The NE round.

[I]t is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: 'One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed.' Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as 'an awesome piece of ordnance.'

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: 'SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms.'

. . .

[I]t’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide 'we do/do not to use X'. Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of 'covering up.'

[The author is] undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of 'chemical weapons' and 'violating the Geneva Protocol.' Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last weekÂ’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

In 1991 it was electric filaments that were inhumane. And they didn't even kill anybody. This time it's the white phosphorous nonsense. Nobody ever mentions that we used white phosphorous in World War II. If it wasn't for WP, it would have taken us much longer to break out of hedgerow country after D-Day. The world would be a different place, let me tell you.

Remember what Dupont said (or was it Monsanto?): "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

Via commenter Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 11:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Is it me, or is the blogosphere deafeningly silent on this story. i think it's huge, no matter which side you're on.

Posted by: annika at 01:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

As far as i am concerned, there was one main reason Iraq was a serious threat to the United States. It's why Saddam Hussein had to go, and it's why Iraq needed to be turned into a U.S. friendly democracy.

The reason was, in the words of Richard Clarke, "Boogie to Baghdad." Byron York wrote about it in his most recent column:

In case you donÂ’t remember, 'Boogie to Baghdad' is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.

ClarkeÂ’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.

ItÂ’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. 'Boogie to Baghdad' is on Page 134.

In February 1999, [CIA assistant director for collection, Charles] Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. [Richard] Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may have offered him asylum.' Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be 'virtually impossible' to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and 'Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with' Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: 'Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.' Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.

We wanted to send a spy plane over Afghanistan, but Richard Clarke was afraid (probably with good reason) that the Pakistanis would tip Osama off, and he'd get spooked and leave Afghanistan.

Please note what Richard Clark did not say:

He did not say, "At least we don't need to worry about Osama going to Iraq, because as everybody knows, Osama and Saddam hate each other, Osama being a religious fundamentalist, and Saddam being a secular infidel."

The argument that Saddam and Osama would never have cooperated is not only factually incorrect, it's naïve. People who hate each other form partnerships all the time. Look at most marriages. No, seriously, what about Hitler and Stalin, Stalin and Churchill, Herzog and Kinski, Bill and Hillary, Ungar and Madison, Owens and McNabb?

The whole WMD argument is a red herring. The administration thought it was their "ace in the hole" when they were trying to make the case before the U.N. Now the anti-war movement thinks it's their "ace-in-the-hole." i never bought into the WMD argument, either way.

The flypaper argument is similarly weak. It's only a part of the puzzle. Alone, it makes a poor justification for the war. The main reason we needed to get rid of Saddam, and make Iraq into an ally instead of an enemy, was "Boogie to Baghdad."

The advantages to both parties would have made a Saddam-Osama partnership inevitable, especially after we kicked butt in Afghanistan. Therefore, it was a strategic necessity to remove the possibility of that partnership. We achieved that goal, and that's a fact that people tend to forget.

Posted by: annika at 06:31 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.

CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer, on why all three major networks reported Rep. Murtha's "we must surrender" speech as the most important news story of the day:

Politicians make speeches all the time. Some matter and some don't. It was our opinion that this one mattered.

Posted by: annika at 02:43 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

From Australia's Herald Sun:

Four Australian women have been detained while trying to board a plane in Syria, reportedly after gun parts were found inside a child's toy.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) said two women from Victoria and two from NSW were with two Iraqi women when they were detained at Damascus airport on Tuesday.

All six were of Iraqi origin, the department said.

A DFAT spokesman would not confirm media reports that the group was detained after a disassembled gun was found inside a toy being carried by a child with the women.

The ABC has quoted a Syrian police source and a diplomatic source as saying the women entered the airport in the Syrian capital with a child.

They said the women were detained after the gun parts were found in a toy the child was holding.

The women were reportedly trying to board a flight bound for Australia.

Posted by: annika at 01:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Rather than legislate a blanket prohibition on all "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," (which in many cases can be quite useful, not to mention fun*), i propose the following, more simple compromise amendment:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL - All persons within the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation that works.

(b) LIMITATIONS - But whatever you decide to do, for God's sakes, don't film it!

* Lighten up. i said "not to mention," didn't i?

Posted by: annika at 09:25 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Actually, every bit of it should be filmed, and every bit of information regarding detainees should be classified. It's that simple. BTW, is Cal really an 18.5 pt punk to USC? I'm thinking that it's a lot closer.

Posted by: Casca at November 11, 2005 10:30 AM (qBTBH)

2 Very funny, as usual. My thoughts on the role of the pardon power in any extreme interrogation methods: http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/020509.php

Posted by: Roach at November 11, 2005 04:49 PM (MRlvg)

3 There is one cruel and inhumane interrogation technique which always works and has not (as for as I know) been banned by international tribunal. Put the detainees in a room and play nonstop Yoko Ono! (but you have to tie them up so they do not puncture their own eardrums.)

Posted by: Kyle N at November 11, 2005 07:48 PM (F0Eov)

4 C'mon Casca, stick to SCOTUS and Big 10 stuff and lay off the big leagues. Pac 10 is way too complicated for guys from Columbus. Cal has a second string QB and is scrappy, but thin. USC has a way of looking for payback; guess who the last team to beat them was, and where, in a huge upset as well? Look for this Trojan team to once again explain to the liberals from Sather Gate just how they feel about their last visit to Strawberry Canyon. USC 50+, Cal less than 20.

Posted by: shelly at November 12, 2005 10:10 AM (6mUkl)

5 LMAO, I KNOW what YOU think. I wanted to hear from the scandinavian blond. I'm watching Ohio State v Northwestern on Gameplan broadband. The resolution sucks! Next week, for the first time in forever, the dykes who now run ABC sports have decided that Ohio State v Michigan is unworthy of a national broadcast... amazing.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 12:01 PM (qBTBH)

6 For the uninformed amongst you, Keith Jackson is a puss-filled, ass-sucking whore, as are most of the PAC-10 officials who will do anything to keep another team from contending against USC. In one series, one sees a penalty called where there is none, and a TD called where there is none.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 02:42 PM (qBTBH)

7 So much for Mighty Alabama and their pretentions. Looks like its Texas vrs USC. and I am gald it worked out that way because, Honestly I think Texas is the only team with a chance of beating USC.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 12, 2005 06:40 PM (o5q9S)

8 Nah Kyle, there are several, it just needs to be one with a real defense, ND with a punk defense proved that, and a straight officiating crew, if there is one... fucking lawyers! Ought to mean instant disqualification for the job.

Posted by: Casca at November 12, 2005 07:20 PM (qBTBH)

9 Or, if you must film it, just edit the end of a Kerry-Edwards campaign commercial to it, so the last thing you hear after seeing the torture is "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message."

Posted by: Eric Kephas at November 13, 2005 02:28 AM (ZRjA4)

10 OK Casca, I hope you reconsidered and did not part with your ill gotten money to back a bunch of weenies from Sather Gate. Even if you did, I figure you got it back while the Buckeyes continued to hide their offense. Did a great job of hiding the plays this time, huh? Too bad you guys blew it against Penn State; can't believe you guys actually lost that game, especially without Pac 10 officiating. Texas will not beat USC. It will be a shoot out, but SC's offense is virtually unstoppable, and they will simply outscore the horns and wear them down. The Rose Bowl is not our home field, but it is close enough for government work, and the place will be full of cardinal and gold, and not too much burnt orange. I hope OSU enjoys it in Hawaii.

Posted by: shelly at November 13, 2005 07:52 AM (6mUkl)

11 You old fuck, I'm not stupid enough to bet on Cal. It's not just PAC 10 officials who are corrupt either. There are at least several in the Big 10, and while PAC 10 officials are almost uniformly corrupt, Big 10 officials are almost uniformly incompetent. The requirements for officials should be; nobody over forty, nobody who wasn't a starter in the league for at least a year, and no lawyers. As you know, it's impossible not to destroy a team that is self-destructiing, and that's what NW did yesterday. After the blocked punt, they collective stood there and pissed their pants until it was over. Penn State won because Troy Smith can't pass read, and threw an interception that gave the ball to PSU on the OSU 2 yard line, leading to the margin of victory score. Unless Penn State falls to MSU, which is possible, although a longshot. Remember MSU beat ND. Ohio State and ND will get the at-large bids and go to the Fiesta Bowl. There's just too much money to be made off of all those Buckeye and Irish fans. Plus, it'll be a great game.

Posted by: Casca at November 13, 2005 09:02 AM (qBTBH)

12 This might be the best bowl season in a long time. One of the funniest things is that Spurrier actualy has a chance to win the SEC with the lowly Cocks. Spurrier is the best, nastiest, craftiest college coach ever.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 13, 2005 09:49 AM (6ngro)

13 Spurrier the best, ever? Well, ever hear of Knute Rockne, Red Blaik, John McKay, John Robinson, Howard Jones, Red Sanders, Pete Carroll, Ara Parsegian, Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes...just to name a few of the hacks that he is better than. NOT. Kyle, history is a great subject; learn it, or be doomed by it. (Apologies to Santayana)

Posted by: shelly at November 13, 2005 08:31 PM (6mUkl)

14 Shelly you are the one who needs to read. I said he was the NASTIEST, CRAFTIEST best coach. And I stand by that.

Posted by: kyle at November 14, 2005 04:14 AM (b7UTw)

15 Casca - Think other at large will go to either SEC # 2 or PAC-10 # 2. Ohio State ends up in the Capital One, assuming PSU and OSU win out. Well, if crafty means going to Washington, DC, screwing up a NFL team, and walking away with $15M, then Spurrier is all that. Hope McCain will define "degrading" because wading through the various references to find a definition is a mindnumbing endeavor. Article 16 Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity

Posted by: Col Steve at November 14, 2005 11:14 AM (NvUmm)

16 Kyle, I know how to read; I even know how to parse. Try parsing your sentence. Clearly, you did not write what you meant to say. Give it a rest; Spurrier is probably a flash in the pan. Certainly, in my mind, he cannot shine the shoes of the men I listed. I didn't include Shula, Lombardi or Landry, or George Allen or a passel of others due to the fact that you said college and I understood that part of it. But, if he keeps whipping the pussies at OSU, I may add Paterno...

Posted by: shelly at November 14, 2005 04:17 PM (6mUkl)

17 One more inhumane act is to have 15 posts on American football...now that is torture!

Posted by: NOTR at November 14, 2005 06:54 PM (izx0t)

18 And then I'll know that you've taken up the pipe and joined the crackheads on the palisades.

Posted by: Casca at November 14, 2005 07:54 PM (qBTBH)

19 I said, he has to keep beating the pussies at OSU. I guess, as long as they hide their offense, anything is possible. Carroll, on the other hand, just says that we are going around your right end; try and stop us... The pipes are in Venice, not the Palisades.

Posted by: shelly at November 14, 2005 11:42 PM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tony Blair's days as PM are numbered?

(You might say that. i couldn't possibly comment.)

Posted by: annika at 08:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Everything lost.

It's easy to blame the lying public employee unions, and to feel discouraged about the future of democracy. i do. But those feelings will pass, because i know the main reason Californians voted for the status quo yesterday.

Californians, like most of the country, are very pissed off at their government for various, often opposing, reasons. So when you have a bunch of propositions that are intended to improve things and change the status quo, but you introduce them into a climate of voter dissatisfaction, it's very hard to expect people to vote "yes" on anything. The "no" is their way of saying "we don't like things the way they are."

Remember, the recall election was itself a "no" vote.

Add to that, the legions of well-funded and motivated, goose-stepping union members who were certain to get out their own vote yesterday, and you see why the reform measures had no chance.

Oh, and San Francisco voted yesterday to invite gun-toting outlaws to visit the city, stay a while, and while they're there why not rape rob or kill a San Franciscan for added fun and profit.

Posted by: annika at 06:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

AP's report about today's Tennessee school shooting contains an unusual choice of quotes in the third paragraph, as printed in this ABC News post.

The motive for the shooting at Campbell County High School, 30 miles from Knoxville, was not immediately known, Sheriff Ron McClellan told WVLT-TV.

'We don'a0644t [sic] know yet. I have the individual at the hospital,' McClellan said. 'These men are all fine Christian men, and I am at a loss for words.'

But i find it interesting that AP seems to take special care to identify the religion of this particular murderer at the top of the story, when i usually have to read to the end of a typical AP story on terrorism to find out that kind of information -- if they disclose it at all.

Posted by: annika at 04:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

If you are a Californian, you must vote today. The special election is the difference between changing things or giving up. Don't you give up. Vote for change. Unless of course, you like things the way they are in CA.

The cool thing is, if you haven't studied the propositions, don't worry. Just vote like i did.

Proposition 73: YES.

Proposition 74: YES.

Proposition 75: YES.

Proposition 76: YES.

Proposition 77: YES.

Proposition 78: YES.

Proposition 79: NO.

Proposition 80: NO.

Posted by: annika at 03:50 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

It amazes me that after eleven days of rioting, the French have not yet called out the military or instituted a curfew. Isn't that riot control 101? i mean at some point, you gotta do something, don't you. What are they doing over there? Sheesh, Mike Brown could have done a better job than Chirac and Villepin are doing.

Update: i have two more semi-facetious observations. First, it's a measure of how much things have changed in Europe, that the German government is actually advising their citizens to "be careful" about traveling to France. Come on guys. Now is the perfect time to strike! Whatever happened to "Let the last man on the right brush the channel with his sleeve?"

Second, a lot of people are saying it's poverty that's causing these riots. So maybe France isn't socialist enough. Taking that line of thought to its logical conclusion, i'd have to agree. If France were a full blown Communist dictatorship, you can bet these riots would have stopped soon after the first rock was thrown. Just ask any Czech or Hungarian of a certain age.

Update 2: Read Sarah's personal experiences living in one of the Parisian "suburbs."

Posted by: annika at 07:39 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Time to buy Renault stock.

Posted by: annika at 07:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

You've heard of the suburban Paris rioters. Now meet the Danish rioters.

The police has to stay away. This is our area. We decide what goes down here

We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of [Danish newspaper] Jyllands-Posten.

via Instapundit.

Update: Here's what's prompted the violence. A couple of cartoons.* Funny, i don't seem to remember Evangelicals rioting in this country after Flynt spoofed Falwell some years ago. But whatever.

* link updated.

Posted by: annika at 10:32 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Giuliani said Moslem terrorism has existed in Europe for the last thirty years and the European's did nothing about it. This allowed the Muslim terrorism movement to grow and flourish in the Middle East with people and funds supplied by European terrorists. Europe has to confront their Muslim terrorist problem; otherwise there will be no Europe worth saving.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 11:35 AM (r/5D/)

2 Oh, it's not the Euros who'll confront the Muslims, rather the other way round. Foolish human nature always mistakes tolerance for weakness. Even the French can exhibit savagery, once they've warmed to the task.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 02:00 PM (qBTBH)

3 I hope countries like France drown in the flood of Islamic immigrants they let into their borders without regard to the groups' beliefs or desire to assimilate to Western values. I think that it is ironic and hilarious that the same cultural relativism that leads to wide open borders also leads to a complete inability to respond when these groups react in the manner described in the post. How any country could possible allow mass immigration from Islamic countries is beyond me. Islamic culture has barely evolved over the past thousand years. These people, generally, could not care less about Western values or traditions. Europe (and America) allows Islamic immigration at its own peril. But, of course, no leading Western politician seems to have the courage to "just say no." I'm also sick of Muslims whining when folks dare criticize their beliefs or mention the fact that nearly all terroists acts committed are by Muslims in the name of Allah. Seriously, fuck 'em. I'm so over their excuses and the "whoa is me...I'm such a victim attitude." On a lighter note, Princess Mary, whose picture pops up on the side of the web-page discussing the cartoons, is pretty hot. She kinda looks like Jennifer Aniston. Yummy....

Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 02:03 PM (QjCK5)

4 The problem with leaders "just saying no" to Muslim immigrants is that it violates Western principles of democracy and tolerance. If you want to criticize those principles, fine, but then you have to replace them with something else. What do you replace it with? Fundamentalist Christian principles? Orthodox Jewish principles? Atheistic humanist principles? Wiccan principles? Or do we just take the unprincipled route and say, we tolerate everyone but you? And if today it's Muslim extremists, tomorrow is it people of Middle Eastern descent as a whole? It's almost kind of an impossible problem. If you take a Just War Theory type of approach, there's no solution because there's no sovereign nation to retaliate against when terrorists act out against the government (and thus no principled reason to ban a particular country's immigrants). I don't know what the answer is but I think closing our borders cheapens the value of Western society -- which is precisely what they want to achieve.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 02:57 PM (XUsiG)

5 Once upon a time, way back when Shelly was an undergrad, there used to be required coursework titled, "Western Civilization". It was a euphemism for the why and wherefore of our Judeo-Christian culture, and had replaced the original faith based underpinnings of most Universitys that predate the 20th Century. Western Civ was replaced with the modern relativism exhibited by Law Fairy's remarks above. Back when we were permitted to be men we understood that tolerance has limits, and importing a passel of sodomites who intend to hold to their satanic faith is probably beyond them. Like the man said in the song, "Do what you like, but don't do it here".

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 03:41 PM (qBTBH)

6 Law Fairy Europe must do what they do ((or did) in Austria. Every foreigner working in Austria must attend night school for classes in German and Austrian history and culture. They are kicked out of the country if they donÂ’t show progress in those courses or flunk the final exam.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 03:45 PM (r/5D/)

7 With all due respect, I would argue that the West's most important principles are the rule of law and the right to private property. To me, those are the bedrocks upon which Western civilization rests. Democracy and tolerance are only by-products. (Tolerance, by the way, must be very carefully defined. Our tradition doesn't simply embrace tolerance of everything no matter how vile.) Frankly, I would think that any person with even a modest knowledge of Western political history would understand this. Comments like those above by The Law Fairy only go to show how badly Western people understand their own history. How fucking depressing.....

Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 04:16 PM (QjCK5)

8 Yes, law Fairy, you very much misunderstand what western values are all about. We have NO compulsion upon us to be tolerant of the intolerant. Civil society is a two way street. Furthermore, any nation at any time has the right to close the door to those who are detroying their culture. (or even for economic reasons,) states have every right and indeed a responsibility to enforce their borders.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 03, 2005 04:54 PM (vt0fT)

9 Blu -- It's not a misunderstanding of history -- and believe me, I have had my share of right-leaning history lessons to understand many of the differing views on our civilization's origins. And regardless of history, the fact is that TODAY we live in a society that leans pluralistic. The "rule of law" has a nice ring to it, but of itself it doesn't carry much more than perhaps a hint of positivism. What should those rules be? I suppose we could go the fascist route, which would be very orderly, but I'm sure you agree with me that this is not the best course of action. And if you want to talk about private property and history, we first need to go way back to when we stole the land from those who were here before us. Call me ignorant or uneducated all you want, but (assuming you're not a loathed relativist) there's a word for taking a position that a moral rule applies to all future actions, but not to past actions one has already taken (applying the moral rule would include accepting the consequences of that rule's application): hypocrisy. (To preemptively counter the obvious ex post facto rule allusion that suggests itself, note I'm speaking to moral, rather than legal, rules). Jake -- I'm not familiar with that rule, or when it was implemented. Has it or did it make Austria a better country? Casca -- I've never been permitted to be a man. People make fun of me when I wear my artificial penis under my skirt. So I guess I've never understood that tolerance doesn't apply to, um, all the imported Satanist sodomists who are apparently making the country... less manly?

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 04:55 PM (XUsiG)

10 Alas LF, the first time you write your name in the snow, the scales fall away and all is revealed. Nice legalistic twist of my words unless you're incapable of identifying the object of my euphemism. As for hypocrisy, if it's hypocisy to seek after perfection when it is unachieveable in this imperfect world, then so be it. YOU have chosen the most hypocritical profession of them all. Now get thee to a nunnery!

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:11 PM (qBTBH)

11 Poor Law Fairy, I will make this simple. Islam is evil. It is not a religion at all. Do not compare it to Christianity, the Jewish Faith, or even Wiccan principles. It is a political movement complete with a set of indecent laws and the expressed goal of taking over the entire world. It is more closely compared to Nazism and Communism. It requires it's adherents to go forth into the world and conquer territory through both what Christians call evangelizing and through what everyone calls military invasion. Once Islam takes control of a territory, it gives the infidels (non-muslims) three choices: conversion to islam, submission into slavery (you will pay a special infidel tax and must submit to the whim of every muslim), or death. While every American is free to become a nazi or communist, we did not allow the importation of large numbers of nazi's or communists during all the years we were at war with these political ideology's. Even though the President can't and won't say it, we are at war with Islam because Islam declared war on us. Islam doesn't have any tolerance. It actually recquires intolerance. I am a Christian. Islam cannot tolerate me. Islam does not tolerate Jews and Islam certainly does not tolerate Wiccans. Western tolerance does not tolerate totalitarians , it does not tolerate murder and it does not tolerate repression. Yes, the lefties will scream and harp about the slavery, the lynchings, the KKK, and the right will point out union thuggery, communist marches, and the loss of individual rights by activists judges swinging hammers and taking our homes. But know this, America fought a war and ended slavery in its own borders, the FBI brought the law crashing down on the KKK, blacks armed themselves against lynchers, a woman member of the NAACP brought down the practice of racially organized seating, the legislatures are anulling Kelo, union thuggery is a sign that they are losing members and are in fact at an all time low. So sit back and relax and wring your hands and no not what to do. When Islam rears its ugly head, real Americans will stand up and know exactly what to do. We always have and we always will. The cycle of good and evil will rage back and forth and good will always win in the end.

Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 05:39 PM (LzjT8)

12 Well said Houston.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:55 PM (qBTBH)

13 Just to further some of Houston's point on jihad, I wrote this, it cites some of an interview with the author of new book studying Islam and the concept of jihad. I wouldn't mind a couple visitors clicking through, , but the relevant quote from the book for those who can't be bothered to click through: It is the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives — from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are muba’a in the Dar ul Harb. And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the institutionalized ideology that we are fighting, i.e., jihad

Posted by: Scof at November 03, 2005 06:20 PM (Gnqv5)

14 Law Fairy; The Eurotrash has probably outlawed the requirement in Austria by now. But while the law was in operation: 1. The immigrants to the country had jobs and lead productive lives. They became a part of the Austrian fabric of life rather than be walled up in a enclave as they are in France. 2. They did not go on welfare and take up a life of crime and violence. 3. They have not rioted.

Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 07:45 PM (r/5D/)

15 I feel like I'm being ganged-up on... casca, unfortunately the nunnery kicked me out when I expressed an interest in the World's Oldest Profession (the one that you can report on your tax return, to be clear). I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore. How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses? There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning. Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way. There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants. How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens. I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders. Jake, it sounds like an interesting proposal. I'm not opposed to trying a bit harder to instill patriotic virtues in citizens and new immigrants alike. I think America does get a bad rap outside and inside, and it doesn't help when we do things like outlaw the Pledge of Alleigiance (ha! Bet you all thought I was liberal ) and let media elites play fast and loose with the truth under principles of "journalistic freedom."

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 08:17 PM (bzLvk)

16 Back to the cartoon... I know how easy it is to get all excited about a cartoon. I agree Princess Mary is pretty hot. Maybe the French could trick the Jihadists into having a Burning Man festival in the French suburbs and then just let the whole place burn to the ground. Anyone left would have to go back to where they came from.

Posted by: d-rod at November 03, 2005 08:41 PM (Lmjjd)

17 LF, you've just spent two decades having bullshit poured into your brain. If you are intellectually curious, and you seem to be, somewhere in the next five to ten years you may trip over the reason why "East is East, and West is West, and neither the tween shall meet". I loved your comment about being willing to fly with your moslim acquaintances, lol, something very much like that was said about the bus bombers in London.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 10:14 PM (qBTBH)

18 Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore. That's because you went to law school. I went to engineering school. I learned about the beauty and logic of the laws of nature and you learned about the deceit and vile pettiness of the laws of man. You were suppossed to learn from the other lawyers, not listen to them. Everything you really need to know (socially), you learned in Kinder Garten. That stuff they taught you in law school is all lies. How can I be so sure? I was an evacuee during the Great Hurricane Rita exodous. It took 15 hours of being stuck in a car to break through my inborn desire to follow the useless folly of man's laws. Over the next 15 hours still stuck in that car I became an outlaw or rather I finally recognized that I am now and always have been an outlaw. I determined that I no longer needed a government to tell me how to act. I determined that in a society with thousands, perhaps millions of pages of law, I could not possibly be anything but an outlaw. I quickly did away with the laws that I found unnecessary and useless. I am the law. But you need not fear me or others like me. We and I are the law because we and I are guided by 10 simple commandments. These boil down to One Golden Rule. The golden rule is the measure which places the line between good and evil. Your indoctrination by the other lawyers attempted to blur this line, to create controversy, because lawyers live in the fringes of the grey areas. The grey allows lawyers to make money. Engineers only succeed when the project succeeds. The bridge stands or the bridge falls. If the dam fails, the engineer isn't hired to build another. How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses? Look to the Golden Rule. The Koran itself cannot stand the test of the Golden Rule. The Golden rule does not allow evangilization through murder or enslavement. It does not call for the execution of those that change their faith or deny it. God does not need the death penalty to keep the faithful. The Sharia mandates death for those that would convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism or any other faith. Somebody will surely scream "Spanish Inquisition" at this statement. The Bible did not call for the Inquistion and neither did Jesus. The Inquisition created itself and followed it own ways. There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning. Unlike the Bible, that was written in very ancient times and was translated into Greek and translated into into English, the Koran was written in fairly modern times in the 6th or 7th century (I forget which). It was written then in the same language then as today, Arabic. And don't worry yourself about me trying to translate it for myself. I wanted to find out more about the religion of peace so I went to the web sites of muslims and found one in particular that said what the Koran said and backed it up with line item references to the Koran. Yes, there may be different opinions about many of the verses in the Koran. But many are quite clear and that usually isn't good. I find the Bible often confusing and sometime difficult to understand. The basic message gets through. The basic message of the Koran demands a lot of violence and a lot of utter nonsense. Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way. Good point. There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants. Indeed there are. How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens. I too have had Muslim friends. The ones that are really your friend and are really good simply aren't really muslims. They may consider themselves muslims but Islam does not consider them muslims. That is why terrorists kill more muslims than infidels. They kill them because they do not follow the Koran and they do not follow the Sharia. Islam means slavery. I read on the muslim site that a muslim cannot have a friend that is Christian. It is hareem. The imam or imam's backed this up with quotes from the Koran. I also read that a Muslim may not even greet a Christian first, but if a Christian greet's a Muslim first, then the Muslim should fall over himself to return a bigger greeting. Somehow, I don't think a simple greeting should be turned into a superiority war. I can't square that with the Golden Rule. That's just a little to sneaky and coniving for me. What I learned from the imam is that the Koran is full of superiority. It divides people into little groups. It labels most of these groups as bad. I can't square racism with the Golden Rule either. If kill the Jews isn't racism, then I don't know what is. The world of Islam is in a world of hurt. Our world isn't perfect either of course, but the difference is the more our world follows the Golden Rule the better it gets. Following the myriad rules of the Koran will make the world dizzy and violent. At best it will just make the world a little more schitzo; The Koran does not allow musical instruments and the Koran must not be played on tapes in a car that has the speaker down by the feet, lest it be insulted. I am sure someone will say that imam doesn't know what he is talking about, listen to my imam. Sorry, but there are far too many imams that never seem to get it right. There may be disagreement between Christian ministers and Priests but, I never had any of them go total wacko. The example of Europe is that it is now time to weed out the good from the bad. It is time to find out who is a real friend or not. Ask these friends why did the islamic prophet marry a six year old girl. Ask them why most islamic nations are headed by a dictator. Ask them why it is wrong to invest in a 401(k). Ask them if they believe that Jews were flying the 9/11 airplanes. Ask them if they want to replace the Constitution with the Sharia. I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders. I am at the point that I want answers. I demand to know if my neighbors want me dead, enslaved or forced into conversion. I know that my country will be better off without such people. If we have one more attack on our soil, I will be past the point of worrying about limiting first amendment rights to those that would burn the entire Constitution and replace it with the Sharia. Blood can change a nation mighty fast. Ugly things can happen very quickly and we may be suprised at who gets ugly first or ugliest. Sometimes great obscenities have to happen to win in a war. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was an ugliness for sure. But it was a far smaller ugliness than allowing Japan to continue to survive as even a remant of an evil empire or to loose the number of Americans that we would have lost without it. The death toll of Americans in taking the last few islands before the bomb lost was horrible in a war of the greatess horrors seen. We are at war on all fronts. We are at war with Islam on all fronts. Our ways, our laws, our culture, most of it not all of it, is fundamentally better and will prevail. Muslims will come here and some will come and see the bad parts and develop an even deeper hatred for us and try to kill us. Some will see the good parts and question slavery to the Koran. Those that come and remain faithful to the slavery of the Koran, I am most suspicious of all. If you can't handle freedom, you don't have a moral center of your own, and I definetly don't trust those who lack even a fundemental grasp of self regulation through the Golden Rule. The wars of today are one mighty race. The race is whether the speed of freedom is faster than the speed of oppression. In America, the race is between the speed of individuals trying to preserve the freedoms that they have versus the speed of groups who want to take that freedoms guaranteed in the consitution away through grey law hammer swinging. In China ,the race that will determine the outcome will be whether capitalists will desire freedom faster than the communists can build a super power for war. In the middle east, the race is whether the desire to be free can spread faster than terrorists can plant explosives. I feel like I'm being ganged-up on... This is a good thing. It means that we do not believe you are a waste of time. It means that we believe you can be saved from a life of wasted indescision and unclarity in a time where clarity is the key to winning. Your motives are fundamentally good; I feel from your expressed thoughts that you as a person motivated by good are not able to fully understand those that would fundamentally destroy your freedom, your world and your life. I often feel this about people at church. I don't think they are capable of understanding evil. Then I wonder if the reason I understand evil and expect evil is because I am somehow not as good as they are. Sometimes I wonder what would happen If I was raised in a household with no God. Would I become fundementally evil? Would I be arrogant and require others to follow my laws? Or would the libertarian prevail? No I'm not evil. I'm human to be sure. I struggle. I do my best. I seek clarity. I can't do it alone for it requires constant reexamination. Thank God for Jesus. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The concience that seperates good from evil. The conscience that tells you when your rights stop and others rights begin. The conscience that tells you when you are right to defend yourself and when you have gone beyond defense.

Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 10:45 PM (LzjT8)

19 Actually, Casca, my education was more conservative than probably 95% of Americans'. All the things I've been saying in my comments are my own opinions, formed free of any indoctrination or whatnot. The last five years for me have been quite enlightening, and being the open-minded and intellectually curious person I am, I've been able to see beyond the rhetoric of either side of any debate and understand why *everybody's* wrong As for London bombers &c, there's no way you could possibly know whether my friends are terrorists. You've never even met them. So the comparison seems to me inapt at best. Further, if as a people we can't trust those we're close to not to kill us for a "greater good" then we have much bigger problems to worry about than a few suicide bombers.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 10:46 PM (bzLvk)

20 Houston, I suppose it's a sort of compliment that you think I'm a fundamentally good person, so thank you. I have to disagree with you, though, even on that point My reading of the Bible is that we're all fundamentally bad and we ALL have to be saved from our sin -- hence the importance of Jesus. I don't believe that any of us IS the law, though I do believe God gave each of us a conscience. I also think, and it sounds like you might agree with me, that the Ten Commandments, while important, are basically just exemplaries. Jesus said it came down to two basic things: love God and love your neighbor. To me, loving our neighbors means loving the good neighbors and the bad neighbors. It even means loving the neighbors who secretly harbor plots to kill us. Jesus never turned anyone away, even the most reviled members of society. If Jesus, being perfect, didn't feel the need to cast them out, then certainly we don't have the right to cast them out. Separating the good from the bad -- the wheat from the chaff, if you will -- is God's job, not ours. I divine from the Bible no imperative or moral authority to take such a task upon ourselves. And as to the black and white issue, I think that when you're given a set of rules within which you can reliably expect certain results (as in your chosen field of engineering), it absolutely makes sense to view things in black and white terms -- leaving open, of course, the possibility that the premises on which you base your expectations may prove false. The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant. And I appreciate your concern, but please don't mistake my politeness/civil tone for a weak argument. I don't often toot my own horn, but I'm highly intelligent, extremely well-educated, and I've thought long and hard about everything I bother arguing about. The fact that I'm a woman, or that I'm young, or whatever, doesn't mean I need to be "taught" any more than anyone else. Which isn't to say, of course, that we couldn't *all* use a little teaching now and again

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 11:02 PM (bzLvk)

21 Wow, what a commment thread. Regarding those Austrian rules for citizenship, Denmark has recently tightened up its immigration laws similarly. Regarding Jesus, i think it's interesting that while He sometimes spoke with Samaritans and used them as examples in his parables, Jesus never challenged the orthodoxy that kept Samaritans separate from the mainstream Jews of the time. In my view, it's not so easy to take what Jesus taught us about how to conduct our personal lives, and extend it so that these rules become God's directions to nation-states. i'm not sure that's a correct reading of the New Testament. Law Fairy, i put you on my blogroll, thanks for visiting.

Posted by: annika at November 04, 2005 07:57 AM (Dztge)

22 Heh, I'd like to go on record that I LIKE the Law Fairy, probably because she doesn't have a dick. It would be hard for me to be pals with a guy who self-applied a sobriquet like that. And therein lies the argument. Men and women are wired differently. Men are linear. The most linear of women still have an emotional thought override that kicks in at the most surprising times. Most women are full-auto emotionalism all the time. This all connects to the nurturing aspect of women. Men in general, no matter what the women's studies types told you, are useless as caregivers, and as exceptional as some women are as drivers, it isn't sexism that's kept women out of the NASCAR winner's circle. Men excel at the tasks of guarding hearth and home, and as a rule have the steel to inflict physical pain and destruction as necessary. Women will just ruin your life, by telling everyone that you're a brute. "The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant." Relativism is morally repugnant. Being able to take the measure of people is one of the few advantages of age. Over time, one sees all the tricks. Thus comes wisdom. People tend to be stereotypical, and we're all discriminated against outside of our own groups. The delight of humanity is that occasionally one meets someone who DOESN'T fit the stereotype.

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:52 AM (qBTBH)

23 LF - "I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is " Being selectively precise in argument is rhetorical trickeration of the kind most often practised by your gender.

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:59 AM (qBTBH)

24 Law Fairy: You seem to be a thoughtful person and I hope you return. To understand the problem in Europe, you should read this article by Theodore Dalrymple "The Suicide Bombers Among Us" http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html

Posted by: Jake at November 04, 2005 09:28 AM (r/5D/)

25 You're missing the flaming comments. I shall provide: KILL 'EM ALL!!! LET ALLAH SORT 'EM OUT!!! I now return you to your previous discussion.

Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 10:04 AM (L3qPK)

26 Jesus would send in the rats.

Posted by: d-rod at November 04, 2005 10:28 AM (ooYm7)

27 I had the William Tecumseh Sherman quote in my comments, but didn't want to scare the fairy away. More accurately, "Kill them all. The Lord knows his own".

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 03:47 PM (qBTBH)

28 Casca, I know the original quote. I was making a joke--see? Allah, all caps, cute little framing lines? You are such a buzzkill.

Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 08:31 PM (l+W8Z)

29 This from a guy who jams rats up his ass.

Posted by: Casca at November 05, 2005 09:19 AM (qBTBH)

30 LF, I don't give two hoots for "Western principles of democracy and tolerance." It is my country, not theirs. Immigration is not a right. Come and abide by my laws or stay away. I've nothing against immigrants - my wife is one - but nobody has the right to come here and violate our laws. You really need to think about that part of the Declaration of Independence about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I'm not able to agree with Houston. This government exists to ensure our safety - if that means that Muslims cannot immigrate, so be it.

Posted by: MarkD at November 05, 2005 02:13 PM (X9njN)

31 No, Casca, I treat my rats with the same respect I treat my dog...and your dogs, if you have any. Stop being such a cocksucker.

Posted by: Victor at November 07, 2005 05:50 AM (L3qPK)

32 Let us simplify. Houston Condensed. If Islam leaves me alone. I will leave it alone. If Islamists come to hurt me or mine, I will blow their s**t into the weeds and never look back. I don't care about the whys or dialog.

Posted by: Baddog at November 07, 2005 08:34 AM (SMDIw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What a crappy crappy day i had today. i won't go into all the reasons, some were biological and others environmental. But i'm all stressed out right now. My preferred stress reliever had to work tonight, so instead i'm enjoying a glass of fine California wine.

One thing that pissed me off early, happened between classes as i was filling out my absentee ballot. An annoying guy in my class came over and sat down next to me. He obviously thought i was filling out a lotto card.

"Hey, if you win the lottery, do I get some?" he asked.

My first thought was, You couldn't get some offa me even if you won the lottery. Then it occurred to me that he was talking about the winnings.

"No this is an absentee ballot," i told him.

"Oh, are you voting no on all those propositions?" he said.

"What propositions do you mean?"

"Those ones the governator likes."

i paused for effect. "Um, no. i'm actually voting yes on them."

He looked horribly disappointed. "Really?"

"Yes really."

"i voted for him," he added. "But I don't like any of his propositions."

This type of thinking is apparently common, according to the polls. But i was amazed to have actually met someone with that kind of disconnection from reality.

"What's the point of voting for Schwarzenegger if you don't want him to change anything? That makes no sense at all. He can't do it by himself. We might as well have kept Gray Davis."

He obviously hadn't thought about that. "Um, well, it seems like some of those propositions are just 'broken promises.'"

Whoa. That was amazing. Here was a guy who had no idea what was on the ballot, yet he was able to parrot verbatim the Unions' attack ad slogan. That's how effective those anti-Schwarzenegger ads have been.

i wanted to lay into him at that point, but i figured the better solution would be to salvage something positive from an idiot, if possible.

i said, "They're not like that at all. Why don't you read the propositions and vote for the ones that sound good to you."

"Well, i suppose." He seemed open to the idea.

"Good. Promise me you'll do that," i flashed him a smile.

"I will. I promise."

Excellent. i had hopefully converted an idiot.

So here's how i voted for next Tuesday's special election, in case any of you care:

Proposition 73: This measure requires a 48 hour waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. This is probably just a ploy to get conservatives to the polls, but i figure it might actually bring just as many pro-abortion voters out. Since i'm against abortion, i'm in favor of any restrictions, no matter how incremental. i voted YES.

Proposition 74: This is the first of the four Schwarzenegger propositions. This measure increases the amount of time a teacher must work before getting tenure. Right now they can get tenure after two years. The initiative bumps it up to five years. Sounds reasonable to me. YES.

Proposition 75: According to the Secretary of State this initiative prohibits "the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form." That's a no-brainer. YES.

Proposition 76: This is the initiative that promises to make the State government "live within its means." i hope it passes, and if it does, i hope it works. YES.

Proposition 77: This measure is supposed to reform California's gerrymandered districts by taking redistricting out of the hands of the politicians and letting a panel of retired judges draw the lines. Not a perfect solution, but better than the current system, which leaves the foxes in charge of the henhouse. YES.

Proposition 78: One of two competing prescription drug discount initiatives. i voted for this one rather than 79, which is more flawed. YES.

Proposition 79: This prescription drug scheme relies on state bureaucrats to negotiate discounts, instead of the free market. But the worst thing is that it creates a whole new loophole for greedy plaintiff lawyers to file frivoulous lawsuits based on technicalities. NO.

Proposition 80: i don't know what to think about this measure, which purports to repeal California's energy deregulation. i can see arguments both ways on this one. However, i'm generally in favor of deregulation, so i voted NO.

The four Schwarzenegger supported propositions are 74, 75, 76 and 77. The polls say they're all going down. But the polls have been wrong before, and i hope at least 76 and 77 win. That could really start some changes here in California, which is a state that is much more conservative than its legislature. Though most people don't realize it.

Posted by: annika at 10:41 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.

i bet i could totally outshoot Ben Afflack, that pansy.

Posted by: annika at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Let them eat cake....

Posted by: spielberg80 at November 01, 2005 09:41 AM (K9tdw)

2 At least Bennifer is pro second amendment. He actualy comes off a lot less moonbat in interviews than other hollywierd celeb-rities

Posted by: Kyle N at November 01, 2005 02:40 PM (uXdIQ)

3 Yes Kyle, but he's got an asshole the size of a fifty-cent piece.

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2005 02:58 PM (qBTBH)

4 I bet you totally could too.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at November 01, 2005 04:35 PM (2ZXkL)

5 Is that pansy really worth a post?

Posted by: Orion Testaclese at November 01, 2005 05:50 PM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment