Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Salutations from the desk of Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's plutocrat. It's snowing today; which is a pity. I had planned to visit one of my plants and randomly accuse someone of stealing from me. That's always enjoyable, and it teaches my workers a valuable lesson. I particularly like to find some bootlooking pretty boy; the look of confusion on his face is priceless.

Actually it isn't priceless, come to think of it.

Anyway since I can't do that, I might as well get started on my weekly exploration of websites that may or may not be members of the Liberal Coalition.

First up is firedoglake, responding to a speech by a former soldier on the progress of the Iraq War. Or lack thereof. firedoglake suggests that this Representative's war record may allow him to make certain points in a very forceful way.

THE NEWS BLOG also has information on Mr. Murtha's comments; this Murtha, like any old soldier, doesn't like the idea of seeing people thrown away for no reason. I've noticed in my long life that those who aren't going to have to pay the price are the most eager to incur the bill.

Apparently a radio-phone host by the name of Bill O'Rielly has made threats against those websites who critique his program? Well the gentlemen running LEFT is RIGHT are not afraid of these threats, but are standing up to them. What I don't understand, however, is why Mike of LEFT is RIGHT would hug trees; surely the sap would get in your clothing?

Rook's Rant has taken this course as well, proclaiming himself "a proud member of the O'Reilly's Enemies List." And Bryant assures me (over Cheery's objections) that this website would also like to be put on that list; he will be writing an e-mail to that effect in due course and posting it to O'Reilly.

Mr. Rant also has a piece on an investigative reporter who apparently has more information on this Valerie Plame-Karl Rove-Scooter Libby Fandango. Apparently this reporter, named Woodward, knew of information for quite a long time but chose not to reveal it. Reporters like secrecy I've noticed.

Scrutiny Hooligans discusses a terror weapon called "White phosphorous" that was used in the Iraqi war. I would have hoped that we might have evolved beyond the need of such weapons, but I guess not. I know there are several men who might well be able to work for my plants producing wealth for me were it not for the use of these sorts of weapons.

I guess I just thought the Plutocrats of the future might have finally put an end to this kind of nonsense.

rubber hose has a discussion of why Marseilles might have been spared from the recent lawlessness in France. I think it might have something to do with a diet heavily fish based. It has been scientifically determined that eating fish encourages a contemplative attitude.

Speedkill has the story of a book that is coming out about how Democrats hate Christmas. Future Republicans will apparently say anything to attack their political opposition.

I can inform you that Bryant and Cheery have been arguing about putting up Christmas decorations around the office; Cheery wants to put them up now, and Bryant says we need to wait till December. So far Bryant is winning; but I wouldn't be surprised if Cheery decorated and presented her decorations as a fait acompli.

The Fulcrum has an article suggesting that Mr. Bush's problems started building around the time that Ms. Sheehan visited his ranch in Crawford, and reveals that she is apparently planning on returning there for Thanksgiving.

T.Rex's Guide to Life has a discussion of who the people currently running Iraq resemble in their leadership styles.

Rick's Cafe Americain has the story that future dogs are apparently extremely promiscuous.

Finally, Steve Bates, The Yellow Doggeral Democrat, has a very cute picture of two or possibly three cats cuddled up on some futuristic silk jacket. I am unable to ascertain what the material is; it looks like silk. But it has a sheen to it, and you would never wear a silk jacket I don't think. Anyway the cats are very cute looking.

And that's it for another week. Hope you have an enjoyable weekend.

Update to the Site

Hi All!!! : )

Just letting you know we just made a few updates. An accident a couple of weeks back apparently deleted our links to our Lamp Gallery and our Logo Gallery, so those have been updated. Also we added a link to slacktivist, which we all read regularly. Particularly his trek through Left Behind, but many of his posts are very good.

A Catalogue of Commentators - Issue 3. Dennis Prager

Hey.

This is Durango; I'm an old timey cowpoke who's a bit touched in the head. Doc reckons I'm part singing cowboy and part squintin' cowboy. Anyway I'm just in from El Secundo. It's been hard dusty trail, and our commentator this week has me riled up. This polecats name is the Dennis Prager and he's in favor of a second Civil War.

Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War.

I lived through the first Civil War. It's part of what made me the coldblooded snake that I am now. I stay out on the trails because being around other people makes me itchy. I don't know why Prager would root for a second civil war; even if he thinks his side could win.

People need to learn how to get along. Like when we built a chapel for Edwardstown. I got all the ranchers and farmers together, and started singing; soon the feeling of love and happiness filled their heart, and they all wanted to work together. But Dennis Prager seems like the sort of fellow that just enjoys squabbling. I guess it's cause he sees people who disagree with him as the enemy.

America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.

One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.

One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.

The thing Mr. Prager doesn't seem to understand is that we are can all work together to build up our towns and villages. Yeah there are bad guys out there, but equating people who live near you and think a bit different with the enemy, well it just riles people up. I wouldn't be surprised if people who take Prager seriously don't show their following of him in inappropriate ways.

No, that wouldn't surprise me one damn bit. Once you encourage people to hate; you can't get made if they then act out their hatreds. Course Prager isn't focused 100% on building up hatred between Americans. Sometimes he writes about the fairer sex as well. He wrote an article about why married woman vote conservative.

One [reason married woman vote Republican] is that women's nature yearns for male protection. This is a heretical idea among the well educated whose education is largely devoted to denying the facts of life. But it is a fact of life that can easily be proven: Extremely wealthy women almost always seek to marry men who are even wealthier than they are. Actress Jane Fonda had more money than almost anyone in America, yet she married Ted Turner, a man who had even more money than she. Though fabulously wealthy and a feminist, Ms. Fonda nevertheless could not shed her female nature.

I don't know whether Mr. Prager is right; I don't spend much time around woman. Perhaps some filly's have an opinion they'd like to express?

Mr. Prager is a talk show host as well as being a commentator. He apparently broadcasts out of Los Angeles. He's apparently a Jewish feller, and goes around talking about his faith.

Bryant has some comments about Prager too.

Prager is one of those guys who people should pay more attention too. He doesn't use the same kind of inflammatory tone as a Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh; but the content of his articles is very specifically a call to war. He describes Liberals as the enemy in exactly the same tone as he uses to describe our enemies in the "war on terror." We all know what Conservatives want to do with their enemies in the war on terror; so one can easily wonder what Prager wants to do to "America's Enemies" in the war on Liberalism. It goes without saying that I think Pragers work is a greater betrayal of the principles of America than almost anything the left has done.

Anyway here's a few previous commentaries on Mr. Prager's work.

On October 15, 2003, Bryant responded to Dennis Prager's thoughts on the second civil war. Apparently it riled Bryant up too.

On March 22, 2005, Bryant responded to a theory of Prager's that we build up a moral bank account. If we generally do good, than we should be forgiven for our lapses.

On July 12, 2005, Cheery wrote an angry article (I don't get the impression that lady has much practice at getting angry), responding to Prager's assertion that Liberals do not support the troops.

Well I'm to ride into the sunset; just remember to keep singing and the sun will shine down on you.

O'Rielly Runs Away from a Challenge

We are working on our next Catalogue of Commentators entry, which is proving a challange. In the mean time, archy has the story of big tough Bill O'Reilly and his decision to, well, duck a debate with people who might stand up to him.

The Unbearable Burden of Brent Bozell

Brent Bozell is a conservative media critic, which is not a fun thing to be these days. A conservative media critic believes that conservatism is the right answer. A conservative media critic, therefore, believes that a fair and accurate repetition of the facts will provide evidence that conservative principles work and liberal principles fail. So when the news fails to provide this; he naturally is upset at the news for lying.

This is far more than simple bias; Brent Bozell believes, as do many on the right, that America's news organizations are systematically lying to the American people in order to hide the success of conservatism.

Bozell's latest article talks about why President Bush hasn't gotten a lot of credit for having saved us from Terrorist attacks since September 11th.

Perhaps the results are less important than the question. It recognized a fact that no one in the liberal media wants to acknowledge above a whisper: Doesn't Bush deserve some measure of credit for how or why the country has not been attacked again on his watch?

He does deserve a measure of credit; I put it at approximately two and a half tablespoons; but I'm naturally generous. In the long run, however, his steps in invading Iraq may create increased danger rather than lessened.

The underlying critique of the media, however, seems strained. I gather that Bozell would like the news presented in such a way as to underline how we are safe thanks to President Bush. For an example, the question "Do you approve of how President Bush has handled the war in Iraq?" is not as good a question as "Given that we have not been attacked by terrorists since September 11th, 2001, do you approve of how President Bush has handled the war in Iraq?" The second question underlines how President Bush has worked to keep us safe.

But with mountains of evidence piling up against how President Bush has run this country, and with the American people increasingly aware of how things are going; well, it's harder to convince people these days.

Getting the jump on the Competition

Have you ever noticed how people are always accusing others of doing what they themselves are doing? Their crimes prey on their minds, and so they naturally have to accuse others of guilt as a sort of defense mechanism. Well, as I'm sure you've noticed, the Democrats have accused President Bush of lying us into war. But who's really guilty of that crime?

President Clinton told us for years that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Kerry, and others all spoke of the danger that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States and to the Stability of the region. They looked at the same information as President Bush and came to the same conclusion. George Tenent, a Clinton appointee, worked up that information that led President Bush and Congressional Democrats to invade Iraq. So who's fault is it really that we invaded?

It turns out it's still President Bush's fault, despite Terrence Jeffrey's article to the contrary. Mr. Jeffrey doesn't go quite as far as I did, but he comes close.

A few points.

1. It's false to suggest that the President's team and the Senate had exactly the same information. The information pool was larger; in particular, doubts about the legitimacy of some information was not passed on.

2. President Bush and his team advocated war; other parties did not. What's the old joke that to the main with a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail? President Bush and his team wanted to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power as far back as the 1990s. Others, like Kerry specifically, wanted to remove the threat; but clearly would have been satisfied with simply removing the weapons of Mass Destruction (or ascertaining that they didn't exist).

Or, to put it succinctly, President Bush pushed for a military solution. He had a hammer and wanted to use it. So he gets the bill when the military solution proved to be more costly than he thought it would be.

3. It's interesting to contemplate what would have happened if in the spring of 2003, President Bush had decided to let the inspectors finish their job. He would have forced Saddam to re-allow inspectors into his country and the increased world surveillance. It would have been a victory; but, I guess, not enough of a victory.

4. Isn't this pathetic, when you think about it? I mean own up to it. Republicans and Conservatives wanted this war, and you know it. The fact that it has turned out to be somewhat of a disaster, well, that's the price you pay (in this case) for getting what you want.

Update on Bill O'Rielly

For those of you who don't know; Bill O'Rielly is preparing a section of his website to document those un-American jerks who criticized his comments on San Francisco. According to Think Progress, he made the following comments;

Some far left internet smear sites have launched a campaign to get me fired over my point of view. I believe they do this on a daily basis. This time the theme is O'Reilly is encouraging terrorist attacks. Unbelievably stupid. Not unusual with these guttersnipes.

. . . I'm glad the smear sites made a big deal out of it. Now we can all know who was with the anti-military internet crowd. We'll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com. So check with us.

So just for clarity's sake, "smear" in this sense means telling the truth about what Bill O'Rielly said. I'd just like to note that we have also reprinted Bill O'Rielly's words without clarifying that he was apparently only joking. So if he is going to make a list of who the smear merchants are, I'd like to be on that list. Although, I have to admit, that's kind of unlikely, given our particular stature.

It's Beginning to Look a lot like Christmas

Yes, it's never to early to get in the Christmas spirit, and Alan Sears, former federal prosecutor is all ready to get in that particular Christmas Spirit. You know the one I mean.

Nope, not the one where you try to love your fellow men and wish for peace on earth.

Nope, not the one where you take a few minutes to pretend like you give a damn about the poor.

It's not even the one where you contemplate the Birth of Christ with humble awe.

Nope, the Christmas Spirit Mr. Sears is feeling is the one that leads him to lie and smear Liberals, particularly the ACLU. The ACLU and Liberals hate Christmas (but are in favor of degeneracy and evil and kids being rude to their parents), according to Mr. Sears. Surely with that kind of accusation Mr. Sears would provide some evidence?

Nope, no evidence. Oh wait, there is this line. "We heard of one tax-funded school last year at this time that wouldn't even let the kids wear that color - you know, for what it obviously represents." By that color, Mr. Sears means Green. That's pretty skimpy proof, Mr. Sears.

I heard of some bigoted Republicans who beat the shit out of gay guy once, but I don't think I'd write a whole article condemning all Republicans (particularly if I wasn't providing any of the details).

Still I guess Mr. Sears really he doesn't need to provide any proof. We all know that the ACLU and Liberals are anti-Christmas Bastards; why waste time when you can pack in more "humor."

At any rate, as you can see this particular Christmas Spirit fills me with a Christmas Spirit of my own; namely, unmitigated rage. You can look for a lot of unmitigated rage as we travel through this joyous season.

Wall Street Journal Front Page News

In column 4 of today's Wall Street Journal's Front Page (above the fold) we see the following.

It's White, Gloppy,
Almost Tasteless,
And Malawi Loves it

But Nsima Stocks Are Low
After Bad Maize Harvest;
Yes, We Have Bananas

My current working theory about the Wall Street Journal is that they have a team of five people approving front page stories; four serious journalists and a Regular LSD user suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder.

As it turns out this is a serious story; Nsima is a porridge made of corn (which they, like the Indians, call Maize), and the people of Malawi (which is a country in Africa) don't have enough of it (because of droughts). If you think the description of white and gloppy makes it seem untasty, consider White which has similar properties. And yet Rice can be the base of thousands of dinners or relatively good all on it's own. Anyway I hope they get more rain or more corn from somewhere.

Edited to add: Yeah, what I meant to say was consider White Rice. Rather than consider White. Saying Consider White Rice makes a little more sense (well because Brown Rice wouldn't Be White, would it?). Yeah, I'm kind of a dope.

Give them an Inch

Dennis Prager, in his latest article about how Jordanians deserve to be blown up for being insufficiently angry at Palestinian terrorism, poses an interesting question to those of who oppose the war.

In a previous column, I proposed that supporters of the war in Iraq ask opponents of the war just one question: Without in any way compromising your opposition to the war, would you at least acknowledge that the people we are fighting in Iraq are evil? Virtually every one of the many letters I received from readers opposed to the war was incapable of answering in the positive. By fighting America and George W. Bush, the "insurgents" are essentially inoculated against moral judgment.

A few points.

Who are you talking about when you ask who we are fighting in Iraq? Well some of them are foreign terrorists, who are presumably evil. Some of them are Iraqi insurgents, angry at the foreign occupation of their country, who may or may not be evil.

Consider for a moment; if during the Bill Clinton years, Canada had determined that Clinton was a bad man and had to be removed from power, and had taken successful military action to do so; would you have fought for America's right to determine it's own future. Now I admit Clinton was no Saddam Hussein (although to listen to some of your colleagues on the right talk, you'd think he was pretty close), but you'd think a lot of Americans would fight the Canadians, and I doubt you'd blame them all that much.

Now the choice to indiscriminately slaughter their fellow citizens is evil, no matter how you look at it. But that's not the only tactic these insurgent groups are using.

Pretending that our nuanced position on the Iraqi Insurgents is due solely to our hatred of President Bush is nonsense. And I am pretty sure that you know it's nonsense. And of course pretending we support them (insofar as we do support them)because they fight America is double nonsense.

Monday Mail Bag

Hey all. Lot's of good comments this week, and plenty of mail, so I won't have time to pass on office gossip. But I will anyway.

Puke and Grumbly Muffin have been hanging out here a lot; Puke has cleaned up her act a bit. The office they work in is pretty casual, but not that casual. The Monster doesn't know they are hanging out here; Bryant thinks that if he finds out, particularly about Grumbly, he'll get pretty upset. So potential for drama down the road.

Anyway here are some comments for the last week. The first comes from McIckleson's last Round the Horn feature. Incidentally, we are considering having me and McIckleson rotate duties for a bit. Anyway Alex, who apparently one of the websites linked to was grateful for the link. But let's put it in his own words.

Thanks fior the mention!

Your welcome Alex, of the SoonerThought, always happy to lend a hand.

Justin replied to a post presented without comment; which contained the words of the posters at Free Republic.

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy... we must be cautious.

It's like walking into a nazi-youth meeting and listening to them rail on how other people are horrible and intolerant...

Or I could be more concise and just say "It's like walking into a nazi-youth meeting."

Star Wars. Star Wars is not science fiction. Space Lobsters and Spider Queens of Mars vs. Captain Starfaller; that's real science fiction.

And those Star Wars aliens. Sitting around drinking (not to mention that one hookah contraption, one of the aliens was using)? What kind of example does that set for the youth? I, on the other hand, spent my screen time showing that with a little hard work and gumption with a soupcon of evil, you can almost conquer the Planet Earth on a weekly basis. Yeah, none of my schemes actually worked; but many of them almost did. So who's really setting the good example?

Our final comment comes from perennial favorite, Random Goblin, who responded to an appreciative link made to a blog that was not his own.

I also posted about this yesterday.

As it turns out, he did in fact post about this on the day before he made that comment. So we duly linked to him as well, and we'd like to say for the record that you should look at Random Goblin's blog constantly.

Moving on to the mail bag, we open with a letter from N. Award.

Please forgive me for invading your privacy; It is with heartfelt hope that I write to seek your co-operation and assistance in the context stated below,which I hope you will give your urgent attention: May I first introduce myself.My name is Sesay D. Massaquoe,I am moved to write you this proposal in confidence considering me and my family's present circumstance and situation.

I'm sorry, Mr. Award, I cannot forgive you for invading my privacy, so you are on your own. I've been hurt too many times in the privacy department; like all those times Captain Starfaller broke into my chambers while I was in the Hyper special Bath and Facial System (or HSPAFS) and made off with the plans I was supposed to be guarding. Jerk. So I can't forgive him, and I can't forgive you Mr. Award. You can just rot in the Netherlands for all I care!

Actually I wouldn't mind rotting in the Netherlands. I understand the wacky tabacky is readily available there.

I got a second letter from an M.K. from Sierra Leone apparently. Here it is.

Dear Beloved

How are you hope all is well with you and your family? I am a girl from sierra Leone, I am 25 years old am a house girl as my profession, but I have this thing to tell you which I believe it can be helpful to both off us.

Like I told you at the beginning that I am a house help am working under a woman but she is dead now and she is a very well know woman and she is a diamond merchant in Ghana but she lives in sierra Leone.

I think you need to open your english books to page 234 and learn a little bit about our annoying friend, the run-on sentence.

Also I do appreciate that you want to ingratiate yourself with me, but unless you have an exo-skeleton, mighty pincers and so on, you probably aren't actually my beloved.

Anyway that's it for another week; hope you all have fun this week, and remember to keep posting those comments and asking for my bank account information.

Al Gore

Just caught a few minutes of Rush's show for today; they have a guest host who mentioned Al Gore has said that global warming is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

Yeah, if you believe in global warming, that's pretty much undeniable. If you don't believe in global warming, it's laughable.

The conditions that have created the rise in Terrorism over the last three decades will undoubtedly change over the next three decades. Could get worse, could get better, but Terrorism is largely a social problem. And people can change pretty quickly.

On the other hand, the forces creating global warming (assuming you believe they exist) are environmental factors that may be very difficult to isolate let alone eliminate. And they seem to be operating on a global scale.

Of course the fill in jerk for Rush doesn't believe in Global Warming; so he naturally embarked on a self righteous rant about the families of the 9/11 victims. Apparently believing that global warming is a big threat also implies you believed that global warming is responsible for the twin towers being destroyed.

Um, ok.

The 2004 Election

Was the 2004 election stolen?

Some people would say 100% yes. Others would say 100% no. I would say a 100% maybe. I would certainly put it within the realm of possibility, but as to where it fits (a high possibility? A low possibility?) I cannot say.

Farhad Manjoo, who had written a bit about the potential for election fraud before the election and who had then been taken a lot of crap for declaring the 2004 election more or less clean. Or, to be more precise, he took a lot of crap for suggesting the proof that the election was stolen was much less the an solid.

Well it looks like he's preparing for another batch of crap with his latest article, a review of Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)."

Mr. Miller claimed last week to have presented a copy of his book to Kerry, who blurted out that he believed that the election was stolen. The Kerry camp has since denied this memory as a half truth at best. So take that for what it is worth.

Anyway Manjoo's take on the book is that it makes a lot of claims, but when it gets down to brass tacks, it's claims aren't supported by the evidence. Rather Miller is more interested in proving that the Republicans are so driven to seize power (and to keep Liberals out of power) that they wouldn't' hesitate to rig an election.

Manjoo quotes Miller's appearance on Democracy Now!; a quote I find quite interesting.

This is not a criminal case, OK? We don't have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is our election system, right? This is a system based on consent of the governed. If many, many millions of Americans are convinced that they got screwed on Election Day and couldn't vote, or if 3.4 million more Americans claim that they voted than the actual total of voters -- this is what the Census Bureau told us last May -- this is grounds alone for serious investigation ... We have to have serious investigation.

As Manjoo points out, we do need to have a serious discussion about these issues; certainly there are necessities like Paper Trails that need to enacted in every county in America (and to hell with the expense, this is our Democracy we are talking about).

But to suggest that actual proof doesn't matter, because people think there is a problem? That's not a good standard on which to build a movement or on which to build a Democracy. Rather we should insist on a scrupulous researched, airtight case, before we make accusations of this nature.

Ugly Words

It's interesting to me how the left wing totally dominates the media and yet we can all name at least three conservative commentators for every liberal commentator (assuming you are not counting reporters and anchormen (because, liberal bias or not, they have to pretend to be unbiased) or Hollywood types (because, well, that's stupid). If the media is so 100% liberal, why do they let so many conservatives on the air?

This creates a second problem for conservatives. Say I bring up the latest monstrous quote by Bill O'Rielly. In case you didn't hear it, here it is.

Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'

The natural reaction to being presented with a quote like that is to suggest that liberals have said just as many ugly things. They pull out a few quotes by actors or Michael Moore to suggest that we Liberals hate them just as much as they hate us, right? But then I pull out some old gems like, "You people are walking around in the biggest fog that I have ever seen. You people need therapy! You people all need to be sequestered somewhere for a couple of months to get your minds right because you people can't even be honest with yourselves. You are walking delusions." from good old Rush Limbaugh.

Or maybe "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." from sweet Ann Coulter.

Or Dennis Prager calling for a second Civil War. Or Michael Savage hoping one of his listeners gets aids and dies. Or G. Gordon Liddy giving instructions on how best to take out a federal agent.

And so on and so forth. So my plea to the Liberal Media is to let more liberals on the air. It's only fair; I mean we liberals have a banquet of insanity to choose from; conservatives are stuck with Michael Moore.

What He Said Redux

Continuing my theme from Friday, I'm also going to link to Random Goblin's Blog on how Democrat can support the President when they are deceived and then stop supporting him when they realize they've been deceived.

And don't even get me started on the "who voted to send them there in the first place." People supported the invasion of Iraq because they were still reeling from 9/11, and because they were systematically lied to.

Go read the rest of it; he makes some key points and has a very good analogy as well.

New Format, New Quote!

Hi Everybody!!! : )

Well we have a new format, a new logo, and an updated Quotes page! So a very productive day today. Hope you are all having enjoyable weekends!