Wednesday - April 26, 2006

Democrats Propose Smoke And Mirrors

It took me a few seconds to figure out this latest attempt by the Donks to sucker us once again. They propose to remove the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon) for sixty days to “relieve our pain at the pump”. They also propose to make up the difference in tax revenue by raising taxes on Exxon and all the other gas suppliers. Now, what’s to stop Exxon from just raising their gas prices by 18.4 cents per gallon to make up for the increased taxes? This is typical Donk bulls**t, all smoke and mirrors. And as usual, we, the people get screwed in the end.

Dems Offer 60-Day Gas Tax Break
_{April 25, 2006}

(CNSNews.com) - On the same day that President Bush announced he would suspend deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Democrats unveiled a plan of their own Tuesday designed to give consumers a break from high gas prices by offering drivers a 60-day holiday from the federal gas tax.

The Menendez Federal Gas Tax Holiday Amendment, an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill being considered by the Senate, will remove the 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax on diesel fuel for 60 days.

“Last year, the big oil companies hiked gas prices and blamed an act of God, but it’s crystal clear that the current spike in gas prices is at least partly due to an act of greed,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) in a statement.

“We must provide American families immediate relief by suspending the federal gas tax for 60 days and making up for the lost revenue by getting rid of some unnecessary tax giveaways to oil and gas companies,” Menendez said.

Menendez’s plan will be paid for by repealing over $6 million in tax breaks to the oil industry. It is estimated to provide $100 million a day in relief directly to consumers.

In addition, the Democrats promise that the Highway Trust Fund will not be affected by their gas relief plan. Money collected by reducing the oil industry’s tax breaks will be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund in an amount equal to the revenues lost through the federal tax holiday, they said. The trust fund will still collect money needed to continue all currently planned and funded projects.

- More on this story at CNS News...

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/26/2006 at 08:07 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Hot Air

Riddle me this: You live in New Orleans and your house was flooded and half the town destroyed last September by a monster hurricane. Who or what is responsible for your loss? (A) the Corps Of Engineers (see post below this one) for building a ship canal, (B) people driving too many gas-guzzling SUV’s, spewing out carbon monoxide, (C) your own dumb ass for building a house on the coast in a city that is twelve feet below sea level? Try not to get stuck on stupid when you answer that.

Experts: Global Warming Behind 2005 Hurricanes
_{Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:17 a.m. EDT (11:17 GMT)}

MONTEREY, California (Reuters)—The record Atlantic hurricane season last year can be attributed to global warming, several top experts, including a leading U.S. government storm researcher, said on Monday.

“The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it’s no longer something we’ll see in the future, it’s happening now,” said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Holland told a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society’s 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms that form in the Caribbean are “increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw.”

His conclusion will be debated throughout the week-long conference, as other researchers present opposing papers that say changing wind and temperature conditions in the tropics are due to natural events, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions clouding the Earth.

Many of the experts gathered in the coastal city of Monterey, California, are federal employees. The Bush administration contends global warming is an unproven theory.

While many of the conference’s 500 scientists seem to agree that a warming trend in the tropics is causing more and stronger hurricanes than usual, not all agree that global warming is to blame.

Some, like William Gray, a veteran hurricane researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, attributed the warming to natural cycles.

Gray said he believes salinity buildups and movements with ocean currents cause warming and cooling cycles. He predicted the Caribbean water will continue to warm for another five to 10 years, then start cooling.

- More on this story at CNN ...

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/26/2006 at 07:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Levee Suit

I’m surprised it took nearly eight months before somebody got around to this. Our lawyers must be falling down on the job if it takes them this long to smell a lucrative lawsuit. My guess is the people were happy as long as FEMA money was flowing in but now that it’s drying up, it’s time to go to court. That’s the Amercian way, isn’t it?

Corps of Engineers Sued Over Katrina
_{April 25, 2006, 11:55 PM EDT}

NEW ORLEANS (AP)—Five people whose homes were flooded during Hurricane Katrina sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday, accusing the agency of ignoring repeated warnings that a navigation channel it built would turn into a “hurricane highway.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Orleans and several prominent trial lawyers from Louisiana, Florida and California are backing it.

“Today, my friends, the second battle of New Orleans has begun,” said Pierce O’Donnell, a Los Angeles lawyer, at a news conference outside federal court.

At issue is a 76-mile shipping channel built in the early 1960s as a short-cut to New Orleans. For years, environmentalists and others have blasted the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet because it has eroded enormous tracts of wetlands and increased the threat of flooding.

- More on this at NEWSDAY ...

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/26/2006 at 07:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Corruption and Greed • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Over A Barrel

_{Jimmy Margulies—The Record (NJ)}

- “Gas Prices May Hit $4 Before Falling Back”

- “No Gas Price Relief In Sight”

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/26/2006 at 12:20 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Humor •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - April 25, 2006

And The Winner Is …

British Beauty Contest Winner	American Beauty Contest Winner

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/25/2006 at 02:46 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

On This Day In History

April 25, 1990 - Hubble Space Telescope Launched

The crew of the U.S. space shuttle Discovery places the Hubble Space Telescope, a long-term space-based observatory, into a low orbit around Earth. The space telescope, conceived in the 1940s, designed in the 1970s, and built in the 1980s, was designed to give astronomers an unparalleled view of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe.

Initially, Hubble’s operators suffered a setback when a lens aberration was discovered, but a repair mission by space-walking astronauts in December 1993 successfully fixed the problem, and Hubble began sending back its first breathtaking images of the universe.

Free of atmospheric distortions, Hubble has a resolution 10 times that of ground-based observatories. About the size of a bus, the telescope is solar-powered and orbits Earth once every 97 minutes. Among its many astronomical achievements, Hubble has been used to record a comet’s collision with Jupiter, provide a direct look at the surface of Pluto, view distant galaxies, gas clouds, and black holes, and see billions of years into the universe’s past.

Credit: The History Channel

_{(Click image for larger 1024x798 image in popup window)}

Happy Sweet Sixteen, Hubble Telescope!

To celebrate the Hubble Space Telescope’s 16 years of success, the two space agencies involved in the project, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), are releasing this image of the magnificent starburst galaxy, Messier 82 (M82). This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of M82. The galaxy is remarkable for its bright blue disk, webs of shredded clouds, and fiery-looking plumes of glowing hydrogen blasting out of its central regions.

Throughout the galaxy’s center, young stars are being born 10 times faster than they are inside our entire Milky Way Galaxy. The resulting huge concentration of young stars carved into the gas and dust at the galaxy’s center. The fierce galactic superwind generated from these stars compresses enough gas to make millions of more stars.

In M82, young stars are crammed into tiny but massive star clusters. These, in turn, congregate by the dozens to make the bright patches, or “starburst clumps,” in the central parts of M82. The clusters in the clumps can only be distinguished in the sharp Hubble images. Most of the pale, white objects sprinkled around the body of M82 that look like fuzzy stars are actually individual star clusters about 20 light-years across and contain up to a million stars.

The rapid rate of star formation in this galaxy eventually will be self-limiting. When star formation becomes too vigorous, it will consume or destroy the material needed to make more stars. The starburst then will subside, probably in a few tens of millions of years.

Located 12 million light-years away, M82 appears high in the northern spring sky in the direction of the constellation Ursa Major, the Great Bear. It is also called the “Cigar Galaxy” because of the elliptical shape produced by the oblique tilt of its starry disk relative to our line of sight.

Credit: NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA).

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/25/2006 at 11:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Science-Technology •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Around The World In 80 Bytes

- AP: “Hispanic Leaders In California Receiving Death Threats”

- Reuters: “Israel Launching New Spy Satellite Over Iran”

- BBC: “1023 Foreign Criminals Not Deported From Britain”

- Reuters: “Police In South Africa Hunt Killer Chimps”

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/25/2006 at 11:03 AM   
Filed Under: • News-Briefs •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A-Hunting We Will Go

_{Patrick O’Connor—Los Angeles Daily News}

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/25/2006 at 10:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - April 24, 2006

Kerry: Do As I Say … Not As I Do

Thanks to James Taranto at Opinion Journal’s Best Of The Web Today, we get another glimpse into the deep, dark, haunted recesses of Senator John “Asswipe” Kerry’s mind. Kerry is obviously a man who voted against dissenting opinions before he voted for them ...

Who’s Afraid of Dissent?

“Those who are right should never fear scrutiny of their policy and thorough debate.”
--John Kerry***, Boston Globe, April 22, 2006

“Kerry Accuses Bush of Stifling Dissent”
--headline, Associated Press, April 23, 2006

“The Kerry campaign has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ban the Swift Boat ads.”
--Robert Samuelson, Newsweek, Aug. 25, 2004

*** We don’t remember who he is either, but his book “A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America” is available on Amazon.com for the BARGAIN PRICE of $3.99.

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/24/2006 at 02:00 PM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Little Head Theory

Sex Cues Ruin Men’s Ability To Make Decisions
_{Wednesday April 19, 2006}

The Guardian (UK)

A glimpse of an alluring woman is all it takes to ruin a man’s decision-making skills and the more testosterone coursing through his veins, the worse the problem gets, researchers claim today. The finding is unwelcome confirmation that those most likely to be in a position of power are most susceptible to the subtle influences of the opposite sex.

Bram van den Bergh and Siegfried Dewitte at the University of Leuven in Belgium set 44 student volunteers aged 18 to 28 a financial game to test how they reacted to fair play. The game required the students to split into pairs and before half of the games, one of each pair was shown images of a sexy woman or asked to rate how much they liked a variety of lingerie.

The results showed that men exposed to what the researchers call “sexual cues” accepted unfair play far more than men who were not. The researchers later ranked the men according to their testosterone levels and found that the more testosterone a man had the worse he fared in the tests, they report in the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“We all think we are rational beings, but our research suggests ... that people with high testosterone levels are very vulnerable to sexual cues. If there are no cues around, they behave normally, but if they see sexual images they become impulsive,” said Dr Dewitte. “It’s a tendency, but these people are not powerless to fight it. Hormone levels are one thing, but we can learn to deal with it.”

Testosterone levels were gauged by measuring the ratio of the index finger to the ring finger. A low value, suggesting a ring finger longer than the index finger, is a result of high testosterone and is found more commonly in men than women. The researchers are conducting tests to search for a similar effect in women, but have so far failed to find a visual stimulus that alters their decision-making behaviour.

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/24/2006 at 01:11 PM   
Filed Under: • Science-Technology • Sex •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Welcome!

On behalf of The Skipper, I would like extend a hearty greeting and welcome to all office workers out there in the USA who are now free to surf here while at the office without fear of being fired for reading quality editorials and news content while at the office. Now get your sorry ass back to work ...

Judge: Web-Surfing Worker Can’t Be Fired
_{Mon Apr 24, 9:12 AM ET}

NEW YORK (YAHOO)—Saying surfing the web is equivalent to reading a newspaper or talking on the phone, an administrative law judge has suggested that only a reprimand is appropriate as punishment for a city worker accused of failing to heed warnings to stay off the Internet. Administrative Law Judge John Spooner reached his decision in the case of Toquir Choudhri, a 14-year veteran of the Department of Education who had been accused of ignoring supervisors who told him to stop browsing the Internet at work.

The ruling came after Mayor Michael Bloomberg fired a worker in the city’s legislative office in Albany earlier this year after he saw the man playing a game of solitaire on his computer. In his decision, Spooner wrote: “It should be observed that the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work.”

He added: “For this reason, city agencies permit workers to use a telephone for personal calls, so long as this does not interfere with their overall work performance. Many agencies apply the same standard to the use of the Internet for personal purposes.”

Spooner dispensed the lightest possible punishment on Choudhri, a reprimand, after a search of Choudhri’s computer files revealed he had visited several news and travel sites. Martin Druyan, Choudhri’s lawyer, called the ruling “very reasonable.”

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/24/2006 at 12:59 PM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Other Side

Good morning, troops. I hope you’re having a good time today as the week starts. I’m writing this on the Friday before the day you’re reading this. I’ve got a lot on my mind so I might as well get it started. This post concerns the recent events surrounding several fights and arguments breaking out between a few members here, the resulting banning of those offending members and their childish attacks on me for having booted them out. Before I begin, I want you to read this first:

All messages posted at this site express the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners and administrators of this site.

By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.  We will permanently ban all users who do so.

We reserve the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.

Do you recognize that text? You should. Before you can become a member here, you have to read this on the registration page and click “I Agree” to these terms and conditions before you become a member. If you don’t click, you don’t become a member. If you did click, you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions stated. The terms consist of only four sentences in three paragraphs. They’re so simple that any individual over the age of 6 can understand them. Unfortunately, some people still fail to grasp the concept. Possibly because their adult development stopped in Kindergarten.

Here it is in a nutshell for everyone out there: (1) this is my blog, I pay the bills; (2) I provide the posts and give you a place to express your views and discuss them among others, I do this without requiring any fee or compensation; (3) you are free to donate to offset the costs but are not required or even badgered to do so; (4) donating does not give you a stake in this blog nor does it give you any control over this blog in any manner whatsoever; (5) you may say what you please in the comments but I may not agree with them; (6) if you post comments that I consider offensive your ass may be booted out; (7) I may decide to edit your comments or delete them whenever I deem it necessary.

Now, some believe those rules are arrogant, unfair, censorious and/or “toxic” (actually, these are the standard “terms of service” that ship with the ExperssionEngine blog software - I saw no reason to alter them). My reply to that is simple: refer to item (1) in the paragraph above. This blog is neither a democracy nor a corporation of shareholders. It is a “Benevolent Dictatorship”, as my former partner used to say. In fact, if you check around the blogosphere you’ll find the same rules apply at just about every blog out there. Don’t believe it? Try going to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller and telling Misha, “F**k you, you miserable fat c**ksucker!” You’ll be lucky if all you get is thrown out. More likely, you’ll get an earful of choice language regarding your parentage and THEN thrown out. Still don’t believe me? Then try going to Democratic Underground and post a comment saying, “I like George Bush and I think all you pricks are full of s**t”. You will be swiftly banned and the members there will still be attacking you three days afterward.

So what’s the beef from these members who were banned here last week? The hell if I know. Every one of them, with one exception, was given a chance to settle down and stop behaving badly. Some were given several chances. In the end, I could not reason with any of them so the Secret Service was called and all of these terrorists were frog-marched out of the blog and deported.

That’s when the temper tantrums started. They formed a cabal of Taliban-wannabe’s and flocked from one sympathetic blog to another, screeching their hatred and Cindy Sheehan-like madness at me from other platforms. A vicious e-mail campaign was launched expressing hatred of me and encouraging people to avoid coming here. Public statements were made, and are still recorded out there, in an effort to harm me and this blog. Slander.

Slander

A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one’s occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. If the statement is made via broadcast media—for example, over the radio or on TV—it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

-- Westlaw

Now slander is sometimes difficult to prove unless the offense is especially egregious and proof is readily observed that actionable harm has been done. At least that is what I have been told by legal counsel. We shall see.

I will recount for you what happened as briefly as possible. The whole dispute started between OldCatMan and Z-Woof. The antagonism between these two had been building for weeks and I had been trying to keep an eye on their comments and separate them when it became necessary. I sent several private e-mails to both asking them to “tone it down”. Finally, on April 9, I posted a stern reprimand to “certain members” with the sincere hope that these two would take a hint and knock it off. Z-Woof disappeared for three days. OldCatMan decided to start a war.

OldCatMan: The next day, OldCatman decided to launch a personal attack against me in a vicious e-mail campaign, spamming everyone in his address book - which included quite a few members of this blog. There are two things I won’t forgive and will get you banned from this blog in a heartbeat: (1) personal attacks against me and (2) spamming members of this blog. OldCatMan was banned for both reasons.

OldCatMan continued his vicious e-mail campaign and even began to escalate his attacks. At that point I decided to fight back. I don’t fight fair. Period. Make a note of that. I did a little research at LexisNexis and managed to uncover OldCatMan’s true identity, his address and his phone number. I did this because he has (1) taken great care to hide his identity while (2) publicly posting about his cultivation and use of drugs. I then sent him an e-mail with the identity information as well as the address and phone number of local law enforcement in his community. I told him I had turned him in. Of course, I hadn’t actually done any such thing but I needed the threat to get him off my back since no amount of reason was working. It worked. He has left me alone, preferring to hide behind the skirts of another former member who was also banned.

SouthernDoll: this young lady was banned because she decided to publicly defend OldCatMan here in the comments. I asked her to stay out of it as her participation was only serving to keep the whole sorry mess going. She became enraged at me and sent several e-mails accusing me of censoring her and trying to convince me to ban Z-Woof. I told her it was not my job to take sides. My job is now and has always been to keep the peace. Again, reason did not work so I banned her to keep her from feeding the flames of the dispute. More than that I cannot say about her as there is legal action pending.

Annoying Little Twerp: out of this entire bunch, Barb is the one I regret having to ban. I have never had a beef with her and I even helped her get her own blog started last year. Unfortunately, she must have figured since everyone was jumping on me about banning OldCatMan and SouthernDoll that then would be a good time to jump on me about another member who was banned several months ago. This was in the third day of this miserable mess and my nerves were shot and my temper was boiling. She publicly posted a request for information as to why the other person had been banned. I replied privately that it was none of her business and to leave it alone. She persisted and publicly posted an argument against me for having banned this other person. If Barb had kept it private and simply e-mailed me, I would probably have given her an explanation. I had already done this for another member who inquired. Since she made it a public confrontation, I had no choice but to boot her out. My temper got away with me and I used some very bad language in the notification e-mail. I apologize for that but the ban stands.

Oink: he doesn’t understand why he was banned and to tell you the truth there was no clear-cut offense given by him to merit being banned. This was just a case of “preventive action”. During the first few days of OldCatMan’s rampage, I received dozens of e-mails from distressed members who had received these hateful e-mails from OldCatMan. Some of them received these e-mails from Oink. Oink and OldCatman have been close friends for quite some time and in spite of the avatar games I’ve played with him, I’ve never had a real beef with Oink. He does love to taunt people occasionally and sometimes he crosses the line but has always apologized and backed off when he has offended someone. Oink followed OldCatMan to a few other blogs where several hateful, vicious statements were made about me. Oink did not defend me even once. He was also coming back here, reading the posts and commenting here. I perceived a man sitting on the fence who seemed to be helping his buddy attack me in e-mails and at the same time coming here to enjoy my hospitality. I waffled a long time over this decision but in the end decided to ban Oink and eventually sent him a simple polite e-mal telling him so.

Z-Woof: Z-Woof did stay out of the mess for several days. However, just when I thought things were finally going to calm down and return to normal, he decided to go after OldCatMan and Oink at a few other blogs, relentlessly pursuing them from one to another and starting the same fight. Oddly enough, he also started sending me e-mails about another member at this blog who he had decided was “acting weird”. Enough is enough. I banned Z-Woof for reasons of temporary insanity.

That is the entire list. No one else was banned. One person thought she was banned because she was unable to access the site. Explanation: when I banned OldCtMan I also blocked his ISP to keep him from reading here. I do this to some people I ban to give them a chance to cool off without any access to the blog. In this case, Diamond Mair just happened to be on the same ISP. She sent an e-mail to the webmaster of this blog’s e-mail which is the one given on the IP Block Page. Unfortunately, that is a dead-letter e-mail that I rarely, if ever, check. I was not aware of her misconception until someone sent me an e-mail regarding a comment she made at another blog. That’s all there is to it. The ISP block was lifted after a few days, as it always is (except in one unfortunate case last summer).

A few other members have left and gone to other blog sites to post vicious comments about me and join the group named above. I have quietly cancelled their membership. Why? Because they condemned me after hearing only one side of a dispute. I have no use for people who start throwing stones before hearing both sides of an argument or dispute. To them I say, “Go in peace. You won’t be missed.”

One thing you have to remember: no one is forcing you to come here. There are about 16 million other blogs out there. I encourage you to visit them and get a wide and diverse set of opinions to better enable you to make decisions and understand world events. I am immensely thankful that you choose to stop here, read my amateur attempts at editorializing and open discussions with each other. I appreciate everyone of you.

Just remember that a blog is no different from someone’s house. You are there because the host allowed you to come in and participate in the party. If you have any sense of decency, you would never go to someone’s house party and run around screaming “F**K YOU!” at other guests and tearing up the furniture.

Social skills and etiquette do not stop when you enter the blogosphere. If anything, we all need to observe a better decorum than we would in a face-to-face encounter at someone’s house. When we are in the physical presence of another person, we can judge their reaction to us rather quickly thanks to facial response and body language. You don’t have the benefit of those signals when you’re sitting behind a keyboard staring at a computer monitor. Step lightly, children. There is too much real evil in the world around us to allow us the luxury of arguing over our petty differences whether real or simply perceived.

One Final Note: Because of the above described events, I have made a few changes to the blog. First, all new members must wait 72 hours after registration before being allowed to comment freely. All comments submitted during this period are queued and must be approved before they will post on the site. Other bloggers, including some really big sites like Fark, also require this. The reason is that people sometimes drop by, see something that enrages them and they quickly join to vent their anger on that one subject then run away. Seventy-two hours is long enough to give you time to think before you make an ass out of yourself. Second, all posts over seven days old are automatically closed to comments. If you can’t get it out of your system in a week, you’re obsessing. Give it up. There are on average about 5-7 posts daily here. There’s plenty to talk about. So go ahead and get it off your chest. Argue all you want. Debate all you want. Try to convince me and others of your viewpoint. You can even use bad words - as long as you don’t aim them directly at another member in the comments (it’s still alright to call John Kerry an asswipe since, despite repeated invitations, he refuses to visit here).

This blog site is for adults. Act like one. At least, as best you can. Over and out.

Posted by The Skipper     on 04/24/2006 at 05:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Personal •  
• Comments (48) • Trackbacks(2)  Permalink •  

You Can’t Please Everyone

“Critical Mass” by Cox & Forkum

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/24/2006 at 12:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - April 23, 2006

Gas Pains

Posted by Ronald Reagan's Ghost     on 04/23/2006 at 10:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Corruption and Greed •  
• Comments (18) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner