August 10, 2005

Media Scandals!

The Alliance mentioned that perhaps there were some media scandals that were not being reporting (other than that whole liberal Air America thief thing). We did the usual and sent out Ogre's Investigative Team™.

We found some rather disturbing things that were simply NOT being reported in the formerly mainstream media (FMSM):

1. Wolf Blitzer doesn't wear any pants when he is reporting. Our investigators didn't find out what was going on behind that desk where he wasn't wearing any pants, and they refused to investigate more...

2. The ACLU exists primarily on money from taxpayers, sucking them dry with extortion methods and "settlements" from lawsuits. Oh wait, this was supposed to be made-up stories that aren't being reported on. Sorry that real one slipped in there.

3. Eleanor Roosevelt's ghost has been making appearances in the newsrooms of CBS News, giving news stories and tips to Vicki Mabrey.

4. NARAL and Democrats have started complaining about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' children. They have attempted to link Mr. Roberts with recent terrorist attacks in Iraq. Oh wait -- I forgot again about this list being made-up stories. Real media scandals keep slipping in.

5. Various polls now indicate that the absolute vast majority of Americans now get their news from blogs, and they trust information found in blogs more than they trust the formerly mainstream media (FMSM). Each time the polls appears, they are buried by the network anchors, but the viewing public doesn't seem to notice.

6. Famous blogger Harvey is actually ABC's Elizabeth Vargas, blogging in drag and concealing his her identity. IP address trails from Bad Example have been traced to the offices of ABC news, confirming this rumor.

There were more scandals, but the investigative staff got too drunk to report them all at this time...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

More Carnivals

A couple more carnivals for your reading pleasure:

The sixth Carnival of Liberty is up at Fearless Philosophy For Free Minds. Absolutely top-notch stuff there if you have any interest in freedom. Seriously. Go read those posts now.

Also there is the Carnival of the Clueless, now appearing at Right Wing Nuthouse. If you want to laugh, then cry because these loonies really believe the fantasies coming out of their mouths, head on over and have a read -- and it's a big one this week!

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Project VALOR IT

Soldier's Angels has a new project that they'd like your assistance with: Project VALOR IT (Voice Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops).

"Project Valour IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled software and laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at major military medical centers. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The experience of CPT Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded servicemember's recovery."

Posted by: Ogre at 03:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Intelligent Design in Schools

This topic has really started the blogosphere a-talking, from what I've seen. I noticed the end of a conversation at Owlish Musings, and over at Ambient Irony, which came from Vokdapundit, some over at Life in the Atomic Age, which expanded from Junkyard Blog. And, of course, The Evangelical Outpost comments on intelligent design often. Much of this discussion was brought about by President George W. Bush's statements that he thought intelligent design could be taught in government-run schools.

Lennie's also asking about it in this week's Christian Views Symposium. Feel free to provide your own answers on your blog (or in comments if you don't have one):

Should schools teach intelligent design?

Posted by: Ogre at 11:37 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I agree that ID should be presented as an alternate theory. As long as we're teaching the "big bang theory", we should present other reasonable theories AS "theories" in the schools. What's wrong with making the kids think, after all?

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 10, 2005 11:43 AM (Er9BL)

2 Thanks, GTL -- see we can agree now and then!

Currently we can't because there are competing theories and the state-sponsored religion of naturalism is the only permitted religion in classrooms today.

If you think all of earth's history is not religion, next time you see a self-proclaimed "expert" on the earth, ask them to explain uniformitarianism.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)

3 err...that second sentence should be can't teach ID...

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)

4 As I've noted on my blog - and as others have pointed out - ID simply isn't a theory in scientific terms. Evolution is. We can perform experiments in evolution, but in the main it is observational, like astronomy. It's still science; there's no such thing as "philosophical" science; and ID cannot ever be science because its fundamental assumption is counter to the fundamental assumption of science. (Metaphysical naturalism.)

That post you link to is nonsense. Pure and simple. It states "In order to believe the naturalistic theory, the origin of life is either a natural process or pure chance. However, both of those options only lead to structures with extremely low information content." and that just plain isn't true.

Intelligent design is real. Science is showing that to be the case. This has nothing to do with religion, only scientific evidence.

Sorry, no.

There is no evidence supporting Intelligent Design. None. Not one iota. And an absolutely vast amount of evidence supporting Evolution.

But let's stick with the claim that ID is science. A scientific theory must be falsifiable; it must explain something; it must make predictions.

ID says, in essence, that evolution happens except that some things couldn't have evolved naturally and therefor The Designer must have intervened at this point.

Since ID says only that "some things" couldn't have evolved naturally, it can't be falsified. Every specific claim that it has made has been shown to be false, but that doesn't falsify ID itself. So ID is not a scientific theory.

ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us what The Designer is, or how it works, or when it will intervene. So ID is not a scientific theory.

ID doesn't predict anything. Evolution does. Evolution makes quite concrete predictions about how species will respond to selection; about the genetic relationships of species with certain evolutionary relationships; and many other things. These predictions have been borne out time and time again by hard evidencce. ID says "sometimes The Designer steps in and changes things", which doesn't allow us to predict anything. So ID is not a scientific theory.

ID is religion. You can teach it as religion, if you like. But every time it's presented as science, every scientist in the world will oppose it. Not because it's wrong - we can never know whether it's wrong. Not because it's useless - though it certainly is. But because it's not science.

However, those opposed to this, and those who subscribe to naturalism refuse to accept the fact that anything can actually BE done except through natural processes -- they refuse to even entertain the theory that has more evidence for it than any other.

Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false. But there's no evidence - none - that this is the case.

It's not a question of refusing to accept evidence; it's a question of there not being any.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 10, 2005 01:14 PM (4N+SC)

5 "Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false."

That's what absolutely scares the living daylights out of current naturalist scientists -- what if they are wrong? They simply cannot accept that idea at all. The recent evidence that the speed of light may not, in fact, be constant has them questioning everything that's been learned about science. They are terrified that their world IS coming down around them.

I understand your reasoning that ID is not science -- if that is the case, then applying the same principles to evolution will destroy it as science just as quickly. Evolution claims that things evolve -- sometimes. Sometimes they evolve quickly, sometimes slowly. So you can't prove evolution any more than you can prove ID using that criteria.

That's why I say that evolution is philosophical science -- it simply cannot be proven. There is zero actual, concrete evidence of evolution. There is nothing that evolution has predicted that has come true.

There's a reason that zero "intermediate" specific have been found. If there truly were fish that walked out of the sea to become mammals, why is there zero fossil evidence? That's the part of evolution that can't be falsified.

The biggest problem with naturalism is that it says that everything had a natural cause -- this begat that begat this other thing. And it all came from the big bang. But what CAUSED the big bang? No one has been able to answer that, and scientists, atheists, are starting to realize there may be some things that simply CANNOT be explained by natural processes. That's why ID only makes logical sense.

It takes more faith to believe in naturalism than to believe in ID.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 01:44 PM (/k+l4)

6 I'd like to see students understand the concepts of thermodynamics and gravity and biological classification and micro-evolution before they go talking about big bangs and string theory and the like. Why not study well documented science, and leave the unprovable theory out?

As for ID as a scientific theory, my understanding is this: a scientific theory must be falsifiable. There must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. There is no way to prove ID incorrect. Therefore, not a scientific theory.

(*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:10 PM (vR7Sl)

7 Oh, and Ogre, OT, you'd be so pleased. Our pennsylvanian legislators are one by one overturning the pay raise they gave themselves at 2am a few weeks ago. Guess some of them do have shame after all!

(*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:11 PM (vR7Sl)

8 Students want to be taught these topics because everyone wants to know where they came from and why they are here. Naturalists provide them the official state-sponsored religious answer.

And using your criteria for what is a scientific theory, evolution (and naturalism) are not a theory either -- how can it be proved incorrect (at least any more than it already has been)?

If your legislature is like NC's, they'll revoke the pay raise only to pass it again in a few weeks when they think no one is watching!!!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 02:49 PM (L0IGK)

9 Well sure. They should teach "intelligent design" along with tarot, astrology, and Cherokee creation narratives.

Posted by: Karlo at August 10, 2005 03:31 PM (r65rq)

10 We should teach those ideas, Karlo, as soon as you provide actual evidence for any of them. There is no evidence that opposes intelligent design other than the naturalist religion. Therefore, if you don't support teaching tarot, how can you support teaching the naturlist religion?

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 03:46 PM (L0IGK)

11 Actually, evolution is completely falsifiable. That's why there's so much debate about macro vs micro evolution and great leaps in evolution - these all falsify pieces of the original theory.

There's no way to prove there's no creator.

I do believe that ID should be taught - creation, in a comparative theology class. There's nothing wrong with teaching creation - most religions in the world believe it to be truth. It just doesn't belong in biology or physics.

(*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 06:55 PM (Sc2Wh)

12 Ok, but if you can't teach intelligent design in biology or physics, then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution, either.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 07:02 PM (L0IGK)

13 I agree - ID is not a scientific theory. It is a theory that can explain some of the failings of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the progression of life on Earth, but does NOT explain the origins of life, the universe and everything (evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang are totally different theories).

The best thing we could do for our children (besides getting government out of the education business) is to present them with a good overview of the prevailing theories - scientific and philosophical - including the problems with them. Teach the science in science classes, teach the philosophy in whatever classes would be most appropriate. There's nothing like knowing that there are still mysteries out there to spur intellectual curiosity.

Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 08:03 PM (LP2Sk)

14 If you're speaking of micro-evolution as a valid science to be taught in science classes, while teaching both ID and evolution as philosophical theories, barring getting government the heck out of schools, I can go with that.

Thanks for stopping by, and I don't envy you actually intentionally watching Boxer!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 08:12 PM (L0IGK)

15 Thanks, Ogre. There are days my self-appointed job is really painful. Like today. Just finished fisking another Boxer "speech" that I'll be posting as soon as my hosting site is back up.

And yes, that's pretty much what I was speaking of. Micro-evolution is observable, so you'd have to be in another plane of reality not to "believe" it. Macro-evolution is not observable, reproducable, or, I think, disprovable, but could still be taught as a theory with the proper disclaimers.

Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 10:00 PM (LP2Sk)

16 Isn't Boxer up for re-election this year? Oh wait, that's her sister, Frankenstein, this year.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:37 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Liberal Heretics, Part II

Karlo, of Swerve Left has some complaints about my article from yesterday titled, "Liberal Heretics." Well, let's see what he has to say (note to Karlo: install the trackback feature on your blog -- it's pretty cool and a good way to track who's posting about your posts).

I'm going to place most of the response in the extended entry, because I think this is going to be quite a long post...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:00 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Great Rebuttal!!

Posted by: oddybobo at August 10, 2005 12:22 PM (6Gm0j)

2 And entertaining, too, I hope!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 12:44 PM (/k+l4)

3 Great fisking.
Well thought out, and well said!

Keep it up.

Posted by: jimmyb at August 10, 2005 08:18 PM (3Eck1)

4 Thanks for the kind words, Jimmy!

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 09:04 PM (L0IGK)

5 The initial part of your rebuttal isn't logical. There's no inconsistency involved with saying that there are multiple causes of "A" and that humans are a necessary cause of "A." This isn't an either/or situation. And it isn't just Greenpeace saying that global warming has been caused by humans. The entire scientific community (except for a couple corporate-sponsored crackpots) agrees on this one.

As for the lefty environmentalists getting it all wrong in the 70s, this is partially true. In the 1970s, the science of predicting oil reserves was in its infancy. Even so, scientific consensus is that U.S. oil production did in fact peak in the 1970s and that wordwide production is peaking right now. Several areas of the globe may be at peak or close to it (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) and several haven't reached it yet due to failure to fully exploit resources (e.g., Russia) but I haven't read anything that says that some yet-to-be discovered oil field is going to dramatically change the equation. (The much touted Alaskan fields give us oil for 3 or 4 weeks or something like that.)

As for auto-emissions being reduced, the number of deaths and illnesses caused by auto-pollution is staggering. People pine about the 9/11 deaths, but we could save far more people in a single year simply by tightening pollution standards in a single U.S. city such as L.A. (Although tightening regulations is much less manly than bombing people.)

As for Leakey being a crackpot, in his book he refers to studies done all over the planet and concludes that: (1) as you mention, we only know of a small fraction of living species, and (2) wherever detailed surveys have been done in the same place at different times, they inevitably show a dramatic loss of species. As for your wonder that the 6th extinction would be caused by different factors than the first 5, I don't see why this is an issue. I don't think man was even around for the first five.

In the end, your conclusion is based on a single highly speculative article. Mine is based on the consensus of 99.9999% of the scientific community. Of course, I might be wrong. And the Earth may in fact be flat.

Posted by: Karlo at August 10, 2005 11:34 PM (r65rq)

6 You cannot keep using the mystical "entire scientific community," or "99.99%," because that is simply not true. The only way you can legitimately claim that is to have a survey of thousands of scientists that have studied the climate and get all of them to agree with you. That's not the case, as there are large numbers of scientists that do NOT agree about global warming. In fact, as more data that was used to support global warming is revealed (it was hidden for years), more and more scientists are questioning that it even exists.

As for the oil reserves, the problem is NO ONE can know how much there is. It's impossible to know. If we cannot know how much there is, we cannot say we're running out of it.

The auto-emissions statement is simply not supportable. Do you have a study to back that up? I'd like to see the numbers, along with the raw data, that show the number of non-self-inflicted (suicide) deaths that are directly caused by auto emissions.

It's interesting that you mention how Leakey refutes his own theory! He's not the first in the scientific community to do that, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Again, examine your conclusion and the support for it. There are not the facts, nor the agreement in the "scientific community" that you might think. What about the 19,000+ scientists that have signed the petition that argues there is no man-made global warming (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)? Do you really believe that we could melt the arctic icecaps if we even wanted to? If we put all our efforts into melting the North Pole, do you think we could even make a dent in it? I think you attribute WAY too much power to man, and a significantly large number of PhD scientists who have studied the climate and the earth agree with me.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:50 AM (L0IGK)

7 You're confusing "lack of knowledge" with "lack of complete knowledge." Scientists can now estimate with a great deal of accuracy the amount of oil that will be commercially available. (That's what oil geologists get paid for, after all.) There will always be some oil somewhere but peak oil isn't concerned with this. At some point, the energy used in oil extraction exceeds that gain through oil combustion and at that point (actually, long before that point), oil drilling and so on are no longer viable options.

The same goes for your comment on deaths due to auto exhaust. We're not talking about obscure scientific studies speculating on string theory or the 13th dimension. Scientists can simply compare population A that lives in a smog-filled city with a similar population B that doesn't and can then track the types of diseases and deaths that occur with greater frequency in populated areas. A zillion such studies have been done. I don't have any dates and names at my fingertips, but if you simply look at any major paper consistently for 3 or 4 weeks, your bound to see yet another study reaching those same common-sense conclusions.

As for the discovery of before unknown species "refuting Leakey's theory," this is complete nonsense. We will never know most of the species on the planet as no one has the time to go through every spade of dirt in order to list the microbes found there. But manageable surveys done throughout the planet have all shown a dramatic decrease in species. The most obvious sign of this trend is the reduction in large species during the last 50,000 years throughout the globe. The decimation of species that we know about far exceeds evolutions capacity to create new ones. (Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, then the reduction of a single species over short periods of time should reduce the eco-sphere to nothing but mold, cockroaches, and some dessicated human corpses.) But then again, I might be wrong. In so, on your next hike, take care not to awaken that dormant giant beaver, giant sloth, sabertooth cat, or mammoth. I hear these beast are quite ferocious after a long sleep.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 12:41 PM (HoLw7)

8 Ok, so scientists can estimate how much oil there is...until they discover more. How is that useful?

You're making logical leaps here that don't make sense. Studying people who die in one area with people who die in another area and then determining that one item caused it is just silly. With that reasoning, I can effectively claim that povery causes crime. There are way too many factors involved with why people die to ever put the blame on one factor. Heck, we can't even get scientists to agree about secondhand smoke, something really directly measurable!

Same with the unknown species -- if we watch 10 species "disappear" from a known region, but at the same time 5,000 other species are discovered in another region, we cannot claim anything. The 10 species might have just disappeared from sight or moved, while the other 5,000 may have already existed.

Or, if you accept evoluton, perhaps the 10 species who became extinct allowed 5,000 other new species to be created. You simply cannot do a controlled study on the entire planet and claim any results with any degree of accuracy -- if we don't know if there's 10,000 or 100 billion species, how can we possibly claim to be adding or removing species to the planet at ANY rate?

It seems to me in all these cases, you're accepting the results without looking at the data. Using the actual data in these cases, the best you can do is imply that there might be a relationship between the two things (like auto exhaust and death) -- but no genuine, supported causal relationship can be drawn.

Seriously, if you see any specific data, not just reports of conclusions, but actual data, point it my way, as I love numbers.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 02:51 PM (L0IGK)

9 Oh, I see. In order to say anything definitive about anything it isn't enough to employ widely accepted statistical methods in rigorous ways, we have to find every possible case and count them up until we reach 100% (There's a drunk positivist lurking somewhere around here...) So in order for us to know that objects fall, we'll have to fly to the furthest star and toss that final rock on the final moon of the final planet--just to make sure. You need to find the nearest Community College and take a course in statistics, my friend. And then another course in the scientific method.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (HoLw7)

10 That's my point -- you're missing the scientific method -- you're applying a statistically insignificant sampling to a gigantic population!

How many things could possibly cause a human to die? It's in the billions. To say that one type of element introduced in unmeasurable amounts, subject to wind, with neglibile measureable effects on the human body, and then to claim that that element was responsible for death is just silly.

Using that reasoning, I can light up a cigarette in a room and if 4 people die of heart attacks in the room, the cigarette caused them to die. The fact that their drinks were poisoned would never get mentioned.

I'm not looking for 100% certainty, I'm looking for valid, duplcatable, studies that show results. That's why I want to see the data of such studies -- I've not seen one. If the data shows that 10 people who died of heart attacks blame those attacks on CO2, that's questionable. That's like when deaths in a storm are attributed to the storm, when it may have been from something that had nothing to do with the storm.

All I want is data. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 03:09 PM (L0IGK)

11 Hi Ogre,
I don't usually get into this kind of political debate - I'm just not interested in arguing with people whose minds are already made up.

But I did want to point out two things: Greenpeace is not the titular head of environmentalism. I know little about them other than their name. I'm sure they do good work, though. You make a lot of broad statements about Democrats and liberals that are simply untrue. I try to keep in mind that a lot of conservatives that don't fit the stereotype, and I wish you would try a little harder not to group all liberals together. But I realize that's the nature of your blog, and environmentalism is the nature of mine.

The folks I listen to are the Union of Concerned Scientists. Politics aside, when it comes between trusting scientists who have been paid off by industries who stand to profit from their findings, or scientists whose jobs have been threatened unless they come up with findings that support the current administration's policies, I believe that I'll choose the other guys. It puzzles me that anyone, Democrat or Republican, would choose otherwise, considering the clear evidence about this. And many conservatives agree with mainstream scientific findings on global warming.

I'm a liberal arts major--I don't pretend to know enough about statistics and data to argue about scientific theory. But it's common sense not to trust the fox who guards the henhouse. And you should remember that the Theory of Gravity is a scientific theory, but few of us doubt that it's a fact.

Thanks for reading an opposing point of view,
Laurie

Posted by: Laurie at August 11, 2005 06:28 PM (CggWK)

12 The American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50324) says that:

"Tens of thousands of premature deaths each year are attributed to fine particle air pollution."

From http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419

"A 1994 report on the adverse effects of particulate air pollution, published in the Annual Reviews of Public Health, noted a 1 percent increase in total mortality for each 10 mg/m3 increase in particulate matter. Respiratory mortality increased 3.4 percent and cardiovascular mortality increased 1.4 percent. More recent research suggests that one possible link between acute exposure to particulate matter and sudden death may be related to sudden increases in heart rate or changes in heart rate variability."

I'm not going to read 100s of pages of studies to refute your point, but my guess is the pool of people the data are derived from are is actually exponentially larger than needed since the data already exists (in hospital reports and so on) and such data's extensive.

At http://www.columbia-stmarys.org/14294.cfm,
an American Medical Journal study says that "Air pollution has been linked to a variety of diseases, including lung cancer, other lung diseases, and heart disease." This led to a change in EPA standards (all pretty mainsteam stuff).

So tens of thousands of deaths each year and perhaps hundreds of thousands health problems. And this is all EACH YEAR.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 06:31 PM (r65rq)

13 Laurie, thanks for stopping by, and for your comments, they are appreciated.

As for Greenpeace, they do certainly think they are the ones who are most concerned with the environment, and they believe they are the primary protectors of the environment. I do not like them because they use terrorist tactics -- I have seen them up close.

As for the scientists, I'd love to hear from a completely unbiased scientist -- however such a create simply does not exist. As you point out, many are paid by corporations. However, all of them get paid by someone for their research -- no one does the research on their own (I guess when they become independently wealth, they don't do research or something).

I looked over the group you linked to -- they claim 52% of their $11 million income comes from "contributions," and 40% comes from "foundations." If a large portion of that comes from someone with an agenda, or with a political goal, then their results are just as in question as any corporation-sponsored scientist.

That's why I ask for facts and details, so I can make decisions myself, rather than relying upon scientists who have a goal, often before their research is even done.

As for gravity -- it can be tested and duplicated over and over again, unlike global warming and automobile emission deaths.

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 06:59 PM (L0IGK)

14 Thanks for the links, Karlo, I'll go and check them out and see what I can find!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 07:00 PM (L0IGK)

15 Of course we always need to be concerned about bias. Although I have a hard time seeing who has money to make if pollution causes deaths. All the big money is made by causing pollution. My guess is that the harmful effects are vastly understated.

Posted by: Karlo at August 11, 2005 08:07 PM (r65rq)

16 "entire scientific community" used to believe that the sun and planets revolved around the earth too.

Posted by: tony at August 16, 2005 04:10 PM (eHsXE)

17 Bingo, Tony.

Karlo, if you're still around, I am researching those reports and do plan on making another post about them, after I've digested them.

Posted by: Ogre at August 16, 2005 05:41 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Legislature and School Vending Machines

The North Carolina Legislature, that august body, concerned with high and weighty government issues, passed their ban and restrictions on vending machines in government schools. And no, they haven't even passed a budget for the state of North Carolina yet, and they're now over a month late on the incredibly irresponsible and reckless budget.

Why is the legislature wasting time on such "projects?" Why does the legislature even assume to presume that if they limit 75% of the snacks in a school vending machine to "under 200 calories" that suddenly there will be no fat kids? Oh, right, "if it helps just one child..."

This example again shows how wasteful and irresponsible the (sometimes duly) elected Democrats in Raleigh can be. There is no reason for this act, there's no reason for the legislature to be concerned with such issues, and there's no reason they shouldn't have passed a budget yet.

Get the government out of schooling, period. There is absolutely no reason that government should have a monopoly on education. North Carolina is only required to provide an opportunity for eduction -- they have no need to force it upon people, and they should not be running any government schools -- they're obviously not smart enough to.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Getting the government out of the schools would fix a lot of things.

Posted by: Jay at August 10, 2005 07:53 AM (2FcUc)

2 It would fix SO many things. It is probably the single largest step that would help this country reclaim her freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 07:56 AM (/k+l4)

3 I think this is happening in FL too. I'm not sure as I don't keep up with our public schools as I send my kids to a private Christian school.

Posted by: Bou at August 10, 2005 09:46 PM (5JHEt)

4 You horrible, evil, uncaring, Republican!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:35 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 09, 2005

The Pool of Siloam

I know there are many people who believe that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories. I know many others who believe that there's some divine inspiration in the Bible. There's even others who believe that most of the Bible is stories inspired by God, but that didn't actually happen.

Then there's all that scientific evidence that keeps popping up to show that maybe, just maybe, the Bible is actually a true, factual account of events.

Drudge Reports (link likely to go out of date quickly) that the actual pool of Siloam has been discovered in Jerusalem. Not a makeshift fabrication, but the actual pool where Jesus healed a blind man.

What if the entire Bible, from beginning to end, is an actual, factual reporting of historical events? Just think about it.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Car Trunk Tragedy

This week the Homespun Bloggers have quite a more serious question for Homespun Bloggers.

The Homespun Bloggers are simply a loose-knit group of bloggers of all stripes, from all sorts of blogs, that are united...well, just to find and read one another's blogs. The one common thread is that all the members of the Homespun Bloggers blog simply because they want to. Head on over to the main page and read about them.

This week's question (they have a new question nearly every week that members can choose to answer if they like) is related to the horrible tragedy in New Jersey where three boys died in a trunk of a car. The questions are:

1. Who is ultimately responsible for the loss of these three children?

2. Do you believe that the police were at all responsible for not finding the children in time? (It's hinted that on of the parents has decided to sue the City of Camden New Jersey)

3. Do you believe that auto manufacturers are responsible for providing additional safety features that would prevent this type of tragedy in the future? (They've also been named as potential litigants in this case.)

4. Why do you think that if this parent feels so strongly about going after the "wrongdoers" in this case, why doesn't he try to sue the parents of the other children lost in the incident?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:31 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Liberal Heretics

Oh dear. The environmental lunatic lefties are going to be mad at this one. According to "real scientists,"

new research suggests that the coming and going of major ice ages might result partly from our solar system's passage through immense, snakelike clouds of exploding stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

You see, the entire leftist religion (and yes, it IS a religion), is based on man being primarily evil and bent on total destruction of the earth. People like algore actually believe one of the worst creations of man was the internal combustion engine. They spend their lives trying to prove how many insects are killed by exhaust fumes. The spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to prove global warming, and trying to prove global warming is the fault of YOU for being so greedy.

If there is evidence that alleged global warming might be caused by cosmic events, the entire religion of the left is gone. Get ready for this one to be squashed, discredited, ignored, and the scientists that are proposing this had better not have any adopted children...

(Hat tip to Mensa Barbie.)

Posted by: Ogre at 11:00 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Oh surely these scientist must be kooky mad scientists like the one that created Frankenstein Kerry. We can all see that global warming is melting the polar caps, and global overfreezing them at the same time. Its immenent threat. Haven't you seen the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? Ha, you thought it was science fiction did you?

I'm all for protecting the environment, but this whole global warming, climate crap is a joke.

Posted by: Jay at August 09, 2005 12:35 PM (2FcUc)

2 Jay, you don't get it. It's YOUR fault that there is global warming. That's been the mantra from the left for decades! YOU caused global warming, and the only way we can stop it is for YOU to ride on a bus instead of driving a car.

That's why theories like this one will be either completely ignored or vehemently attacked -- it seriously conflicts with the left's view of the world.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 12:51 PM (/k+l4)

3 ok, I admit it! It is my fault, all my fault. I know it was all that White Rain I put in my hair back in the day. I had to look presentable though for the county fair ya know!

Posted by: oddybobo at August 09, 2005 12:53 PM (6Gm0j)

4 The libazoids will say that it is all a Bush lie.

Seriously, I believe, through reading the materials, that man does have an impact on global warming, but is in conjunction with other factors, such as normal earth temperature trends, and what you have blogged. Certainly, things such as ocean pollution and deforestation contribute to higher temps, both locally and world wide. But to what extent? The lefties would have us believe that the cyclical warming and cooling periods never happened before, and that man is the only one responsible.

The biggest part of this whole issue is the one that is ignored. Typically, there is a warmer trend before a much cooler trend. Is man's contribution to the warmer trends enough to limit or stop the cooler trend (which usually ends in an ice age?)

Posted by: William Teach at August 09, 2005 12:55 PM (cuTsc)

5 "White Rain" was one of the best for shooting fireballs -- it ignited JUST right...

Indeed, Teach -- imagine if man was actually helping to reduce or even eliminate an ice age? I think I'm going to go run my lawn mower for awhile...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 12:58 PM (/k+l4)

6 I've put a detailed response to this post over on Swerve Left (http://swerveleft.blogspot.com).

Posted by: Karlo at August 09, 2005 02:07 PM (r65rq)

7 But Final Net was the better choice for potato guns. I guess it is my fault. Sorry Earth.
I will reconsider burning my cermonial tire on Al Gores BD next year.

Posted by: Tomslick at August 09, 2005 02:34 PM (xNjHI)

8 Thanks for the detailed response, Karlo, I'll get you a new post asap...

And Tomslick -- wasn't it? I sweat Final Net burned better than another other airborne propellant that I could get my hands on...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 03:48 PM (L0IGK)

9 Yes Ogre, detailed studies showed white rain merely made potatoes bounce off windshields whereas final net cracked them.
Not that I was involved in such behavior. It's just valuable info from a reliable source.

Posted by: Tomslick at August 09, 2005 04:11 PM (xNjHI)

10 Even if Global Warming is real, who's to say it's BAD?

(*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 09, 2005 04:39 PM (vR7Sl)

11 Good point, Birdwoman -- I bet people in MN and Canada don't mind it so much!

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:45 PM (L0IGK)

12 Oh, and Karlo? I'll get the detailed response to your post up tomorrow am.

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:45 PM (L0IGK)

13 Tomslick -- I think this may call for detailed scientific examination -- if I can get my hands on some cans of that stuff. Maybe at the flea market...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 04:47 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fight the Good Fight

Another good volunteer continues to serve this great nation (what's left of it) in the fight against terrorism and evil in the world. Go drop Michael Churchill a note of thanks as he heads out for deployment.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Superintendent of Public Instruction Election

My regular readers may wonder what has become of this election. For those who haven't heard, the election of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in North Carolina has not been settled yet. Yes, that's the election from November, 2004.

A little background: During the election, a large number of people voted illegally. They voted outside their voting districts and without being registered. There were at least 11,000 illegal votes cast, it is likely there were many, many more. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that these ballots were illegal.

The election results showed the two candidates separated by only 8,500 votes. Therefore, if these 11,000+ votes were thrown out, there's no telling who would have won. Enter Democrats.

AFTER the Supreme Court Declared those votes illegal, the Democrat Legislature passed a law to change the rules for voting -- and then promptly applied those laws retroactively to the 2004 election. Then, to make what they're doing appear legitimate to the uninformed public, they decided to have "committee meetings" and a "vote" to determine the winner of the election.

Today the committee is meeting to help "determine" the winner. The committee is made up of Democrats. There is no reason to have the meeting because the outcome is already predetermined. This election law change allows the Democrats to quite literally, overrule ANY vote by the people and lets them (the legislature) appoint any candidate to any office they like, for any reason they want.

One day, perhaps before the end of this year, North Carolina will have a Superintendent for Public Instruction. It will most certainly be the Democrat candidate, despite the rulings of the Supreme Court, the actual votes cast in the election, or the "proceedings" you may read about.

There is no Democracy in North Carolina.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 08, 2005

Carnival, carnival!

Just a couple of carnivals to highlight so far this week.

First is the Tarheel Tavern up at Anonymoses. This one is a featured carnival of bloggers from and in North Carolina. Lots and lots of varied and interesting entries every week there.

Next is the Carnival of Kids. Lots of fun kids pictures and stories every week.

Last today is the New Blog Showcase Carnival, "featured" here...or what there was of it...

Posted by: Ogre at 08:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

New Blog Carnival Showcase

Yay! The New Blog Carnival Showcase is here! The New Blog Showcase Carnival is here!

Ok, so let's show all the new blogs that have been submitted this week to the wonderful Showcase carnival that lets you, the good reader, know about all the new blogs that have been popping up this week:

...

(chirp, chirp)

...

Ah. Well.

It seems there were exactly zero blogs to be showcased this week. Well that stinks. Folks, if, in your browsings, you find a blog that is less than 3 months old, please direct them to the new showcase carnival. I guess I need to get some more advertising and such going.

In fact, feel free to use this entry as a free trackback post to help pimp the New Blog Showcase Carnival! Trackback at will! Get the word out! Also, if you're interested in hosting the carnival, drop me a line through the email up at the top right of this page.

Update: Now part of TTLB's Uber-Carnival.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:03 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I wonder what happened to that thing about there being thousands of blogs being created every day?

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 10:21 PM (Pzlrt)

2 I think they skipped a week or something...

Posted by: Ogre at August 09, 2005 05:30 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

PC Takes over Baseball

The speech police have continued their assault. I've previously mentioned how you could very possibly go to jail in the state of New Jersey for actually saying the word "perversion." The absolute idiocy continues in Major League Baseball. Apparently now saying that someone is from the Caribbean is now also verboten.

At issue here is a radio show host that said:

brain-dead Caribbean hitters hacking at slop nightly

The thought police advance continues. This radio host was suspended for a week for offending "millions" by stating the truth. Once again it shows that speaking the truth, somehow, can be offensive. Folks, the truth is the truth. If you don't like it, I don't really care -- even if that offends you.

Indeed, Orwell's predictions are coming more and more true every day. I wonder if, on a night when I play poorly at a softball game if I can say, "Moronic French Immigrants who strike out," and offend myself.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:02 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I am offended by you calling yourself French!

That's it Ogre, I am lodging a complaint!

I bet Howard Dean will hold you in contempt for using his middle name in vein too (moron).

JK!!

Great post Ogre, and I hope you get a chance to check out my last post for a while.

Posted by: Michael R. Churchill at August 08, 2005 01:20 PM (eqaaP)

2 And is it now how they refer to themselves? "from the Carribean" *throws hands up in disgust!*

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 08, 2005 01:52 PM (6Gm0j)

3 You said "disgust." I think that word has been banned, too.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 02:12 PM (L0IGK)

4 Well, it is rather superfulous to call the SF Ginats brain dead. And Bonds isn't even in the lineup!

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 06:53 PM (IRsCk)

5 Did you just type "SF Gnats?"

Oh, you're in BIG trouble in PC-land...

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 06:56 PM (L0IGK)

6 SF Gnats R' Us

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 07:18 PM (IRsCk)

7 That's SO wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 07:23 PM (L0IGK)

8 I wonder if Felipe will bare his soul?

Posted by: William Teach at August 08, 2005 08:51 PM (TFSHk)

9 You're in rare form this evening, Teach!

ROFL!

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 09:13 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Political Astronauts

The shuttle heads towards home this week. I truly hope they have no problems and make a completely normal landing. However, they cannot let a day go by without the environmental loonies making an appearance. For example, when Commander Eileen Collins looked out her window and saw this view:

What a damn load. That's a horrible abuse of one's position to put forward their own personal political agenda. It truly reduces my respect for that astronaut.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:01 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 And just how do we protect the air, and keep the atmosphere from getting thinner?

The only way I can think of is to stop sending idiots like this into space, where the oxygen that the shuttle's engines needs to burn basically get blow out into space.

Besides that, we could combine the oxygen with carbon to make carbon dioxyde, but it isn't going anywhere.

Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 08, 2005 11:43 AM (K+h36)

2 Good idea! Tell this irresponsible lunatic to stop breathing and using up so much of our "limited" air.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 11:58 AM (/k+l4)

3 What's political about observing facts?

The picture you posted is not the image she was referring to. Go to NASA.gov and look through images of earth from space that'll back up everything she says.

Posted by: Randy Case at August 08, 2005 04:03 PM (LQJdM)

4 Yeah, shame on that astronaut for paying attention to science!

Posted by: BRD at August 08, 2005 06:18 PM (Eo+Qu)

5 I'm sure you meant, BRD, shame on that astronaut for trying to support a nonsense political agenda with almost no real evidence from factual science. It's ok, it was probably just a typo.

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 06:39 PM (L0IGK)

6 I am deeply troubled by someone calling herself BRD. It's too close to birdwoman.

Too darn bad I didn't copyright.

(*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 08, 2005 06:41 PM (Sc2Wh)

7 Only costs about $2.99 to file a copyright with the US Copyright office...

Posted by: Ogre at August 08, 2005 06:56 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Governor Easley Spends More

I wonder if a single day has gone by in which there was NOT an increase in spending from Raleigh, NC. I strongly suspect there has not.

As I write this, "negotiators" from the House and the Senate are still meeting to attempt to create a budget for the state of North Carolina. No, they're not arguing about where to save money, only about who can spend MORE money -- for example, whether to raise the cigarette tax by 75 cents or only 40 cents.

They are meeting in back rooms, with absolutely ZERO public hearings. They will not allow the public to hear or know about the negotiations. The budget was supposed to have been done months ago. It's likely they'll not actually finish until October. And, as you might expect, it is ONLY Democrats who are allowed to do this negotiating. So 100% of the tax increase and utterly wasteful and irresponsible spending credit goes only to North Carolina Democrats.

While they are meeting and raising billions of dollars in NEW taxes and tax increases, the spending continues! Governor Easley just spent $75,000,000. Yes, with no budget in place, Easley just used an executive order and spent $75 million. There is no way to use the word "responsible" combined with "legislature" or "governor" in this state.

Oh, but the money was "for the children," so it's OK. Despite NUMEROUS increases in spending on the schools, including approving $300+ million in new lottery spending for next year, $500+ million in new funding from fines, and other untold millions in "normal spending increases," Easley saw the need to spend ANOTHER $75 million.

Folks, the schools in North Carolina should be lined with gold by this point. If you add up JUST the new spending this year on schools, spending on schools has INCREASED over $1,000 PER STUDENT. But it's for the children. And they won't stop the spending.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:45 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 07, 2005

New Neighbor #25

It's time again for the weekly "New Neighbor" feature. In this weekly post, I select one blog at random from the Evangelical Blogroll over there on the left and introduce the blog to you, my good reader, as best I can.

However, it may be time that Joe (from Evangelical Outpost) does an update. I know the blogroll shows up in a random order every time, and I like that -- however, it's getting harder and harder to find current blogs listed. For example, when I started browsing the blogs today, the first 28 on the list did not have a post in August. I know not everyone can update daily, but if you're not updating your blog at least once a week, you've got stale content, and, in my opinion, you're missing the point of blogging.

Well, that is what it is. Without further complaining, here's this week's New Neighbor:

Crossroads

This blog is more in tune for the Sunday version of the new neighbor feature. It's stated purpose is

Discussion of the theological direction in which the church is moving.

The blog is clean, fast, and well-designed. There's very little in the tons of add-ons that so many blogs (myself included) seem to find and plaster all over their front pages, slowing the page loads. But it's quality reading and the content is clearly the primary and sole focus there.

The biggest single recent feature of the blog (it's been running since June 2004), is a 22-part series on revival history. Each post is a long one, so this one will give you a lot of quality reading if you're interested in the history of revivals from 1610 to the present day. No, I'm not done reading it, but I will finish it this week.

Next up, she's started a new series about outsourcing, planning to follow the latest editorials in the New York Times. Good luck, I can't stand that filth from such people who hate God and America.

So, if you've got some time, why not head on over and read a new blog today?

Posted by: Ogre at 12:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 06, 2005

The Quick Brown Fox

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

But after the quick brown fox jumped over, the lazy dog moved quickly. The lazy dog ran after the quick brown fox. The quick brown fox discovered that it was not as quick as it thought it might have been. The formerly lazy dog quickly closed the distance between it and the not-so-quick fox as the chase continued.

The quick brown fox ran past Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Turkey Lurkey, and even past his cousin, Sly Fox. The lazy dog, now panting profusely, continued to get closer and closer. The quick brown fox hopped on the alligator's head for a ride over the river. Still the lazy dog followed.

They continued over the hills and through the woods. The race went down the path and the quick brown fox took a shortcut that his half-brother suggested through the woods that led past grandma's house. The lazy dog fell behind a little while traversing the thick undergrowth of the woods.

On the other side of the forest, the quick brown fox ran through the brier patch. Brer rabbit waved as first the quick brown fox, then the lazy dog, sped through his brier path. The briers slowed the quick brown fox, but the lazy dog continued.

Past the brier patch, the quick brown fox ran up the hill. At the top of the hill was a well that had recently been abandoned by Jack and Jill. With nowhere else to go, the quick brown fox stopped and turned to face the lazy dog. He bared his teeth at the lazy dog, hoping that it would turn him away.

The lazy dog stopped, panting from the long chase. He paused to catch his breath, watching the quick brown fox the entire time. Finally, the lazy dog said, "Why did you jump over me?"

(Based on a suggestion by Nonny of Anonymoses for this week's Tarheel Tavern.)

Posted by: Ogre at 03:29 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 And I thought this was just you practicing your typing skills until the last line.

Posted by: vw bug at August 06, 2005 05:25 PM (+hmVQ)

2 Success! I wonder if anyone else made it past the first 3 sentences...

Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2005 05:30 PM (L0IGK)

3 Sorry Ogre, you get an F.

It seems your fingers had a mind of their own and forgot that they were supposed to be memorizing how to type "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."

Everyone wrote fun stuff this week! I feel badly that my post got so deep and serious!

Posted by: Erin Monahan at August 06, 2005 09:28 PM (0Ea9a)

4 But my "F" is for Fun, right?

Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2005 11:40 PM (L0IGK)

5 [Wet blanket]

The actual line from the typing exercise is:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."

Need to get the "s" in there.
[/Wet blanket]

Posted by: Harvey at August 07, 2005 02:07 AM (ubhj8)

6 And once again someone picks up on the little semi-hidden nuances that I slip into my posts. Good catch! I NEVER thought anyone would see that one.

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2005 09:05 AM (L0IGK)

7 Ogre, shoot me an e-mail some time, I need to some help with a technical issue on my blog. Basically I have a FOUR THOUSAND PLUS word post, so I would DEFINATELY like to put in the "extended entry" tags, so that I don't have to bore everyone with it. Talk to you soon.

Posted by: Smoke Eater at August 07, 2005 12:25 PM (68YeG)

8 I'll send you the instructions in email Smoke Eater -- they're online at http://ogresview.blogspot.com/2005/04/blogger-extended-entry.html

Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2005 05:49 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Advertisers Plug

I'd like to take just a moment to point out some of the fine advertisers who have elected to advertise on my blog. I am reminded of commercials I saw as a kid that always ended with "found only at quality stores." I wondered why they did that, and I soon realized it was actually to convince stores to carry their products! So I'll point out a few fine quality advertisers that I know.

These advertisements appear at completely random intervals between posts here at Ogre's place. Just follow the green drainpipe from one post to the next and there will be a couple random ads that appear with the drainpipe.

First up is the Overstock.com site. The Overstock site is quite interesting. It's not some kids in their garage that put up a site (well, OK, I don't know that, I suppose they could be...) -- they're professionals and they've been advertising nationally. The site has, well, everything. They have big-name brands at good prices. If you're shopping for something, why not check them out and see if they can get it to you for less?

Another quality advertiser here is Link Grotto. This one is a little different in that it's a place that provides, as you might have guessed from the name, links! They have tons of different types of things, many of which you might not find anywhere else -- but they're just providing the links to the providers. I mean, where else will you find links to Mr. Beer Home Brewery's Beer of the Month supplies?

In addition, you'll find BlogAds for various different blogs, also randomly scattered between the posts. Currently, Cao's Blog appears there -- a top-notch blog with very current information and some humor mixed in. I read it every day. You'll also find Stop the ACLU -- a blog that's dedicated to stopping communists in the ACLU from ruining this country. Very good stuff there, and well-researched. If you want to advertise your blog here, it's cheap!

You'll also find a few books listed with links to Amazon. This is where I put really good books that I've recently read or that I'm reading. I'm working on finding time to get reviews of them up as I post them, but I just haven't found the time yet. Don't worry, if you see a book link listed here, I assure you it's a good one!

Lastly, way in the upper right hand corner you might have noticed this button:

Posted by: Ogre at 01:03 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

They want you dead

Islamic terrorists want you dead. Either you convert to their religion, or they want to kill you. CAIR wants Islam to be the ruling power in America. While you are reading this, they are planning your death. Don't forget that.

You can plan for peace all you want, but as I was recently reminded on the comments on Social Sense (comments by G), Islam tried in the past to take over the world, but they were scattered by the crusades. They are trying again and until the world realizes THEY WANT YOU DEAD, we can't stop them.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:52 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.7071 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.697 seconds, 131 records returned.
Page size 102 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.