• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

October 31, 2005

Molly Ivins: Speak Up

Cross-posted to Lifelike Pundits.

Last Thursday, Molly Ivins spoke at the Shubert Theater in New Haven about the loss of freedom Americans are experiencing. She discusses the story of her brother-in-law's mother, a 102-year-old woman escaping from Katrina who was searched at the airport.

Because she had a one-way ticket," Ivins said, "she was pulled aside for a full search. My brother-in-law is watching his bewildered, blind, 102-year-old mother going through this.

"She was saying, 'You want me to put my feet where?' and 'I can't raise my arms that high.' She was getting really upset.

"But my brother-in-law was thinking, 'I know if I speak up, it could get worse.' So he held his tongue."

I agree: it's ludicrous that this woman was searched. But if the left wasn't so adamantly against racial profiling, airport security wouldn't be going after grannies in wheelchairs and babies in strollers. By worrying about "offending" a particular group of people who fit the description of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and other terrorist attacks around the world), then the rest of us are going to be inconvenienced.

During the evening, Ivins claimed many are being accused of being "unpatriotic" and that she, in particular, was accused of "treason," and that many are "intimidated" by the "patriotic bully." And of course, she got the obligatory swipe in at Bush's intelligence.

Ivins, who knew Bush casually when they both spent their youths in Texas, licked her chops when somebody in the audience submitted a question asking: "Is he as dopey as he appears?"

"He's not actively stupid," she replied. "He doesn't react well to stress. He's limited."

Tee hee. Questioning her patriotism is off-limits, but it's not off-limits for her to call the right "patriotic bullies" and infer that the president is a doofus extraordinaire. She must be really subdued by the opposition.

If so many people are intimidated, as Ivins says they are, why are there so many like her able to talk about the so-called intimidation? Actor Tim Robbins spoke of a "chill wind" at the National Press Club luncheon a couple of years back. Actor Martin Sheen marched in a demonstration with tape over his mouth. Were Ivins, Robbins or Sheen tossed into jail for disagreeing with the current administration? Not to my knowledge.

When conservatives disagree with the left, the left cries that they are being oppressed and bullied, and that their patriotism is being questioned. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, some of us definitely question their patriotism. However, the claim that they're being oppressed is nonsense. If you want to know about oppression, check out the policies of China, North Korea and Iran regarding political dissenters.

Besides, I'm not so sure I want to take the word of someone accused of plagiarism .

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

CBS: Sloppy Seconds?

One would assume that being the Chief White House Correspondent for a major news outlet such as CBS means the reporter, having "paid his dues," would have a modicum of dignity and class.

Well, er, no.logo_cbsnews.gif

From Drudge:

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Thank goodness our news is being delivered in an unbiased and professional manner. All of those dollars Roberts spent getting his journalism training at college have really paid off. Way to go!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Blogs for Heather...Wilson

If you've noticed my sidebar, you'll see a Blogs for Heather banner. Who is Heather?

Heather Wilson is the Republican Congressional representative for the 1st district in New Mexico. She is up for re-election in 2006, and is facing opposition from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D). Why the fuss, you wonder? After all, I don't live in New Mexico.

Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi in the lead, are going on the offensive and hope that by taking out Heather Wilson, they'll whittle away the majority Republicans enjoy in the House. (It's interesting that Madrid is suddenly interested in running for Congress. Could it be because she cannot run for a third term as New Mexico's AG?)

In any case, this is an important race for Republicans nationwide. This seat represents a swing vote in the House, and therefore it's important for Republicans to hold on to it. I've signed on to the Blogs for Heather cause, started by Chris at Lucky Dawg News, and will be following the campaign as it picks up speed in the coming months.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Kabbalah Bigwig Arrested for Fraud

Gosh, we didn't see this coming:

A woman suffering from cancer was talked into paying tens of thousands of dollars to the Israeli Kabbalah Center, on the pretext that the donation would help improve her condition.

After her death at the age of fifty, the woman's husband filed a complaint against the head of the center, Shaul Youdkevitch, who was consequently arrested by the police Sunday.

Has this guy been taking lessons from the good folks over at Scientology?

Come on, people...if you have to buy salvation, it ain't salvation.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Religion

Sorry I was AWOL This Weekend...

My oldest had her 13th birthday party sleepover on Saturday and we had cheerleading for one and soccer for the other on Sunday. Needless to say, we were pretty busy.

I'll be posting more shortly!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Personal

October 28, 2005

Halloween is a' Comin'

Here's the jack-o-lantern I carved with my kids tonight! Halloween 001.jpg

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Personal

DiCaprio on the Global Warming Threat

Leonardo DiCaprio is the latest actor/celebrity to graduate with honors from the Hollywood University of Scientific Hogwash (HUSH). DiCaprio, with his extensive knowledge of weather patterns, geologic history and Starbucks Frappucinos, was on the Oprah Winfrey show yesterday:

The actor stated, "Global warming is not only the number one environmental issue that we're facing today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity.

"We're in a situation right now where we're basically emitting too much of this carbon pollution from our cars and our electric power plants that burn coal into the atmosphere, and it's causing our planet to heat up."

Winfrey then fawned over DiCaprio, likening him to Noah warning of the upcoming flood. Perhaps comparing him to Chicken Little would be more appropriate.

See, the whole global warming theory is one that is surrounded in a great deal of controversy. Some believe that the theory of global warming is a result of junk science. In fact, my pal Joe over at Geosciblog has written about the global warming phenomenon from a geologist's perspective.

Let's face it: we really don't know enough about the warming and cooling trends of the Earth to know if our consumption of fossil fuels is really causing major problems. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try to curb our use of fossil fuels and that we shouldn't be looking for other fuel alternatives. I do think that panicking over a trend we don't really know enough about is foolish.

And having know-nothings like Leonardo DiCaprio lecture us on the state of the world at large because he's taken up a "cause" like all other dutiful Hollywooders is obnoxious in the extreme. (From an "unofficial" biography: Leo was educated at the Center for Enriched Studies and John Marshall High School, both in LA. He often cheated in school (especially in math), and seemed more interested in entertaining his classmates than in doing his homework. "School, I never truly got the knack of. I could never focus on things I didn't want to learn. I used to, like, take half of the school and do break-dancing skits with my friend in front of them at lunchtime.")

Stick to entertaining, Leo, and leave the science to the big boys.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Satire

October 27, 2005

Oil-for-Food Mess

If anyone had any doubts as to how valuable the U.N. really is, they should be reassured by the final Oil for Food report by Paul Volcker's committee.

The 623-page document exposed the global scope of a scam that allegedly involved such name-brand companies as DaimlerChrysler and Siemens AG (SI), as well as a former French U.N. ambassador, a firebrand British politician and the president of Italy's Lombardi region.

It meticulously detailed how the $64 billion program became a cash cow for Saddam and more than half the companies participating in oil-for-food - at the expense of Iraqis suffering under U.N. sanctions. It blamed shoddy U.N. management and the world's most powerful nations for allowing the corruption to go on for years.

Think about it: the world body that was supposedly reining in Saddam by its sanctions was really just a giant piggy bank (ooh, offensive term!) for corrupt companies and individuals to dip their dirty little hands into. It's amazing how many different nationalities were represented!

Sadly, there were some Americans involved (and they should be prosecuted just like anyone else), but what really cracks me up is that Russia and France pretty much lead the pack as far as who was involved. Remember who was outspoken about our going into Iraq? Gee...

And good old George Galloway, who lambasted our Senate last spring for daring to accuse him of receiving kickbacks from Saddam, is in for a hearty helping of crow. HP sauce, anyone?

The U.N. was in charge of all of this. And look what happened. This is the organization that John Kerry said should be consulted first and foremost when it comes to our national security. The organization that wants to stick its sticky fingers into the Internet regulation pie. The sex abuse by peacekeepers in the Congo, etcetera ad nauseum.

Kofi Annan has refused to step down. Where's the outrage from the rah rah crowd on the left? A group that blames George W. Bush personally for the aftermath of Katrina should certainly expect Annan to take the heat for a badly run program that affected millions of Iraqis it was supposed to help.

Those pesky double standards just don't want to go away.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | United Nations

Miers is Out

They say if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I guess Harriet Miers couldn't take the maelstrom of criticism, and she has pulled herself out of the confirmation process.

In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

You know, all of those Republicans and conservatives who declare that a nominee should be afforded the dignity of a straight up-or-down Senate vote after a timely confirmation hearing really need to check their double standards list. I'm just disgusted with the whole affair.

Miers has class and dignity. I wish her well.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1) | Judges & Law

October 26, 2005

Second Amendment At Risk in San Fran

Chris from Lucky Dawg News posted a comment on my post regarding the new James Bond actor "hating" guns, even though he signed on to a movie where guns are used. Chris' comment:

I'm really surprised none of the blogs on our side of the aisle have mentioned the upcoming vote in San Fransicko. In a few weeks, it may be illegal to own a firearm there, unless you are a cop, or a soldier.

Anybody that would vote away their right to defend themselves doesn't deserve to call themselves Americans.

That's right. On November 8, San Franciscans can vote for or against Proposition H, which would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning a gun for any reason at all. If it passes, those who do not turn in their guns become criminals.

It's right there, in the Second Amendment to our Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some like to nitpick, saying since we have an official military and don't use militias anymore, there's no reason for civilians to own guns. But unless the amendment is outright overturned, it's a right for any law-abiding citizen to own a gun--unless he is convicted of a felony, and then that right is taken away (as is the right to vote).

Where's the ACLU on this obvious civil liberties violation? Oh, right, worrying about things like the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you live in San Francisco and don't want this to happen, get your butt to the polls on November 8.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

How They're Spinning It

Here are the headlines from different news agencies regarding the "milestone" number of 2,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq:

AP: Accident Brings U.S. Toll in Iraq to 2,001

NY Times: 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark

CBS: Iraqis Mixed On Grim Milestone

USA Today: U.S. milestone brings some Iraqi sympathy


NY Daily News: 2,000 heroes

Washington Post: Military Has Lost 2,000 In Iraq

San Francisco Chronicle: SOMBER MILESTONE
Conflict in Iraq: After 2 1/2 years of war and the insurgency, the toll of U.S. service members killed reaches 2,000
Unlike Vietnam, Iraq war inflicts heavy casualties on older, experienced troops

Chicago Tribune: U.S. Military Death Toll in Iraq at 2,001

It's all in the spin, boys and girls. The only two headlines that honored the soldiers' service in any way are the two "tabloids," the NY Post and the NY Daily News. All of the other more "elite" newspapers and agencies used words "grim," "toll," "somber" and "milestone."

As Gary over at Ex-Donkey says, this is not a "milestone," and refers to our "peace movement" when he says:

These people are disgusting. Trapped in some kind of Vietnam-era time warp, these people live every day hoping and praying for failure and death so they can make political hay.

There's your "peace" movement.

God bless the troops, fighting for the freedoms of their fellow Americans - even these selfish, ungrateful pricks. "Peace, Love, Dope"...you douchebags.


Show Comments

The Sacrifices Made for Art

The new James Bond, Daniel Craig, has a confession to make:

[H]e revealed in OK! magazine: "I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other.

"That's a simple fact. I've seen a bullet wound and it was a mess. It was on a shoot and it scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that's what's scary about them."

What I always find amusing about those who say they "hate guns" is that you never hear them saying they "hate" those who use them. And no, I'm not talking about cops or soldiers here, or even those who use them in self defense. I'm talking about people who use guns with criminal intent. Where is the outrage about them?

Get a clue: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And even if every gun on this Earth magically disappeared this moment, do you think that no one would ever get murdered again? Please! If someone wants to kill someone else, he'll use whatever's handy--a gun, a knife, a rock, a rope, a car, a pillow, poison, his bare hands--almost anything can be turned into a weapon by someone with murder on his mind.

But Craig's fear of guns obviously isn't getting in the way of his making money...er, his art. After all, principles don't pay the bills.

(P.S. No one can hold a candle to Sean Connery as Bond, either in looks or charisma. I think Daniel Craig is creepy looking.)

UPDATE: Kitty over at Kitty Litter posted an interesting piece on Hollywood hotshots who are publicly "anti-gun" but own guns themselves. Check it out!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:25 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

October 25, 2005

Children from Earthquake Sold Into Prostitution

This story is extremely disturbing:

SIX-YEAR-OLD Aisha loves the orange blouse and jeans given to her by the kind woman who rescued her from the chaos of the Kashmir earthquake. She snuggles up to the woman, trying to forget the devastation of her village home and the deaths of her parents 16 days ago.

What Aisha does not know is that the woman, Kausar, is a prostitute who has
bought her from relatives for 50,000 rupees ($1500) and plans to put her to work in the sex trade as soon as she reaches puberty.

Aisha is apparently one of only hundreds of orphaned Pakistani children being targeted by greed-motivated gangs for prostitution.

This is rich:

"I will provide a good education for her. I would not like her to be a cheap, third-class prostitute. I do care about the girl. I will take good care of her, and then reap the benefit. I'm providing for her protection and I don't care what Allah thinks."

Sure, we want her to be an educated prostitute. It wouldn't do at all if she couldn't count how many rupees she needs to turn over to her pimp.

According to the story, this lovely woman wouldn't allow any intervention by journalists. (It's comforting to know they tried. I wonder if they reported it to the authorities? If they did, would the authorities be able to do anything?)

This kind of thing just turns my stomach. Where the heck is UNICEF when you need them? Oh, right, making videos of the Smurfs being annihilated.

*Note: the photo is NOT connected to the story, but is of refugee children after the earthquake. I'm just going for the emphasis thing here.*

h/t: Lucky Dawg News

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | International

More Illegal Outrage

This story from East Hartford, Connecticut, is another example of why we need to crack down on illegal immigrants:

Police are investigating whether the bloody melee that erupted at a 1-year-old's birthday party over the weekend was fueled by a violent rivalry between two Central America gangs that has claimed dozens of lives.

As seven of those arrested posted bail, police released new details Monday of the brawl involving 50 adults at the Crosby Street multi-family house.

Witnesses told police that individuals involved in the chaos that spilled out into the street early Sunday were members of MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) and its rival, MS-18. One of the nation's most dangerous gangs, MS-13 has its origins in El Salvador. The gang took root in Southern California in the 1980s and has since spread throughout the country.

Some background on MS-13:

Last week, three suspected MS-13 gang members were arrested in Vienna, Va., after police tracked their activity between Los Angeles, Massachusetts and Virginia for five months. One of the men is wanted for an MS-13-related slaying in Massachusetts. All three are illegal aliens from El Salvador.

Earlier this year, Michelle Malkin wrote an article about the increasing violence from MS-13 in the Washington, D.C. suburbs:

At the local malls in Montgomery County, Md., where I live, gang stabbings are increasingly common. Earlier this summer, a spate of knifing attacks involving reputed MS-13 gangsters took place at a nearby Target store. Yes, Target -- where the only fights that shoppers should have to worry about are the tug-of-war spats between soccer moms battling over Sonia Kashuk makeup bags on sale in Aisle 2.

Where are our politicians? Are they blind to what's going on, or are they hoping that if they ignore it, it will go away? We have enough problems with homegrown gang violence. There's no need to import more.

Our borders are out of control, and average citizens are paying the price.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Illegal Immigration

Why Brainster Supports Harriet Miers

Read Pat's post here.

Well said, as always. If you check the comments section, you'll see some of his readers don't agree. Yet note that all of the comments are respectfully submitted...a big difference between the right and left, in my humble opinion.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

Conspicuous Media Bias

The Washington Post has an article today entitled "Husband Conspicuous in Leak Case." It seems that "suddenly" Joe Wilson is being looked at as playing a part in the releasing of his wife's name. You know who she is...Valerie Plame.

Only now is Wilson being considered conspicuous? He's done his darndest for the last two years to stay conspicuous, what with his gadding about with celebrities, running the news magazine show gamut, and writing a book.

Here's what jumps out at me in this article (emphases mine):

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page, defending the administration, wrote yesterday that, "Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for president campaign." Discussing his trip to Niger, the Journal judged: "Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found on a CIA trip to Africa, what he told the CIA about it, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited."

Now read this:

Wilson's defenders say he is a truth-teller who has been unfairly attacked. "[T]he White House responded to Ambassador Wilson in the worst possible way," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said at a Democratic gathering in July. "They did not present substantive evidence to justify the uranium claim. . . . Instead, it appears that the president's advisers launched a smear campaign, and Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, became collateral damage."

See the difference? Both paragraphs are factual, but look at how the facts are presented. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative, true. The point of editorials is indeed to toss out opinions. It's where opinions belong in a newspaper. But how would the Post like being characterized as having a "liberal" editorial page? Notice, too, how they use the word "judge" in that phrase, and then look at the response by Senator Waxman. He only "said" that Wilson was the victim of a smear campaign, while the Journal "judged" Wilson's original claims about his trip to Africa.

Is this nitpicking? Some might think so. But how news stories are worded has as much to do with what they say as the facts that are presented. Back in college, I did my senior thesis on this subject, using a former local mayor who was on trial for bribery while he was in office. The local newspaper was very obvious in its support for the mayor by the wording of its articles--especially in descriptions of the mayor and the prosecuting attorney. (I got an A on the paper.)

There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. The human element is nearly impossible to erase. The best way to get around such biases is to present more than one point of view and let the readers/viewers sort through the muck--something many MSM outlets are loathe to do, because they can't admit that such a bias exists. That would be tatamount to admitting they are human and can screw up.

Being toppled from a pedestal...especially a self-constructed one...is a painful process indeed.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

October 24, 2005

Deleted Entry

Some of you may notice I've deleted an entry I posted yesterday regarding a family matter. Upon reflection, I've decided it's not worth the risk of a family brouhaha if the wrong person finds out about it.

Sigh...sometimes a conscience can be an annoying thing.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:07 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Personal

Mark Those Calendars!

(Crossposted to Lifelike Pundits)

As if today's students aren't already overbooked between keggers, wet t-shirt contests, Phish concerts (and those pesky classes sandwiched inbetween), United for Peace and Justice wants to add to their overburdened schedules with their National "Not Your Soldier" Youth and Student Day of Action on November 17.

*Are military recruiters invading your schools and using promises of scholarships and career opportunities to convince your friends to join the military? (Military recruiters are invading? Help! Call in the military...oh, er, never mind.)
*Do you wish that job and college recruiters would replace the military ones? (I never thought I'd see the day when a leftist group espoused having an eeevil corporation recruiting our precious youth.)
*Are you tired of being trapped in JROTC programs? (Don't you have to be a willing participant? I wasn't aware that the ROTC set out traps in order to gain members.)
*Have you lost loved ones in this illegal and unjustifiable war? (Wasn't it the loved ones' choice to join the military in the first place?)
*Have you had enough of being used as a pawn in Bush’s games of war? (You can't be a pawn if you don't sign up. What do the anti-drug folks say? Just say NO.)

Here's what students can "do" to help the "cause":

1. Hold a demo/rally at a school or community recruiting station to declare a “Not Your Soldier” zone. (Classes? Fuhgeddaboutit!)
2.Offer solutions! Organize an “alternative” recruitment fair; invite college recruiters, local unions, job recruiters, activist organizations and others to table and show the alternatives to the military. (Again, colleges always have other alternatives at their job fairs. They never just invite the military.)
3. Demand a Meeting with your school administration to discuss your specific demands (if they don’t agree, organize a petition drive or demonstration to make sure they do!)(Oh, I like this one. Demand! Kids today are being taught that no one has the right to say no to them. And we wonder why recent college grads have a difficult time when they get into the real world and find out the hard way that not everything they want is going to be handed to them without question.)
4. Get creative! Organize a concert, open mic or party with music, poetry, theater and art against military recruitment! (Those liberal arts classes finally have an application in real life!)
5. Host a forum or debate on military recruitment! Invite community activists, teachers and parents to come listen to young people talk about their experiences, ideas and opinions on military recruitment, the poverty draft and the war! (Will the military be invited to this debate? If not, it's not much of a debate...)
6. Be visible! Set up a table, do sidewalk chalking, create a public graffiti wall, do a banner drop - let people know what young people really think about the war, military recruitment and the kind of future we want for our generation! (Yes, a future where our enemies can attack without fear of reprisal because the military was eradicated by a bunch of crunchy granolas.)

You know, the whole concept is ridiculous. To read this press release, you'd think that college campuses are the sole domain of military recruiters. What about schools like Yale, who are trying to ban them? If kids don't want to join the military, they don't have to, plain and simple. Just businesses offer employment alternatives, so does the military. Not your cup of tea? No problem.

Disclaimer: any citizen has the right to protest whatever he wants to. I'm not questioning that. I am questioning UPJ's contention that military recruiters are really such a danger. If the kids are as enlightened as our leftist professors try to make them, won't they turn down a military career anyway?

It's not about choice--it's about censoring views not held near and dear to the left.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

I've Been Interviewed!

The folks over at National Summary were interested enough in my blogging efforts to interview me on my political views and my perspective as a woman in the blogosphere. You can read their questions and my responses here.

They also interviewed several other women with blogs...their interviews are on the main page here.

Gosh, who knows? Maybe National Review will be contacting me next! (heh)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Politics

October 23, 2005

Camp Katrina

I just wanted to let you all know about a new blog out there, called Camp Katrina. What's it about?

SPC Phil Van Treuren was among the National Guard soldiers deployed to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. The blog aims to share stories and photos from National Guardsmen who were or are still involved with the relief efforts. It's easy to forget what's going on down South once the MSM has left the scene, looking for a fresh disaster to milk.

For once, let's see things from the soldier's point of view, not just the MSM's. Go on over and see what it's all about!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Military

My New Web Address

With many thanks to Ex-Donkey Gary, I've been invited to join the Mu.nu family of blogs. This is my last official post on Blogger. Please join me at:


I was hoping to have it all spiffed up before making the move official, but what the heck? I'll improve on the graphics as I go along.

I won't erase my Blogger address right away, but do please update your bookmarks to reflect the new address. (I'll be importing my Blogger archives to the new site soon.)

Thanks for your continued support--see you at my new digs!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 21, 2005

Going Away for a Couple of Days...

We're heading out for my stepbrother's wedding, and so I won't be blogging until Sunday afternoon or evening. Please be sure to visit the sites on my blogroll in the meantime...they're all great places for news and commentary.

When I return, I'm going to be announcing my new Web address. I know you're all excited! ;-)

Catcha then!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 20, 2005

"Under God" Under Fire in Connecticut

A rally will be taking place at noon in the city of Milford, Connecticut today in support of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of the Knights of Columbus plan to fight the federal court ruling in California that said the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional, and today's rally is to bring awareness and drum up support.

Atheists will be right there counterprotesting.

Dennis Himes, state director of American Atheists, said his group would be there to counter-rally, because the addition of the phrase to the pledge was "directly aimed at atheists in the first place and is trying to say that weÕre not true Americans."

He seems a little paranoid! After all, I would't know an atheist to look at him unless he went around with a sign hung around his neck proclaiming his beliefs (or lack of them).

It'll be interesting to see what kind of support each group receives--especially the atheists, in light of their past success:

American Atheists protested the Nativity on the Green last winter, claiming the display violated the separation of church and state. At the protest, a handful of atheists showed up and were met by hundreds of counterprotestors.

Here's a refresher on the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You know, no one is forced to say the pledge at all, let alone say the "under God" part. People who go around whining that their civil rights are infringed upon when they encounter anything religious in the public sector seem to have no problem with trying to infringe upon the civil rights of others by having all reference to religion banned. "If we can't enjoy it, they can't enjoy it" seems to be their motto.

For some, tolerance is a one-way street.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 19, 2005

Your Child Too Can Learn to be a Muslim!

If you live in Byron Township in California, your twelve-year-old child is going to be a part of the three week program that shows him/her what it's like to be a Muslim--including being given a Muslim name and completing the Five Pillars of Faith.

Some rightfully outraged parents are taking this issue to the courts, and RightWingProf over at Right Wing Nation has the details.

Question: if the program was about being either Christian or Jewish, how quickly would the ACLU and other civil rights groups be decrying the practice?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 18, 2005

Stop Recruiting Young Men!

More idiocy:

"Because of the potential for abuse and the threat to the personal privacy rights of a generation of American youth, we request that the JAMRS (Joint Advertising and Market Research Studies) project be immediately ended," the groups wrote in their letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

See, a database would have the name, Social Security number, age and ethnicity of over 30 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 65. Of course, it's not much more than many telemarketing agencies that sell everything from insurance to magazine subscriptions.

The organizations that signed the letter, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also charged that the program's measures go beyond traditional recruitment methods.

The ACLU? No surprise there. And if traditional methods fail, why not update them? This is the 21st century, after all. Disbanding the armed forces altogether would be preferable, I guess, but keeping them in the Dark Ages when it comes to recruiting is the next best choice.

The program recommends that mothers' views on military service and polls of young adults also be taken into consideration.

How many young men do you know who live their lives according to their mothers' wishes? If they did, there would be a lot fewer rock star wannabes, drug dealers and porn stars in this world. Is the next step of these groups to target police and fire departments' recruiting methods too? After all, those are dangerous occupations that make moms worry.

I once had a chat with some lefty friends about how movie theaters show advertisements before the film starts. We all agreed that to pay nearly $10 and have ads thrown at us is outrageous. One woman was particularly vehement about the ads by the Air Force, Army and other branches of the military. "They shouldn't allow them," she declared.

I replied, "They have just as much right to advertise as anyone else." She had no answer, of course, because I was right.

The AARP can have access to my data in order to start harrassing me for money when I turn 55, but the military can't try to recruit using the same methods? These complainers are probably the same people who support nationalized health care, where all of your most private information would be accessible through a national database.

All a young man (or woman, sorry!) has to do is say, "No."

Maybe these groups would prefer that the military send their recruiters to nursing homes?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

John Edwards: Rich Man vs. Poor Man

Former Kerry stooge John Edwards is beginning a campaign against poverty. He's traveling around the country by bus, and plans to stop at various big name colleges and universities, including Univesity of California Berkeley and Yale.

At the University of North Carolina, Edwards said students can make a difference in the divide between the rich and the poor.

"They have always lived on a razor blade," Edwards said of the poor who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricane. "The problem is it doesn't take much to knock them off."

He asked the students to spend 20 hours a semester doing volunteer advocacy for issues such as raising the minimum wage.

Economist Walter Williams has this to say about minimum wage:

The crucial question for any policy is not what are its intentions but what are its effects? One of its effects is readily seen by putting yourself in the place of an employer and asking: If I must pay $6.25 or $7.25 an hour to whomever I hire, does it make sense for me to hire a worker whose skills enable him to produce only $4.00 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view doing so as a losing economic proposition. Thus, one effect of minimum wages is that of discriminating against the employment of low-skilled workers.

Williams also had this to say about our litigous society:

I think that the litigiousness of Americans and what judges allow to come to court is really amazing. The costs that lawyers can impose on firms, if the corporations are going to survive, are pushed on to the consumers of the product and the stockholders. It's a huge cost on our society. We can see that cost by looking at the suits brought against tobacco companies. Some of those multi-million dollars suits have been successful. You'll see the tobacco company lose a suit, yet its stock does not go down. Why? Because they're pushing that cost on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.

So John Edwards, a trial lawyer who made his millions by suing doctors for malpractice regarding babies who were born with cerebral palsy--a practice which undoubtedly hiked medical costs for rich and poor alike--thinks students whose parents can afford to send them to expensive, exclusive schools can make a difference by spending 20 hours a semester stumping for an increase in the minimum wage.

As a nation, we've been "waging the war on poverty" since Lyndon Johnson was president. You'd think we'd have made some headway after 30 years. No? Then maybe the "conventional wisdom" espoused by Democrats like Edwards isn't working.

The only ones being helped by this ridiculous scheme are John Edwards, who gains from the PR, and the students, who can put their volunteer work on their resumes when they go out into the world to become teachers, lawyers, social workers, etc.

All aboard!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 17, 2005

Still working...

Thanks for your patience!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Other

Iraqi Constitutional Vote: Good News or Bad?

Sometimes it's how you look at things...and sometimes it depends on who's doing the looking.

The Washington Post says the recent adoption of the Iraqi draft constitution is not a victory, but only the latest in a long road ahead for Iraq:

For the Bush administration, the apparent approval of Iraq's constitution is less of a victory than yet another chance to possibly fashion a political solution that does not result in the bloody division of Iraq.

Could we be any more negative? They're lamenting the fact that Sunnis, by and large, rejected the draft.

Of course there is the chance that all of the fighting and sacrifice will end up being for naught. No matter what one undertakes, there is always the chance for failure. But the Washington Post (and many other MSM outlets) like to take the "glass half full" approach when it comes to anything positive coming out of Iraq because failure would be a black mark on Bush and his administration. The fact that the Iraqi people have more at stake here doesn't seem to enter their estimations whatsoever.

Rich Galen has a different outlook:

The good news isn't that the Constitution will be approved. That has been a more-or-less foregone conclusion for a while. The real news is that the Sunnis came out big numbers in their provinces in an attempt to defeat it.

Well, see, in the elections last January the Sunnis boycotted the process hoping that world opinion would conclude that without their participation the elections would be illegitimate.

In the event, about 60% of the total population went to the polls, which was - to put it mildly - a pleasant surprise. The Sunnis, for the price of it, got 17 seats in the Parliament rather than the 50-or-so which their 20% of the population would have indicated.

This time they urged their people to go to the polls and vote "No." Just like we do.

I guarantee you that the last time a bond issue in your town -- whatever town you are in and whatever the bond issue was for -- was on the ballot there was some group urging people to go to the polls to defeat it.

In California, urging voters to turn out to defeat some ballot issue or another has become a multi-million dollar business.

So, the Sunnis, who have controlled Iraq for lo these many years, have decided to use the ballot box to make their point. Just like George W. Bush told us would happen.

In other words, the democratic process is beginning to work in Iraq. As in all elections, the winning majority will exult in its success, while the losing minority goes into a corner to lick its wounds and plan for the next time. The Democratic Party in this country has been licking its wounds for some time now, and their cheerleaders, the MSM, has also tasted the bitterness of this particular brand of defeat.

Perhaps their outlook on Iraq isn't so surprising after all.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Great Blog to Check Out!

I love discovering blogs that I think have a lot of potential. The World of LeShaun Fossett is one of them.

LeShaun is a student at the University of Memphis (what he's studying I have yet to find out), and has only been blogging since June of this year. He gives his opinion on a variety of topics--from the recent Millions More march to what "cool" people are really all about.

Do yourself a favor and read his blog. I am adding him to my blogroll, and will be checking back on a regular basis.

Thanks to husband-dude for bringing this fine blog to my attention!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2005

It's All Over But the Counting

When the polls closed in Iraq at 5 p.m. (local time), I'm sure many breathed a sigh of relief. Under heavy guard, Iraqi citizens came out to either accept or reject the draft constitution. Seven voters were injured in attacks on Baghdad polling stations, but the only deaths were those of three Iraqi soldiers who were on patrol elsewhere.

If it passes, it's one more hurdle overcome. But even if it doesn't, such a vote is a tremendous milestone. Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that average citizens in Iraq would have a say in how their government is run? Certainly not Saddam Hussein, who is awaiting trial on charges of crimes against humanity. Certainly not his sons, who were being groomed to take over--but met a gruesome (and much deserved) demise.

So many critics of our presence in Iraq complain that things are taking too long. Do they forget how long it took our own country not only to win its independence from England, but to get around to drafting our constitution?

The saying, "Rome wasn't built in a day," might be old, but it's also true. Like a growing child, these milestone moments should be appreciated for what they are. We don't expect that a child will grow up instantly. Therefore, we should also not expect a country that has been under dictatorial rule for over 25 years to jump into democracy without any problems.

One step at a time.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 14, 2005

Ted Kennedy's Cure for What Ails

Ted Kennedy has a grand plan for health care in America: let the government take over.

We've been hearing bleatings about this from the left for some time now, and Kennedy is sponsoring a bill that is supposed to succeed where Hillarycare failed.

Kennedy's bill, along with a host of others presently winding through Capitol Hill, seeks to tweak the so-called "administrative simplification" provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Title II).
HIPAA required the Department of Health and Human Services to, over time, establish national standards for electronic health-care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health plans, and employers.

It also addressed the security and privacy of health data, resolving that such standards would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's health-care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in health care.

Some are concerned with not only privacy issues, but that by imposing a national standard, doctors might only treat patients whose chances for recovery are high.

What I find amusing is that Kennedy wants the government to have a more involved role in healthcare, taking more and more away from the private sector, when he recently blasted the government for its response to Hurricane Katrina victims:

This is a disaster of biblical proportions. The dimensions of this tragedy almost are beyond human comprehension. And the failures by our government to prepare and to respond run deep and wide.


Any corporation faced with such devastation and incompetence by its leadership would have its board and its shareholders demanding an independent assessment of the failures and demanding accountability for its leadership. It would not be business as usual.

That's right Teddy, and you'd be right up there with the rest of the corporate honchos.

Democrat logic: The government can't manage disaster relief, but we want it to manage healthcare?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Poll: People are Ruder More Now than Ever Before

What a surprise...not! Read the article here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 13, 2005

Hooray...I'm in Munuviana!

I'm still working on setting up shop. Until the grand opening, check out my soon-to-be former address at Blogspot.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Other

Madonna, Schmadonna

Madonna's 1980s song "Papa, Don't Preach" should be retitled, "Madonna, Don't Preach." In this excerpt from an interview in the November issue of the British mag Harpers and Queen, she tells us all about her domestic life (all empahses mine):

The woman who made her name as a mass media idol, continues: "My kids don't watch TV. We have televisions but they're not hooked up to anything but movies.

"TV is trash. I was raised without it. We don't have magazines or newspapers in the house either."

If TV is trash, didn't her videos from MTV's heyday play a part in making it so? I wonder if one of the movies hooked up to her television is Truth or Dare, the documentary made about one of her music tours.

As for the family diet: "It's whole grains, eating things by season, staying away from food that's been bioengineered in some way.

"[Our cook] prepares food like sushi or salmon. And vegetables. We don't eat any dairy here."

I'd probably eat a healthier diet too, if I could afford to pay a top-notch chef to cook for me. (I wonder if her kids' friends ever make fun of them for bringing sushi for lunch?)

"We eat late, we go to bed late, I get up early," she says. "I don't see a [lot] of my girlfriends. When you have a husband, two kids and a job, you don't go out that much."

Except when you go to movie premieres, award galas and star-studded Kabbalah "events." But then, what would a schlep from the suburbs like me know about it? Besides, I'm sure Nanny, Maid and Cook would have something to say about how much Madonna actually does around the house.

It's nice that Madonna has settled into such "simple" domesticity. Still, a woman who ran around grabbing her crotch and wearing pointed bustiers on stage, posed erotically for a book entitled SEX and, just a couple of years ago slipped the tongue to Britney Spears on national television, doesn't exactly hold much weight with me when it comes to moral and domestic issues. What will she tell her kiddies about her past exploits? "It was just business, darlings. It made mommy lots of money!"


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Ant and the Grasshopper: An Updated Fable for the New Millennium

I've taken the liberty of updating this classic fable from Aesop:

ONCE upon a time, there was an ant, and there was a grasshopper.

Ant was busy all the time, gathering food and preparing his home for the upcoming winter. Grasshopper had no time for such labors because he was much too busy singing, playing, and enjoying himself as he lived off the fat of the land. He thought Ant was just an old stick in the mud who didnÕt know how to have fun.

During the spring, Ant scurried back and forth from his anthill, carrying grain and other tidbits for storage. He saw Grasshopper frolicking in the meadow. ÒGrasshopper, arenÕt you going to prepare for the winter?Ó

Grasshopper laughed. ÒWhatÕs the hurry? Winter is a long way off. Stop worrying and join me in a song!Ó Ant shook his head and continued with his labors.

Summer arrived, and Ant was still hard at work while Grasshopper enjoyed lazing about during the long, sunny days. ÒGrasshopper,Ó Ant said, Òhave you gotten your store of food for the winter?Ó

ÒThatÕs a good joke,Ó chuckled Grasshopper. ÒItÕs a beautiful sunny day and youÕre thinking about cold and snow? Come on, Ant, lie down in the sun with me.Ó Ant declined, running back to his anthill with a mouthful of grass seed.

Shortly thereafter, fall and its beautiful array of changing colors covered the landscape. But Ant had no time to enjoy the gorgeous display as he bustled about collecting even more food. Grasshopper, who loved the crunching of the leaves and the brisk autumn breezes, didnÕt even bother asking Ant to join him, since he already knew what the answer would be.

Within weeks, the warmth of Indian summer had given way to the biting cold of winter. Grasshopper, who was chilled to the core and hadnÕt eaten in days, made his way through the drifts of snow to the antÕs anthill. Peering inside, he saw Ant was warm and cozy, with enough food to see him through the winter and then some. In a weak voice, Grasshopper called down to the ant.

ÒAnt, itÕs your old friend, Grasshopper. IÕm cold and hungry. Would you let me in to share your food and warmth this winter?Ó

Ant replied, ÒAll spring, summer and fall, when I was busy gathering food to store for the cold winter months, you laughed at me for working while you were having a good time and being lazy. Now youÕre asking me to share the fruits of my labors when you couldnÕt be bothered to do any work yourself? Find someone else to take pity on you. If you canÕt be bothered to help yourself, why should I support you?Ó

Grasshopper went away into the whirling snowstorm and Ant thought he had seen the last of him. The next day, he was surprised when Grasshopper not only returned, but he had brought three other insects with him.

ÒWhatÕs going on?Ó asked Ant.

ÒTell him,Ó said Grasshopper. The first insect, Tick, cleared his throat.

ÒAnt, IÕm from the FCLU (Forest Civil Liberties Union). Grasshopper has filed suit against you for violating his civil rights.Ó

ÒHis civil rights?Ó Ant asked incredulously. ÒWhat are you talking about?Ó

ÒYou called him lazy, which is a direct violation of his civil right not to be called names that might hurt his feelings.Ó

ÒBut he is lazy!Ó cried Ant. ÒHe spent all year goofing off instead of gathering food for winter!Ó

ÒThatÕs your opinion,Ó said Tick. He opened his briefcase. ÒHereÕs a summons. YouÕre expected in court first thing Monday morning.Ó

Ant took the paper, shaking his head in disbelief. He looked at Mosquito, who was on the other side of Grasshopper. ÒWhy are you here?Ó

Mosquito looked at his clipboard and buzzed, ÒIÕm the tax collector. Thanks to Grasshopper bringing it to my attention, IÕve realized you owe a higher portion of your grain stores for tax purposes to the Forest Council. IÕm here to collect five sacks of grain.Ó

ÒFive sacks? But I worked hard to collect all of that grain. What will you do with it?Ó

ÒWhy, distribute some of it to needy insects like Grasshopper, who donÕt have any, and sell the rest in order to pay for programs for disadvantaged insects.Ó

Ant was stunned at this latest bit of information. In a shaky voice, he addressed the third insect. ÒWhat is your part in all of this?Ó

Flea smiled. ÒIÕm a social worker from the Forest Council, who has taken on GrasshopperÕs case. ItÕs my duty to find a place for him to stay while he tries to get his life back together. YouÕre living here all alone, and seem to have plenty of room. Would you be willing to let Grasshopper live here for a while?Ó

ÒFor how long? And what if I say no?Ó

ÒYou could say no,Ó said Flea with a wink. ÒBut think of how your reputation in the forest would suffer if you did. I have friends over at INN (Insect News Network) who are looking for a good story. And it wouldnÕt be longÉjust long enough for Grasshopper to get his bearings again.Ó

Ant looked at Tick, Mosquito and Flea, and at Grasshopper, who was standing next to them, trying to hide the smirk on his face. He sighed and beckoned to Grasshopper. ÒWonÕt you come in?Ó

Copyright 2005, Pam M., Blogmeister USA

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

FOX Cancels "The Simple Life"

Thank you, God.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Iraq Ain't Vietnam

I have been busier than usual at work the last few weeks, which means I haven't had time to cruise the Internet as much as I'd like, and also that I haven't had time to keep up with some of my favorite blogs, like Brainster.

A couple of days ago, Pat posted something terrific on why Iraq cannot, and should not, be compared to Vietnam. Read it all (scroll down a bit), but the following passage just jumped out at me. Pat came of age during Vietnam and was among those who protested our presence there:

But unlike a lot of the 1960s' folk, I have always been willing to reexamine things I did as a youth in light of later experience, and fresh information. As a youngster I believed it when anitwar leaders said that the Vietnamese people didn't really care which side won, they just wanted the war to end. But the million or so boat people who fled the communists convinced me that was not the case. The communists claimed that they would improve the lives of the people, but as time went by it became clear that this was not happening. And the horrors of the reeducation camps and the killing fields in Cambodia showed that the pro-war folks were right when they said that the enemies we faced over there were evil.

And I began to see that many of the other antiwar folks were not willing to reexamine things in the light of later knowledge. Some were simply unable to question what had been such a defining moment in their lives, and I can sympathize with them. It isn't easy to conclude you were fooled about something in which you believed passionately.

As a result, I have been particularly harsh towards those who did the fooling. I am willing to forgive the leaders of the antiwar movement who have seen the error of their ways, like David Horowitz and Peter Collier. I am willing to forgive Mark Rudd of SDS, who apparently is a math teacher in New Mexico and thoroughly embarrassed by his past radicalism. But those who continue to dupe others, like Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Todd Gitlin, and John Kerry? Un-uh. They've got to be opposed with everything we've got. This was a big part of why I started the Kerry Haters blog. I now knew Kerry was a scuzzball, and I was determined that everybody else should learn it.

Kerry Haters is now defunct (archives here), but Pat and others like him are still carrying the torch. Allowing the radical left to hijack Iraq would be even a bigger crime than they way they hijacked Vietnam--because we know what happened to the Vietnamese people as a result.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 12, 2005

Gore Says, "I'd Be Different"

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Al Gore was quoted in Sweden as saying he has no intention of ever running for president again, but if he had won in 2000, things would be different.

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

He's right. We would be a different country. In fact, America would look something like this...

That's because Al Gore would most likely have continued the foreign policy practices of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, which consisted of "feel good" directives because Clinton wanted to be everybody's friend. Clinton, who did little or nothing about the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Nairobi. The lack of U.S. response to these outrages served to encourage the Islamic radicals.

Look at it this way: does the class bully stop harrassing the smaller kids who do nothing to defend themselves? Of course not. He's emboldened because he can get away with it. In fact, the attacks on the other kids usually escalate.

If Al Gore had won in 2000, he would have stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11, had a good cry on national television, and would have vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Maybe he would have put a few more FBI and CIA agents on the case, and maybe a few paltry arrests would have been made. But, that would be it.

And the terrorists, knowing they got away with it, would go for another target. Perhaps Washington D.C., since the brave passengers on Flight 93 foiled those plans, and the bomb at the Pentagon didn't kill nearly as many people as it "should" have. And, they would continue with their bombings here and places like Bali, London and Jakarta because they have this notion that radical Islam should rule the world. Al Gore, with his PC sensibilities, would not stand in their way because that's judging someone using your own moral compass as a guide--and according to PC gospel, that is wrong.

Afghanistan would still be under the thumb of the Taliban. John Walker Lindh, had he not been killed in battle, would still be fighting against his countrymen with the Taliban. We'd have more people like John Muhammed and his stepson terrorizing people in the name of Allah. Terrorist cells here in the U.S. would go undiscovered, their members hatching plots to bring the Great Satan down from within. Saddam Hussein would still be in power, intimidating the Iraqi media, and routinely torturing and killing Kurds and other political enemies as he groomed his evil sons to do the same. France, Germany and Russia would still be making money as a result of their ties to Iraqi oil that supposedly we're lusting after.

Meanwhile, hurricanes and other natural disasters would still hit, even though Gore would have jumped right on that Kyoto Protocol bandwagon. The national media would be fawning over the president, and celebrities would continue to receive coveted invitations to dinner at the White House and a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. Gore would do his best to raise taxes in order to fund all sorts of socialistic schemes, and the world would love us because we'd be marching to the beat of the U.N. drum instead of our own sovereign drum.

(Obviously this is all speculation. Again, woulda, coulda, shoulda.)

Yes, America would definitely be different under Al Gore. But would it be better off?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Vietnam Vets Sue John Kerry

The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a plaintiff along with Red, White, and Blue Productions, and Vietnam veteran turned journalist Carlton Sherwood, in a defamation action against current Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Tony Podesta, who was Kerry's Pennsylvania campaign manager.

Read the hows and whys here.

Even if the case gets tossed out of court or if the plaintiffs lose, just think of the annoyance factor for Kerry! The bad publicity is just icing on the cake.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary Does Hollywood

Celebrities must be wetting themselves over several upcoming opportunities to rub elbows with Hillary Clinton, as well as the chance to throw money in her already bulging coffers. According to Variety, uber-left winger Rob Reiner is among those planning fundraisers in LaLa Land this fall, with the hope of getting over the losing streak the Democrats have been enduring.

All may not be the proverbial bed of roses, however.

If Clinton has a problem in Hollywood -- as conservative columnist Robert Novak claimed this summer -- it is with liberal activists who want a more vocal opponent of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq as the Democratic standard-bearer.

Apparently she's been too good of an actress--even by Hollywood standards--in her quest to look like a moderate. But "progressive" types need not worry. Hillary is not a moderate. She's just hoping the unwashed masses will fall for her act and vote for her in 2008.

Oh that's right, her only plan right now is to run for re-election as senator for New York. What was I thinking?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 11, 2005

Jamaat ul-Fuqra: In Your Backyard?

What is Jamaat ul-Fuqra, you may ask? It's a Muslim group founded in New York in 1980 by Sheik Gilani. Gilani is the cleric who was interviewed by Daniel Pearl in 2002. Remember? Pearl was betrayed by his sources, then kidnapped while in the Middle East and subesquently beheaded.

Gilani hangs out with nice people.

Anyway, it turns out Jamaat ul-Fuqra has a compound in rural Red House, Virginia. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog posts about the group, and his (I'm assuming his!) journey to Red House to check out the scene. He chats up a local and gets some interesting information.

It's compelling reading. Click here to read it in its entirety. But for you impatient types, here it is in a nutshell:

What we do know is that an organization with a history of violence had set up shop locally, refused to let its girl children go to school, and had top members arrested and convicted by the FBI for firearms violations. In addition they have set up a remote and isolated ÒTraining Camp for Young Muslim-American MenÓ Ñ to train young men for what? Auto repair? The food service industry? I have my doubts.

Located right here in the good ol' US of A. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Bennett vs. Sanger

Remember Bill Bennett's recent comments about abortion, the black community and crime and the brouhaha that ensued? Bennett, of course, was raked over the coals as a racist and his comments were taken out of context to stoke the fires of black vs. white that the left revels in.

A letter writer to CNSNews.com points out something that many others (including yours truly) missed:

Since Bennett is pro-life, you know he wasn't advocating abortion. His point was obviously about the offensiveness of basing arguments about abortion, which is the murder of innocent children, on mere economics.


[Planned Parenthood founder Margaret] Sanger was a racist and eugenicist, and an early admirer of Adolf Hitler. Sanger infamously advocated birth control for blacks and other ÔinferiorÕ people, Ôto create a race of thoroughbreds.Õ (ref: The Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921) She located her birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods to reduce the birth rates in those communities.

What a great connection. Click here to see what the left says about Sanger. Click here for the part of the story the left doesn't talk about.

Excuse me while I take a triple dose of Pepto-Bismol.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

As Usual, It's Never Enough

Apparently, the West hasn't been fast enough to send aid to earthquake-stricken Pakistan. Specifically, the United States has been singled out because our original pledge of $500,000 was considered "peanuts." Of course, we upped it to $50 million, and it's the highest amount of any of the countries that are donating.

Never mind that we're still dealing with our own natural disaster aftermath in the South. I guess our own citizens don't matter.

Rule of thumb: We hate you, America...but don't forget to drop that check in the mail.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 10, 2005

Sarandon Speaks About Katrina

Activist and general know-it-all actress Susan Sarandon has stated that the press needs to continue covering the aftermath of Katrina, so that the public can see how money is being spent and how the relief efforts are progressing.

She adds, "Now, at least, we're aware and America is aware about how other Americans have been living. Nobody's been paying any attention to them."

That's true. The press has been paying much more attention to celebrities like Sarandon and their wealthy, glamorous lives. I, for one, vote that the press stop covering things like what gown Sarandon wears to the Golden Globes, reviewing her films and hearing about how she manages to juggle her fabulous career and her family life, and concentrate on the unwashed masses. Real life is far more interesting.

What say you?

(It's interesting how she said "we're aware and America is aware..." It makes it sound as though she doesn't consider herself an American. One of those Freudian slips, I guess!)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 09, 2005

Louis Freeh: The 60 Minutes Interview

I just finished watching Mike Wallace interview former FBI director Louis Freeh regarding his new book entitled "My FBI," which rakes Bill Clinton over the coals regarding his record on fighting terrorism while in he was in the White House.

The interview was embarrassingly short, considering how much time 60 Minutes has taken in the past with authors such as Richard Clark (who did his best to make George W. Bush look bad), but I suppose the fact that he was actually allowed within the sacred 60 Minutes studio is something.

Much of the interview has already been featured on the Drudge Report, but there were some nuggets worth hearing. I managed to take a few notes during the broadcast:

  • Regarding Clinton's reluctance to press then-Crown Prince Abdullah in the Khobar Towers investigation, Freeh said that it was the first President Bush, with his connections in Saudi Arabia, who helped him gain access to suspects for questioning. In fact, Freeh's final act as FBI director was to indict several people in connection to the bombing--but they are still overseas, out of reach.
  • Freeh mentioned that Congress appropriates FBI manpower in key areas...something I didn't know. He said in the fiscal year 2000, has asked for 894 counterterrorism agents and received 5. He also didn't get nearly as much money he asked for (I failed to jot down the numbers).
  • Interesting quote: "Collecting intelligence is like drinking water out of a fire hydrant."
  • He asks if, before 9/11, would we have really stopped flying planes had we heard that al Quaeda was planning on hijacking planes to fly into buildings? If we did, how long would it be for? My guess is, probably not...not only would the airlines been in an uproar, but so would the general public.
  • Mike Wallace: "This is your record." Freeh: "It's not just my record, it's the Congressional record..."

The interview was only about 20 minutes long and, like I said, it's surprising he was given any time at all. Wallace was condescending, but Freeh held his ground and made a good showing for himself.

I, for one, look forward to reading the book.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Irony 101

The man who stole documents from the National Archives by hiding them in his pants and socks is now challenging former FBI director Louis Freeh's assertion that Bill Clinton didn't press Saudi Arabia's then-Crown Prince Abdullah for assistance in the probe of the 1996 Khobar Towers explosion..

The explosion killed 19 of our servicemen and wounded hundreds more, and (I believe) remains unvolved to this day

Freeh also says that's when Clinton asked for a donation to the Clinton library.

Sandy Berger criticizing Louis Freeh is one of the many irony-laden stories to hit Washington. Will Clinton himself answer the charge, or will he continue to hide behind his minions while they do the dirty work for him?


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 08, 2005

Links for a Rainy Saturday

Here in Connecticut, the rain is coming down. We need it, but I wish it would happen during the week and not on the weekend. Still, today was enjoyable because it's the first Saturday in a while where I didn't have to run all over the place with the kids--all the outdoor rec activities were cancelled.

So in honor of rainy Saturdays everywhere, here are some links for you to enjoy...some from news outlets, some from blogs.

  • A group of EU businesses is begging Tony Blair to do something about the stagnating business practices of the EU. Guess they don't like the status quo known as socialism.
  • Boy George was arrested in New York for calling in a fake burglary and for possession of Kate Moss...I mean, cocaine. I guess he figures cocaine is better than heroin.
  • Joe over at Geosciblog worries that the MSM is preparing to treat the possibility of an avian flu epidemic with the same high journalistic standards they employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Joe has also written a guest article over at The Anthropogene entitled "The Passion of the Amateur." Check it out! (Full disclosure: The Anthropogene is my husband's pet project.)
  • Right Wing News has some moving photos of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 went down on 9/11. Part of me wonders, why bother with an "official" memorial? The items placed there by those who went to pay their respects seem more heartfelt and genuine than anything an architect can come up with.
  • Finally, congrats to Oddybobo, who has reached the exalted heights of 20,000 readers! (Wonder if she'll share her secret?)

Enjoy the weekend, folks!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 07, 2005

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' Love Child

This cartoon from the NY Post is hilarious:

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Colorado Governor Bill Owens Denounces Ward Churchill

Marathon Pundit has the goods. Head on over!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Newt Says "Trust in Bush"

This article by Newt Gingrich may not change your mind if you are upset about Harriet Miers' nomination, but take a look anyway. In addition to reminding us about Bush's dedication to conservative policy during his presidential tenure, he has this to say:

Mr. Bush governs with a very straightforward methodology: He says what he's going to do. He does it. And then he does it again. This has been true with taxes, the war on terror and now with judges.

As Pat over at Brainster has said, I too am a team player. Let's see what happens during the hearings. Infighting has weakened the Democrats. Let's not make the same mistake.

(Note: the Baltimore Sun requires free registration.)

Thanks to Karen for bringing the article to my attention!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

More on NY Subway Threat

The 8th Avenue entrance to Penn Station has been closed, although trains are still being allowed through. It's been said someone has been nabbed and has confirmed that a plot is in the making. My office building is the one right on top of Penn, so you can imagine I'm a bit nervous. (I haven't seen the story online yet, but it's been on TV and radi0.)

Mayor Bloomberg is set to make a live announcement at 11 am EST. I'll be among those watching.

Keep your fingers crossed for New York today.

UPDATE: I don't think someone was actually caught, but Hazmat people are investigating a soda can with a soapy green substance in it. The place is swarming with cops.

UPDATE II: The soda can appears to be a hoax, but Bloomberg was just on television justifying his response to the supposed threat. Why he has to justify it I don't know...if he had done nothing and something happened, people would be shouting "Off with his head!" He did the right thing.

UPDATE III (1:45 pm): The 8th Avenue entrance is still closed, but the Amtrak ticketing area is open again. I just took a walk around down there, and activity seems pretty normal. We just received an e-mail from building management letting us know they'll announce any emergency information if they get it, as soon as they get it. What a day!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 06, 2005

19 Terrorists Deployed to Hit Subways

ABC reports that terrorists were sent to deposit explosives in the NY subway system using briefcases. While the information has yet to be verified, it is said to have come from a credible source. Police are on heightened alert.

I'll be walking to the office from the train for a while, thanks.

However, we're getting this information beforehand. I'd say that's a positive development. Beat the terrorists? As long as the apologist left isn't in charge, we might have a chance.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

My Blogging Philosophy

Some people blog about personal stuff, while others blog about whatÕs going on in the world. IÕm in the latter category. Specifically, I focus on politics with a few other tidbits thrown in for variety. ItÕs an outlet for me that I donÕt always have in my personal life, and IÕm usually quite passionate in my beliefs. And, quite obviously, many of my opinions and beliefs are based on conservative values.

Almost always, I put my opinion forth. I do my best to back it up with evidence, but sometimes itÕs just an opinion. Other times, I present an article and let the reader make up his own mind without my putting in my two cents. Sometimes I make a factual error and when itÕs pointed out, I post a correction immediately.

Nowhere do I claim to be the final authority on anything. Obviously there are plenty of you out there who do not agree with my views, and youÕre certainly not shy about saying so. ThatÕs fineÉitÕs what the whole Òblogosphere phenomenonÓ is supposed to be about. A two-way dialogue is important for all of us to be involved in. I may not come around to your way of thinking, but I respect your right to express your opinion.

What isnÕt cool is when commenters use abusive, insulting language when they donÕt agree with what IÕve said. ThatÕs a surefire way for me to completely disregard what you say, even if it has a grain of truth or meritÑespecially when personal insults are used. If I bother to reply at all, I try to remain civilÉin fact, IÕve had some commenters express surprise at my replies. I donÕt believe in being rude. I think people who bandy about insults instead of thoughtful rebuttals do so because itÕs much easier to do online than face-to-face. So if you ÒshoutÓ at me, donÕt be surprised if I ignore you. (On my own blog I reserve the right to delete or even ban what I deem to be over the top. On LLP, Aaron has the final say.)

ThatÕs my blogging philosophy in a nutshell. Thanks for listening!

(Crossposted on Lifelike Pundits)

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Letter from George W. Bush

President Bush has taken the time to write a letter to all Americans, and it behooves you to read it. (cue "Hail to the Chief")

Reverse_Vampyr has it here.

Isn't it great to know what his real agenda is? The lefties were right all along!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 05, 2005

New Haven Won't Issue IDs to Illegals

Just one day after endorsing the plan, New Haven mayor John DeStefano Jr. has said the city will not be providing ID cards to illegal immigrants in the city. At a press conference Monday, Police Chief Francisco Ortiz (who was behind the plan with the mayor) said:

"Folks need a legitimate form of identification and this city will help them receive one," Ortiz said on the tape.

Yes, but if folks aren't legitimate citizens, then why should they receive legitimate identification? It's not clear why the mayor did an about face, but a spokesman said the city had not sought legal advice about the idea before announcing it. It's comforting to know elected officials stay up to speed on legal issues.

At the press event, DeStefano, Ortiz and Latino community leaders announced Hablamos Espanol, a new initiative aimed at making City Hall more user-friendly for Spanish speakers by providing bilingual forms, such as birth and death certificates.

It would have been nice for my great-grandparents if a program entitled Wir Sprechen Deutsch was in place when they arrived from Germany. Just think--they wouldn't have had to go through the hassle of learning English! And what about the legal immigrants from Russia, China, Japan, Norway, Poland...the list is endless. No special bilingual forms for them either!

Giving illegal immigrants benefits that should only be available to citizens only encourages them to sneak over here. Enforce the laws as they stand. You don't like them? Lobby Congress for reform.

As for programs like Hablamos Espanol, they hurt all Spanish-speaking immigrants by encouraging them to isolate themselves from the community at large.

Try telling that to the PC crowd.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Korans! Get Your Free Korans!

CAIR is now giving away free copies of the Koran to non-Muslims.

"Explore the Quran" is CAIR's attempt to counter what the organization regards as continuing negative publicity surrounding the Koran, including the alleged desecration of the holy book at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. Those who request a Koran receive a thick hardcover book with English translation next to the Arabic on each page.

If someone here really wants a copy of the Koran to leaf through and "explore," then that is their right. But how kindly do Muslims take to Christians trying to hand out holy literature? The following is from Free Muslims.org regarding certain attitudes in Turkey:

Horrified by the imagined threat from Christianity, they appeal to the authoritarian measures of the state. They demand that Bible-distributing Christians should be arrested, or chapels in their homes should be put under police scrutiny.

CAIR is worried about what Americans think, but they don't have to worry about getting in trouble for having Korans, let alone distritubing them to others.

Back in May, Victor David Hanson mused about the Muslims and the Koran, and put the shoe on the other foot:

...They know, as we should, that Muslims have desecrated thousands of Korans and mosques, and that Muslims have desecrated Bibles and churches, most recently when Palestinian Arab murderers occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. They know that Muslims in the West are free to practice their religion, while Christians and Jews in many Muslim countries are subjected to restrictions and often persecution. And they know they don't apologize for any of this blasphemous, intolerant behavior. But the double standard is precisely the point: it expresses power, the power of their spiritual belief to compel us to sanction and tolerate such obvious hypocrisy.

CAIR says its aim is for understanding and tolerance. Yet what it wants from others it cannot give--understanding and tolerance for religions other than Islam is obviously not part of their PR plan. Not even terrorism in the name of Islam is questioned.

In CAIR's book, tolerance is a one-way street.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 04, 2005

A Tax with a View

If you want to move to New Hampshire and buy a home that has a magnificent view of the surrounding countryside, get ready to dig deep: the state has a view tax.

That's right, a view tax. You have to pay to look. The problem is, lots of people are upset about how the tax is being assessed. Property owners can look to pay anywhere from $1,000 to $300,000. The assessment method is being sent to the state Board of Tax and Land Appeals for review.

John Chandler of Hill pointed out that he doesn't own the land that the view comes from and that others benefit from the same view, such as travelers on a nearby road. He also noted that since he is legally blind, he does not get to enjoy his view "at least to extent Avitar thinks I should," he said.

Among the key points made by Chandler was the fact that businesses are exempt from the view tax Ñ when it is businesses that profit the most from a view, such as the hotels, restaurants etc. Chandler asked why the tax only affected residential landowners.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a state could be levying a "view tax." The quality of any view is subjective, and the idea of taxing such a thing is preposterous.

I guess the New Hampshire motto "Live Free or Die" is so much lip service these days.

h/t: Weekend Pundit

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Wireless Internet Access

Of course, if the framers of the Constitution had owned a crystal ball, they could have foreseen all of the rights that today's left believes are "inalienable." These rights include abortion, gay marriage and...wireless Internet access.

According to the most progressive mayor of the nation's most progressive city, wireless Internet access should pretty much be given away.

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," [Mayor Gavin] Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

Newsom continues by calling it a "civil right issue as much as anything else."

The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

Ooh, something for nothing. The left is great at that. As of 2003, the median income household income in San Francisco was $57,833. From those figures, I'd guess that many people can afford their own wireless Internet access. Those who can't can use the computers at the library.

The library? Oh right, that big building with books, magazines, newspapers and computers that was considered to be a civil right about 100 years ago, is paid for out of tax dollars, and is open to anyone and everyone. Maybe their information is outdated--or at least, how you get the information from libraries is outdated. (It's much more exciting to show off your laptop or PDA with your free Internet access.)

How long before Newsom thinks that those who don't have a spouse or significant other are missing out on another "civil rights" issue--sex? He can take notes from Denmark, which has a sex program in place for disabled individuals. Deprivation is a terrible thing, you know.

The framers would be proud.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 03, 2005

Regarding the New SCOTUS Nominee

I don't plan on blogging on this topic at the moment because, to be honest, everyone else is--and doing a great job. Check out Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Right Wing News and other bigs to find out better information than I could give. Also, my co-blogger Aaron over at Lifelike Pundits is hot on the latest SCOTUS trail, so be sure to head over there for his views.

The only thing I can say right now is that, from what I have heard, Harriet Miers is a disastrous pick. Still, I have to keep the faith (although under the circumstances it's not easy).

We'll see what kind of political hay the Dems are able to make of this one.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Coffee Stinks!

In my office, we recently got a new coffee machine. Now I donÕt drink coffee, so the new machine is of little interest to meÑas long as I can still get hot water (which I can). The rest of the office seems to be in an uproar because many of those who have tried the new coffee donÕt like it.

I find it amazing that a simple cup of coffee can be such a big deal, but itÕs been several days and the complaints continue to fly. One woman said today, ÒIÕm going to start going to DunkinÕ Donuts!Ó

What these complainers are forgetting, of course, is that the coffee here is free. F-R-E-E. No one has to join one of those Òcoffee clubsÓ where only those who contribute are allowed to partakeÑthe company shoulders the entire cost of the coffee, including paying the guy who comes out to service the machine daily.

Which brings me to the point of this piece.

People have come to expect plenty of extras with their jobsÑinsurance, holiday pay, paid sick leave and so on. My company is one of the best out there as far as such benefits are concerned, and I, for one, am grateful. But itÕs easy to forget that something as minor as coffee is a luxury, not a right. The company could, during budget time, choose to eliminate free coffee altogether. Then what would the people say? Would there be rioting in the halls, complete with pitchforks and burning torches?

Businesses provide perks because it makes them more attractive to prospective employees. But they are not required by law to provide any kind of perks, including insurance or other benefits, other than unemployment. (Yes, there are rules regarding insurance if it is in place, but thatÕs another topic.) It cracks me up that so many of us have gotten so used to the idea that our company owes us something other than a paycheck for work we promise to do upon being hired that something as simple as a new coffee machine can get people riled up to the point of idiocy.

Just think of how much more of this weÕd hear if we became the socialist utopia that is Germany, France, and other European countries!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial