violations. We see stories on how Viagra sales are up in Iraq. We see stories on how Jordan is training Iraqi Bankers. I'm not sure these are stories that deserve big headlines. Although I do understand the argument that a lot of little positive stories add up to a larger, more positive picture of Iraq.

Anyway worth checking out.

Interesting Logic Chain

From Gary Aldrich's latest article in which he dutifully attacks Bill Clinton's New Book. I'm sure you're all sophisticaged enough to know that the next week will involve numerous articles on Bill Clinton's book from people who haven't read it. That's part of the methodology; Bill Clinton's book is so full of lies and crap that even reading it for a review is a waste of time. Instead all the articles will focus on how Clinton is a liar and therefore there is no reason to read his book. Plus it's long and boring. And Clinton's not a very good writer.

It's all the conservative editorialist version of "Pay no attention to what is behind the curtain."

But you knew all that already.

Gary Aldrich's article does contain some interesting statements.

"I think liberals tend to admire somebody who can lie and make their statements sound so believable."

Interesting.

"We loved that movie [The Sting} because on some level we admire people who have the skills to fool others. They can twist facts around so that a rube doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going. A con man has a devious mind and does it without thinking. Lawyers need to develop those types of skills; otherwise how would they ever get a killer acquitted?"

Interesting.

But of course just because liberals like people who lie, and "we" like people who lie, you can't jump to any conclusions. Oh, and occasionally lawyers get innocent people acquitted too.

On a related note, I love the movies "Oceans 11" and "The Italian Job," both of which involved a lot of lying.

Back for More

There's an AP story out there on Abu Ghraib, entitled "Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws." There's a catchy title. It is on memos released by the White House about how the issue of torture is to be handled in the War on Terror.

A couple of key points jump out from the article.

1. It's unclear whether or not the prisoners at Guantanemo and Abu Ghraib are entitled to any protection from the Geneva conventions. What is clear is that the White House, without any application to specific issues, was considering eliminating such protections for enemy combatants captured in the War on Terror. For a bit more on this subject, here's a New York Times piece on the subject.

2. The White House has reportedly stated that the Geneva Conventions apply in Iraq. It is unclear what they mean by that, however, particularly in the light of the insurgency.

3. It is hard to read these memos or the excerpts provided in the media and get a clear sense of what the administration believed, exactly. Certainly there have been some troubling statements, but we do not yet have a clear picture of how these attitudes and ideas in the White House translated into what happened at Abu Ghraib.

4. It's also unclear how much of this debate is motivated by political motives and how much is motivated by a genuine desire to get at the truth. But then again I'm not sure it matters much. I think the American people should have a clear picture of how the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came to pass, and if Senator Patrick Leahy is working to get that picture, than I'm not sure if I care if part of this is politically motivated. After all, this is at least as important as President Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. We heard about that for a couple of years, and we've barely spent four months on this.

I Think I'm Getting Eye Cancer

But enough frivolity. Now let's turn to Ann Coulter's latest article, "Moby's Dick." In case that "clever" title didn't grab you, here's a synopsis of it. Conservatives could care less about Clinton and don't bother reading his new book.

More and more I am convinced that Ann Coulter's entire life is a myth. How else can you explain her arguing that Conservatives aren't pretty focused on Clinton? She offers as proof the fact that several books have been written on the impeachment by liberal, and she can only think of one written by a conservative (Rich Lowry's book which she fails to give the title for, but which I have discovered is titled Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. (You may wonder if Ann Coulter has an animus against Lowry that would cause her to leave off the name of Lowry's book. Apparently Lowry and Jonah Goldberg dropped her column from the National Review in the wake of her statement that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity (quote from memory)." She responded by calling them Girly Boys, showing typical Ann Coulter Wit)).

Of course I can think of several other conservative books that touch on the impeachment scandal. I could also point out that Ann Coulter herself mentions Clinton in 2 out of 3 columns. But why be churlish. If Ann wants to live in a fantasy world in which Liberals are obsessed with Clinton and Conservatives aren't, why not?

Ann Coulter takes several shots at the length of the book. Apparently really long books aren't Ann's favorite. Kind of figures.

She also takes issue with Clinton covering other parts of his life outside the Presidency. I'm not sure what to make of this. My standard response to this kind of critique (which boils down to "Why didn't you right the book this way.") is that that's the artists perogative. But in this case, the complaint is so disingenuous as to be nonsensical. Had he written a 300 page book, she would have written "Clinton didn't want the book to be too long in case he forgot his lies." If the book had focused just on the presidency, she would have written, "He focuses strictly on the most triumphal part of his life, another example of the classic Clinton ego." Simple.

Anyway, I should probably go get this eye cancer looked at. I'll be back later.

Take it to the streets!

From Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood comes this suggestion.

The time has finally come, where the rubber meets the road. Fahrenheit 9/11 will be released this Friday, be sure to check with your local theatres to make sure they ARE NOT airing this anti-American propaganda. You can also check here to see if it is playing near you.

We need patriots like you to stand outside theatres to protest on June 25th and pledge to boycott those theatres that carry this vile film. Contact your local tv, radio and newspaper to let them know of your planned protests, invite others to join you. Visit and join Free Republic to find others in your locale to join your protest. Make a sign to carry, to alert possible movie-goers that they may be supporting an anti-American film and rewarding a known liar and war profiteer.

It's time for the silent majority to be silent no more. Let's stand up for America! This will be a big week for us and hopefully, a bad week for Michael Moore as he gets egg on his face, not in his big mouth.

Our efforts are being noticed as we fight to take back America from the America-haters in Hollywood. Help us get the word out!

I'd say their efforts are being noticed largely because they have failed. But I will probably go to the premiere to document any protests.

Suspect methodology!

And if that title doesn't get your toes a tapping, I don't know what will.

Bruce Bartlett's latest article is titled "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." It helps to have the writers opinions stated right there in the title.

Anyway he refers to a study by Tim Grosedose and Jeff Milyo that I imagine will get a lot of play over the next couple of weeks which suggests that the most unbiased sources of news are Fox News and the Drudge Report. However, as I subtly indicated above, I'm not sure about their methodology.

Here it is.

Step one is to divide all the Senators and Representatives into liberal and conservative camps based on their votes. I'm not sure how this is done, but as one person at Democratic Underground pointed out, Congress is somewhat dominated by conservatives right now. It's not hard to imagine this methodology moving the center a bit to the right.

Step two is to note which think tanks each side quotes from, and in this manner label said think tanks liberal or conservative. There doesn't seem to be any means of determining validity or partisan ship of these various think tanks. If a liberal senator quotes a non-partisan think tank, it becomes a liberal think tank. Which is par for the course; "liberal" think tanks are non-partisan, conservative think tanks are fiercely partisan. So it all balances out.

Step three is finding out how regularly news broadcasts quote from the same think tanks. If a news source quotes from a "liberal" source than it moves left on the scale. If a news source quotes from a conservative source than it moves right. Simple. And based on this methodology Fox News's "Special Report" and the Drudge Report are the closest to the middle of the road.

Grosedose and Milyo also regurgitate the statistic that only 7% of journalists voted for President George H. W. Bush in 1992, as opposed to 37% in the general populace. They out to go back and look at how editors and publishers vote, because that might tell a different story. And editors and publishers have a lot more control over what goes on the air than the reporters.

But remember, "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." So perhaps the answer is more important than the methodology used to get there.

Somewhat Troubling

New article from Paul Krugman on Attorney General John Ashcroft starts out with the following paragraphs.

"In April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon - a cyanide bomb - big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.

Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world.

. . . it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist."

Kind of an interesting story about how ideological the Attorney General really is.

The Era of Declining Expectations

A little context. Before the war on Iraq, one of the reasons advanced for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and might hand over some of his Weapons of Mass Destruction to them. This was not taken as seriously as other charges (mainly that Saddam was dangerously unstable and that he had access to Weapons of Mass Destruction which he might use on the United States).

We now move to the present day. The Weapons of Mass Destruction argument has largely fallen apart. It's not off the charts, but the only person who believes that Saddam had large stocks of WMDs that threatened the US is Ann Coulter. Now we are supposed to content ourselves with the idea that instead of having Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.

So in light of that, pro-Bush commentators and administration officials are trying to find a new rationale for the war, and they've apparently found one in the theory that Iraq and al-Qaeda were collaborating. This revived tack, however, has a few built-in expectation diminishers.

I was listening to Fox News this morning on the way in to work (the local radio station plays the audio feed from Fox and Friends). As I drove along I listened to Stephen Hayes who has apparently wrote a book on the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Here's the game. Claim that future President John Kerry and other Democrats claimed that there was no link (of any kind) between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In so far as any Democrats said that it would have been a foolish statement. So now that you've got your strawman up, all you have to do is find links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. Simple.

But of course a more important question is were the links that Saddam Hussein had with al-Qaeda a direct threat to the United States (such that we had to invade by the spring of last year or else we would have been sunk)?

A second question, if these vague relationship links are enough to wipe out Saddam, what do we make of the links that al-Qaeda has with a half dozen other nations (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two allies)?

The trouble is that the Bush administration needs desperately to make the decision to invade Iraq unimpeachable. And that's not proving to be as easy as they'd like it to be.

The Putin Connection

Zev Chafets writes an editorial for the New York daily News on Russian President Putin's statement that he had warned the United States of a potential terrorist by Saddam Hussein. Here's how Chafets puts it.

"President Bush got some very good news last week from one of the key 2004 battleground states: Russia. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confided that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 but before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist attacks on America and its interests abroad."

An AP story prints President Putin's words and gives some more shading to this story.

"Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said."

A little context.

Early last week Vice President Cheney commented on the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

On Thursday, if memory serves, the 9/11 commission issued a report that debunked said links.

On Friday Rush Limbaugh claimed that the report lent credence to the Prague Meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence when in fact the report stated the opposite. But that's neither here nor there.

Also on Friday, Mr. Putin made his statements. Mr. Putin had also stated, on an earlier occasion, "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same. It suffices to recall Yugoslavia."

So let's not have the illusion that Mr. Putin is a disinterested observer.

But let's look at the scope of his claim. First of all, it says nothing about any contacts that may have existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Vice President Cheney and President Bush claimed that such connection existed; the 9/11 report claimed that such connections didn't exist.

It's very very unspecific. We don't know the seriousness of these plans or how far they had advanced (if they had advanced at all). We do know how Russia acted during the run up to the Iraq war; they opposed our invasion. I'm not sure what to think of that. I mean if Iraq was planning serious terrorist activities on the same level as September 11th, why wouldn't they support President Bush's choice to take out Iraq? Did President Putin want us to suffer those casualties? It just seems somewhat conflicted.

Of course the other answer is that these supposed Iraqi terrorist plans didn't amount to much.

A few other points from Chafets article.

"One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush. But this explanation raises an uncomfortable question. One of Kerry's main themes has been that Bush can't get along with foreigners. But how does that square with the accusation that the president of Russia is actively campaigning on Bush's behalf?"

It's nice that President Bush is able to get President Putin to lie for him (following the logic of this paragraph). But words are extremely cheap, aren't they? I think I'd be more impressed if President Bush talked President Putin into sending troops into Iraq.

"But right now, I'd say that John Kerry is in big trouble. If he can't carry Russia, he's not going to win in November."

This statement is fascinating on so many levels. But unfortunately the election is unlikely to be held in Russia, but here in the United States. And I think President Bush is going to need more than vague statements by the Russian President.

What Photos Should be Shown?

Diana West has an article today on the reporting on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and how it contrasts with reports on Saddam's torture chambers. I think the argument goes some like this.

1. Saddam's torture chambers were far worse than what we did.

2. The media has spent considerably more time on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal than they have reporting on recently released videos of Saddam's torture (which, apparently, included Saddam feading a prisoner to his dogs.

3. Therefore the Media is a bunch of traitorous hypocrites for which hanging is too good.

There are a few ways to puncture this argument.

1. This is a weak argument which is why it is up front, but it is a factual argument. You can't show pictures of a dog eating a man on TV. You can show pictures of a dog threatening a man on TV. This accounts for a percentage of it.

2. This is, in fact, old news. Those few who need to be reminded that Saddam Hussein was a monster probably aren't the sort to be convinced by these pictures ("You mean you actually believed that film was real? Look at teh watch on the third soldier over--see it's reflection? When you blow up that image it clearly shows a smiling Dick Cheney.")

3. More to the point, we aren't competing with Saddam Hussein. I don't hold the American government or the American Military to the standard of Saddam Hussein. I expect us to be better than him, and not just a little better. Instead I hold our government and military to the standard set by their past performance.

4. The American people are responsible for Abu Ghraib; they are not responsible for Saddam's tortures. This argument can be taken to far, but we need to know what our governmental and military officials are doing because they represent us. Saddam Hussein does not.

So I think Abu Ghraib is a more important story than Saddam's torture chambers. But that's just me.

1-800-DOCTORB; the B is for Bargain

"Orthodox medicine has not found an answer to your complaint. However, luckily for you, I happen to be a quack." - Richter cartoon caption

Bob Herbert over at the New York Times has a story on Medical Malpractice. As we know from allegorical evidence the Medical and Medical insurance industries are a falling apart due to the costs imposed by Medical Malpractice. Well, actually that may not be the whole truth. Mr. Herbert reports that, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy;

"It may be hard to understand why `tort reform' is even on the national agenda at a time when insurance industry profits are booming, tort filings are declining, only 2 percent of injured people sue for compensation, punitive damages are rarely awarded, liability insurance costs for businesses are minuscule, medical malpractice insurance and claims are both less than 1 percent of all health care costs in America, and premium-gouging underwriting practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed."

Well, that's a bit of a different picture than the one usually painted isn't it? Hmmmmm. Herbert also exposes the standard, almost cartoonish disinterestedness of people in the medical industry (most notably the Doctor from South Carolina, who stated, referring to a woman that had had both of her breasts removed in a medical mix up, that "She did not lose her life, and with the plastic surgery she'll have breast reconstruction better than she had before." Mr. Herbert chooses not to give this dingbat a name, showing greater restraint than I would have).

Anyway the article is worth checking out. I stand by my long term policy of trusting the American people. I don't like laws which tell judges and juries that they are too dumb to figure out legal cases (but a bunch of Congressmen can figure out the appropriate responses to any case that might come down the pike).

New Quote

And a new new Quotes Page. Enjoy.