The Religion of Whining. The Religion of Perpetual Outrage. The Religion of a Pathetic Passive-Aggresive Inferiority-Complex-Driven Chip on Its Shoulder.

Claims of "backlash" are not supported by actual facts. A 2005 FBI/DoJ breakdown of hate-based crimes where religion is the animating animus:

Of the 1,405 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

* 69.5 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.

* 10.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.

* 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against other unspecified
religions (anti-other religion).

* 4.3 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.

* 4.1 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.

* 3.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals
of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

* 0.4 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
(Based on Table 1.)

Of all hate crimes, only 16% were motivated by religion, and only a small fraction of that fraction were motivated by anti-Islamic hatred. 13% of all hate crimes, as a fer instance, were motivated by sexual-bias orientation -- meaning that gays suffer about eight times more "backlash" than members of the Religion of Screaming At The Top Of Your Lungs Like a Lunatic.

The Mighty Slublog notes:

Almost as many people in an "unspecified religion" were victims as Muslims. I guess the anti-Zoroastrian bias is almost as strong.

Their constant whining about being victims is unsupported by fact.

And I don't know how many people have been run-down, blown up, or shot up by Zoroastrians lately.

As far as the severity of the crimes -- well, obviously, if Muslims were being murdered in the streets, I sort of think CAIR and its media arm (also known as "the mainstream media") would alert us to that. But most hate crimes are not of that grave a trespass. Not to excuse any sort of assault or intimidation, but to underscore the relative low incidence of life-threatening violence in hate crimes:

# 36.8 percent intimidated their victims.

# 36.5 percent committed simple assault.

# 25.8 percent committed aggravated assault.

# 0.5 percent committed other types of offenses, which are collected only in the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

# 0.4 percent murdered or raped their victims.

Incidentally? This?

* 69.5 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.

Given that there are fewer Jews in the country than Muslims but are subject to just under seven times as many hate-crimes, it would be nice, you know, if Muslims didn't, oh, deny the Holocaust, preach that Jews are the enemy, and that sort of thing. You know, do all the things that inspire the hate-crimes they're so terribly concerned about.

The FBI breaks down the race of the offenders in a table (in case you're wondering, yeah, whites commit the bulk of hate crimes, but at a slightly disproportionately smaller rate than their representation in the population, whereas blacks commit hate crimes at a somewhat greater rate than their representation in the population).

But if you want to know the religion of the offenders -- the FBI apparently doesn't keep track of that.

So all those anti-Jew hate crimes? No data on precisely how many are being committed by the Religion of Special Considerations and Special Media Protections.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

Catfight.

Did I say catfight?

Is it a catfight when one of the battling creatures is some sort of mythological beast with the hindquarters of a hippopotamus and the head of a drooling imbecile?

Anyway. Elizabeth stands firm here and grills Rosie on the fact that she continues to avoid answering her own rhetorical question -- "Who are the real terrorists?" Rosie keeps telling us what she doesn't mean -- she doesn't mean the troops, she swears -- but she wont say who she does mean. Despite mutliple invitations, verging on demands, to clarify.

As Allah notes, the "I support the troops" line is a pretty empty platitude when you're simultaneously accusing them of being "the real terrorists." Rosie wants ot say that, but not be charged with actually saying it.

In her heart, I guess she means that it's the Bush Administration who are the "real terrorists" -- but, um, it's the troops carrying out his terrorist orders, no? As they're so fond of pointing out, Bush, Cheney, and Rove aren't actually fighting this war with their own asses on the line; so who, precisely, is doing the actual terrorizing?

There is no answer, other than the obvious one, which is why Rosie simply shakes her Jabba-jowls in disdain while refusing to answer.

I really think Elizabeth comes off well here. I'd previously, to tell the truth, figured she was a bit of an idiot. But she's not, and she's dead-on balls-out right when she says that Rosie has to be a big girl (done, and done! on that score) and "defend her own insinuations."

The mot juste. Insinuations. Rosie wants to insinuate but not be called on the obvious insinuations she's making, whether it's about our Terrorist Troops or Bush's (wink!) collusion with bin Ladin to carry off 9/11.

Donald Trump... once again emailed:

Ace,

Rosie is a loser, I mean, seriously, look at that big fat muffin-top spilling all sloppy over her maternity pants, what kind of slob do you have to be let yourself go like that? She's such a fat stupid woman, she really is, even her muffin-top itself has sub-muffin-tops spiling off it like the crests of large breaking waves of lard.

Can you imagine her poor wife Kelly having to look at her naked every night? It's like Dresden after the firebombing, only with cellulite and varicose veins.

Anyway, just wanted to say keep up the good work, caught the reference to you on Limbaugh today, and that Rosie is a fat loser slob with a destructive personality and no ratings and that you should buy some Trump Steaks, because nothing says class like mass-market celebrity-endorsed mail-ordered food, and also that I may send over one of my lovely assistants to steal Rosie's wife away from her, it shouldn't be that hard, I mean look at her, it's like one of the sandworms from Dune just completely gave up and decided to stop the cross-country sand-tunneling regimen and instead just sit on a fucking Craftmatic Adjustable and watch The Hills and Best Week Ever all goddamned day.

Rosie has no ratings,

Donald Trump

Update: Yes, tomorrow is the big day on The View for the Truthers.

I don't know yet if any rebuttal guests have been scheduled.

I'm guessing Barbara Walters is going to stay clear of this one.

She's got a reputation to protect, after all. After all, she was the dilligent invetigative reporter who asked Loni Anderson about her breast reduction surgery.

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

48% oppose. 26% support.

That means it won't pass, right?

Be silly. You've not been paying attention to the fact that no one's paying attention to you.

The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters…

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.”…

Um, yeah. Kind of common sense. Kind of noncontroversial. Kind of what the public's been demanding for, I don't know, 21 or more years.

Kind of what we not be seeing in any bill passed by Congress or signed into law by Bush.

Lindsey Graham immediately declared "We've got to tell the 48% of our citizens who are bigots to shut up."

It was John Boehner who called the bill a "piece of shit," topping John McCain's previous claim that objections to the bill were "chickenshit," and nicely setting up Fred Thompson's next internet video in which he will call proponents of amnesty "shitty-assed shit-for-brains." (Hit the first link for that.)

Why do I think the bill will pass with only the most cosmetic of changes? Because it's pretty much already passing now with fillibuster-proof majorities, and further, even the minority of Senators voting against it will not bother to fillibuster. Even if they had 40 opponents.

Because -- well, we've got to tell the racists to shut up and all.

...they had a filibuster-proof 64 votes yesterday to defeat an amendment that would have stripped the guest worker program from the bill. The Times takes that as a sign that thereÂ’s a solid majority willing to support the bill in its entirety; if they had lost on the guest worker program, the whole thing might have crumbled. WashTimes notes that most Republicans were among the 64, too, the lure of cheap labor apparently too sweet to resist.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Bumper sticker, eh? I dunno.

It seems too tall for a bumper sticker. Maybe if they had bombed something long and low, like, I don't know, the Jacobs Convention Center, that might have fit on a bumper sticker.

Also, I prefer funny bumper stickers about cats and such. Mass murder? Doesn't grab me. I like a good chuckle from a bumper sticker. I'm not sure really what the gag would be here.

Unfit to lead. I'm not even sure he's fit to vote for President, nevermind act as President.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan President George W. Bush has used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad to the invasion of Iraq.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats — including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who said they did not believe there was a global "war on terror." Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did.

Of course, back in 2001, he was pledging his full measure of loyalty to the cause of fighting the "global war on terror" -- including taking out this Saddam Hussein feller.

But the circumstances changed. And by "circumstances," I mean "polls" and "extent of nutroots influence."

His change of heart, it seems, came to him in a dreamstate epiphany.

Well they couldn't teach you anything
You think you're such a looker
but no customer would come to you
unless she was hooker

Baby don't sweat it
You're not cut out to hold a job
No one wants their country led by a yob
Wipe off that angel face and go back to school

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

Bumped, for a while, as Rush Limbaugh listeners may be checking in on his mention.

...

I'd say that's the headline datum in the poll, wouldn't you?

Your very professional newsmedia knows better, however. They use their j-school expertise to find the truly important stuff in the poll.

Let's check the headlines, eh?

USAToday: Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle

Wow! "Most!" Awesome!

Personally, I'm a little bit more worried about the 26% of young Muslim males who want to kill me, but it's good to know that "most Muslims" seek to adopt the "American lifestyle." (Which may or may not involve killing Americans.)

Representative quote:

"This is a very positive story for the vast majority of Muslims," says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "They're highly assimilated, and the largest proportion of their friends are not Muslims."

Terrific.

The survey "clearly shows that the American Muslim community is well integrated in our society," says Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C. "The overwhelming majority of American Muslims reject terrorism and religious extremism."

"Overwhelming majority." 26%-69% on the terrorism justified vs. never justified question amoung young Muslim American males.

Again, I was more hoping for something like a "unanimity."

I ask of Mr. Hooper: Would he feel relieved if I told him right now 69% of young non-Muslim males opposed, but 26% supported, killing you and fellow Muslims due to our anger at their foreign policy?

I don't think so. I think he'd call that "hatred" and "backlash."

So I'm not getting why he thinks that we should be happy that only one in four young Muslim men are open to murdering the rest of us.

Moving on:

The Voice of America is a government outfit. So of course they must give us the straight dope, right?

Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook

Psst: Some of that "backlash" you feel may be due to the 26% of young American Muslim males who would like to kill Americans. Just a thought. Sometimes people take a little thing like murder personally.

Also, I don't know if support for murder is technically "moderate."

Damn bigoted Americans. Giving us dirty looks and harrassing us just because an alaramingly high number of us support random mass murders against our fellow citizens. The very nerve.

The New York Times owned International Herald Tribune must get it right, right? Paper of record and all.

Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds

Better? Yes. US Muslims wish to murder their fellow citizens at rate lower by at least ten percent. Isn't that terrific?

MediaLine finds that this poll actually demonstrates how peaceful American Muslims are. After all, they are optimistic that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is possible:

Pew Poll Shows American Muslims Believe Solution To Israel-Palestinian Conflict Possible

Wow. Certainly that is the most newsworthy statistic one can glean from this poll. Most Muslims believe a "solution" is "possible" in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Given that so many American Muslims support terrorism (and even Muslim apologists tell us that they're mostly referring to terrorism against Israel), we're left to ponder, precisely, what sort of "solution" for the "Israel problem" they may be thinking of, and whether it will be merely a temporary solution or a, let us say, more Final Solution.

It really is amazing: The media is no longer in the business of reporting the most important news, but of deliberately suppressing it.

Thanks to Gekkobear.

More: Like shooting civilians in a barrel--

Chicago Tribune: U.S. Muslims more content, assimilated than those abroad

In fairness, that story carries the subhed: But 1-in-4 youths sympathize with suicide bombers. Though that subhed doesn't show on Google.

Though I don't think that saves them. Imagine this headline from the Chicago Tribune:

Most Southerners Share Values With Rest of America
But 1 in 4 Are Proud To Be Banjo-Strokin', Corncob-Smokin', Cousin-Pokin' Inbred Hillbilly Cannibals

I sort of think the subhed there would be deemed, properly, the most important finding in that poll. (Joke lifted from Just Shoot Me.)

The Pew polling organization itself: Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream

"Mostly." Except for the 1-in-4 males of military age who support terrorism.

How far down does Pew bury its own lede? Well, in "Key Findings," we have to wade through five bullet-points, including ones about such scary-important factoids as "a large majority of Muslim Americans believe that hard work pays off in this society" and "Roughly two-thirds (65%) of adult Muslims in the U.S. were born elsewhere" -- before coming to this:

Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.

Note Pew does not report the actual percentage of young male Muslims who support terrorism -- only noting the percentage is higher than among older Muslims. It then immediately reassures us that the number is quite low, "especially compared with Muslims around the world," but refrains from telling us what this number actually is, so that we can decide if it's "quite low" or not.

26%. "Quite low"? I'd say it's rather high, but then that's me. I have this weird touchiness about being killed by religious maniacs.

I'd say that Pew worked pretty hard to slap some lipstick on this pig, but that might be considered Islamophobic.

NPR: Okay, this one's a gimme. Probably shouldn't bother. But in the interests of completeness: Pew Study Sees Muslim Americans Assimilating.

USAToday's Blog Headline: Poll: Muslim Americans overwhelmingly Democratic, but conservative on many issues

One issue they seem to take a more liberal opinion on: Murder.

Detroit News. Okay, in fairness, they don't want to have their offices blown up. But still: Survey: Muslims largely assimilated in US

It's a big hanging curveball, and of coure the UK Guardian jerks it out of the park. US Muslims more assimilated than British

Another gimme -- The BBC. The gold standard of international reportage:

Muslims 'well integrated' in US

US Muslims tend to feel positive about US but not always welcome
Muslim Americans are largely integrated in US society and moderate in their views, a nationwide survey suggests.

Oh -- and right next to this article on the BBC's webpage? This picture and caption -- from back in January (!) -- for "context:"

US Muslims tend to feel positive about US
but not always welcome

Get that? US Muslims are doing everything they can to assimilate with bigoted Americans, and yet we deface their buildings.

And the one-in-four number? The BBC fails to report it. It merely acknowleges:

In addition, younger Muslims in the US are more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defence of Islam can sometimes be justified.

...which seems cribbed from Pew's front-page digest of its findings. In other words, Allah Pundit at HotAir is actually a more skilled journalist than the entire frigging BBC.

Finally, for fairness. Here's one news outlet that bravely, and accurately, reports the poll's most important headline right in the article's, um, headline:

One in four younger U.S. Muslims support suicide bombings

Which news outlet had the courage and integrity to actually report the unvarnished, unbowlderized news?

Pravda, the infamous former/current propaganda organ of the Russian government.

Actually, clicking on the one link on Google's front page that mentions the support for terrorism angle (from the Malaysia Star -- getting the story right that US papers deliberately get wrong), one can find similar articles (and blog posts) noting the 26% figure.

But obviously, the majority of the media worked very hard here to not report a key finding from a major poll with significant ramifications for US security and foreign policy.

This is what j-school taught them? How to actively withhold information from the public?

Thank God we have Allah, and of course Pravda, to tell us The Truth.

Even More...

Surely the Washington Post wouldn't bury the truth, would it?

Survey: U.S. Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism

Yup.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (202)
Post contains 1438 words, total size 11 kb.

Errrmmm... there's a difference -- though I have to say it's often not a very clear one -- between a lift and a reference/homage. Those stupid Ninja Turtles were featured in commercials saying "Sch-wing!," which I'm sure they would claim was a reference to Wayne's World, though it seems to me they were just stealing that movie's most famous catchphrase. But it's hazy.

So, Shrek features the clopping-coconuts-instead-of-horses gag from The Holy Grail. Is Idle really that peeved about a famous joke being "stolen" thirty years after its debut?

It's hazy -- the writers, I'm sure it's a "reference." To the millions of kids seeing this -- who of course haven't seen Holy Grail -- it's actually thievery, because they have no idea it's a reference and assume it's an original Shrek gag.

But... who cares?

"The coconut gag was a small gag ... and it's of course a radio joke," Idle said. "It's been stolen blatantly by Shrek 3 I'm happy to say, so we'll be able to sue their asses."

Idle was in Toronto to promote a new play and stopped in for a chat on Mix Fm. When probed by station producer Maurie, Idle admitted his distaste for the new film and its alleged comedic thievery even though not only he, but Monty Python buddy John Cleese are featured in the cast. Still, they're all seeing red over the big green ogre.

"It seems as though he's really upset by this and I think that he will take legal action," Maurie said.

I always figured Idle was a kind of cool guy. Who knows, maybe he is a cool guy. (Despite his politics, which many tell me are hard-left. But even lefties can be cool. They're just idiotic politically.) But he seems like a bit of douche here. I see his point, but...

Come on. You've ridden this coconut for thirty years. Most would call that a good ride. Let it go.

In patent terms, you've been able to exploit and profit from your invention for thirty years (well beyond the standard patent period). After that, it lapses into free public use.

You created a seminal comedy gag that kinda-sorta belongs to the world simply because it is so famous. Be proud of that. Don't be a dick. You're a Python, not a pathetic Jerky Boyz character.

Thanks to Relapsed Catholic.

Joke? Some commenters say he's kidding. I figured he was kidding too, but the reporter assured me the Pythons were fuming and would "likely" take legal action.

I just realized-- what the hell am I doing substituting an idiot reporter's take for my own? Do I trust them? No. Do I have any respect for their competence or integrity? No. Do I believe they have some special insight into this (or anything at all)? No.

So, you're right -- it almost certainly is a joke, either incompetently or deliberately passed off as a real legal threat by a typical media douchebag.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

In positive news, he was afforded his full Geneva Convention rights before being sacrificed in a death-cult ritual. We can all be comforted that he was not subject to the "attention getter" belly-slap before he was slaughtered like an animal.

The half-naked body of one of three missing U.S. soldiers was found on Wednesday in the Euphrates River in the town of Mussayab south of Baghdad, police said.

The U.S. military said it was investigating reports that a body had been found in a canal in the area.

Hilla police spokesman Captain Muthanna al-Maamouri said there were bullet wounds to the torso and head of the body, which was wearing U.S. Army-issue pants and boots and had a tattoo on the left arm.

Maamouri said the body had been turned over to U.S. forces.

Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been scouring farmlands through an area south of Baghdad known as the "Triangle of Death" since an ambush on May 12 in which four U.S soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed.

The military isn't confirming the dead man's identity, but the way they refuse to confirm it -- citing the fact that their first priority is to inform the man's family -- is confirmation enough.

Thanks to dri.

More: They may have found the other two.

The bodies found show signs of torture.

I guess that means "signs of belly-slaps," because Andrew Sullivan assures me that slapping a terrorist fuckshit in the belly constitutes torture.

Posted by: Ace at 10:00 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Bear in mind, it was 2005, so this intelligence alone does not add to the pile of evidence for Hussein-bin Ladin links.

Rather it demonstrates that whether liberals believe it or not, Al Qaeda certainly believes Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror, and further, losing Iraq would almost certainly give Al Qaeda not only an enormous psychological victory but an enormous recruiting/staging area for terrorist attacks.

As many commenters noted, while we argue about immigration, there is, in fact, a somewhat major war on.

President Bush, stressing that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists, shared intelligence on Wednesday asserting that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets.

...

Bush said that intelligence showed that in January 2005, bin Laden tasked Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to set up the cell to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacks in the United States. Al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq in June 2006 by a U.S. airstrike.

This information expanded on a classified bulletin the Homeland Security Department issued in March 2005. The bulletin, which warned that bin Laden had enlisted al-Zarqawi to plan potential strikes in the United States, was described at the time as credible but not specific. It did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.

...

Around the same time, Abu Fajah al-Libi, a senior al-Qaida manager, suggested that bin Laden send Rabia to Iraq to help al-Zarqawi plan the external operations, he said. It is unclear whether Rabia went to Iraq.

Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said new details about the plots were declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information, and that the players were either dead or in U.S. custody.

Democrats, of course, question the timing. For some strange reason they seem to believe that this information should have been suppressed.

Democrats Cry Foul

Democrats and other critics have accused Bush of selectively declassifying intelligence, including portions of a sensitive National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq...

A White House spokesman makes the obvious point that such "selective declassification" would have been more helpful had it been "selectively" released earlier. Like, say, before the 2006 elections. But Bush held off until he got the all-clear that the information was no longer useful to the enemy.

Liberals seem to believe that important intelligence the enemy doesn't know about -- like our monitoring of international transactions -- should be released, but information the enemy obviously knows about should be nonetheless withheld from the American public.

An odd position to take. At least it's odd if your priority is fighting Al Qaeda, rather than warring on one's fellow countrymen.

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democratic base, alas.

What, you thought he agreed with you? Are you stupid or somethin', son?

A panel discussion on global climate change Tuesday found Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) staff agreeing with representatives for the leading Democratic presidential contenders. A cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, they agreed, is the most promising solution to "global warming."

A cap and trade system would involve limits or caps (lower than current levels) on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by polluters like power plants. But companies able to cut their CO2 output at a low cost would be able to sell their left-over pollution permits to companies facing higher costs.

John Raidt, a policy advisor to McCain, said during a discussion at the left-leaning Brookings Institution that the Arizona Republican is a "foremost proponent of carbon cap-and-trade."

Raidt said McCain supports a cap-and-trade system above taxes on carbon emissions because "cap-and-trade is a market-driven, proven way."

The position put McCain in league with leading Democratic contenders - Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina - whose policy advisors also participated in the discussion.

Representatives for the three Democrats said they all support a carbon cap-and-trade system.

Thanks to Ogre Gunner.

Posted by: Ace at 08:48 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

At various points I've thought that this post or that might get a mention on Rush Limbaugh. Other blogs got mentioned occasionally.

JackM. just wrote to say Rush mentioned the site a few minutes ago, regarding the media spinning/spiking the 1-in-4 finding.

Cool beans. I'm somebody now!

Things Are Going To Start Happening Now Update: (Content waring) My greatness is finally acknowledged.

Via The Editor.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.