Quote from yesterday

Yesterday I metioned some commentary I heard from Rush Limbaugh while driving around at lunch.Well he posted the transcript of that bit at the website, and here it is.

We do not try to criminalize Democrats. That's the difference. . . . We don't demand that the legal side of things get in gear. We just don't do that -- and, by the way, don't throw Clinton up to me, because that was led by Louie Freeh and the FBI. That had nothing to do with a bunch of Republicans that they got involved in it, but this thing has gone on for two years, and if it's true that the underlying crime or the accusation/allegation turns out to have had nothing to it, there was nothing to this leaking.

So we hope that clears it all up. Democrats - Bad. Republicans - Good.

Defenders Saturday

Sub-Mariner 34

This is one of those Authority like comics where the heroes have enormous power and are using it to fix the problems of the world without much regard to what the people of the world or their governments want. Well before the Authority debuted, as it happens. Of course an Authority with the Hulk has a bit more of a scattered focus.

As the comic book opens we have a great little Hulk monologue. ‘Hulk swam far – swam hard – to get here! But now – Hulk doesn’t know where he is! Huh? Barbed Wire!? Somebody tries to keep hulk off this Island! Well, barbed wire can’t hurt Hulk – but Hulk still doesn’t like it!!” Fortunately these words of wisdom are not lost as a group of generic Latin American soldiers are watching “La Mole” as they call the Hulk (according to a footnote it means Mass). They try to drive him off but only succeed in building his desire to stay. They report to their leader (who, as events will show, is very unlucky and very stupid), who tells them they should have left the Hulk alone as he would have soon left. D’oh.

We switch to the Sub-Mariner who is watching all this on his view screens. He and his chief scientist (Vashti) discuss how the Hulk could help them face some menace, but conclude he is too dangerous. This is the menace of a vague science experiment that would “wreck havoc with the very weather itself.” The humans won’t listen to Namor’s warnings because he has thrashed them so many times. D’oh.

But then their monitor (set to find potential guest stars to raise the flagging popularity of this book) detects the Silver Surfer in the area. The Sub-Mariner goes to recruit him, first saying good-bye, but not “Till we meet again.” As Namors first meeting goes, this is a pretty peaceful one. They only fight for some 7 panels before the Surfer decides to help Namor. And it’s a good thing, as the Silver Surfer quickly explains. “There are Powers at my beck and call which even YOU can scarcely comprehend! And, only the LEAST of these is complete control over my mystic SURFBOARD.” I had a mystic surfboard once. But then my dad decided to clean out the garage and, well, time makes fools of us all.

The Silver Surfer evidently believes that he can convince the Hulk to join up to stop the evil weather machine. So we move over to the Hulk who is happy h has found a bunch of ruins. Of course, it’s not for nothing that the Hulk is known as a tactical genius. Consider these words. “Good! Hulk can see up here - - See for MILES! Now, if Humans don’t leave Hulk alone, Hulk willl see them coming - - and SMASH them!” Good plan, but rough on any vacationers in the area.

As the Surfer and Sub-Mariner swoop in on the island, General Stupid and Unlucky makes a tactical error. Upon seeing two more gringos (as he describes the Silver Surfer and Namor) invading his island he mobilizes his armed forces and commands them to attack them. He monologues that he has to be careful about using his army because his thankless peons revile his name and deface his portraits. You laugh, but that’s a huge expense putting up those big pictures of yourself. Having them constantly defaced isn’t just annoying; it’s expensive.

Anyway the Sub-Mariner and the Surfer find the Hulk (who attacks immediately), and in a switch-a-roo from the previous scene, the Surfer now thinks that the Hulk is too dangerous to approach, while Namor figures out a way to talk to the Hulk. “The monster WILL join us - - when he has listened to our PLEA! But FIRST as I learned long ago, I must gain his ATTENTION!!” So Sub-Mariner punches him in the face. This doesn’t seem to work, as the Hulk is still pretty determined to thrash him, but then, General Unlucky and Stupid helps out. His men attack the Hulk, the Silver Surfer and the Sub-Mariner. This gives Namor the opportunity to use this forceful argument. “NOW do you see, Hulk? It is not WE who are your true foemen - - but the spiteful HUMANS!”

The three turn the tide on the unnamed latin troops who quickly cry (well one of them anyway) “FLEE! NOTHING will stop these three GRINGO DEVILS!” But despite warning, they are still quickly destroyed. This leaves General Stupid and Unlucky insane, and the three heros leave the island to get on with the real story, which I’ll bet you had forgotten (hint - crazy weather machine). But that’s next issue.

The Simple Honesty of the Hulk – “Hulk doesn’t know what a GRINGO is, but Hulk doesn’t like being called a DEVIL.”

The Space Faring Grammar of the Silver Surfer. “Now we must go - - for a PLANET is yet to save!”

The Trials of the Sub-Mariner. “I could WARN them of their danger - - but when Namor speaks, their ears are DEAF, their hearts HARD!”

That Rush Limbaugh; what a joker!

Listening to Rush Limbaugh while driving around at lunch; it turns out Conservatives don't use the law as a means of punishing their political enemies. I know what you are all thinking, but apparently it was Louis Freeh who went after Clinton, not Republicans. I mean Ken Starr was a crazed partisan Republican who went after Clinton, and numerous players in the various law suits (particularly the Paula Jones suit) were also partisan Republicans, but I guess it's now all Louis Freeh's fault.

Interesting.

He also complained that if Fitzgerald, after investigating the White House for 2 years, doesn't indict anybody it will have been time wasted and clearly a partisan witch hunt. Of course the Whitewater investigation started earlier than that and ended up incriminating Clinton for having affair some two years after the investigation had started (assuming I have my chronology right). But, once again, that was all Louis Freeh's fault, not Ken Starrs.

Sometimes I wonder if Rush just sits there saying "I can't believe I get away with this crap."

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Hello all. This is fictional 1910's plutocrat Irwin J. McIckleson, and I'd like to say that I am not racist. Any man no matter what his creed or skin color or ethnicity who makes millions and millions of dollar I count as my brother. That's the thing about Plutocrats; so long as you have tons of money, all the other lesser qualities are quite unimportant.

Anyway on to the Liberal Coalition. Natalie Davis has a discussion of Viggo Mortensen who is apparently unconnnected to the production of Italian Food. That's kind of a shame; with a name like Viggo he could do quite well as a restraunter, I should think. He is apparently some kind of movierola actor. Oh well, I suppose that society needs actors as well as restraunters.

correntewire reports that John Dean is of the opinion that nobody will be in trouble over this whole Karl Rove revealing a spy for political purposes, because those involved in the revelation may have believed they were doing it for reasons of national security. It kind of reminds me of my great great uncle Silas W. McIckleson, 3rd New York artillery. During the war of 1812, he fired his cannons on his own troops (Uncle Silas was colorblind) because he believed it to be in the interest of national security. I understand that he was strung up for this particular error; but justice was a bit more rough and tumble in those days.

Dodecahedron believes that this spy story and a law prohibiting torture may end badly for the President. But I think Dodecahedron may be thinking of the court of public opinion, and he may be right. The appearance of scandal is sometimes more damaging than the scandal itself.

Musings Musings also has some thoughts on this Karl Rove blackguard's troubles with the law. Apparently some are suggesting that these charges are political in nature, Musings Musings believes that nobody should be above the law.

First Draft has a post by Athenae about the safe way to criticize President Bush. Apparently there isn't one.

Liberty Street has a rundown of some recent depressing stories. They are very troubling. She references two authors who write about the chaoticism of modern life; and suggests we may be living one of their works. The future is confusing, but I suppose every age has it's woes.

Science and Politics has a story about a program to give youth life size baby automata in order to acclimatize them to the pressures of raising a child. It does seem like an unusual program; but future youth are apparently a bit more lusty than the youth in my time.

And that is it for another week; hope you all have enjoyable weekends.

World War II Airman Found Frozen in Glacier

According to ABC news, two hikers discovered the frozen body of a World War II Airman.

Yeah that is a little like the back story of a favorite Marvel Universe Character.

The name is on the tip of my tongue.

Oh well you guys are smart; you'll probably remember who I'm talking about.

Who You Are

My name is Grumbly Muffin and I am a Conservative.

Despite being described as bigoted or hateful or homophobe or uncaring or greedy, I am still proud to identify myself as a Conservative.

That's not something Liberals are as proud to do. That's why they create such terms as Leftist or Progressive or "Moderate" to describe themselves. Cause Liberals aren't that popular, and Liberals don't like being unpopular. They don't have the courage of their convictions. And people can tell. I mean if your beliefs aren't worth standing up for and stating clearly, well people can figure that out.

It must be dawning on them that people are catching on to this little game; so David Sirota has written a little article about how Liberals and Progressives aren't the same thing.

It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

Did you get that? He goes on to say that Progressives also tend to favor government spending but Liberals do not want to take on Corporations (well except by taxing them to death, one presumes). This seems like a pretty fine point (kind of like the Difference between Conservatives and Libertarians; i.e. Libertarians want Conservative programs but don't want to get called names).

At any rate, whatever name Liberals choose to use, it's not going to hide their underlying emptiness.

Angry People

Hi Everybody! : )

How's your day going? Mine is going ok, except I'm a little miffed at Jeanine Pirro, who's running against Hillary Clinton in New York.

During a speech to Chemung County Republicans on Tuesday night, Pirro continued her criticism of the Democratic-controlled state Assembly for its refusal to adopt legislation that would civilly confine violent sex offenders after their prison sentences end.

"That's a difference between Democrats and Republicans - we don't want them next door molesting children and murdering women," said the Westchester County prosecutor, according to Wednesday's Elmira Star-Gazette newspaper.

So I guess Democrats want murderers and child molesters next door? I can't for every Democrat, but that doesn't sound like something we'd want.

I'm not Hillary Clinton's biggest fan; it strikes me she's too confrontational. But with competition like this, well, she's starting to look a bit better.

What is the Definition of a Fanatic?

Poor President Bush. Not only has he had to weather charges or corruption and cronyism in his White House as well as the anger over the Harriet Miers nomination, now it turns out he's not really a Conservative. Conservativism, if it were actually put in place, would work 100%. President Bush's Presidency has not been a success. I'd call it a pretty complete failure; but even President Bush's supporters would acknowledge it's hardly been smooth sailing. So President Bush must not really be a conservative.

Or to put it another way, consider these words from Sidney Blumenthal.

Despite Bush's faithful implementation of conservative ideas, disloyal ideologues blame him personally to deflect attention from the failure of their ideas as they position themselves for whatever or whoever is next. Like Trotskyists for whom communism always remained an unfulfilled ideal, conservatives now claim that conservatism has not been tried, and that Bush is a "betrayer" and "impostor." In his attempt to avoid the nemesis of his father, he is reliving it.

Or to put it yet another way, it's unlikely that they have learned their lesson.

That said, it would be nice if this climate provoked a little humility on the part of the Conservative Movement; rather than being convinced that they are 100% correct and anybody who disagrees with them is a filthy traitor. But I'm not holding my breath.

Oh and the definition of a fanatic? According to George Satayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

The Price of Disloyalty

Mona Charen's latest article is entitled "Too many Yes-Men," and it's about White House reaction to the Conservative reaction to the Miers nomination.

Instead of listening to what conservatives are actually saying about the Miers nomination, the White House strategy is to attack the critics. We are suddenly the enemy: elitists, sexists, disloyal, and don't really represent anyone anyway.

Yeah that's pretty rough, Ms. Charen, author of "Useful Idiots - How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America," to be accused of disloyalty merely for disagreeing with the President.

We liberals are pretty much used to it by now, but I can understand how Conservatives, after attacking the Presidents enemies (meaning those who disagree with him) brutally, are hurt that the President would use the same tactics against them on the rare occasion that they disagree. But it's really quite easy to understand once you realize that this Presidents number one priority is loyalty. And criticizing the President is not Loyal (to this administration the term Loyal Opposition is a contradiction in term).

At any rate, I suggest you follow the course Rush Limbaugh has outlined and focus on how much you hate liberals. That will cheer you up.

Why I Hate the "Sheeple"

Hi all!! : )

So why do I hate the Sheeple? Well first of all let me make it clear that I hate the word Sheeple, not what it refers to. Secondly, let me know that Walter E. Williams has triggered these thoughts with his latest article, "A nation of sheeple." It's mostly about his opposition to the Bush plan of using the Military in emergencies on American soil. I'm frankly more worked up over the term Sheeple.

Sheeple is used to mean the mass of Americans or Humanity. In other words people just like you and me. It's used to indicate that most people are dull conformists as opposed to themselves (who are, I guess, special people, better than the rest of us). The thing is I've met thousands of people over the course of my life and not very many of them have really been dull conformists. I mean they might look like normal people, like conformists, but once you get to know them, there's usually some wired bits inside, that you discover if you get to know them.

At any rate, anybody who claims to want to help America and uses the term Sheeple, well, their commitment to the people who actually live here may not be all that strong.

Turnabout

Hi Everybody!! Hope you are having a great week! : )

I just finished an interesting article about the current scandals in Washington and the Conservative Response to them. Of course we all remember the late 1990s when President Clinton was impeached. We all remember Conservatives being very upset about the rule of law and how it wasn't about the sex. But now they have different ideas.

An editorial in the latest issue of the conservative Weekly Standard is a sign of arguments to come. The editorial complains about the various accusations now being leveled against DeLay, Libby, Rove and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and says that "a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."

I have great respect for my friends at The Weekly Standard so I think they'll understand my surprise and wonder over this new conservative concern for the criminalization of politics.

I kind of agree that it's silly for Conservatives to get upset about their own candidates getting investigated; but I do think we liberals should be consistent. If we don't like parties using the law to go after Clinton, we shouldn't use the law to go after Delay.

Save the Rich

I note with little surprise that Neal Boortz is in trouble for the ghastly crime of MAKING SENSE. Liberals, you see, are anti-thought and pro-emotion. So when someone like Neal Boortz sits down and thinks rationally about what our societal priorities should be in the face of a disaster, well, it infuriates Liberals.

You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday?

See that's the thing Liberals hate admitting; poor people pretty much DESERVE to be poor. If they deserved to be wealthy, well they would work hard and contribute to society. Instead they sit around and waste time, and they get what they deserve.

I also like how Mr. Boortz deflates the Liberal myth of the "working poor." Yeah a lot of poor people have jobs. But do they do them? Are they dependable? Do they serve the customer well? Do they actually show up a full 40 hours a week? Well you can answer that question yourself.

The truth is we are always going to have poor people. I'm going to really offend liberals now; I'm going to quote scripture. In Matthew 26:11, it reads, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." That seems very clear to me; we are basically going to have poor people with us, or, to be more clear, we are going to have people who choose to be poor with us always.

I sometimes wonder if Liberals well-meaning efforts to eliminate poverty are in fact an offense to God. Jesus said we will always have poverty; can Liberals succeed in pitting their might against God?

The World Wouldn't Listen

Or The Polls Don't Matter (unless, of course they are up, in which case, The People have Spoken). President Bush's poll numbers are down. So naturally, Conservatives, like Bill Murchinson, are explaining how meaningless polls are. I mean the fact that millions of Americans are apparently fed up with Bush is more a reflection of a few weeks of negative press than a reflection of any ongoing trends.

The natural tendency is to be suspicious of any news that doesn't fit your world view; and it goes both ways, so I'm not going to be too down on Mr. Murchinson. Besides he goes on to say something I kind of like. After going over the bad luck and how it could change in the coming months he says this.

None of which is to tell Bush doubters, "You're out of your mind!" Our present democratic fracas serves the ends of democracy by keeping adrenalin levels elevated -- and reminding politicians never to take our approval for granted.

It seems like a small thing; but in this age of Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors and Rush Limbaugh calling us vermin, it's nice to see somebody acknowledging that disagreeing with the President is something that's supposed to happen in a democracy. So bravo Mr. Murchinson.

The Army Now

Joseph L. Galloway, a senior military columnist for the Knight-Ridder Newspapers, has an opinion on how the Army is doing.

In that early fall two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was still running victory laps and the words of his boss, President George W. Bush, were still ringing: "Bring `em on!"

Sadly, those two were, and still are, in charge.

Now they've broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage it's inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as dangerous as this one.

He goes on. I find him pretty convincing, myself, but of course there are those who are more hung up on the fact that Clinton didn't provide enough bullets so people could go to the range each weak.

Hey you groovy cats!

Did you know I was at woodstock? Yeah after the show ended I got like really bummed out for a couple of years, and kind of bummed around America. I was on the road so to speak. Although I ended up getting a VW Bug; it's hard to hitchhike when you are a space lobster. People thought it would gunk up their seats or something. Or, maybe, Crush them with my Mighty Pinchers!

Anyway Woodstock was great to the best of my recollection.

In that spirit let's see what those groovy cats out in radioland want to talk about today. The first comment (from Random Goblin) comes from a post about our upcoming 3 year anniversary, in which Cheery solicited opinions on what we should do to celebrate

Or, better yet, a showcase of each commentator's best stuff. And even better than that, let each commentator pick their favorites themselves.

Well I gather we are going to do something like this; but Cheery says she gets to make the announcement. On the other hand if you do have other ideas on how we can celebrate our anniversary please post them in that post (particularly if they are along the lines of a higher salary for a certain groove-a-licious Lobster).

Our second commentary comes from Justin, responding to a post on Rush Limbaugh and a comment by Random Goblin that Space Lobster needed to go away.

Yeah, but there's only two ways to get rid of him...
1. He dies... and I'm not one to wish that on someone... at least not merely for speaking their silly, twisted mind...
2. He goes somewhere else... and frankly, I think it would be immoral to feist him off on some other poor unsuspecting culture. Akin to sending nuclear waste or used sharps to a daycare center... Almost any culture in the world I could see doing it to already has an overabundance to psycho wierdos to go around.
Incidentally, I think we should just start calling him some derivation of "The Blimp"... after all, he's big, he's round, he's full of hot air, and zeppelins were quite prominant in nazi Germany

Lots of ellipses. Anyway Zepplins can be deadlier than you think. In episode 2F34, Duel in Jupiter's Clouds, Count von Killalot recruited me to serve as a gunner on his space zepplin. We nearly had Captain Starfaller, but he cleverly dove down into the lower clouds and we couldn't follow him. Jerk!

Anyway opening the mail box I see some interesting letters; including one that doesn't, in fact, ask for my bank account number! Will wonders never cease. Said e-mail comes from Olga, who I'm guessing, is not from Kansas.

I am pleased, that you have time to read and answer for my letter. Certainly I understand, that ours with you acquaintance can mean the new period in our lives. I aspired to this hard step. It is always difficult to make a first step and overcome impulses of modesty and awkwardness, it is especial when this step you do to which person you do not know. I feel, that I should make this first step and to try to overcome barrier which stand between us.

I want to learn more about you and to tell about myself. Though it is not accepted to ask the girl how old is she, I shall tell about myself. I was born 28 years ago in small city near to Saint-Petersburg and there was one, did not get acquainted yet with you. I hope, that ours with you acquaintance changes ours with you life in the good party.

Well despite the minor grammatical errors, I can certainly appreciate how difficult it is to reach out to someone; and like you I'm a little lonely. So perhaps getting to know you would change my life in the good party, as you say. Let's just pull up that e-mail address so I can write you.

What's this? The address is technologist@jewelryshowonline.com? That's not a very lady like address! You lied to me Olga. You just want to send me Jewelry. I'm wiping the tears from my eyes (which is a delicate operation, given my pincers aren't that delicate). How will I ever recover from this romantical mishap?

Well I mourned the death of my love for Olga the requisite period of time (15 seconds) and now I feel better. Let's see what other offerings the mail bag has?

Here's one from Mrs. Fati Zongo. Dare I open it? How do I know Ms. Zongo won't play with my feeilngs the same way Olga did? I'll risk it.

I crave your indulgence at this mail coming from somebody you have not know before. I decided to do this after praying over the situation.You should please consider the transaction on its content and not the fact that you have not known me before.I need not dwell on how I came by your contact information because there are many such possibilities these days.

I can't go on. She mangles grammer the same as my beloved Olga; I'll just get hurt. Instead I think I'll dwell on how she came by my contact information.

Oh wait, I guess if she's not going to dwell on that I better not either. I suppose there are a lot of possibilities. Maybe she got them from Strong Bad.

Anyway that's it for another week. Keep on trucking!

The Other Side

Bryant posted earlier on how the Miers nomination would be curtailed by the Right Wing, and absolved the Left from anything that might happen to Ms. Miers in the process of becoming our next Supreme Court Justice. Well, that's very nice. Too bad that it's TOTALLY INACCURATE! We all know that a few Conservatives are displeased with the Miers nomination; but Liberals are no more pleased.

Consider, for example, this article at the Guardian, reprinted at Commondreams.org, by Robert Cornwell. In it Cornwell gleefully suggests that Republicans are trashing Miers while trashing her himself. He then says this.

But do not expect the Miers nomination to be withdrawn. That would be the public admission of a mistake, something to which this President is congenitally averse. Nor, given his intense loyalty to those loyal to him, is it likely that he will he lean on her to withdraw. Almost certainly, we're headed for a confirmation battle that could get very nasty indeed.

Does that sound like a threat to anybody else? I mean doesn't it sound like Cornwell is basically saying that if she goes through the confirmation process she can expect leftists and Democrats to TRASH her?

We might get a chance to see what Ms. Miers is made of; I hope it's some pretty stern stuff.

Armstrong Williams - Good Soldier

President Bush may have to withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination; I don't think this is very likely, but it is possible. If he does withdraw the Miers nomination, he does not want it to be for the obvious reason, i.e. that Conservatives complained about her. He would want it to be about Liberals and Democrats complaining about her. It's unclear how he would achieve that end, since it's pretty obvious that the Republicans / Conservatoids are the ones doing the bulk of the shouting. But that would be the goal.

So here is the latest column by Armstrong Williams, in which he tries to bridge this divide. What's interesting is that in positioning the enemies of Harriet Miers as liberals he spends a good portion of his article responding to an argument forwarded by Ann Coulter. I don't know if this is some sort of calculated attempt to move Ann from the right to the left, but please, no. We don't want her.

Here's the paragraph in question.

Chief among their criticism: she graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School, as opposed to Harvard or Yale. Therefore, she's in no position to shape the legal landscape, let alone occupy space in the marbled halls of the nation's highest court.

At least, that's the way several liberals -- along with conservative columnists George Will and Ann Coulter--are telling the story. As Coulter noted in her syndicated column, "The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT score at Harvard is 170." The obvious implication: the intellectual gap between Harvard students and Miers is "humungous."

The problem is that, while Ann Coulter did latch onto her education, most other people have latched onto two other facts. She has not been a constitutional lawyer, and she is not the most qualified person (despite President Bush's claims). Add that to the Conservative contention that she may not be a strict origionalist, and you have yourself a ball game.

Of course that's not what this article is about, and after the brief but honest mention of Coulter, Armstrong moves on to castigating us awful liberals.

Lurking beneath all the Miers-bashing is partisan infighting over how to select judges. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge that Bush won the election and so jump at the chance to smear any of the federal Judge or Supreme Court Justices he nominates.

Yep it's all our fault. That's why she was suggested by Harry Reid (Democrat) who also endorsed her immediately following the nomination.

Armstrong closes his article with a nice humorous anti-American passage.

In the meantime, I can't help but hope that Miers is carrying around with her a short list of people whose first amendment rights she intends to revoke. At the top of the list: people who sit in front of you at the movies and give away the ending just as the opening credits roll. But just slightly below them, the martini supping elitists who demand that Harvard and Yale students are open spigots of profundity; the rest of us are not. I don't think anyone will mind not hearing from them for a while.

Hee hee hee. Of course the reference to people who talk in the movies is kind of funny in a fuddy duddy sort of way. But taking away Ann Coulter's constitutional rights is no laughing matter. Now I don't like Ann Coulter any more than you do, Mr. Williams, but the fact is that she is an American Citizen and should be allowed to say any hateful crazy thing she wants.

New

Hi all!

New look and new quote. I'm sorry we are running a bit behind. Bryant installed World of Warcraft here at the office and I've been giving it a try. My character is on the Durotar server, and her name is Chritha (she's a human mage) - she even looks a bit like me, but she's taller and she stands in such a way as would give me back problems.

Anyway new quote too. I'd upgrade the quotes page, but, well, ;). See you all later!