tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83900802024-03-13T05:42:50.978-07:00GirliemanChewed cigars, mountains and freeGirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-33313500578576238492007-03-06T14:05:00.000-08:002008-12-09T10:57:03.479-08:00Debbie Schlussel, Meet Charles JohnsonGod I hate bigots.<br /><br />I was curious about a post at LGF today about a doctor named Rashed who got into a little trouble for giving a severed hand from a corpse to a stripper a few years ago. No comment from Johnson, so I figured it's up to the reader to put two and two together and take as the lesson that that only a depraved Muslim could engage in such hideous behavior.<br /><br />What Johnson doesn't include in his edited version of the story (you know he <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> gives the complete story) is that the stripper, one Linda Kay, not only kept the hand as a souvenir, but she also had <span style="font-style: italic;">six human skulls</span> in her collection! Ok, I don't hold strippers to the same level of conduct as medical doctors, but this fact would seem to puncture the theory that this crepescule crime had anything to do with anybody's ethnicity or religion. I dunno for sure, but Linda Kay doesn't sound like a Muslim name to me.<br /><br />Leave it to Debbie Schlussel to articulate what Johnson merely implies:<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>But I'm sure it had nothing to do with his religion or the barbarism often accompanying it. Because Infidel doctors sever hands of dead bodies for their stripper friends all of the time all over America. Right?</blockquote>Debbie, I have news for you, but medical students have been playing pranks with cadaver parts for as long as there have been medical schools. Try googling "medical school pranks cadavers." I did, and I found lots of examples, including the following interesting read from a book by Merrill Reese:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmkpzIzHy7PCvWHN5z8Aj6vB_SCQyheAry8BQMf3Ahek2sXlV7oEP15fmoTm04a4GtlPcxkBx933PrW2LQ0zwafN1Lbrm1FA8ai7nP9yZa0mAewp9yNSB5sB0jgPaajTSfxqZZ/s1600-h/edelstein_Page_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmkpzIzHy7PCvWHN5z8Aj6vB_SCQyheAry8BQMf3Ahek2sXlV7oEP15fmoTm04a4GtlPcxkBx933PrW2LQ0zwafN1Lbrm1FA8ai7nP9yZa0mAewp9yNSB5sB0jgPaajTSfxqZZ/s320/edelstein_Page_1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5038941526209042722" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpchhe6BhdFia9BVti5D2IxbnlZ9RfKJo9mwstD2LO8teC6phESMDS4q_Xfg6XXFzdQ8DMQ5BBswTKm9dlOb0EEtJrqGUeLCzBRtnee-hXYKiqR8fVkDtMy9lWKdtTGHPONey/s1600-h/edelstein_Page_2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifpchhe6BhdFia9BVti5D2IxbnlZ9RfKJo9mwstD2LO8teC6phESMDS4q_Xfg6XXFzdQ8DMQ5BBswTKm9dlOb0EEtJrqGUeLCzBRtnee-hXYKiqR8fVkDtMy9lWKdtTGHPONey/s320/edelstein_Page_2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5038941771022178610" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Gee wizz, Jack Edelstein . . . hmmmm, is that a Muslim name? Somebody should ask Debbie.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-28929529887398196422007-03-06T09:17:00.000-08:002007-03-06T09:44:11.879-08:00"Bush need (sic) to do the right thing and pardon Libby immediately."That was the first comment in the Libby thread at LGF, and it illustrates, perfectly, the neocon mindset.<br /><br />You see, we live in a nation governed by laws, not men. The jury trial is an intricate part of that system. It generally benefits defendants in criminal cases, and if Mr. Libby did not want a jury, he could have waived his right to it. If he is dissatisfied with the result, he has the right to an appeal.<br /><br />We have laws against obstructing justice and lying to grand juries. A federal jury, carefully selected to ensure as impartial a panel as possible, sat in the case and reached the conclusion that Mr. Libby violated those laws. The jury appears to have considered the case carefully, as demonstrated by the length of time spent deliberating. The fact that Libby was acquitted on a charge is a further indication that the jury decided the case on its view of the evidence, and not as the result of any bias or political motivation.<br /><br />In other words, the system worked.<br /><br />Now, the right wing talks a good game of "law and order," but like most of the crap that comes out of the RWNM (right wing noise machine), they don't mean it. O sure, they're all for putting away street criminals for ungodly lengths of time, but they don't have any real respect for law. In fact, they live by the motto of "whatever you can get away with."<br /><br />Scooter Libby has blood on his hands, a lot of it. He was part of the whole criminal enterprise to get America to start an illegal and immoral war. Thousands of Americans have died, tens of thousands more are mutilated, and we'll never know how many innocent Iraqis have been killed, but it's surely in the many tens of thousands. Today's verdict is one small piece of justice. Like a cup of water in the desert, it's important cannot be measured by its quantity.<br /><br />What does the right wing want? They want to "fix" it. They want to bypass the law and have their "man" take care of it. Forget about respect for law, forget the fact that Bush promised to fire anybody involved in this whole ugly mess (he'd had to fire most of his staff), forget about appeals, forget that we're all Americans, forget about all that, the right wing is only about winning, damn the system, just let me know who has to be paid to get this damn thing fixed.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-53051902133433032512007-03-05T04:54:00.000-08:002007-03-05T05:15:19.860-08:00Ann(a) (ni)Coulter (Smith)Ann Coulter is the Anna Nicole Smith of politics. ANS gained fame and fortune with her two big boobs, AC by <span style="font-style: italic;">being</span> a big boob.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?djq5445fund">Here</a> is the most important part of Coulter's "faggot" comment. It's the ten seconds of raucous applause given by the country's leading conservatives to Coulter's use of the word faggot in reference to a political opponent. 'Nuff said.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-78090112111488236252007-03-02T05:05:00.000-08:002007-03-02T05:05:35.826-08:00The Real Issue With The Greenhouse PicturesWhen I started researching the greenhouse pictures that appeared on LGF, I assumed that they were what Charles wanted people to believe they were -- before and after pictures of a greenhouse left by the Israelis for the Palestinians. I was curious because the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, and I wondered why LGF is "reporting" this issue in 2007. I wondered whether the story had been presented in full context.<br /><br />This is important because defenders of LGF say that it's merely a "free speech site" that posts stories that can't be found on the "liberal" mainstream media. They say that Johnson, the site's owner, does little more than post news stories from around the world. If these stories show that Islam is a violent religion or that Muslims are prone to violence and terrorism, well, too bad if you can't handle the "truth."<br /><br />Let's take a look at this defense, first in the abstract, then in the concrete.<br /><br />In the abstract, what if I created a blog devoted to reporting news articles about Jews that were accused or convicted of some kinds of economic crimes, frauds, together with any other articles that cast Jews in an unflattering light. Then let's say that I permitted discussion of those articles, by registered members only, and that I revoked the registration of any members whose comments did not conform more or less to the ugly stereotype that Jews were greedy and untrustworthy in business matters. Wouldn't that be an anti-semitic web site? It's pretty obvious that it would be, and rightly condemned as such.<br /><br />Even if all the news articles were true?<br /><br />Yes, because it's reporting only a portion of the truth. When a witness testifies in court, he swears to tell the "whole truth." My hypothetical collection of news reports is no more the whole truth about Jews and Judaism than LGF's highly selective choice of articles is the whole truth about Islam and Arabs. It is absurd to defend this practice by claiming that he's "just posting news articles."<br /><br />The bigotry is reflected not only in the selection of articles, but in Johnson's editorializing as well. The claim that Johnson merely "reports" in a neutral fashion is demonstrably false.<br /><br />The recent posting of the greenhouse pictures is a good example. Johnson had posted a story from the New York Sun about Palestinians using land in Gaza on which synagogues had once stood as bases for launching rockets into Israel. But Johnson didn't just post this article, he added editorial comment. He posted pictures which he says are "before and after" photos of a Gaza greenhouse, and he wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>And as we pointed out last October, the high-tech greenhouses built by Israelis, that formerly provided employment for many Palestinians, have been looted, burned, and turned into cover for weapons smuggling tunnels.</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>In fact, the greenhouses were turned over in 2005, so why is Johnson posting this in 2007? Because he's not just "delivering the news," he's advancing a point of view and trying to reinforce an ugly stereotype about the Palestinians. The clear suggestion is that "these people" are just violent animals who destroy anything of value and therefore don't deserve to be treated with any humanity, etc. All institutionalized bigotry requires dehumanization of the victims.<br /><br />The real story about the greenhouses is far more tragic than reported by Johnson and amply serve to illustrate just how complex and tragic the situation in Gaza is. In a nutshell, wealthy Americans, led by a Jewish investor, raised $14 million to purchase the greenhouses and turn them over to the Palestinian authority. A noble gift, but which turned out to be something of a white elephant. The PA was required to spend $30 million to repair the greenhouses. The Palestinians produced a bumper crop of fruits and vegetables, but they ended up destroying the crop because the border was closed and there was no way to export the crop (there was no domestic market for them, because Palestinians already produce, in their existing greenhouses, enough fruits and vegetables for domestic consumption.)<br /><br />More info <a href="http://justworldnews.org/archives/001771.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/middleeast/18gaza.html?ex=1172725200&en=2c37950c7fe9a2ab&ei=5070">here</a>.<br /><br />So the truth is much different and for more complex than the "Palestinian animals destroy valuable Israeli property" story reported in LGF.<br /><br />Now that we now know that Johnson knew that the pictures were not of the same greenhouse, we have to ask, why did he put them together and label them as "before" and "after" pictures?<br /><br />The best defense of this is that the before picture accurately shows what the greenhouses looked like when the Israelis owned them, and the after picture accurately shows what the greenhouses now look like in the hands of the Palestinians. Ok, that would be a fair comment, <span style="font-weight: bold;">if true</span>.<br /><br />But it's not true. The truth is that most of the hi-tech greenhouses were restored by the Palestinians (after the Israelis removed the most valuable equipment from them). Here are some excerpts from an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/international/middleeast/28gaza.html">article</a> published in the New York Times in November, 2005.<br /><br /><blockquote>Less than three months after the Israelis departed, Palestinians have repaired scores of greenhouses left by the settlers and planted a fall crop, and they are preparing to harvest an estimated $20 million worth of strawberries, cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers and herbs and spices. . . .<br /><br />The Israeli military demolished the settlers' homes before leaving in September, and piles of smashed concrete have yet to be removed. Some greenhouses were looted by Palestinians in the chaotic days after the Israeli withdrawal, but today they are hives of activity, filled with the sounds of power saws and hammers at work. . . .<br /><br /><p>When the Jewish settlers came to Gaza decades ago, they developed innovative techniques for cultivating high-quality fruits and vegetables in the barren sand dunes, where fresh water is scarce. When the Israeli farmers started leaving, they took their most valuable equipment with them, and some greenhouses were damaged or destroyed.</p><p>James D. Wolfensohn, the envoy for countries involved in Middle East peacemaking, cobbled together a group of wealthy Jewish Americans who pledged $14 million in compensation for the Israeli farmers provided that they left the greenhouses intact. The deal was reached just days before the settlers were evacuated, and it is not clear that it prevented much additional damage to the greenhouses. . .<br /></p><p>The Israelis said they had about 1,000 acres of greenhouses in Gaza. But by the time Palestinian officials surveyed the land, they found only a few hundred acres in working condition. "We had to rehabilitate the greenhouses day and night to catch the fall planting season," said Muhammad Bader, who is running the greenhouse project for the Palestine Economic Development Company.</p><p>Today, crops are growing on close to 600 acres, and the Palestinians hope to plant on another 200 acres next month.</p><p>Last year, Palestinian agricultural exports from the West Bank and Gaza totaled about $80 million, Mr. Bader said. The fall harvest from the Gaza greenhouses could add about $20 million to the total this year, though the exact figure is difficult to predict, he said.</p><p>When the Israelis ran the greenhouses, Palestinian workers carried out much of the manual labor. About 3,000 have retained their jobs, and 1,000 workers and 2,000 private guards have been added. A typical worker makes $13 a day.</p></blockquote><br />Not exactly the "Palestinian are animals" story that Johnson wants to report, so he manipulates a couple of photographs to create a story that suits his purpose.<br /><br />Make no mistake about it, Little Green Footballs is an ugly cesspool of racial and religious hatred. It is devoted to inciting hate against all things Muslim and most things Arab. I admit that is not exactly a novel observation, but I think it's important to keep shining light on LGF, lest LGF achieve its greatest hope, which is to become "mainstream." It is not mainstream, it is fringe.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-53474516540170984092007-03-02T03:44:00.000-08:002007-03-02T04:18:52.189-08:00PatheticCharles admits that the "before" and "after" pictures are not the same greenhouse:<br /><blockquote><table class="comtop commentbox1" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="smalltext" align="left" valign="middle" width="32"><a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24650#c0071" title="Direct link to this comment">71</a> </td><td width="16"><a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-user-profile.php?Charles%7C24650%7CJihad+Professor+at+Kent+State%2C+Update%7C0071" target="_blank"><img src="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/tinyfootball.gif" alt="" title="LGF profile" border="0" height="16" width="16" /></a> </td><td class="smalltext" align="left" valign="middle" width="99%"> <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/" target="_blank">Charles</a> 3/1/2007 02:08PM PST </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <div class="commentbox1 comments" id="com0071"> <p>ChenZhen: that's just stupid. I never claimed those photos showed the same greenhouse.</p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote>None of Charles' minions have the cojones to ask Charles why he labeled the pictures "before" and "after", or to ask him what's the point of putting the pictures together, if they're not the same greenhouse.<blockquote><table class="comtop commentbox2" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="smalltext" align="left" valign="middle" width="32"><a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24650#c0084" title="Direct link to this comment">84</a> </td><td width="16"><a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-user-profile.php?Charles%7C24650%7CJihad+Professor+at+Kent+State%2C+Update%7C0084" target="_blank"><img src="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/tinyfootball.gif" alt="" title="LGF profile" border="0" height="16" width="16" /></a> </td><td class="smalltext" align="left" valign="middle" width="99%"> <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/" target="_blank">Charles</a> 3/1/2007 02:13PM PST </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <div class="commentbox2 comments" id="com0084"> <p>Here's the page for this pile of crap at Digg:</p> <p>[Link: <a href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/So_much_for_Fauxtography_Fake_before_and_after_pics_on_LGF" title="[digg.com]" target="_blank">digg.com...</a>]</p> <p>This one should be marked 'inaccurate,' because it is. In fact, the banned troll who posted it (banned for posting at LGF under multiple names, pretending to be different people, and yes, I can prove it) was almost certainly deliberately lying.</p> </div></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><br />It's inaccurate? Charles just admitted that the the pictures are not of the same greenhouse! Needless to say, the LGF lapdogs are so used to being lied to by Charles that they're unlikely to catch this one. Even if they did, they wouldn't dare question Charles.<br /><br />As for the whopper about banning me for posting "under multiple names," don't expect Charles to come up with his "proof" anytime soon. It doesn't exist. He's just lying, pure and simple. Charles banned me for linking to a site that challenged his assertion that the Killian documents were forgeries. The second name that Charles claimed I used, Killian, did not post until after I was banned. In fact, IIRC, Killian criticized Charles for banning me, and Charles banned Killian too! Charles also erased the Killian posts, apparently so that his lie that I was posting under multiple accounts would not be too obvious.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-41873571046397084882007-02-28T04:40:00.000-08:002007-02-28T04:52:27.883-08:00LGF Publishes Fake Before and After PhotosYesterday, Little Green Footballs posted pictures which Johnson, the site's owner, claims are "before and after" photos of a Gaza greenhouse, and he wrote:<br /><blockquote>And as we pointed out last October, the high-tech greenhouses built by Israelis, that formerly provided employment for many Palestinians, have been looted, burned, and turned into cover for weapons smuggling tunnels.</blockquote>But the pictures posted by LGF appear to be fake. Fake in the sense that they are not pictures of the same greenhouse, as Johnson claims.<br /><br />The first picture is of a greenhouse in the settlement of Gadid as reported <a href="http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ExodusFromGaza.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The second picture is a propaganda photo released by the IDF. I have been unable to determine where and when it was taken. But one thing is clear, <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">it is not the Gadid greenhouse depicted in the before photo. </span>The settlement of Gadid was fully three miles north of the Egyptian border. Check out this <a href="http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/gaza_strip_1999.jpg">map</a>.<br /><br />The Palestinians do not dig three mile <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_tunnels#Description_of_the_tunnels">smuggling tunnels</a>.<br /><br />LGF takes great pride in having exposed the fake Killian documents. It seems to me that Johnson is guilty of creating his own fake documentation to make a point, and a dubious point at that. <br /><br />So how about it Johnson, ready to retract your story?GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com51tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-110400324180146772007-02-13T10:23:00.000-08:002007-02-12T18:21:10.240-08:00I Confess:I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-51146894888722015022007-02-11T17:53:00.001-08:002008-12-09T10:57:03.897-08:00Debbie Does DearbornThis is priceless.<br /><br />Sean Hannity might just be the biggest moron in the world with a television show. He is unquestionably the most mentally challenged individual to have both a television and radio show.<br /><br />Anyway, the write wing is all abuzz with a "hit" they seem to think Sean has scored with his "interview" of Imam Husham Al-Husainy, an Iraqi American Cleric out of Dearborn, Michigan. You can see Sean do his imitation of a fierce cross examiner <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lhHyz3h-dk&session=gAJ9cQEoVQxlcnJvcl9maWVsZHNxAmNfX2J1aWx0aW5fXwpzZXQKcQNdhVJxBFUGZXJyb3JzcQVdcQZVCG1lc3NhZ2VzcQddcQhVHVlvdXIgZW1haWwgaGFzIGJlZW4gY29uZmlybWVkcQlhdS4=">here</a>. In reality, it's the man who can't ask a question versus the man who won't answer one.<br /><br />Basically what happened to get Sean all steamed up is this: the Imam gave an invocation at the DNC which was pretty much like any other invocation, and it ended with a call for the end of violence, oppression, occupation and other such things. No big deal. No big deal if you're grown up with an IQ over 60. To Sean's Yorkshire Terrier sized brain, however, the Imam was calling the United States an "occupier and oppressor nation" and this just proves that all Democrats (especially Howard Dean, who stood by impassively and failed to take action against the evil Imam) HATE AMERICA!<br /><br />(Somebody needs to explain it to Sean, real slow like, how the United States has all these soldiers in Iraq and how that's called an occupation.)<br /><br />I think if I were a right wing blogger I would pretty much steer clear of Sean Hannity. I mean, dumb is dumb, and if I align myself with stupidity incarnate, doesn't that just dumb me down in the process? Apparently none of the "big" names in the wrong wing blogosphere see it that way, and they're all acting like a bunch of hyenas trying to get a piece of this carcass that Hannity's been flogging for the past several days. They can't seem to get enough of it. That should tell you something right there. If all you have to put on your blog is a link to Sean Hannity on You Tube, well, maybe you should step away from the computer and do the dishes or mow the lawn or something.<br /><br />One right wing windbag who is not sharing the love with Sean is Debbie Schlussel. So what's Debbie's problem? Since Debbie's a lawyer, let me put this in legal terms: Debbie alleges that Sean is stealing her INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY! That's right, according to Schlussel, she RISKED HER LIFE going undercover to get the goods on Imam Husham Al-Husainy, and Sean is using her work without giving her credit for it! <a href="http://www.debbieschlussel.com/">Schlussel's web site</a> has a half dozen screeds inveighing against "Sean Vannity's" treachery.<br /><br />What fascinates me here is not the sight of one right wing nut job viciously attacking another, but the concept of Debbie undercover.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXXWqKitI6Jyuf1QRY_qrPs6-KE3spIz54ejw9Zp4wtT6ZehAsjbXXAw_97_jjlk1j9IBGlqBG-KQ5j3MHXKjD1jXKReCy3LUsX2R5foyT-CMd_h27LBHOtkL7qlMxRfGQzPBb/s1600-h/Debbieschlussel.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXXWqKitI6Jyuf1QRY_qrPs6-KE3spIz54ejw9Zp4wtT6ZehAsjbXXAw_97_jjlk1j9IBGlqBG-KQ5j3MHXKjD1jXKReCy3LUsX2R5foyT-CMd_h27LBHOtkL7qlMxRfGQzPBb/s320/Debbieschlussel.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5030639186086422162" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Um, yeh, you get my point, right?<br /><br />Ok, it's a cheap shot, but seriously, what the hell is she talking about? She attended public events with thousands of other people. How was she "undercover"? Does she mean that she wore "Islamic garb?" Or does she merely mean that she didn't tell everybody there that she was a suburban yenta wingnut Anne Coulter wannabe who was looking for grist for her anti-Islam mill?<br /><br />And how did she risk her life? Does she seriously want us to believe that she (or anybody else for that matter) thinks that she would have been killed if her "cover" had been blown?<br /><br />Now I'm going to make a confession. I myself have never been to an Iraqi ex-pat rally<br />in Dearborn Michigan, so I'm sticking my neck out on this one. But I've been to other rallies and in my experience the idea is to get as many people as possible to attend the rally and, yes (shocking background music here) GET PUBLICITY! So why on earth would anyone need to be "undercover" to attend a rally and why would people seeking publicity get so mad about getting publicity that they would be driven to kill the person giving them publicity?<br /><br />Even though I've never gone undercover to a Mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, that is not to say that I am have no undercover experience at all. In fact, as revealed in these very pages, I risked my life to go undercover at Little Green Footballs, and because I was undercover I was able to actually read what was posted there, and post a few things myself. In fact, I also appear on the streets of New York almost every day, undercover, and I sometimes even write about what I see. And you know what, if Sean Hannity wants to borrow some observation or insight from this blog, he's only too welcome, as long as he promises NOT to mention my name.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com68tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-28546892329775083342007-02-10T07:44:00.000-08:002007-02-12T18:13:26.565-08:00I'm back!Finally got around to recovering my password. So what has it been, two years? My, time flies.<br /><br />And yes, I'm aware that my previous posts garnered all of, well, maybe 10 comments, depending on whether you count spam comments or not. So no, I don't expect a lot of fan fare.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1097497033343146242004-10-11T05:13:00.000-07:002004-10-11T05:17:13.343-07:00No weapons of mass destructionThe conclusion of the Duelfer report is devastating:
<br />
<br />There were no stockpiles of WMD, or programmes to produce WMD. Despite public statements made before the war by Bush, Blair and officials and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to the contrary, the ISG report concludes that all of Iraq's WMD stockpiles had been destroyed in 1991, and WMD programmes and facilities dismantled by 1996.
<br />
<br />http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=570477
<br />
<br />Nevertheless, a substantial minority of the general public continues to support the President's decision to invade Iraq. Tragically, it may be enough to get him elected.
<br />
<br />How could so many continue to support the war, when the reasons for it have been revealed to be utterly false? The answer is chilling -- there are those who like war. At least as a spectator sport. I believe that there are a large number of people who believe that might is right, and who get some kind of vicarious satisfaction over the defeat of an official "enemy." I put enemy in quotes, because Saddam was an enemy only because the powers that be in this country declared him as such. Before he was an enemy, he was an ally. Never mind such niceties.
<br />
<br />The implications of these two observations are hard to ignore. A large part of the population will support a war for any reason, or no reason at all, against any official enemy. And any country can be turned into an enemy at will.
<br />
<br />Iraq in this sense was just an experiment. How ready are the American people to support unbridled wars of aggression? We find out in early November.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1097103585384154222004-10-06T15:57:00.000-07:002004-10-08T13:26:45.710-07:00Yesterday's Most Stupid Criticism of KerryYesterday’s absolute stupidest criticism of John Kerry.
<br />
<br />Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) concludes that John Kerry is unfit to be President because, when asked by a reporter what was the largest deer he ever bagged, Kerry mentioned the one that got away – “once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck - I don't know, 16 points or something. It was just huge.” Kerry said that he was hunting in Cape Cod at the time.
<br />
<br />It may not be immediately obvious to you why this disqualifies Kerry from holding office. But then you might not be a totally rabid, incoherent wingnut, as the author of this piece, an attorney who likes to call himself “Hindrocket” (what is that name about?), appears to be.
<br />
<br />Here’s Mr. Hindrocket’s logic. Everybody knows that there is only sand on Cape Cod. Therefore Kerry is lying about hunting there, or at least lying about the size of the deer that he didn’t shoot. So if Kerry has to exaggerate the size of the deer he didn’t shoot, who knows what else he’s capable of.
<br />
<br />Now I could challenge Mr. Hindrocket’s logic, I suppose. I could point out that exaggeration in reverse is just as bad, especially when one is talking about budget deficits, costs of invading other countries or costs of Medicare programs.
<br />
<br />But why bother. Mr. Hindrocket is just plain ignorant, and that, combined with an unshakeable confidence in matters in which he is ignorant, results in the stupidest criticism of Kerry that I read about yesterday.
<br />
<br />From Hunting Cape Cod (http://www.capecodoutdoors.com/hunting.html), we learn that there are so many deer on Cape Cod that Doe tags are granted at 100 percent. I don’t hunt and I don’t know what that means, but I think it means that it is possible that John Kerry was not lying about hunting deer on Cape Cod.
<br />
<br />Ok, but surely he was exaggerating about the size of the deer he did not shoot? The aforementioned site goes on to say that “these aren't little Florida Deer either. Yearly, 200lb. bucks and 175 pt. racks appear at the weighing stations.” Well, I take it on faith that those are big deer. 200 lbs seems big to me.
<br />
<br />And oh, about there being only sand on Cape Cod, Mr. Hindrocket might be interested to know that the same web site adds that almost every town in Cape Cod has a town forest. Sounds like a place deer might be found.
<br />
<br />I will confess that I did not investigate Hunting Cape Cod, so I can’t say for sure that this is not just some bogus web site set up by Kerry operatives to cover his tracks (no pun intended). I’ll leave it to others to dig deeper into this important issue.
<br />GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1097064650210700702004-10-06T03:49:00.000-07:002004-10-06T05:10:50.210-07:00Pathetic Right Wing Commentary Runner UpHere is the second most pathetic criticism of Kerry that I read in
<br />yesterday's right wing blogs. You may remember that Charles Johnson, the right leaning
<br />leader of that right leaning West Coast Cult, Little Green Footballs,
<br />was trying to get a "jacketgate" scandal started, based on Kerry
<br />taking something out of his jacket and putting it on the podium before
<br />last week's debate. This would-be scandal fell flat on its face, as
<br />the object turned out to be a pen. Kerry's campaign pled guilty to
<br />the candidate using a pen to take notes, and the rest of the world
<br />moved on.
<br />
<br />But not Johnson. Johnson, who relentlessly flogged Dan Rather for not
<br />apologizing fast enough for the Killian documents, has proudly
<br />announced that he will not apologize for anything. Why? Because
<br />Johnson, blaming the mainstream media (LGF blames the "MSM" for
<br />everything), insists that the questions were legitimate. UHF, yeh,
<br />legitimate questions about what Kerry took out of his pocket before
<br />the debate, but not legitimate questions about Bush's military
<br />service.
<br />
<br />Never mind all that. Johnson gets downright weird when he goes on to
<br />lament the total moral depravity of the Kerry campaign:
<br />
<br />"It's a bit depressing that this country is now willing to accept
<br />blatant flouting of debate rules, because it was only a pen. Kerry
<br />was specifically forbidden to do this, by rules to which he agreed
<br />after much negotiation; but he did it anyway, apparently without even
<br />thinking."
<br />
<br />I guess I could say it's a lot more depressing that this country is
<br />now willing to accept Bush's blatant flouting of his national guard
<br />commitment, because Dan Rather ran a story using unverified
<br />documents. But that's a different story.
<br />
<br />Let's examine Johnson's statement that Kerry blatantly flouted rules
<br />that specifically forbid him to take a pen out of his pocket and put
<br />it on the podium.
<br />
<br />I have found two rules that seem to be applicable.
<br />
<br />
<br />Rule 5(c) states that "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other
<br />writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by
<br />any candidate."
<br />
<br />Rule 5(d) states that "Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the
<br />candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color, and
<br />type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen or pencil that
<br />each prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the
<br />Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils
<br />with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and
<br />the staff of the Commission will place such paper, pens, and pencils
<br />on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in
<br />that debate."
<br />
<br />
<br />So, Kerry was entitled to use the pen. That's the only thing that
<br />mattered. How the pen gets to the podium is a triviality. There is a
<br />maxim in the law "de minimis lex non curat." The law does not care
<br />about small insignificant matters. The law recognizes that it is
<br />impossible to draw up rules that cover every possible eventuality, and
<br />it is impossible to follow every little insignificant rule that can be
<br />written. We look to the substance of the rules. In this case, the
<br />substance was that Kerry was entitled to use a pen of his choice. As
<br />long as the pen was not objectionable (and it was not), then the
<br />details about getting the pen to the podium would be considered "de
<br />minimis."
<br />
<br />
<br />Of course, we don't even know whether Kerry's pen was submitted to the
<br />commission or not. Since we don't know that, we can't say that Kerry
<br />violated the rule, even de minimis, much less "flagrantly" violated
<br />it. For all we know, the commission approved Kerry's pen.
<br />
<br />Johnson shows that he is totally out of touch with the world. The
<br />reason that the country is willing to ignore Kerry's use of "just a
<br />pen" is because it is just a pen. People understand what's important
<br />and what's not. The country understands that a 32 page set of rules
<br />for a debate is as ridiculous as the 26 paragraphs of "terms and
<br />conditions" that free web sites make you agree to. All laws and all
<br />rules are not created equally. Everybody is constantly triaging rules
<br />and regulations all day long. There are those we have to follow,
<br />those that nobody follows, and a few that we're not really certain
<br />about. The country, unlike Johnson, instinctively understands how
<br />silly that rule about putting the pens on the podium is. It's
<br />kindergarten stuff.
<br />
<br />The irony is that Johnson, like most of the wingnuts, crucifies Kerry
<br />over the "global test" issue. They want a president who runs
<br />roughshod over rules of the United Nations and is willing to invade countries
<br />in violation of international law. Apparently, however, this same
<br />president has to let somebody else tell him what pen he can use to take notes.
<br />GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096974777006520562004-10-05T04:04:00.000-07:002004-10-05T04:12:57.006-07:00Honorable DischargeWhenever somebody uses Bush's honorable discharge as proof that he "did his duty," remember that another mass murderer, albeit on a smaller scale, also received an honorable discharge.
<br />
<br />John Allen Muhammad. More widely known as the D.C. Sniper. Here's a brief summary of his exemplary military service:
<br />
<br />Convicted in a summary court-martial for failing to report to duty station on time, three counts of willfully disobeying an order, one count of striking a noncommissioned officer, one count of wrongfully taking property and one count of being absent without leave.
<br />
<br />So if a nobody like JAM could get an honorable discharge with such a spotty record, imagine what the scion of one of America's most powerful families could get away with, and still be honorably discharged. No wonder Bush refuses to answer details about his service and continues to hide behind his honorable discharge.
<br />
<br />Here's an idea. On the first Tuesday of this coming November, let's give Bush another "honorable discharge."GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096891017076263002004-10-04T04:32:00.001-07:002004-10-04T04:56:57.076-07:00Suspect SourcesThe wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.
<br />
<br />Oh.
<br />
<br />The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.
<br />
<br />Ok.
<br />
<br />Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.
<br />
<br />Let's compare.
<br />
<br />Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.
<br />
<br />Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.
<br />
<br />He should be elected for a second term?
<br />
<br />Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096891016161791892004-10-04T04:32:00.000-07:002004-10-04T04:56:56.160-07:00Suspect SourcesThe wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.
<br />
<br />Oh.
<br />
<br />The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.
<br />
<br />Ok.
<br />
<br />Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.
<br />
<br />Let's compare.
<br />
<br />Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.
<br />
<br />Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.
<br />
<br />He should be elected for a second term?
<br />
<br />Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096339154768262212004-09-27T19:36:00.000-07:002004-09-27T19:39:14.766-07:00A Threat To Your FreedomPlease note: Yaser Esam Hamdi will be set free without being charged with a single crime.
<br />
<br />Who is Yaser Esam Hamdi? He's an American citizen picked up in Afghanistan and held for three years as an "enemy combatant" without being charged with any crime and without being given access to an attorney. In essence, the man has been held in solitary confinement for three years.
<br />
<br />All because somebody in the government said he's an enemy.
<br />
<br />Now we have something called the constitution that is supposed to protect people from this type of arbitrary and abusive exercise of government authority. You see, the founding fathers knew well the dangers of arbitrary authority.
<br />
<br />So eventually this case made its way through the court system, all the while the Bush administration arguing that this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was so bad and evil that it would undermine the very security of this country if he were allowed to talk to a lawyer or have any contact with the outside world. Moreover, the Bush administration said that the courts should just take their word for it, because it would undermine the very security of this country just to explain why this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was being held. You just had to trust George Bush.
<br />
<br />So what happened when the supreme court disagreed and told Bush that he had to explain to a court the reasons Yaser Esam Hamdi was being held, and he had to give Yaser Esam Hamdi a chance to respond to the charges against him.
<br />
<br />What happened is that the Bush administration decided to let Yaser Esam Hamdi go free.
<br />
<br />I guess they had nothing. No crimes. No evidence. No security concerns.
<br />
<br />All smoke and mirrors.
<br />
<br />Please pay attention ladies and gentlemen, because what the Bush administration did to Yaser Esam Hamdi should tip you -- these are the acts of a tyrant. The Bush administration lied to the Courts for three years, there was no national security issue. None. Nada. Just lies.
<br />
<br />Whatever your political affiliation, you should be very, very scared by these people. I am.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096212921838767612004-09-26T08:20:00.000-07:002004-09-26T08:35:21.836-07:00Hell Hath No Fury . . . Like a right wing blogger scorned.
<br />
<br />Charles Johnson, leader of the "right leaning" website LittleGreenFootballs, laments that an article in todays New York Times about bloggers doesn't mention his site, even though he gave the author of the article 43 minutes of his precious time. Yes, I'm not kidding, he notes his time right down to the minute. (Hey, the guy begs for tips on his website, so how much could his time be worth?)
<br />
<br />Johnson lies when he complains that the only bloggers mentioned are "New York Times-approved left-wing drones." In fact the article mentions (and provides links) to several conservative blogs, including Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit. Johnson then uses this lie as "proof" that the "MSM" (MainStreamMedia) is just a tool of the American communist party.
<br />
<br />I'm beginning to wonder if Johnson isn't really Rush Limbaugh. Whoever he is, he needs a wakeup call. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney, FOX. These are the owners of the MSM.
<br />
<br />If Johnson wants to know the reason why his site was ignored by the author of the New York Times article, maybe he should take a good look at the content of his site instead of looking for imaginary demons in the press.
<br />
<br />Here's crybaby Johnson's piece: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12824
<br />
<br />Here's the New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/magazine/26BLOGS.html?pagewanted=1GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1096150977078752232004-09-25T15:11:00.000-07:002004-09-25T15:22:57.076-07:00Hey ArnoldI thought the Republicans were the party of personal freedom. A couple weeks ago you sign a law outlawing sex with a corpse, and now you've signed a law making it illegal for 14 year-olds to visit tanning parlors. So much for personal freedom.
<br />
<br />Not, of course, that anybody should have having sex with a corpse, and I don't think young teenagers need to go to tanning salons. But do we really need laws against such things? Isn't the goal is to pare back unnecessary government. I think it's a waste to pay legislators to pass laws against imaginary evils.
<br />
<br />Obviously the California legislature has extra time on its hands. Maybe it could organize a bake sale to help reduce the state's deficit. Even better, maybe what California, and a lot of other states, needs, is a part time legislature, with part time salaries.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1095990837366990902004-09-23T18:38:00.000-07:002004-09-23T18:53:57.366-07:00Last Word on the CBS Killian DocumentsRather apologized. Not good enough, said the right wing.
<br />
<br />And I agree.
<br />
<br />Here's what I think ought to be done to make things even.
<br />
<br />I think Rather should air a show revealing, based on newly discovered documents, that George Bush showed up for National Guard Duty each and every day that he was supposed to. And I think it should be discovered that those documents are in fact forgeries, possibly planted by the RNC, and eventually CBS will be required to recant its story and admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that George Bush actually fulfilled his National Guard Duty.
<br />
<br />I think that would make things about even.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1095989738262258652004-09-23T18:18:00.000-07:002004-10-08T13:24:20.363-07:00Right Wing Contradiction Not that it's anything new...
<br />
<br />But go to any right wing web site and you'll quickly learn that a common view of Arabs and Islam is that the only good Arab is a dead one.
<br />
<br />"Islam, on the other hand, is hateful from top to bottom, and they have the example of Muhammad to emulate (He's often obeyed unfortunately). Since Muhammad was, as I wrote, a psychopath, inhumanity is part and parcel of Islam. Bin Laden and those headchoppers in Iraq are good Muslims going by the book. Not bigotry, just a fact."
<br />
<br />"It's about Islam and the cruelty that Islamists are capable of. Is that nuanced enough?"
<br />
<br />"the shoe does fit the cloven hoof..."
<br />
<br />"We should have nuked mecca, 08:00 September 12 2001 . . . The saudimites still have sex with camels and defecate on the street, just like they did in mohammed's day 1400 years ago."
<br />
<br />(All the above comes from LittleGreenFootballs on 9/18/04)
<br />
<br />But this same crowd will talk about how wonderful it is that the Iraqi people are free and finally will have their own, cough, democracy in the near future, and that this whole messy war is worth it to free all these millions of people.
<br />
<br />Excuse me.
<br />
<br />If Arabs are no better than dogs and Islam is a religion of hate, violence and perversion . . .
<br />
<br />Why do we care if they're free and why are American lives being wasted so that these people, who are beyond redemption, can have elections?
<br />
<br />The answer of course is that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "freeing" the Iraqi people, but that rationale has been offered because the original reasons were false. It's humorous to see how passionate right wingers get over "freedom" for people they detest. It's all part of the wingnut dance, in which one must bend like a pretzel to fit within the changing rationales of the Bush Administration.
<br />
<br />GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1095686111322810692004-09-20T05:45:00.000-07:002004-09-20T06:15:11.323-07:00Bush Supporter Advocates Killing Gays and Lying to GodI guess that's an accurate headline. I heard a clip of Jimmy Swaggart talking to some group (yeh, apparently he's still preaching). Here's a paraphrasing of what he said:
<br />
<br />Wull, I've never seen a man I wanted to marry (laughter). But if one of those guys ever gives me a look I'm gonna kill him and tell God that it was an accident. Thank God George Bush has stated that we need to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
<br />
<br />For those of you have have been living in a cave for the last 20 years, or get all your news from Fox, here is some info on Swaggart:
<br />
<br />http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jimmy-swaggart/
<br />
<br />Getting back to the headline. See how easy it is to put a little twist to things. That's spin.
<br />
<br />Like when the Chicago Tribune referred to Litlegreenfootballs as a "conservative-leaning blog." As I recently discovered for myself, LGF is not "conservative-leaning," it's a rabid right wing hornet's nest. Ironically, one of the major themes on LGF is how unfair the MSM (mainstream media) is to any and everything conservative. Yeh, right.
<br />
<br />This in fact is one of the right's favorite techniques. Take a valid criticism of itself, repackage it and accuse the left of the same thing, and then complain how the MSM ignores the truth, while the MSM actually reports both sides of the story as if they had equal legitimacy. This happens over and over again. Swiftboat Veterans comes to mind.
<br />
<br />But isn't there a difference? Ok, duh, but where do you find the difference reported?
<br />What do I mean? The Bushies can't deny that Kerry served, so they have to fabricate "controversy" (i.e., lies) about his service. This is to offset the scrutiny given to whether Bush served at all, and in the mind of the public the two issues cancel each other out.
<br />
<br />But these are not the same issues. There are two issues: (1) did candidate serve (2) what was his service like.
<br />
<br />We don't even get to #2 with Bush, because he wasn't there. Plus, I think the left-leaners generally feel that if a person served, then he did his duty. What are we going to do, scrutinize whether Bush made his bunk up properly.
<br />
<br />But this is exactly what the Swiftvote Liars have done, and it's so obvious that the Bush people are behind it. There's something really wrong with this, impugning the military service of a man who faced enemy fire and was wounded in battle.
<br />
<br />But you wouldn't get this impression from the MSM. They have reported the whole nonsense as if there is some moral equivalency between the Swiftvote Liars and Bush's National Guard non-Service stories. GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1095649608735789402004-09-19T20:02:00.000-07:002004-09-20T07:31:08.856-07:00Kicked off LittleGreenFootballsApprently the management at LittleGreenFootballs does not like dissent, or maybe it's just that I called into question its theory that the Killian memos were created in MS Word.
<br />
<br />We now know that they were not.
<br />
<br />http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/
<br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
<br />
<br />When I posted these links to LGF and suggested that LGF might want to retract its story, my account was deleted.
<br />
<br />Now the really funny thing is that LGF has closed down new registrations. I guess it's afraid that I'll re-register under a different name. Wow, a major right wing blog hiding from me!GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8390080.post-1095619708258566832004-09-19T11:46:00.000-07:002004-09-19T11:48:28.260-07:00The Beginning.GirlieManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01914914650588943488noreply@blogger.com